2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- ItemGlobal gridded crop model evaluation: Benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 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, HongCrop 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.
- ItemGlobal consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 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, AlmutLand 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.