| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> |
|
Wallach, D., Mearns, L. O., Ruane, A. C., Rötter, R. P., & Asseng, S. (2016). Lessons from climate modeling on the design and use of ensembles for crop modeling. Clim. Change, 139(3-4), 551–564.
Abstract: Working with ensembles of crop models is a recent but important development in crop modeling which promises to lead to better uncertainty estimates for model projections and predictions, better predictions using the ensemble mean or median, and closer collaboration within the modeling community. There are numerous open questions about the best way to create and analyze such ensembles. Much can be learned from the field of climate modeling, given its much longer experience with ensembles. We draw on that experience to identify questions and make propositions that should help make ensemble modeling with crop models more rigorous and informative. The propositions include defining criteria for acceptance of models in a crop MME, exploring criteria for evaluating the degree of relatedness of models in a MME, studying the effect of number of models in the ensemble, development of a statistical model of model sampling, creation of a repository for MME results, studies of possible differential weighting of models in an ensemble, creation of single model ensembles based on sampling from the uncertainty distribution of parameter values or inputs specifically oriented toward uncertainty estimation, the creation of super ensembles that sample more than one source of uncertainty, the analysis of super ensemble results to obtain information on total uncertainty and the separate contributions of different sources of uncertainty and finally further investigation of the use of the multi-model mean or median as a predictor.
|
|
Ruiz-Ramos, M., Rodriguez, A., Dosio, A., Goodess, C. M., Harpham, C., Minguez, M. I., et al. (2016). Comparing correction methods of RCM outputs for improving crop impact projections in the Iberian Peninsula for 21st century. Clim. Change, 134(1-2), 283–297.
Abstract: Assessment of climate change impacts on crops in regions of complex orography such as the Iberian Peninsula (IP) requires climate model output which is able to describe accurately the observed climate. The high resolution of output provided by Regional Climate Models (RCMs) is expected to be a suitable tool to describe regional and local climatic features, although their simulation results may still present biases. For these reasons, we compared several post-processing methods to correct or reduce the biases of RCM simulations from the ENSEMBLES project for the IP. The bias-corrected datasets were also evaluated in terms of their applicability and consequences in improving the results of a crop model to simulate maize growth and development at two IP locations, using this crop as a reference for summer cropping systems in the region. The use of bias-corrected climate runs improved crop phenology and yield simulation overall and reduced the inter-model variability and thus the uncertainty. The number of observational stations underlying each reference observational dataset used to correct the bias affected the correction performance. Although no single technique showed to be the best one, some methods proved to be more adequate for small initial biases, while others were useful when initial biases were so large as to prevent data application for impact studies. An initial evaluation of the climate data, the bias correction/reduction method and the consequences for impact assessment would be needed to design the most robust, reduced uncertainty ensemble for a specific combination of location, crop, and crop management.
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2012). Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research, 133, 23–36.
Abstract: In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. - C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2012). Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research, 133, 23–36.
Abstract: ► We compared nine crop simulation models for spring barley at seven sites in Europe. ► Applying crop models with restricted calibration leads to high uncertainties. ► Multi-crop model mean yield estimates were in good agreement with observations. ► The degree of uncertainty for simulated grain yield of barley was similar to winter wheat. ► We need more suitable data enabling us to verify different processes in the models. In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction.
|
|
Refsgaard, J. C., Madsen, H., Andréassian, V., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Davidson, T. A., Drews, M., et al. (2014). A framework for testing the ability of models to project climate change and its impacts. Clim. Change, 122(1-2), 271–282.
Abstract: Models used for climate change impact projections are typically not tested for simulation beyond current climate conditions. Since we have no data truly reflecting future conditions, a key challenge in this respect is to rigorously test models using proxies of future conditions. This paper presents a validation framework and guiding principles applicable across earth science disciplines for testing the capability of models to project future climate change and its impacts. Model test schemes comprising split-sample tests, differential split-sample tests and proxy site tests are discussed in relation to their application for projections by use of single models, ensemble modelling and space-time-substitution and in relation to use of different data from historical time series, paleo data and controlled experiments. We recommend that differential-split sample tests should be performed with best available proxy data in order to build further confidence in model projections.
|