14 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 14
- 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.
- ItemParameterization-induced uncertainties and impacts of crop management harmonization in a global gridded crop model ensemble(San Francisco, California, US : PLOS, 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, XuhuiGlobal 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.
- ItemAssessing the impacts of 1.5 °C global warming – simulation protocol of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2b)(München : European Geopyhsical Union, 2017) Frieler, Katja; Lange, Stefan; Piontek, Franziska; Reyer, Christopher P.O.; Schewe, Jacob; Warszawski, Lila; Zhao, Fang; Chini, Louise; Denvil, Sebastien; Emanuel, Kerry; Geiger, Tobias; Halladay, Kate; Hurtt, George; Mengel, Matthias; Murakami, Daisuke; Ostberg, Sebastian; Popp, Alexander; Riva, Riccardo; Stevanovic, Miodrag; Suzuki, Tatsuo; Volkholz, Jan; Burke, Eleanor; Ciais, Philippe; Ebi, Kristie; Eddy, Tyler D.; Elliott, Joshua; Galbraith, Eric; Gosling, Simon N.; Hattermann, Fred; Hickler, Thomas; Hinkel, Jochen; Hof, Christian; Huber, Veronika; Jägermeyr, Jonas; Krysanova, Valentina; Marcé, Rafael; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Mouratiadou, Ioanna; Pierson, Don; Tittensor, Derek P.; Vautard, Robert; van Vliet, Michelle; Biber, Matthias F.; Betts, Richard A.; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Deryng, Delphine; Frolking, Steve; Jones, Chris D.; Lotze, Heike K.; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Sahajpal, Ritvik; Thonicke, Kirsten; Tian, Hanqin; Yamagata, YoshikiIn Paris, France, December 2015, the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) invited the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide a "special report in 2018 on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways". In Nairobi, Kenya, April 2016, the IPCC panel accepted the invitation. Here we describe the response devised within the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) to provide tailored, cross-sectorally consistent impact projections to broaden the scientific basis for the report. The simulation protocol is designed to allow for (1) separation of the impacts of historical warming starting from pre-industrial conditions from impacts of other drivers such as historical land-use changes (based on pre-industrial and historical impact model simulations); (2) quantification of the impacts of additional warming up to 1.5°C, including a potential overshoot and long-term impacts up to 2299, and comparison to higher levels of global mean temperature change (based on the low-emissions Representative Concentration Pathway RCP2.6 and a no-mitigation pathway RCP6.0) with socio-economic conditions fixed at 2005 levels; and (3) assessment of the climate effects based on the same climate scenarios while accounting for simultaneous changes in socio-economic conditions following the middle-of-the-road Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP2, Fricko et al., 2016) and in particular differential bioenergy requirements associated with the transformation of the energy system to comply with RCP2.6 compared to RCP6.0. With the aim of providing the scientific basis for an aggregation of impacts across sectors and analysis of cross-sectoral interactions that may dampen or amplify sectoral impacts, the protocol is designed to facilitate consistent impact projections from a range of impact models across different sectors (global and regional hydrology, lakes, global crops, global vegetation, regional forests, global and regional marine ecosystems and fisheries, global and regional coastal infrastructure, energy supply and demand, temperature-related mortality, and global terrestrial biodiversity).
- ItemThe Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset(London : Nature Publ. Group, 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, HongThe 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).
- ItemYield trends, variability and stagnation analysis of major crops in France over more than a century([London] : Macmillan Publishers Limited, part of Springer Nature, 2018) Schauberger, Bernhard; Ben-Ari, Tamara; Makowski, David; Kato, Tomomichi; Kato, Hiromi; Ciais, PhilippeFrance is a major crop producer, with a production share of approx. 20% within the European Union. Yet, a discussion has recently started whether French yields are stagnating. While for wheat previous results are unanimously pointing to recent stagnation, there is contradictory evidence for maize and few to no results for other crops. Here we analyse a data set with more than 120,000 yield observations from 1900 to 2016 for ten crops (barley, durum and soft wheat, maize, oats, potatoes, rapeseed, sugar beet, sunflower and wine) in the 96 mainland French départements (NUTS3 administrative division). We dissect the evolution of yield trends over time and space, analyse yield variation and evaluate whether growth of yields has stalled in recent years. Yields have, on average across crops, multiplied four-fold over the course of the 20th century. While absolute yield variability has increased, the variation relative to the mean has halved – mean yields have increased faster than their variability. But growth of yields has stagnated since the 1990’s for winter wheat, barley, oats, durum wheat, sunflower and wine on at least 25% of their areas. Reaching yield potentials is unlikely as a cause for stagnation. Maize, in contrast, shows no evidence for stagnation.
