Search Results
Detecting impacts of extreme events with ecological in situ monitoring networks
2017, Mahecha, Miguel D., Gans, Fabian, Sippel, Sebastian, Donges, Jonathan F., Kaminski, Thomas, Metzger, Stefan, Migliavacca, Mirco, Papale, Dario, Rammig, Anja, Zscheischler, Jakob, Arneth, Almut
Extreme hydrometeorological conditions typically impact ecophysiological processes on land. Satellite-based observations of the terrestrial biosphere provide an important reference for detecting and describing the spatiotemporal development of such events. However, in-depth investigations of ecological processes during extreme events require additional in situ observations. The question is whether the density of existing ecological in situ networks is sufficient for analysing the impact of extreme events, and what are expected event detection rates of ecological in situ networks of a given size. To assess these issues, we build a baseline of extreme reductions in the fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (FAPAR), identified by a new event detection method tailored to identify extremes of regional relevance. We then investigate the event detection success rates of hypothetical networks of varying sizes. Our results show that large extremes can be reliably detected with relatively small networks, but also reveal a linear decay of detection probabilities towards smaller extreme events in log–log space. For instance, networks with ≈ 100 randomly placed sites in Europe yield a ≥ 90 % chance of detecting the eight largest (typically very large) extreme events; but only a ≥ 50 % chance of capturing the 39 largest events. These findings are consistent with probability-theoretic considerations, but the slopes of the decay rates deviate due to temporal autocorrelation and the exact implementation of the extreme event detection algorithm. Using the examples of AmeriFlux and NEON, we then investigate to what degree ecological in situ networks can capture extreme events of a given size. Consistent with our theoretical considerations, we find that today's systematically designed networks (i.e. NEON) reliably detect the largest extremes, but that the extreme event detection rates are not higher than would be achieved by randomly designed networks. Spatio-temporal expansions of ecological in situ monitoring networks should carefully consider the size distribution characteristics of extreme events if the aim is also to monitor the impacts of such events in the terrestrial biosphere.
Global gridded crop model evaluation: Benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications
2017, Müller, Christoph, Elliott, Joshua, Chryssanthacopoulos, James, Arneth, Almut, Balkovic, Juraj, Ciais, Philippe, Deryng, Delphine, Folberth, Christian, Glotter, Michael, Hoek, Steven, Iizumi, Toshichika, Izaurralde, Roberto C., Jones, Curtis, Khabarov, Nikolay, Lawrence, Peter, Liu, Wenfeng, Olin, Stefan, Pugh, Thomas A.M., Ray, Deepak K., Reddy, Ashwan, Rosenzweig, Cynthia, Ruane, Alex C., Sakurai, Gen, Schmid, Erwin, Skalsky, Rastislav, Song, Carol X., Wang, Xuhui, de Wit, Allard, Yang, Hong
Crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop yields at the global scale, but so far there is no general framework on how to assess model performance. Here we evaluate the simulation results of 14 global gridded crop modeling groups that have contributed historic crop yield simulations for maize, wheat, rice and soybean to the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). Simulation results are compared to reference data at global, national and grid cell scales and we evaluate model performance with respect to time series correlation, spatial correlation and mean bias. We find that global gridded crop models (GGCMs) show mixed skill in reproducing time series correlations or spatial patterns at the different spatial scales. Generally, maize, wheat and soybean simulations of many GGCMs are capable of reproducing larger parts of observed temporal variability (time series correlation coefficients (r) of up to 0.888 for maize, 0.673 for wheat and 0.643 for soybean at the global scale) but rice yield variability cannot be well reproduced by most models. Yield variability can be well reproduced for most major producing countries by many GGCMs and for all countries by at least some. A comparison with gridded yield data and a statistical analysis of the effects of weather variability on yield variability shows that the ensemble of GGCMs can explain more of the yield variability than an ensemble of regression models for maize and soybean, but not for wheat and rice. We identify future research needs in global gridded crop modeling and for all individual crop modeling groups. In the absence of a purely observation-based benchmark for model evaluation, we propose that the best performing crop model per crop and region establishes the benchmark for all others, and modelers are encouraged to investigate how crop model performance can be increased. We make our evaluation system accessible to all crop modelers so that other modeling groups can also test their model performance against the reference data and the GGCMI benchmark.
