You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2016. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Understanding the interactions between agricultural production and climate is necessary for sound decision-making in climate policy. Gridded and high-resolution crop simulation has emerged as a useful tool for building this understanding. Large uncertainty exists in this utilization, obstructing its capacity as a tool to devise adaptation strategies. Increasing focus has been given to sources of uncertainties for climate scenarios, input-data, and model, but uncertainties due to model parameter or calibration are still unknown. Here, we use publicly available geographical data sets as input to the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate model (EPIC) for simulating global-gridded maize yield. Impacts of climate change are assessed up to the year 2099 under a climate scenario generated by HadEM2-ES under RCP 8.5. We apply five strategies by shifting one specific parameter in each simulation to calibrate the model and understand the effects of calibration. Regionalizing crop phenology or harvest index appears effective to calibrate the model for the globe, but using various values of phenology generates pronounced difference in estimated climate impact. However, projected impacts of climate change on global maize production are consistently negative regardless of the parameter being adjusted. Different values of model parameter result in a modest uncertainty at global level, with difference of the global yield change less than 30% by the 2080s. The uncertainty subjects to decrease if applying model calibration or input data quality control. Calibration has a larger effect at local scales, implying the possible types and locations for adaptation.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 Climate Change Division, Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China; Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
2 International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria; National Agricultural and Food Centre, Soil Science and Conservation Research Institute, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
3 Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA
4 International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services and Management Program, Laxenburg, Austria; Faculty of Natural Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovak Republic
5 Climate Change Division, Institute of Environment and Sustainable Development in Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, China