7 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 7 of 7
- ItemClassifying multi-model wheat yield impact response surfaces showing sensitivity to temperature and precipitation change(Amsterdam [u.a.] : Elsevier, 2017) Fronzek, Stefan; Pirttioja, Nina; Carter, Timothy R.; Bindi, Marco; Hoffmann, Holger; Palosuo, Taru; Ruiz-Ramos, Margarita; Tao, Fulu; Trnka, Miroslav; Acutis, Marco; Asseng, Senthold; Baranowski, Piotr; Basso, Bruno; Bodin, Per; Buis, Samuel; Cammarano, Davide; Deligios, Paola; Destain, Marie-France; Dumont, Benjamin; Ewert, Frank; Ferrise, Roberto; François, Louis; Gaiser, Thomas; Hlavinka, Petr; Jacquemin, Ingrid; Kersebaum, Kurt Christian; Kollas, Chris; Krzyszczak, Jaromir; Lorite, Ignacio J.; Minet, Julien; Minguez, M. Ines; Montesino, Manuel; Moriondo, Marco; Müller, Christoph; Nendel, Claas; Öztürk, Isik; Perego, Alessia; Rodríguez, Alfredo; Ruane, Alex C.; Ruget, Françoise; Sanna, Mattia; Semenov, Mikhail A.; Slawinski, Cezary; Stratonovitch, Pierre; Supit, Iwan; Waha, Katharina; Wang, Enli; Wu, Lianhai; Zhao, Zhigan; Rötter, Reimund P.Crop growth simulation models can differ greatly in their treatment of key processes and hence in their response to environmental conditions. Here, we used an ensemble of 26 process-based wheat models applied at sites across a European transect to compare their sensitivity to changes in temperature (−2 to +9°C) and precipitation (−50 to +50%). Model results were analysed by plotting them as impact response surfaces (IRSs), classifying the IRS patterns of individual model simulations, describing these classes and analysing factors that may explain the major differences in model responses. The model ensemble was used to simulate yields of winter and spring wheat at four sites in Finland, Germany and Spain. Results were plotted as IRSs that show changes in yields relative to the baseline with respect to temperature and precipitation. IRSs of 30-year means and selected extreme years were classified using two approaches describing their pattern. The expert diagnostic approach (EDA) combines two aspects of IRS patterns: location of the maximum yield (nine classes) and strength of the yield response with respect to climate (four classes), resulting in a total of 36 combined classes defined using criteria pre-specified by experts. The statistical diagnostic approach (SDA) groups IRSs by comparing their pattern and magnitude, without attempting to interpret these features. It applies a hierarchical clustering method, grouping response patterns using a distance metric that combines the spatial correlation and Euclidian distance between IRS pairs. The two approaches were used to investigate whether different patterns of yield response could be related to different properties of the crop models, specifically their genealogy, calibration and process description. Although no single model property across a large model ensemble was found to explain the integrated yield response to temperature and precipitation perturbations, the application of the EDA and SDA approaches revealed their capability to distinguish: (i) stronger yield responses to precipitation for winter wheat than spring wheat; (ii) differing strengths of response to climate changes for years with anomalous weather conditions compared to period-average conditions; (iii) the influence of site conditions on yield patterns; (iv) similarities in IRS patterns among models with related genealogy; (v) similarities in IRS patterns for models with simpler process descriptions of root growth and water uptake compared to those with more complex descriptions; and (vi) a closer correspondence of IRS patterns in models using partitioning schemes to represent yield formation than in those using a harvest index. Such results can inform future crop modelling studies that seek to exploit the diversity of multi-model ensembles, by distinguishing ensemble members that span a wide range of responses as well as those that display implausible behaviour or strong mutual similarities.
