17 research outputs found

    How Do Various Maize Crop Models Vary in Their Responses to Climate Change Factors?

    Get PDF
    Potential consequences of climate change on crop production can be studied using mechanistic crop simulation models. While a broad variety of maize simulation models exist, it is not known whether different models diverge on grain yield responses to changes in climatic factors, or whether they agree in their general trends related to phenology, growth, and yield. With the goal of analyzing the sensitivity of simulated yields to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2], we present the largest maize crop model intercomparison to date, including 23 different models. These models were evaluated for four locations representing a wide range of maize production conditions in the world: Lusignan (France), Ames (USA), Rio Verde (Brazil) and Morogoro (Tanzania). While individual models differed considerably in absolute yield simulation at the four sites, an ensemble of a minimum number of models was able to simulate absolute yields accurately at the four sites even with low data for calibration, thus suggesting that using an ensemble of models has merit. Temperature increase had strong negative influence on modeled yield response of roughly -0.5 Mg ha(sup 1) per degC. Doubling [CO2] from 360 to 720 lmol mol 1 increased grain yield by 7.5% on average across models and the sites. That would therefore make temperature the main factor altering maize yields at the end of this century. Furthermore, there was a large uncertainty in the yield response to [CO2] among models. Model responses to temperature and [CO2] did not differ whether models were simulated with low calibration information or, simulated with high level of calibration information

    How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors?

    Get PDF
    Potential consequences of climate change on crop production can be studied using mechanistic crop simulation models. While a broad variety of maize simulation models exist, it is not known whether different models diverge on grain yield responses to changes in climatic factors, or whether they agree in their general trends related to phenology, growth, and yield. With the goal of analyzing the sensitivity of simulated yields to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2], we present the largest maize crop model intercomparison to date, including 23 different models. These models were evaluated for four locations representing a wide range of maize production conditions in the world: Lusignan (France), Ames (USA), Rio Verde (Brazil) and Morogoro (Tanzania). While individual models differed considerably in absolute yield simulation at the four sites, an ensemble of a minimum number of models was able to simulate absolute yields accurately at the four sites even with low data for calibration, thus suggesting that using an ensemble of models has merit. Temperature increase had strong negative influence on modeled yield response of roughly 0.5 Mg ha 1 per C. Doubling [CO2] from 360 to 720 lmol mol 1 increased grain yield by 7.5% on average across models and the sites. That would therefore make temperature the main factor altering maize yields at the end of this century. Furthermore, there was a large uncertainty in the yield response to [CO2] among models. Model responses to temperature and [CO2] did not differ whether models were simulated with low calibration information or, simulated with high level of calibration information

    Statistical Analysis of Large Simulated Yield Datasets for Studying Climate Effects

    Get PDF
    Many studies have been carried out during the last decade to study the effect of climate change on crop yields and other key crop characteristics. In these studies, one or several crop models were used to simulate crop growth and development for different climate scenarios that correspond to different projections of atmospheric CO2 concentration, temperature, and rainfall changes (Semenov et al., 1996; Tubiello and Ewert, 2002; White et al., 2011). The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP; Rosenzweig et al., 2013) builds on these studies with the goal of using an ensemble of multiple crop models in order to assess effects of climate change scenarios for several crops in contrasting environments. These studies generate large datasets, including thousands of simulated crop yield data. They include series of yield values obtained by combining several crop models with different climate scenarios that are defined by several climatic variables (temperature, CO2, rainfall, etc.). Such datasets potentially provide useful information on the possible effects of different climate change scenarios on crop yields. However, it is sometimes difficult to analyze these datasets and to summarize them in a useful way due to their structural complexity; simulated yield data can differ among contrasting climate scenarios, sites, and crop models. Another issue is that it is not straightforward to extrapolate the results obtained for the scenarios to alternative climate change scenarios not initially included in the simulation protocols. Additional dynamic crop model simulations for new climate change scenarios are an option but this approach is costly, especially when a large number of crop models are used to generate the simulated data, as in AgMIP. Statistical models have been used to analyze responses of measured yield data to climate variables in past studies (Lobell et al., 2011), but the use of a statistical model to analyze yields simulated by complex process-based crop models is a rather new idea. We demonstrate herewith that statistical methods can play an important role in analyzing simulated yield data sets obtained from the ensembles of process-based crop models. Formal statistical analysis is helpful to estimate the effects of different climatic variables on yield, and to describe the between-model variability of these effects

    How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors?

