| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–14] |
|
Hakala, K., Jauhiainen, L., Himanen, S. J., RÖTter, R., Salo, T., & Kahiluoto, H. (2012). Sensitivity of barley varieties to weather in Finland. J. Agric. Sci., 150(02), 145–160.
Abstract: Global climate change is predicted to shift seasonal temperature and precipitation patterns. An increasing frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves and prolonged droughts is predicted, but there are high levels of uncertainty about the nature of local changes. Crop adaptation will be important in reducing potential damage to agriculture. Crop diversity may enhance resilience to climate variability and changes that are difficult to predict. Therefore, there has to be sufficient diversity within the set of available cultivars in response to weather parameters critical for yield formation. To determine the scale of such ‘weather response diversity’ within barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), an important crop in northern conditions, the yield responses of a wide range of modern and historical varieties were analysed according to a well-defined set of critical agro-meteorological variables. The Finnish long-term dataset of MTT Official Variety Trials was used together with historical weather records of the Finnish Meteorological Institute. The foci of the analysis were firstly to describe the general response of barley to different weather conditions and secondly to reveal the diversity among varieties in the sensitivity to each weather variable. It was established that barley yields were frequently reduced by drought or excessive rain early in the season, by high temperatures at around heading, and by accelerated temperature sum accumulation rates during periods 2 weeks before heading and between heading and yellow ripeness. Low temperatures early in the season increased yields, but frost during the first 4 weeks after sowing had no effect. After canopy establishment, higher precipitation on average resulted in higher yields. In a cultivar-specific analysis, it was found that there were differences in responses to all but three of the studied climatic variables: waterlogging and drought early in the season and temperature sum accumulation rate before heading. The results suggest that low temperatures early in the season, delayed sowing, rain 3-7 weeks after sowing, a temperature change 3-4 weeks after sowing, a high temperature sum accumulation rate from heading to yellow ripeness and high temperatures (25 degrees C) at around heading could mostly be addressed by exploiting the traits found in the range of varieties included in the present study. However, new technology and novel genetic material are needed to enable crops to withstand periods of excessive rain or drought early in the season and to enhance performance under increased temperature sum accumulation rates prior to heading.
|
|
Sanz-Cobena, A., Sánchez-Martín, L., García-Torres, L., & Vallejo, A. (2012). Gaseous emissions of N2O and NO and NO3 − leaching from urea applied with urease and nitrification inhibitors to a maize (Zea mays) crop. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 149, 64–73.
Abstract: Urea has become the predominant source of synthetic nitrogen (N) fertilizer used throughout the world. Among the various available mitigation tools, urease inhibitors like NBPT have the most potential to improve efficiency of urea by reducing N losses, mainly via ammonia volatilization. However, there is a lack of information on the effect of N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) on other N losses such as gaseous emissions of N2O and NO and NO3− leaching. A two-year field experiment using irrigated maize (Zea mays) crop was carried out under Mediterranean conditions to evaluate the effectiveness of urea coated with NBPT (0.4%, w/w) alone and with both NBPT and nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide (DCD) (0.4 and 3%, w/w, respectively) to mitigate N2O–N, NO–N and NO3−–N losses. The different treatments of U, U+NBPT and U+NBPT+DCD were applied to the maize crop in 2009 and then in 2010. The 2010 maize crop followed a fallow period, during which the 2009 crop residues were incorporated into the soil. Two different irrigation regimes were followed each year. In 2009, irrigation was controlled for the first 2 weeks following urea fertilization; whereas, the 2010 crop period was characterized by increased irrigation in the same period. After each treatment application, measurements of the changes in soil mineral N, gaseous emissions of N2O and NO, nitrate leaching and biomass production were made. N2O emissions were effectively abated by NBPT and NBPT+DCD and were reduced by 54 and 24%, respectively, in 2009. A reduction in nitrification rate by the inhibitors was also observed during 2009. In 2010 cropping period, NBPT reduced N2O emissions by 4%; while the combination of NBPT and DCD treatment reduced N2O emission by 43%. Yield-scaled N2O emissions were reduced by 50 and 18% by NBPT and the mixture of NBPT+DCD, respectively, in 2009. Applying inhibitors did not have any significant effect on yield-scaled N2O emissions in the 2010 crop period. Total NO losses from urea were 2.25 kg NO–N ha−1 in the 2009 crop period and 5 times lower in the following year; this may provide an indicator of the prevalence of nitrification as the main process in the production of N2O in the 2009 maize crop. Most of the NO3− was lost within the fallow period (i.e. 92, 81 and 75% of the total NO3− leached for U, U+NBPT and U+NBPT+DCD, respectively), so the incorporation of crop residues was not as effective as expected at reducing these N losses. Our study suggests that the effectiveness of NBPT and combination of NBPT+DCD in reducing N losses from applied urea is influenced by management practices, such as irrigation, and climatic conditions.
Keywords: Urease inhibitor; Nitrogen losses; Irrigation; Nitrification
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|