Same soil, different climate: Crop model intercomparison on translocated lysimeters
Abstract Crop model intercomparison studies have mostly focused on the assessment of predictive capabilities for crop development using weather and basic soil data from the same location. Still challenging is the model performance when considering complex interrelations between soil and crop dynamic...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2022-07-01
|
| Series: | Vadose Zone Journal |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/vzj2.20202 |
| _version_ | 1818517847877353472 |
|---|---|
| author | Jannis Groh Efstathios Diamantopoulos Xiaohong Duan Frank Ewert Florian Heinlein Michael Herbst Maja Holbak Bahareh Kamali Kurt‐Christian Kersebaum Matthias Kuhnert Claas Nendel Eckart Priesack Jörg Steidl Michael Sommer Thomas Pütz Jan Vanderborght Harry Vereecken Evelyn Wallor Tobias K. D. Weber Martin Wegehenkel Lutz Weihermüller Horst H. Gerke |
| author_facet | Jannis Groh Efstathios Diamantopoulos Xiaohong Duan Frank Ewert Florian Heinlein Michael Herbst Maja Holbak Bahareh Kamali Kurt‐Christian Kersebaum Matthias Kuhnert Claas Nendel Eckart Priesack Jörg Steidl Michael Sommer Thomas Pütz Jan Vanderborght Harry Vereecken Evelyn Wallor Tobias K. D. Weber Martin Wegehenkel Lutz Weihermüller Horst H. Gerke |
| author_sort | Jannis Groh |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Crop model intercomparison studies have mostly focused on the assessment of predictive capabilities for crop development using weather and basic soil data from the same location. Still challenging is the model performance when considering complex interrelations between soil and crop dynamics under a changing climate. The objective of this study was to test the agronomic crop and environmental flux‐related performance of a set of crop models. The aim was to predict weighing lysimeter‐based crop (i.e., agronomic) and water‐related flux or state data (i.e., environmental) obtained for the same soil monoliths that were taken from their original environment and translocated to regions with different climatic conditions, after model calibration at the original site. Eleven models were deployed in the study. The lysimeter data (2014–2018) were from the Dedelow (Dd), Bad Lauchstädt (BL), and Selhausen (Se) sites of the TERENO (TERrestrial ENvironmental Observatories) SOILCan network. Soil monoliths from Dd were transferred to the drier and warmer BL site and the wetter and warmer Se site, which allowed a comparison of similar soil and crop under varying climatic conditions. The model parameters were calibrated using an identical set of crop‐ and soil‐related data from Dd. Environmental fluxes and crop growth of Dd soil were predicted for conditions at BL and Se sites using the calibrated models. The comparison of predicted and measured data of Dd lysimeters at BL and Se revealed differences among models. At site BL, the crop models predicted agronomic and environmental components similarly well. Model performance values indicate that the environmental components at site Se were better predicted than agronomic ones. The multi‐model mean was for most observations the better predictor compared with those of individual models. For Se site conditions, crop models failed to predict site‐specific crop development indicating that climatic conditions (i.e., heat stress) were outside the range of variation in the data sets considered for model calibration. For improving predictive ability of crop models (i.e., productivity and fluxes), more attention should be paid to soil‐related data (i.e., water fluxes and system states) when simulating soil–crop–climate interrelations in changing climatic conditions. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T01:01:49Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-5928be3ed5784f30beb9726dbad89630 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1539-1663 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T01:01:49Z |
| publishDate | 2022-07-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Vadose Zone Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-5928be3ed5784f30beb9726dbad896302022-12-22T01:26:18ZengWileyVadose Zone Journal1539-16632022-07-01214n/an/a10.1002/vzj2.20202Same soil, different climate: Crop model intercomparison on translocated lysimetersJannis Groh0Efstathios Diamantopoulos1Xiaohong Duan2Frank Ewert3Florian Heinlein4Michael Herbst5Maja Holbak6Bahareh Kamali7Kurt‐Christian Kersebaum8Matthias Kuhnert9Claas Nendel10Eckart Priesack11Jörg Steidl12Michael Sommer13Thomas Pütz14Jan Vanderborght15Harry Vereecken16Evelyn Wallor17Tobias K. D. Weber18Martin Wegehenkel19Lutz Weihermüller20Horst H. Gerke21Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg GermanyDep. of Plant and Environmental Science Univ. of Copenhagen Copenhagen DenmarkHelmholtz Zentrum München‐German Research Center for Environmental Health Neuherberg GermanyLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg GermanyHelmholtz Zentrum München‐German Research Center for Environmental Health Neuherberg GermanyForschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Agrosphere Institute of Bio‐ and Geoscience IBG‐3 Jülich GermanyDep. of Plant and Environmental Science Univ. of Copenhagen Copenhagen DenmarkLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg GermanyLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg GermanyInstitute of Biological and Environmental Science Univ. of Aberdeen Aberdeen UKLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg GermanyHelmholtz Zentrum München‐German Research Center for Environmental Health Neuherberg GermanyLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg GermanyLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg GermanyForschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Agrosphere Institute of Bio‐ and