|
|
Webber, H., Ewert, F., Kimball, B. A., Siebert, S., White, J. W., Wall, G. W., et al. (2016). Simulating canopy temperature for modelling heat stress in cereals. Env. Model. Softw., 77, 143–155.
Abstract: Crop models must be improved to account for the effects of heat stress events on crop yields. To date, most approaches in crop models use air temperature to define heat stress intensity as the cumulative sum of thermal times (TT) above a high temperature threshold during a sensitive period for yield formation. However, observational evidence indicates that crop canopy temperature better explains yield reductions associated with high temperature events than air temperature does. This study presents a canopy level energy balance using Monin ObukhovSimilarity Theory (MOST) with simplifications about the canopy resistance that render it suitable for application in crop models and other models of the plant environment. The model is evaluated for a uniform irrigated wheat canopy in Arizona and rainfed maize in Burkina Faso. No single variable regression relationships for key explanatory variables were found that were consistent across sowing dates to explain the deviation of canopy temperature from air temperature. Finally, thermal times determined with simulated canopy temperatures were able to reproduce thermal times calculated with observed canopy temperature, whereas those determined with air temperatures were not. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Wang, X., Biewald, A., Dietrich, J. P., Schmitz, C., Lotze-Campen, H., Humpenöder, F., et al. (2016). Taking account of governance: Implications for land-use dynamics, food prices, and trade patterns. Ecol. Econ., 122, 12–24.
Abstract: Highlights • Governance impacts on land use dynamics are modeled at the global scale with an agro-economic dynamic optimization model. • Improved governance performance lowers deforestation, reduces cropland expansion and increases agricultural yield. • Good governance makes a decisive difference in investment for increasing yields in developing regions. • Weak governance increases food prices, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. • Improving governance performance has significant impacts on poverty reduction. Abstract Deforestation, mainly caused by unsustainable agricultural expansion, results in a loss of biodiversity and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, as well as impinges on local livelihoods. Countries’ governance performance, particularly with respect to property rights security, exerts significant impacts on land-use patterns by affecting agricultural yield-related technological investment and cropland expansion. This study aims to incorporate governance factors into a recursive agro-economic dynamic model to simulate governance impacts on land-use patterns at the global scale. Due to the difficulties of including governance indicators directly into numerical models, we use lending interest rates as discount rates to reflect risk-accounting factors associated with different governance scenarios. In addition to a reference scenario, three scenarios with high, low and mixed divergent discount rates are formed to represent weak, strong and fragmented governance. We find that weak governance leads to slower yield growth, increased cropland expansion and associated deforestation, mainly in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. This is associated with increasing food prices, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia. By contrast, strong governance performance provides a stable political and economic situation which may bring down deforestation rates, stimulate investment in agricultural technologies, and induce fairly strong decreases in food prices.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). A framework for evaluating uncertainty in crop model predictions.. Berlin (Germany).
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Estimating model prediction error: Should you treat predictions as fixed or random. Env. Model. Softw., 84, 529–539.
Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. We compare two criteria of prediction error; MSEPfixed, which evaluates mean squared error of prediction for a model with fixed structure, parameters and inputs, and MSEPuncertain(X), which evaluates mean squared error averaged over the distributions of model structure, inputs and parameters. Comparison of model outputs with data can be used to estimate the former. The latter has a squared bias term, which can be estimated using hindcasts, and a model variance term, which can be estimated from a simulation experiment. The separate contributions to MSEPuncertain(X) can be estimated using a random effects ANOVA. It is argued that MSEPuncertain(X) is the more informative uncertainty criterion, because it is specific to each prediction situation.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. Several ways of quantifying prediction uncertainty have been explored in the literature, but there have been no studies of how the different approaches are related to one another, and how they are related to some overall measure of prediction uncertainty. Here we show that all the different approaches can be related to two different viewpoints about the model; either the model is treated as a fixed predictor with some average error, or the model can be treated as a random variable with uncertainty in one or more of model structure, model inputs and model parameters. We discuss the differences, and show how mean squared error of prediction can be estimated in both cases. The results can be used to put uncertainty estimates into a more general framework and to relate different uncertainty estimates to one another and to overall prediction uncertainty. This should lead to a better understanding of crop model prediction uncertainty and the underlying causes of that uncertainty. This study was published as (Wallach et al. 2016)
|
|
