| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 >> |
|
Rötter, R. P., Höhn, J. G., & Fronzek, S. (2012). Projections of climate change impacts on crop production: A global and a Nordic perspective. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science, 62(4), 166–180.
Abstract: Global climate is changing and food production is very sensitive to weather and climate variations. Global assessments of climate change impacts on food production have been made since the early 1990s, initially with little attention to the uncertainties involved. Although there has been abundant analysis of uncertainties in future greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts on the climate system, uncertainties related to the way climate change projections are scaled down as appropriate for different analyses and in modelling crop responses to climate change, have been neglected. This review paper mainly addresses uncertainties in crop impact modelling and possibilities to reduce them. We specifically aim to (i) show ranges of projected climate change-induced impacts on crop yields, (ii) give recommendations on use of emission scenarios, climate models, regionalization and ensemble crop model simulations for different purposes and (iii) discuss improvements and a few known unknowns’ affecting crop impact projections.
|
|
Webber, H., Zhao, G., Wolf, J., Britz, W., Vries, W. de, Gaiser, T., et al. (2015). Climate change impacts on European crop yields: Do we need to consider nitrogen limitation. European Journal of Agronomy, 71, 123–134.
Abstract: Global climate impact studies with crop models suggest that including nitrogen and water limitation causes greater negative climate change impacts on actual yields compared to water-limitation only. We simulated water limited and nitrogen water limited yields across the EU-27 to 2050 for six key crops with the SIMPLACE<LINTUL5, DRUNIR, HEAT> model to assess how important consideration of nitrogen limitation is in climate impact studies for European cropping systems. We further investigated how crop nitrogen use may change under future climate change scenarios. Our results suggest that inclusion of nitrogen limitation hardly changed crop yield response to climate for the spring-sown crops considered (grain maize, potato, and sugar beet). However, for winter-sown crops (winter barley, winter rapeseed and winter wheat), simulated impacts to 2050 were more negative when nitrogen limitation was considered, especially with high levels of water stress. Future nitrogen use rates are likely to decrease due to climate change for spring-sown crops, largely in parallel with their yields. These results imply that climate change impact studies for winter-sown crops should consider N-fertilization. Specification of future N fertilization rates is a methodological challenge that is likely to need integrated assessment models to address.
|
|
Zhao, G., Hoffmann, H., van Bussel, L. G. J., Enders, A., Specka, X., Sosa, C., et al. (2015). Effect of weather data aggregation on regional crop simulation for different crops, production conditions, and response variables. Clim. Res., 65, 141–157.
Abstract: We assessed the weather data aggregation effect (DAE) on the simulation of cropping systems for different crops, response variables, and production conditions. Using 13 process-based crop models and the ensemble mean, we simulated 30 yr continuous cropping systems for 2 crops (winter wheat and silage maize) under 3 production conditions for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. The DAE was evaluated for 5 weather data resolutions (i.e. 1, 10, 25, 50, and 100 km) for 3 response variables including yield, growing season evapotranspiration, and water use efficiency. Five metrics, viz. the spatial bias (Delta), average absolute deviation (AAD), relative AAD, root mean squared error (RMSE), and relative RMSE, were used to evaluate the DAE on both the input weather data and simulated results. For weather data, we found that data aggregation narrowed the spatial variability but widened the., especially across mountainous areas. The DAE on loss of spatial heterogeneity and hotspots was stronger than on the average changes over the region. The DAE increased when coarsening the spatial resolution of the input weather data. The DAE varied considerably across different models, but changed only slightly for different production conditions and crops. We conclude that if spatially detailed information is essential for local management decision, higher resolution is desirable to adequately capture the spatial variability for heterogeneous regions. The required resolution depends on the choice of the model as well as the environmental condition of the study area.
|
|
Zhao, G., Hoffmann, H., Yeluripati, J., Xenia, S., Nendel, C., Coucheney, E., et al. (2016). Evaluating the precision of eight spatial sampling schemes in estimating regional means of simulated yield for two crops. Env. Model. Softw., 80, 100–112.
Abstract: We compared the precision of simple random sampling (SimRS) and seven types of stratified random sampling (StrRS) schemes in estimating regional mean of water-limited yields for two crops (winter wheat and silage maize) that were simulated by fourteen crop models. We found that the precision gains of StrRS varied considerably across stratification methods and crop models. Precision gains for compact geographical stratification were positive, stable and consistent across crop models. Stratification with soil water holding capacity had very high precision gains for twelve models, but resulted in negative gains for two models. Increasing the sample size monotonously decreased the sampling errors for all the sampling schemes. We conclude that compact geographical stratification can modestly but consistently improve the precision in estimating regional mean yields. Using the most influential environmental variable for stratification can notably improve the sampling precision, especially when the sensitivity behavior of a crop model is known.
|
|
Zhao, G., Siebert, S., Enders, A., Rezaei, E. E., Yan, C., & Ewert, F. (2015). Demand for multi-scale weather data for regional crop modeling. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 200, 156–171.
Abstract: A spatial resolution needs to be determined prior to using models to simulate crop yields at a regional scale, but a dilemma exists in compromising between different demands. A fine spatial resolution demands extensive computation load for input data assembly, model runs, and output analysis. A coarse spatial resolution could result in loss of spatial detail in variability. This paper studied the impact of spatial resolution, data aggregation and spatial heterogeneity of weather data on simulations of crop yields, thus providing guidelines for choosing a proper spatial resolution for simulations of crop yields at regional scale. Using a process-based crop model SIMPLACE (LINTUL2) and daily weather data at 1 km resolution we simulated a continuous rainfed winter wheat cropping system at the national scale of Germany. Then we aggregated the weather data to four resolutions from 10 to 100 km, repeated the simulation, compared them with the 1 km results, and correlated the difference with the intra-pixel heterogeneity quantified by an ensemble of four semivariogram models. Aggregation of weather data had small effects over regions with a flat terrain located in northern Germany, but large effects over southern regions with a complex topography. The spatial distribution of yield bias at different spatial resolutions was consistent with the intra-pixel spatial heterogeneity of the terrain and a log-log linear relationship between them was established. By using this relationship we demonstrated the way to optimize the model resolution to minimize both the number of simulation runs and the expected loss of spatial detail in variability due to aggregation effects. We concluded that a high spatial resolution is desired for regions with high spatial environmental heterogeneity, and vice versa. This calls for the development of multi-scale approaches in regional and global crop modeling. The obtained results require substantiation for other production situations, crops, output variables and for different crop models. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|