Geoscience IBG‐3 Jülich GermanyForschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Agrosphere Institute of Bio‐ and Geoscience IBG‐3 Jülich GermanyForschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Agrosphere Institute of Bio‐ and Geoscience IBG‐3 Jülich GermanyLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg GermanyInstitute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation Univ. of Hohenheim Stuttgart GermanyLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg GermanyForschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Agrosphere Institute of Bio‐ and Geoscience IBG‐3 Jülich GermanyLeibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) Müncheberg GermanyAbstract Crop model intercomparison studies have mostly focused on the assessment of predictive capabilities for crop development using weather and basic soil data from the same location. Still challenging is the model performance when considering complex interrelations between soil and crop dynamics under a changing climate. The objective of this study was to test the agronomic crop and environmental flux‐related performance of a set of crop models. The aim was to predict weighing lysimeter‐based crop (i.e., agronomic) and water‐related flux or state data (i.e., environmental) obtained for the same soil monoliths that were taken from their original environment and translocated to regions with different climatic conditions, after model calibration at the original site. Eleven models were deployed in the study. The lysimeter data (2014–2018) were from the Dedelow (Dd), Bad Lauchstädt (BL), and Selhausen (Se) sites of the TERENO (TERrestrial ENvironmental Observatories) SOILCan network. Soil monoliths from Dd were transferred to the drier and warmer BL site and the wetter and warmer Se site, which allowed a comparison of similar soil and crop under varying climatic conditions. The model parameters were calibrated using an identical set of crop‐ and soil‐related data from Dd. Environmental fluxes and crop growth of Dd soil were predicted for conditions at BL and Se sites using the calibrated models. The comparison of predicted and measured data of Dd lysimeters at BL and Se revealed differences among models. At site BL, the crop models predicted agronomic and environmental components similarly well. Model performance values indicate that the environmental components at site Se were better predicted than agronomic ones. The multi‐model mean was for most observations the better predictor compared with those of individual models. For Se site conditions, crop models failed to predict site‐specific crop development indicating that climatic conditions (i.e., heat stress) were outside the range of variation in the data sets considered for model calibration. For improving predictive ability of crop models (i.e., productivity and fluxes), more attention should be paid to soil‐related data (i.e., water fluxes and system states) when simulating soil–crop–climate interrelations in changing climatic conditions.https://doi.org/10.1002/vzj2.20202 |
| spellingShingle | Jannis Groh Efstathios Diamantopoulos Xiaohong Duan Frank Ewert Florian Heinlein Michael Herbst Maja Holbak Bahareh Kamali Kurt‐Christian Kersebaum Matthias Kuhnert Claas Nendel Eckart Priesack Jörg Steidl Michael Sommer Thomas Pütz Jan Vanderborght Harry Vereecken Evelyn Wallor Tobias K. D. Weber Martin Wegehenkel Lutz Weihermüller Horst H. Gerke Same soil, different climate: Crop model intercomparison on translocated lysimeters Vadose Zone Journal |
| title | Same soil, different climate: Crop model intercomparison on translocated lysimeters |
| title_full | Same soil, different climate: Crop model intercomparison on translocated lysimeters |
| title_fullStr | Same soil, different climate: Crop model intercomparison on translocated lysimeters |
| title_full_unstemmed | Same soil, different climate: Crop model intercomparison on translocated lysimeters |
| title_short | Same soil, different climate: Crop model intercomparison on translocated lysimeters |
| title_sort | same soil different climate crop model intercomparison on translocated lysimeters |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/vzj2.20202 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT jannisgroh samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT efstathiosdiamantopoulos samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT xiaohongduan samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT frankewert samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT florianheinlein samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT michaelherbst samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT majaholbak samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT baharehkamali samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT kurtchristiankersebaum samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT matthiaskuhnert samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT claasnendel samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT eckartpriesack samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT jorgsteidl samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT michaelsommer samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT thomasputz samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT janvanderborght samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT harryvereecken samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT evelynwallor samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT tobiaskdweber samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT martinwegehenkel samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT lutzweihermuller samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters AT horsthgerke samesoildifferentclimatecropmodelintercomparisonontranslocatedlysimeters |