- ItemDiverging importance of drought stress for maize and winter wheat in Europe([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2018) Webber, Heidi; Ewert, Frank; Olesen, Jørgen E.; Müller, Christoph; Fronzek, Stefan; Ruane, Alex C.; Bourgault, Maryse; Martre, Pierre; Ababaei, Behnam; Bindi, Marco; Ferrise, Roberto; Finger, Robert; Fodor, Nándor; Gabaldón-Leal, Clara; Gaiser, Thomas; Jabloun, Mohamed; Kersebaum, Kurt-Christian; Lizaso, Jon I.; Lorite, Ignacio J.; Manceau, Loic; Moriondo, Marco; Nendel, Claas; Rodríguez, Alfredo; Ruiz-Ramos, Margarita; Semenov, Mikhail A.; Siebert, Stefan; Stella, Tommaso; Stratonovitch, Pierre; Trombi, Giacomo; Wallach, DanielUnderstanding the drivers of yield levels under climate change is required to support adaptation planning and respond to changing production risks. This study uses an ensemble of crop models applied on a spatial grid to quantify the contributions of various climatic drivers to past yield variability in grain maize and winter wheat of European cropping systems (1984–2009) and drivers of climate change impacts to 2050. Results reveal that for the current genotypes and mix of irrigated and rainfed production, climate change would lead to yield losses for grain maize and gains for winter wheat. Across Europe, on average heat stress does not increase for either crop in rainfed systems, while drought stress intensifies for maize only. In low-yielding years, drought stress persists as the main driver of losses for both crops, with elevated CO2 offering no yield benefit in these years.
- ItemAn AgMIP framework for improved agricultural representation in integrated assessment models(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2017) Ruane, Alex C.; Rosenzweig, Cynthia; Asseng, Senthold; Boote, Kenneth J.; Elliott, Joshua; Ewert, Frank; Jones, James W.; Martre, Pierre; McDermid, Sonali P.; Müller, Christoph; Snyder, Abigail; Thorburn, Peter J.Integrated assessment models (IAMs) hold great potential to assess how future agricultural systems will be shaped by socioeconomic development, technological innovation, and changing climate conditions. By coupling with climate and crop model emulators, IAMs have the potential to resolve important agricultural feedback loops and identify unintended consequences of socioeconomic development for agricultural systems. Here we propose a framework to develop robust representation of agricultural system responses within IAMs, linking downstream applications with model development and the coordinated evaluation of key climate responses from local to global scales. We survey the strengths and weaknesses of protocol-based assessments linked to the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), each utilizing multiple sites and models to evaluate crop response to core climate changes including shifts in carbon dioxide concentration, temperature, and water availability, with some studies further exploring how climate responses are affected by nitrogen levels and adaptation in farm systems. Site-based studies with carefully calibrated models encompass the largest number of activities; however they are limited in their ability to capture the full range of global agricultural system diversity. Representative site networks provide more targeted response information than broadly-sampled networks, with limitations stemming from difficulties in covering the diversity of farming systems. Global gridded crop models provide comprehensive coverage, although with large challenges for calibration and quality control of inputs. Diversity in climate responses underscores that crop model emulators must distinguish between regions and farming system while recognizing model uncertainty. Finally, to bridge the gap between bottom-up and top-down approaches we recommend the deployment of a hybrid climate response system employing a representative network of sites to bias-correct comprehensive gridded simulations, opening the door to accelerated development and a broad range of applications.
- 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 Response Patterns of Major Rainfed Crops to Adaptation by Maintaining Current Growing Periods and Irrigation(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Blackwell, 2019) Minoli, Sara; Müller, Christoph; Elliott, Joshua; Ruane, Alex C.; Jägermeyr, Jonas; Zabel, Florian; Dury, Marie; Folberth, Christian; François, Louis; Hank, Tobias; Jacquemin, Ingrid; Liu, Wenfeng; Olin, Stefan; Pugh, Thomas A.M.Increasing temperature trends are expected to impact yields of major field crops by affecting various plant processes, such as phenology, growth, and evapotranspiration. However, future projections typically do not consider the effects of agronomic adaptation in farming practices. We use an ensemble of seven Global Gridded Crop Models to quantify the impacts and adaptation potential of field crops under increasing temperature up to 6 K, accounting for model uncertainty. We find that without adaptation, the dominant effect of temperature increase is to shorten the growing period and to reduce grain yields and production. We then test the potential of two agronomic measures to combat warming-induced yield reduction: (i) use of cultivars with adjusted phenology to regain the reference growing period duration and (ii) conversion of rainfed systems to irrigated ones in order to alleviate the negative temperature effects that are mediated by crop evapotranspiration. We find that cultivar adaptation can fully compensate global production losses up to 2 K of temperature increase, with larger potentials in continental and temperate regions. Irrigation could also compensate production losses, but its potential is highest in arid regions, where irrigation expansion would be constrained by water scarcity. Moreover, we discuss that irrigation is not a true adaptation measure but rather an intensification strategy, as it equally increases production under any temperature level. In the tropics, even when introducing both adapted cultivars and irrigation, crop production declines already at moderate warming, making adaptation particularly challenging in these areas. ©2019. The Authors.
- 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.
- 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).