Aerosol particle formation events and analysis of high growth rates observed above a subarctic wetland-forest mosaic
2017, Svenningsson, Birgitta, Arneth, Almut, Hayward, Sean, Holst, Thomas, Massling, Andreas, Swietlicki, Erik, Hirsikko, Anne, Junninen, Heikki, Riipinen, Ilona, Vana, Marko, Dal Maso, Miikka, Hussein, Tareq, Kulmala, Markku
An analysis of particle formation (PF) events over a subarctic mire in northern Swedenwas performed, based on number– size distributions of atmospheric aerosol particles (10–500 nm in diameter) and ions (0.4–40 nm in Tammet diameter). We present classification statistics for PF events from measurements covering the period July 2005–September 2006, with a break over the winter period. The PF event frequency peaked during the summer months, in contrast to other Scandinavian sites where the frequency is highest during spring and autumn. Our analysis includes calculated growth rates and estimates of concentrations and production rates of condensing vapour, deduced from the growth rates and condensational sink calculations, using AIS and SMPS data. Particle formation events with high growth rates (up to 50 nm h-1) occurred repeatedly. In these cases, the newly formed nucleation mode particles were often only present for periods of a few hours. On several occasions, repeated particle formation events were observed within 1 d, with differences in onset time of a few hours. These high growth rates were only observed when the condensation sink was higher than 0.001 s-1.
A protocol for an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized land-use and climate scenarios
2018, Kim, HyeJin, Rosa, Isabel M. D., Alkemade, Rob, Leadley, Paul, Hurtt, George, Popp, Alexander, van Vuuren, Detlef P., Anthoni, Peter, Arneth, Almut, Baisero, Daniele, Caton, Emma, Chaplin-Kramer, Rebecca, Chini, Louise, De Palma, Adriana, Di Fulvio, Fulvio, Di Marco, Moreno, Espinoza, Felipe, Ferrier, Simon, Fujimori, Shinichiro, Gonzalez, Ricardo E., Gueguen, Maya, Guerra, Carlos, Harfoot, Mike, Harwood, Thomas D., Hasegawa, Tomoko, Haverd, Vanessa, Havlík, Petr, Hellweg, Stefanie, Hill, Samantha L. L., Hirata, Akiko, Hoskins, Andrew J., Janse, Jan H., Jetz, Walter, Johnson, Justin A., Krause, Andreas, Leclère, David, Martins, Ines S., Matsui, Tetsuya, Merow, Cory, Obersteiner, Michael, Ohashi, Haruka, Poulter, Benjamin, Purvis, Andy, Quesada, Benjamin, Rondinini, Carlo, Schipper, Aafke M., Sharp, Richard, Takahashi, Kiyoshi, Thuiller, Wilfried, Titeux, Nicolas, Visconti, Piero, Ware, Christopher, Wolf, Florian, Pereira, Henrique M.
To support the assessments of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the IPBES Expert Group on Scenarios and Models is carrying out an intercomparison of biodiversity and ecosystem services models using harmonized scenarios (BES-SIM). The goals of BES-SIM are (1) to project the global impacts of land-use and climate change on biodiversity and ecosystem services (i.e., nature's contributions to people) over the coming decades, compared to the 20th century, using a set of common metrics at multiple scales, and (2) to identify model uncertainties and research gaps through the comparisons of projected biodiversity and ecosystem services across models. BES-SIM uses three scenarios combining specific Shared Socio-economic Pathways (SSPs) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs)-SSP1xRCP2.6, SSP3xRCP6.0, SSP5xRCP8.6-to explore a wide range of land-use change and climate change futures. This paper describes the rationale for scenario selection, the process of harmonizing input data for land use, based on the second phase of the Land Use Harmonization Project (LUH2), and climate, the biodiversity and ecosystem services models used, the core simulations carried out, the harmonization of the model output metrics, and the treatment of uncertainty. The results of this collaborative modeling project will support the ongoing global assessment of IPBES, strengthen ties between IPBES and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios and modeling processes, advise the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) on its development of a post-2020 strategic plans and conservation goals, and inform the development of a new generation of nature-centred scenarios.
Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators
2017, Krause, Andreas, Pugh, Thomas A.M., Bayer, Anita D., Doelman, Jonathan C., Humpenöder, Florian, Anthoni, Peter, Olin, Stefan, Bodirsky, Benjamin L., Popp, Alexander, Stehfest, Elke, Arneth, Almut
Land management for carbon storage is discussed as being indispensable for climate change mitigation because of its large potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and to avoid further emissions from deforestation. However, the acceptance and feasibility of land-based mitigation projects depends on potential side effects on other important ecosystem functions and their services. Here, we use projections of future land use and land cover for different land-based mitigation options from two land-use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) and evaluate their effects with a global dynamic vegetation model (LPJ-GUESS). In the land-use models, carbon removal was achieved either via growth of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage, via avoided deforestation and afforestation, or via a combination of both. We compare these scenarios to a reference scenario without land-based mitigation and analyse the LPJ-GUESS simulations with the aim of assessing synergies and trade-offs across a range of ecosystem service indicators: carbon storage, surface albedo, evapotranspiration, water runoff, crop production, nitrogen loss, and emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds. In our mitigation simulations cumulative carbon storage by year 2099 ranged between 55 and 89 GtC. Other ecosystem service indicators were influenced heterogeneously both positively and negatively, with large variability across regions and land-use scenarios. Avoided deforestation and afforestation led to an increase in evapotranspiration and enhanced emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds, and to a decrease in albedo, runoff, and nitrogen loss. Crop production could also decrease in the afforestation scenarios as a result of reduced crop area, especially for MAgPIE land-use patterns, if assumed increases in crop yields cannot be realized. Bioenergy-based climate change mitigation was projected to affect less area globally than in the forest expansion scenarios, and resulted in less pronounced changes in most ecosystem service indicators than forest-based mitigation, but included a possible decrease in nitrogen loss, crop production, and biogenic volatile organic compounds emissions.
The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset
2019, Müller, Christoph, Elliott, Joshua, Kelly, David, Arneth, Almut, Balkovic, Juraj, Ciais, Philippe, Deryng, Delphine, Folberth, Christian, Hoek, Steven, Izaurralde, Roberto C., Jones, Curtis D., Khabarov, Nikolay, Lawrence, Peter, Liu, Wenfeng, Olin, Stefan, Pugh, Thomas A. M., Reddy, Ashwan, Rosenzweig, Cynthia, Ruane, Alex C., Sakurai, Gen, Schmid, Erwin, Skalsky, Rastislav, Wang, Xuhui, de Wit, Allard, Yang, Hong
The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 dataset of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) provides an unprecedentedly large dataset of crop model simulations covering the global ice-free land surface. The dataset consists of annual data fields at a spatial resolution of 0.5 arc-degree longitude and latitude. Fourteen crop modeling groups provided output for up to 11 historical input datasets spanning 1901 to 2012, and for up to three different management harmonization levels. Each group submitted data for up to 15 different crops and for up to 14 output variables. All simulations were conducted for purely rainfed and near-perfectly irrigated conditions on all land areas irrespective of whether the crop or irrigation system is currently used there. With the publication of the GGCMI phase 1 dataset we aim to promote further analyses and understanding of crop model performance, potential relationships between productivity and environmental impacts, and insights on how to further improve global gridded crop model frameworks. We describe dataset characteristics and individual model setup narratives. © 2019, The Author(s).