- ItemGlobal irrigation contribution to wheat and maize yield([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2021) Wang, Xuhui; Müller, Christoph; Elliot, Joshua; Mueller, Nathaniel D.; Ciais, Philippe; Jägermeyr, Jonas; Gerber, James; Dumas, Patrice; Wang, Chenzhi; Yang, Hui; Li, Laurent; Deryng, Delphine; Folberth, Christian; Liu, Wenfeng; Makowski, David; Olin, Stefan; Pugh, Thomas A. M.; Reddy, Ashwan; Schmid, Erwin; Jeong, Sujong; Zhou, Feng; Piao, ShilongIrrigation is the largest sector of human water use and an important option for increasing crop production and reducing drought impacts. However, the potential for irrigation to contribute to global crop yields remains uncertain. Here, we quantify this contribution for wheat and maize at global scale by developing a Bayesian framework integrating empirical estimates and gridded global crop models on new maps of the relative difference between attainable rainfed and irrigated yield (ΔY). At global scale, ΔY is 34 ± 9% for wheat and 22 ± 13% for maize, with large spatial differences driven more by patterns of precipitation than that of evaporative demand. Comparing irrigation demands with renewable water supply, we find 30–47% of contemporary rainfed agriculture of wheat and maize cannot achieve yield gap closure utilizing current river discharge, unless more water diversion projects are set in place, putting into question the potential of irrigation to mitigate climate change impacts.
- ItemSpatially explicit analysis identifies significant potential for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in China([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2021) Xing, Xiaofan; Wang, Rong; Bauer, Nico; Ciais, Philippe; Cao, Junji; Chen, Jianmin; Tang, Xu; Wang, Lin; Yang, Xin; Boucher, Olivier; Goll, Daniel; Peñuelas, Josep; Janssens, Ivan A.; Balkanski, Yves; Clark, James; Ma, Jianmin; Pan, Bo; Zhang, Shicheng; Ye, Xingnan; Wang, Yutao; Li, Qing; Luo, Gang; Shen, Guofeng; Li, Wei; Yang, Yechen; Xu, SiqingAs China ramped-up coal power capacities rapidly while CO2 emissions need to decline, these capacities would turn into stranded assets. To deal with this risk, a promising option is to retrofit these capacities to co-fire with biomass and eventually upgrade to CCS operation (BECCS), but the feasibility is debated with respect to negative impacts on broader sustainability issues. Here we present a data-rich spatially explicit approach to estimate the marginal cost curve for decarbonizing the power sector in China with BECCS. We identify a potential of 222 GW of power capacities in 2836 counties generated by co-firing 0.9 Gt of biomass from the same county, with half being agricultural residues. Our spatially explicit method helps to reduce uncertainty in the economic costs and emissions of BECCS, identify the best opportunities for bioenergy and show the limitations by logistical challenges to achieve carbon neutrality in the power sector with large-scale BECCS in China.
- ItemState-of-the-art global models underestimate impacts from climate extremes([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2019) Schewe, Jacob; Gosling, Simon N.; Reyer, Christopher; Zhao, Fang; Ciais, Philippe; Elliott, Joshua; Francois, Louis; Huber, Veronika; Lotze, Heike K.; Seneviratne, Sonia I.; van Vliet, Michelle T. H.; Vautard, Robert; Wada, Yoshihide; Breuer, Lutz; Büchner, Matthias; Carozza, David A.; Chang, Jinfeng; Coll, Marta; Deryng, Delphine; de Wit, Allard; Eddy, Tyler D.; Folberth, Christian; Frieler, Katja; Friend, Andrew D.; Gerten, Dieter; Gudmundsson, Lukas; Hanasaki, Naota; Ito, Akihiko; Khabarov, Nikolay; Kim, Hyungjun; Lawrence, Peter; Morfopoulos, Catherine; Müller, Christoph; Müller Schmied, Hannes; Orth, René; Ostberg, Sebastian; Pokhrel, Yadu; Pugh, Thomas A. M.; Sakurai, Gen; Satoh, Yusuke; Schmid, Erwin; Stacke, Tobias; Steenbeek, Jeroen; Steinkamp, Jörg; Tang, Qiuhong; Tian, Hanqin; Tittensor, Derek P.; Volkholz, Jan; Wang, Xuhui; Warszawski, LilaGlobal impact models represent process-level understanding of how natural and human systems may be affected by climate change. Their projections are used in integrated assessments of climate change. Here we test, for the first time, systematically across many important systems, how well such impact models capture the impacts of extreme climate conditions. Using the 2003 European heat wave and drought as a historical analogue for comparable events in the future, we find that a majority of models underestimate the extremeness of impacts in important sectors such as agriculture, terrestrial ecosystems, and heat-related human mortality, while impacts on water resources and hydropower are overestimated in some river basins; and the spread across models is often large. This has important implications for economic assessments of climate change impacts that rely on these models. It also means that societal risks from future extreme events may be greater than previously thought.
