| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> |
|
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, 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.
|
|
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.
|
|
Elsgaard, L., Børgesen, C. D., Olesen, J. E., Siebert, S., Ewert, F., Peltonen-Sainio, P., et al. (2012). Shifts in comparative advantages for maize, oat and wheat cropping under climate change in Europe. Food Addit. Contam. Part A, 29(10), 1514–1526.
Abstract: Climate change is anticipated to affect European agriculture, including the risk of emerging or re-emerging feed and food hazards. Indirectly, climate change may influence such hazards (e.g. the occurrence of mycotoxins) due to geographic shifts in the distribution of major cereal cropping systems and the consequences this may have for crop rotations. This paper analyses the impact of climate on cropping shares of maize, oat and wheat on a 50-km square grid across Europe (45-65°N) and provides model-based estimates of the changes in cropping shares in response to changes in temperature and precipitation as projected for the time period around 2040 by two regional climate models (RCM) with a moderate and a strong climate change signal, respectively. The projected cropping shares are based on the output from the two RCMs and on algorithms derived for the relation between meteorological data and observed cropping shares of maize, oat and wheat. The observed cropping shares show a south-to-north gradient, where maize had its maximum at 45-55°N, oat had its maximum at 55-65°N, and wheat was more evenly distributed along the latitudes in Europe. Under the projected climate changes, there was a general increase in maize cropping shares, whereas for oat no areas showed distinct increases. For wheat, the projected changes indicated a tendency towards higher cropping shares in the northern parts and lower cropping shares in the southern parts of the study area. The present modelling approach represents a simplification of factors determining the distribution of cereal crops, and also some uncertainties in the data basis were apparent. A promising way of future model improvement could be through a systematic analysis and inclusion of other variables, such as key soil properties and socio-economic conditions, influencing the comparative advantages of specific crops.
Keywords: Agriculture/*economics/trends; Animals; Avena/chemistry/economics/*growth & development/microbiology; *Climate Change/economics; Crops, Agricultural/chemistry/economics/*growth & development/microbiology; Europe; *Food Safety; Forecasting/methods; Fungi/growth & development/metabolism; Humans; Models, Biological; Models, Economic; Mycotoxins/analysis/biosynthesis; Soil Pollutants/adverse effects/analysis; Spatio-Temporal Analysis; Triticum/chemistry/economics/*growth & development/microbiology; Uncertainty; Weather; Zea mays/chemistry/economics/*growth & development/microbiology
|
|
Francone, C., Cassardo, C., Richiardone, R., & Confalonieri, R. (2012). Sensitivity Analysis and Investigation of the Behaviour of the UTOPIA Land-Surface Process Model: A Case Study for Vineyards in Northern Italy. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 144(3), 419–430.
Abstract: We used sensitivity-analysis techniques to investigate the behaviour of the land-surface model UTOPIA while simulating the micrometeorology of a typical northern Italy vineyard (Vitis vinifera L.) under average climatic conditions. Sensitivity-analysis experiments were performed by sampling the vegetation parameter hyperspace using the Morris method and quantifying the parameter relevance across a wide range of soil conditions. This method was used since it proved its suitability for models with high computational time or with a large number of parameters, in a variety of studies performed on different types of biophysical models. The impact of input variability was estimated on reference model variables selected among energy (e.g. net radiation, sensible and latent heat fluxes) and hydrological (e.g. soilmoisture, surface runoff, drainage) budget components. Maximum vegetation cover and maximum leaf area index were ranked as the most relevant parameters, with sensitivity indices exceeding the remaining parameters by about one order of magnitude. Soil variability had a high impact on the relevance of most of the vegetation parameters: coefficients of variation calculated on the sensitivity indices estimated for the different soils often exceeded 100 %. The only exceptions were represented by maximum vegetation cover and maximum leaf area index, which showed a low variability in sensitivity indices while changing soil type, and confirmed their key role in affecting model results.
|