|
|
Challinor, A. J., Müller, C., Asseng, S., Deva, C., Nicklin, K. J., Wallach, D., et al. (2017). Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation. Agric. Syst., 159, 296–306.
Abstract: Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.
|
|
|
|
Dono, G., Raffaele, C., Luca, G., & Roggero, P. P. (2014). Income Impacts of Climate Change: Irrigated Farming in the Mediterranean and Expected Changes in Probability of Favorable and Adverse Weather Conditions. German Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63(3), 177–186.
Abstract: EU rural development policy (RDP) regulation 1305/2013 aims to protect farmers’ incomes from ongoing change of climate variability (CCV), and the increase in frequency of adverse climatic events. An income stabilization tool (IST) is provided to compensate drastic drops in income, including those caused by climatic events. The present study examines some aspect of its application focussing on Mediterranean irrigation area where frequent water shortages may generate significant income reductions in the current climate conditions, and may be further exacerbated by climate change. This enhanced loss of income in the future would occur due to a change in climate variability. This change would appreciably reduce the probability of weather conditions that are favourable for irrigation, but would not significantly increase either the probability of unfavourable weather conditions or the magnitude of their impact. As the IST and other insurance tools that protect against adversity and catastrophic events are only activated under extreme conditions, farmers may not consider them to be suitable in dealing with the new climate regime. This would leave a portion of the financial resources allocated by the RDP unused, resulting in less support for climate change adaptation.
|
|
|
|
Dumont, B., Basso, B., Bodson, B., Destain, J. - P., & Destain, M. - F. (2016). Assessing and modeling economic and environmental impact of wheat nitrogen management in Belgium. Env. Model. Softw., 79, 184–196.
Abstract: Future progress in wheat yield will rely on identifying genotypes & management practices better adapted to the fluctuating environment Nitrogen (N) fertilization is probably the most important practice impacting crop growth. However, the adverse environmental impacts of inappropriate N management (e.g., lixiviation) must be considered in the decision-making process. A formal decisional algorithm was developed to tactically optimize the economic & environmental N fertilization in wheat. Climatic uncertainty analysis was performed using stochastic weather time-series (LARS-WG). Crop growth was simulated using STICS model. Experiments were conducted to support the algorithm recommendations: winter wheat was sown between 2008 & 2014 in a classic loamy soil of the Hesbaye Region, Belgium (temperate climate). Results indicated that, most of the time, the third N fertilization applied at flag-leaf stage by farmers could be reduced. Environmental decision criterion is most of the time the limiting factor in comparison to the revenues expected by farmers. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Dumont, B., Basso, B., Leemans, V., Bodson, B., Destain, J. - P., & Destain, M. - F. (2015). Systematic analysis of site-specific yield distributions resulting from nitrogen management and climatic variability interactions. Precision Agric., 16(4), 361–384.
Abstract: At the plot level, crop simulation models such as STICS have the potential to evaluate risk associated with management practices. In nitrogen (N) management, however, the decision-making process is complex because the decision has to be taken without any knowledge of future weather conditions. The objective of this paper is to present a general methodology for assessing yield variability linked to climatic uncertainty and variable N rate strategies. The STICS model was coupled with the LARS-Weather Generator. The Pearson system and coefficients were used to characterise the shape of yield distribution. Alternatives to classical statistical tests were proposed for assessing the normality of distributions and conducting comparisons (namely, the Jarque-Bera and Wilcoxon tests, respectively). Finally, the focus was put on the probability risk assessment, which remains a key point within the decision process. The simulation results showed that, based on current N application practice among Belgian farmers (60-60-60 kgN ha(-1)), yield distribution was very highly significantly non-normal, with the highest degree of asymmetry characterised by a skewness value of -1.02. They showed that this strategy gave the greatest probability (60 %) of achieving yields that were superior to the mean (10.5 t ha(-1)) of the distribution.
|
|
|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Bindi, M., Webber, H., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K. C., et al. (2015). Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change. Env. Model. Softw., 72, 287–303.
Abstract: The complexity of risks posed by climate change and possible adaptations for crop production has called for integrated assessment and modelling (IAM) approaches linking biophysical and economic models. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the present state of crop modelling to assess climate change risks to food production and to which extent crop models comply with IAM demands. Considerable progress has been made in modelling effects of climate variables, where crop models best satisfy IAM demands. Demands are partly satisfied for simulating commonly required assessment variables. However, progress on the number of simulated crops, uncertainty propagation related to model parameters and structure, adaptations and scaling are less advanced and lagging behind IAM demands. The limitations are considered substantial and apply to a different extent to all crop models. Overcoming these limitations will require joint efforts, and consideration of novel modelling approaches.
|
|
