Abstract

Understanding the relationship between climate and crop productivity is a key component of projections of future food production, and hence assessments of food security. Climate models and crop yield datasets have errors, but the effects of these errors on regional scale crop models is not well categorized and understood. In this study we compare the effect of synthetic errors in temperature and precipitation observations on the hindcast skill of a process-based crop model and a statistical crop model. We find that errors in temperature data have a significantly stronger influence on both models than errors in precipitation. We also identify key differences in the responses of these models to different types of input data error. Statistical and process-based model responses differ depending on whether synthetic errors are overestimates or underestimates. We also investigate the impact of crop yield calibration data on model skill for both models, using datasets of yield at three different spatial scales. Whilst important for both models, the statistical model is more strongly influenced by crop yield scale than the process-based crop model. However, our results question the value of high resolution yield data for improving the skill of crop models; we find a focus on accuracy to be more likely to be valuable. For both crop models, and for all three spatial scales of yield calibration data, we found that model skill is greatest where growing area is above 10-15 %. Thus information on area harvested would appear to be a priority for data collection efforts. These results are important for three reasons. First, understanding how different crop models rely on different characteristics of temperature, precipitation and crop yield data allows us to match the model type to the available data. Second, we can prioritize where improvements in climate and crop yield data should be directed. Third, as better climate and crop yield data becomes available, we can predict how crop model skill should improve.

Highlights

  • While knowledge of crop physiology comes from experiments at the field scale, climate models have skill at the regional scale

  • This data is plotted against the harvest area of the respective grid cell (x-axis) and separated by the scale of the yield calibration data

  • A single crop was analyzed in a single temperate country, and models were not optimized for local conditions beyond the use of their automatic calibration routines

Read more

Summary

Introduction

While knowledge of crop physiology comes from experiments at the field scale, climate models have skill at the regional scale. The projected response of crops to climate variability and change can vary significantly according to the methodology chosen (Challinor et al 2014). This variation can be ascribed to three causes: structural differences between crop models, differences in crop calibration data, and differences in weather inputs. Structural differences in models result from the choice of parameterisations for representing crop growth and development (White et al 2011). These choices are often related to the spatial scale for which the model is designed (Challinor and Wheeler 2008). Calibration and application of models at regional-scales invariably involves simplifying spatial heterogeneity, and can result in aggregation error (Hansen and Jones 2000)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call