Search

Crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop yields at the global scale, but so far there is no general framework on how to assess model performance. Here we evaluate the simulation results of 14 global gridded crop modeling groups that have contributed historic crop yield simulations for maize, wheat, rice and soybean to the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). Simulation results are compared to reference data at global, national and grid cell scales and we evaluate model performance with respect to time series correlation, spatial correlation and mean bias. We find that global gridded crop models (GGCMs) show mixed skill in reproducing time series correlations or spatial patterns at the different spatial scales. Generally, maize, wheat and soybean simulations of many GGCMs are capable of reproducing larger parts of observed temporal variability (time series correlation coefficients (r) of up to 0.888 for maize, 0.673 for wheat and 0.643 for soybean at the global scale) but rice yield variability cannot be well reproduced by most models. Yield variability can be well reproduced for most major producing countries by many GGCMs and for all countries by at least some. A comparison with gridded yield data and a statistical analysis of the effects of weather variability on yield variability shows that the ensemble of GGCMs can explain more of the yield variability than an ensemble of regression models for maize and soybean, but not for wheat and rice. We identify future research needs in global gridded crop modeling and for all individual crop modeling groups. In the absence of a purely observation-based benchmark for model evaluation, we propose that the best performing crop model per crop and region establishes the benchmark for all others, and modelers are encouraged to investigate how crop model performance can be increased. We make our evaluation system accessible to all crop modelers so that other modeling groups can also test their model performance against the reference data and the GGCMI benchmark. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the global carbon (C) cycle is of crucial importance to map current and future climate dynamics relative to global environmental change. A full characterization of C cycling requires detailed information on spatiotemporal patterns of surface-atmosphere fluxes. However, relevant C cycle observations are highly variable in their coverage and reporting standards. Especially problematic is the lack of integration of vertical oceanic, inland freshwaters and terrestrial carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange. Here we adopt a data-driven approach to synthesize a wide range of observation-based spatially explicit surface-atmosphere CO2 fluxes from 2001 and 2010, to identify the state of today's observational opportunities and data limitation. The considered fluxes include vertical net exchange of open oceans, continental shelves, estuaries, rivers, and lakes, as well as CO2 fluxes related to gross primary productivity, terrestrial ecosystem respiration, fire emissions, loss of tropical aboveground C, harvested wood and crops, as well as fossil fuel and cement emissions. Spatially explicit CO2 fluxes are obtained through geostatistical and/or remote sensing-based upscaling; minimizing biophysical or biogeochemical assumptions encoded in process-based models. We estimate a global bottom-up net C exchange (NCE) between the surface (land, ocean, and coastal areas) and the atmosphere. Uncertainties for NCE and its components are derived using resampling. In most continental regions our NCE estimates agree well with independent estimates from other sources. This holds for Europe (mean ±1 SD: 0.80 ± 0.16 PgC/yr, positive numbers are sources to the atmosphere), Russia (-0.02 ± 0.49 PgC/yr), East Asia (1.76 ± 0.38 PgC/yr), South Asia (0.25 ± 0.16 PgC/yr), and Australia (0.22 ± 0.47 PgC/yr). Our NCE estimates also suggest large C sink in tropical areas. The global NCE estimate is -6.07 ± 3.38 PgC/yr. This global bottom-up value is the opposite direction of what is expected from the atmospheric growth rate of CO2, and would require an offsetting surface C source of 4.27±0.10 PgC/yr. This mismatch highlights large knowledge and observational gaps in tropical areas, particularly in South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia, but also in North America. Our uncertainty assessment provides the basis for designing new observation campaigns. In particular, we lack seasonal monitoring of shelf, estuary and inland water-atmosphere C exchange. Also, extensive pCO2 measurements are missing in the Southern Ocean. Most importantly, tropical land C fluxes suffer from a lack of in-situ observations. The consistent derivation of data uncertainties could serve as prior knowledge in multi-criteria optimization such as the Carbon Cycle Data Assimilation System (CCDAS) without overstating data credibility. Furthermore, the spatially explicit flux estimates may be used as a starting point to assess the validity of countries' claims of reducing net C emissions in climate change negotiations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop yields at the global scale, but there so far is no general framework on how to assess model performance. We here evaluate the simulation results of 14 global gridded crop modeling groups that have contributed historic crop yield simulations for maize, wheat, rice and soybean to the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). Simulation results are compared to reference data at global, national and grid cell scales and we evaluate model performance with respect to time series correlation, spatial correlation and mean bias. We find that GGCMs show mixed skill in reproducing time-series correlations or spatial patterns at the different spatial scales. Generally, maize, wheat and soybean simulations of many GGCMs are capable of reproducing larger parts of observed temporal variability (time series correlation coefficients (r) of up to 0.888 for maize, 0.673 for wheat and 0.643 for soybean at the global scale) but rice yield variability cannot be well reproduced by most models. Yield variability can be well reproduced for most major producer countries by many GGCMS and for all countries by at least some. A comparison with gridded yield data and a statistical analysis of the effects of weather variability on yield variability shows that the ensemble of GGCMs can explain more of the yield variability than an ensemble of regression models for maize and soybean, but not for wheat and rice. We identify future research needs in global gridded crop modeling and for all individual crop modeling groups. In the absence of a purely observation-based benchmark for model evaluation, we propose that the best performing crop model per crop and region establishes the benchmark for all others, and modelers are encouraged to investigate how crop model performance can be increased. We make our evaluation system accessible to all crop modelers so that also other modeling groups can test their model performance against the reference data and the GGCMI benchmark. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]