    Full text link
    Comments This article is a U.S. government work, and is not subject to copyright in the United States. Abstract Potential consequences of climate change on crop production can be studied using mechanistic crop simulation models. While a broad variety of maize simulation models exist, it is not known whether different models diverge on grain yield responses to changes in climatic factors, or whether they agree in their general trends related to phenology, growth, and yield. With the goal of analyzing the sensitivity of simulated yields to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2], we present the largest maize crop model intercomparison to date, including 23 different models. These models were evaluated for four locations representing a wide range of maize production conditions in the world: Lusignan (France), Ames (USA), Rio Verde (Brazil) and Morogoro (Tanzania). While individual models differed considerably in absolute yield simulation at the four sites, an ensemble of a minimum number of models was able to simulate absolute yields accurately at the four sites even with low data for calibration, thus suggesting that using an ensemble of models has merit. Temperature increase had strong negative influence on modeled yield response of roughly 0.5 Mg ha 1 per °C. Doubling [CO2] from 360 to 720 lmol mol 1 increased grain yield by 7.5% on average across models and the sites. That would therefore make temperature the main factor altering maize yields at the end of this century. Furthermore, there was a large uncertainty in the yield response to [CO2] among models. Model responses to temperature and [CO2] did not differ whether models were simulated with low calibration information or, simulated with high level of calibration information

    The Butterfly Framework for the Assessment of Transitions towards a Circular and Climate Neutral Society

    No full text
    The Butterfly framework of Wageningen University & Research (WUR) for assessing transitions towards a circular and climate-neutral society is presented. The Butterfly framework is built after analysis of existing frameworks that could only partly comply with the needs of the full set of stakeholders interlinked and operating in domains like society and well-being; food, feed, and biobased production; natural resources and living environment. It shows that for adequate action perspectives on and in these domains, the socio-ecological, socio-technical, and socio-institutional sub-systems should be fully integrated, and stakeholders should be equally consulted and appreciated. In order to advance and integrate action perspectives of different stakeholders in the light of the transition to circularity with high-level ambitions like climate neutrality, stakeholders (groups) need to understand their position and links in a full systems perspective, which the Butterfly framework provides

    Gebiedsgerichte verkenning van de ‘verdere aanpak stikstof’

    No full text
    Nederland zal de komende jaren, aanvullend op de stikstofaanpak, ook forse stappen moeten zetten op de terreinen van waterkwaliteit (Kaderrichtlijn Water; Nitraatrichtlijn) en klimaat (EU Green Deal). Daarom heeft het ministerie van LNV, samen met Directoraat Generaal Stikstof (DGS) en het ministerie van Financiën, PBL, RIVM en WUR verzocht om twee varianten van een toekomstige stikstofaanpak nader te analyseren. Daarbij gaat het om een variant die primair gericht is op stikstofreductie, de ‘stikstofvariant’, en een ‘integrale variant’, waarbij ook de samenhang met andere opgaves, in het bijzonder die voor klimaat en water in beeld wordt gebracht. WUR heeft in dit rapport een kwalitatieve analyse uitgevoerd van effecten van maatregelen uit de dossiers stikstof, waterkwaliteit en klimaat op de emissies van ammoniak, methaan, lachgas en CO2 en op de uit- en afspoeling van stikstof en fosfaat. Daarnaast heeft WUR de betekenis van een integrale gebiedsgerichte aanpak nader in beeld gebracht aan de hand van drie voorbeeldgebieden: melkveehouderij in het veenweidegebied, intensieve landbouw op zandgronden en grondgebonden landbouw op zandgronden
    corecore