- ItemNear-real-time monitoring of global CO2 emissions reveals the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2020) Liu, Zhu; Ciais, Philippe; Deng, Zhu; Lei, Ruixue; Davis, Steven J.; Feng, Sha; Zheng, Bo; Cui, Duo; Dou, Xinyu; Zhu, Biqing; Guo, Rui; Ke, Piyu; Sun, Taochun; Lu, Chenxi; He, Pan; Wang, Yuan; Yue, Xu; Wang, Yilong; Lei, Yadong; Zhou, Hao; Cai, Zhaonan; Wu, Yuhui; Guo, Runtao; Han, Tingxuan; Xue, Jinjun; Boucher, Olivier; Boucher, Eulalie; Chevallier, Frédéric; Tanaka, Katsumasa; Wei, Yiming; Zhong, Haiwang; Kang, Chongqing; Zhang, Ning; Chen, Bin; Xi, Fengming; Liu, Miaomiao; Bréon, François-Marie; Lu, Yonglong; Zhang, Qiang; Guan, Dabo; Gong, Peng; Kammen, Daniel M.; He, Kebin; Schellnhuber, Hans JoachimThe COVID-19 pandemic is impacting human activities, and in turn energy use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Here we present daily estimates of country-level CO2 emissions for different sectors based on near-real-time activity data. The key result is an abrupt 8.8% decrease in global CO2 emissions (−1551 Mt CO2) in the first half of 2020 compared to the same period in 2019. The magnitude of this decrease is larger than during previous economic downturns or World War II. The timing of emissions decreases corresponds to lockdown measures in each country. By July 1st, the pandemic’s effects on global emissions diminished as lockdown restrictions relaxed and some economic activities restarted, especially in China and several European countries, but substantial differences persist between countries, with continuing emission declines in the U.S. where coronavirus cases are still increasing substantially.
- ItemPhotosynthetic productivity and its efficiencies in ISIMIP2a biome models: Benchmarking for impact assessment studies(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2017) Ito, Akihiko; Nishina, Kazuya; Reyer, Christopher P.O.; François, Louis; Henrot, Alexandra-Jane; Munhoven, Guy; Jacquemin, Ingrid; Tian, Hanqin; Yang, Jia; Pan, Shufen; Morfopoulos, Catherine; Betts, Richard; Hickler, Thomas; Steinkamp, Jörg; Ostberg, Sebastian; Schaphoff, Sibyll; Ciais, Philippe; Chang, Jinfeng; Rafique, Rashid; Zeng, Ning; Zhao, FangSimulating vegetation photosynthetic productivity (or gross primary production, GPP) is a critical feature of the biome models used for impact assessments of climate change. We conducted a benchmarking of global GPP simulated by eight biome models participating in the second phase of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2a) with four meteorological forcing datasets (30 simulations), using independent GPP estimates and recent satellite data of solar-induced chlorophyll fluorescence as a proxy of GPP. The simulated global terrestrial GPP ranged from 98 to 141 Pg C yr−1 (1981–2000 mean); considerable inter-model and inter-data differences were found. Major features of spatial distribution and seasonal change of GPP were captured by each model, showing good agreement with the benchmarking data. All simulations showed incremental trends of annual GPP, seasonal-cycle amplitude, radiation-use efficiency, and water-use efficiency, mainly caused by the CO2 fertilization effect. The incremental slopes were higher than those obtained by remote sensing studies, but comparable with those by recent atmospheric observation. Apparent differences were found in the relationship between GPP and incoming solar radiation, for which forcing data differed considerably. The simulated GPP trends co-varied with a vegetation structural parameter, leaf area index, at model-dependent strengths, implying the importance of constraining canopy properties. In terms of extreme events, GPP anomalies associated with a historical El Niño event and large volcanic eruption were not consistently simulated in the model experiments due to deficiencies in both forcing data and parameterized environmental responsiveness. Although the benchmarking demonstrated the overall advancement of contemporary biome models, further refinements are required, for example, for solar radiation data and vegetation canopy schemes.