4.6 Article

Quantification of physical and biological uncertainty in the simulation of the yield of a tropical crop using present-day and doubled CO2 climates

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2005.1740

关键词

crop yield; climate change; model uncertainty; high temperature stress; crop simulation models

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impacts of climate change on crop productivity are often assessed using simulations from a numerical climate model as an input to a crop simulation model. The precision of these predictions reflects the uncertainty in both models. We examined how uncertainty in a climate (HadAM3) and crop General Large-Area Model (GLAM) for annual crops model affects the mean and standard deviation of crop yield simulations in present and doubled carbon dioxide (CO2) climates by perturbation of parameters in each model. The climate sensitivity parameter (lambda, the equilibrium response of global mean surface temperature to doubled CO2) was used to define the control climate. Observed 1966-1989 mean yields of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) in India were simulated well by the crop model using the control climate and climates with values of lambda near the control value. The simulations were used to measure the contribution to uncertainty of key crop and climate model parameters. The standard deviation of yield was more affected by perturbation of climate parameters than crop model parameters in both the present-day and doubled CO2 climates. Climate uncertainty was higher in the doubled CO2 climate than in the present-day climate. Crop transpiration efficiency was key to crop model uncertainty in both present-day and doubled CO2 climates. The response of crop development to mean temperature contributed little uncertainty in the present-day simulations but was among the largest contributors under doubled CO2. The ensemble methods used here to quantify physical and biological uncertainty offer a method to improve model estimates of the impacts of climate change.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据