Can crop-climate models be accurate and precise? A case study for wheat production in Denmark

Manuel Montesino San Martin; Jørgen E. Olesen; John Roy Porter

doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.11.003

Can crop-climate models be accurate and precise? A case study for wheat production in Denmark

Manuel Montesino San Martin, Jørgen E. Olesen, John Roy Porter

Section for Crop Sciences

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Crop models, used to make projections of climate change impacts, differ greatly in structural detail. Complexity of model structure has generic effects on uncertainty and error propagation in climate change impact assessments. We applied Bayesian calibration to three distinctly different empirical and mechanistic wheat models to assess how differences in the extent of process understanding in models affects uncertainties in projected impact. Predictive power of the models was tested via both accuracy (bias) and precision (or tightness of grouping) of yield projections for extrapolated weather conditions. Yields predicted by the mechanistic model were generally more accurate than the empirical models for extrapolated conditions. This trend does not hold for all extrapolations; mechanistic and empirical models responded differently due to their sensitivities to distinct weather features. However, higher accuracy comes at the cost of precision of the mechanistic model to embrace all observations within given boundaries. The approaches showed complementarity in sensitivity to weather variables and in accuracy for different extrapolation domains. Their differences in model precision and accuracy make them suitable for generic model ensembles for near-term agricultural impact assessments of climate change.

Original language	English
Journal	Agricultural and Forest Meteorology
Volume	202
Pages (from-to)	51-60
Number of pages	10
ISSN	0168-1923
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.11.003
Publication status	Published - 5 Mar 2015

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.11.003

Cite this

@article{d133e49118ca43329063526677768c5a,

title = "Can crop-climate models be accurate and precise? A case study for wheat production in Denmark",

abstract = "Crop models, used to make projections of climate change impacts, differ greatly in structural detail. Complexity of model structure has generic effects on uncertainty and error propagation in climate change impact assessments. We applied Bayesian calibration to three distinctly different empirical and mechanistic wheat models to assess how differences in the extent of process understanding in models affects uncertainties in projected impact. Predictive power of the models was tested via both accuracy (bias) and precision (or tightness of grouping) of yield projections for extrapolated weather conditions. Yields predicted by the mechanistic model were generally more accurate than the empirical models for extrapolated conditions. This trend does not hold for all extrapolations; mechanistic and empirical models responded differently due to their sensitivities to distinct weather features. However, higher accuracy comes at the cost of precision of the mechanistic model to embrace all observations within given boundaries. The approaches showed complementarity in sensitivity to weather variables and in accuracy for different extrapolation domains. Their differences in model precision and accuracy make them suitable for generic model ensembles for near-term agricultural impact assessments of climate change.",

author = "{Montesino San Martin}, Manuel and Olesen, {J{\o}rgen E.} and Porter, {John Roy}",

year = "2015",

month = mar,

day = "5",

doi = "10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.11.003",

language = "English",

volume = "202",

pages = "51--60",

journal = "Agricultural and Forest Meteorology",

issn = "0168-1923",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can crop-climate models be accurate and precise? A case study for wheat production in Denmark

AU - Montesino San Martin, Manuel

AU - Olesen, Jørgen E.

AU - Porter, John Roy

PY - 2015/3/5

Y1 - 2015/3/5

N2 - Crop models, used to make projections of climate change impacts, differ greatly in structural detail. Complexity of model structure has generic effects on uncertainty and error propagation in climate change impact assessments. We applied Bayesian calibration to three distinctly different empirical and mechanistic wheat models to assess how differences in the extent of process understanding in models affects uncertainties in projected impact. Predictive power of the models was tested via both accuracy (bias) and precision (or tightness of grouping) of yield projections for extrapolated weather conditions. Yields predicted by the mechanistic model were generally more accurate than the empirical models for extrapolated conditions. This trend does not hold for all extrapolations; mechanistic and empirical models responded differently due to their sensitivities to distinct weather features. However, higher accuracy comes at the cost of precision of the mechanistic model to embrace all observations within given boundaries. The approaches showed complementarity in sensitivity to weather variables and in accuracy for different extrapolation domains. Their differences in model precision and accuracy make them suitable for generic model ensembles for near-term agricultural impact assessments of climate change.

AB - Crop models, used to make projections of climate change impacts, differ greatly in structural detail. Complexity of model structure has generic effects on uncertainty and error propagation in climate change impact assessments. We applied Bayesian calibration to three distinctly different empirical and mechanistic wheat models to assess how differences in the extent of process understanding in models affects uncertainties in projected impact. Predictive power of the models was tested via both accuracy (bias) and precision (or tightness of grouping) of yield projections for extrapolated weather conditions. Yields predicted by the mechanistic model were generally more accurate than the empirical models for extrapolated conditions. This trend does not hold for all extrapolations; mechanistic and empirical models responded differently due to their sensitivities to distinct weather features. However, higher accuracy comes at the cost of precision of the mechanistic model to embrace all observations within given boundaries. The approaches showed complementarity in sensitivity to weather variables and in accuracy for different extrapolation domains. Their differences in model precision and accuracy make them suitable for generic model ensembles for near-term agricultural impact assessments of climate change.

U2 - 10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.11.003

DO - 10.1016/j.agrformet.2014.11.003

M3 - Journal article

SN - 0168-1923

VL - 202

SP - 51

EP - 60

JO - Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

JF - Agricultural and Forest Meteorology

ER -