Understanding the weather signal in national crop‐yield variability
2017, Frieler, Katja, Schauberger, Bernhard, Arneth, Almut, Balkovič, Juraj, Chryssanthacopoulos, James, Deryng, Delphine, Elliott, Joshua, Folberth, Christian, Khabarov, Nikolay, Müller, Christoph, Olin, Stefan, Smith, Steven J., Pugh, Thomas A.M., Schaphoff, Sibyll, Schewe, Jacob, Schmid, Erwin, Warszawski, Lila, Levermann, Anders
Year‐to‐year variations in crop yields can have major impacts on the livelihoods of subsistence farmers and may trigger significant global price fluctuations, with severe consequences for people in developing countries. Fluctuations can be induced by weather conditions, management decisions, weeds, diseases, and pests. Although an explicit quantification and deeper understanding of weather‐induced crop‐yield variability is essential for adaptation strategies, so far it has only been addressed by empirical models. Here, we provide conservative estimates of the fraction of reported national yield variabilities that can be attributed to weather by state‐of‐the‐art, process‐based crop model simulations. We find that observed weather variations can explain more than 50% of the variability in wheat yields in Australia, Canada, Spain, Hungary, and Romania. For maize, weather sensitivities exceed 50% in seven countries, including the United States. The explained variance exceeds 50% for rice in Japan and South Korea and for soy in Argentina. Avoiding water stress by simulating yields assuming full irrigation shows that water limitation is a major driver of the observed variations in most of these countries. Identifying the mechanisms leading to crop‐yield fluctuations is not only fundamental for dampening fluctuations, but is also important in the context of the debate on the attribution of loss and damage to climate change. Since process‐based crop models not only account for weather influences on crop yields, but also provide options to represent human‐management measures, they could become essential tools for differentiating these drivers, and for exploring options to reduce future yield fluctuations.
Parameterization-induced uncertainties and impacts of crop management harmonization in a global gridded crop model ensemble
2019, Folberth, Christian, Elliott, Joshua, Müller, Christoph, Balkovič, Juraj, Chryssanthacopoulos, James, Izaurralde, Roberto C., Jones, Curtis D., Khabarov, Nikolay, Liu, Wenfeng, Reddy, Ashwan, Schmid, Erwin, Skalský, Rastislav, Yang, Hong, Arneth, Almut, Ciais, Philippe, Deryng, Delphine, Lawrence, Peter J., Olin, Stefan, Pugh, Thomas A.M., Ruane, Alex C., Wang, Xuhui
Global gridded crop models (GGCMs) combine agronomic or plant growth models with gridded spatial input data to estimate spatially explicit crop yields and agricultural externalities at the global scale. Differences in GGCM outputs arise from the use of different biophysical models, setups, and input data. GGCM ensembles are frequently employed to bracket uncertainties in impact studies without investigating the causes of divergence in outputs. This study explores differences in maize yield estimates from five GGCMs based on the public domain field-scale model Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) that participate in the AgMIP Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison initiative. Albeit using the same crop model, the GGCMs differ in model version, input data, management assumptions, parameterization, and selection of subroutines affecting crop yield estimates via cultivar distributions, soil attributes, and hydrology among others. The analyses reveal inter-annual yield variability and absolute yield levels in the EPIC-based GGCMs to be highly sensitive to soil parameterization and crop management. All GGCMs show an intermediate performance in reproducing reported yields with a higher skill if a static soil profile is assumed or sufficient plant nutrients are supplied. An in-depth comparison of setup domains for two EPIC-based GGCMs shows that GGCM performance and plant stress responses depend substantially on soil parameters and soil process parameterization, i.e. hydrology and nutrient turnover, indicating that these often neglected domains deserve more scrutiny. For agricultural impact assessments, employing a GGCM ensemble with its widely varying assumptions in setups appears the best solution for coping with uncertainties from lack of comprehensive global data on crop management, cultivar distributions and coefficients for agro-environmental processes. However, the underlying assumptions require systematic specifications to cover representative agricultural systems and environmental conditions. Furthermore, the interlinkage of parameter sensitivity from various domains such as soil parameters, nutrient turnover coefficients, and cultivar specifications highlights that global sensitivity analyses and calibration need to be performed in an integrated manner to avoid bias resulting from disregarded core model domains. Finally, relating evaluations of the EPIC-based GGCMs to a wider ensemble based on individual core models shows that structural differences outweigh in general differences in configurations of GGCMs based on the same model, and that the ensemble mean gains higher skill from the inclusion of structurally different GGCMs. Although the members of the wider ensemble herein do not consider crop-soil-management interactions, their sensitivity to nutrient supply indicates that findings for the EPIC-based sub-ensemble will likely become relevant for other GGCMs with the progressing inclusion of such processes.