Abstract
Crop models are common tools for simulating crop yields and crop production in studies on food security and global change. Various uncertainties however exist, not only in the model design and model parameters, but also and maybe even more important in soil, climate and management input data. We analyze the performance of the point-scale crop model APSIM and the global scale crop model LPJmL with different climate and soil conditions under different agricultural management in the low-input maize-growing areas of Burkina Faso, West Africa. We test the models' response to different levels of input information from little to detailed information on soil, climate and agricultural management and compare the models' ability to represent the observed spatial (between locations) and temporal variability (between years) in crop yields. We found that the resolution of different soil, climate and management information influences the simulated crop yields in both models. However, the difference between models is larger than between input data and larger between simulations with different climate and management information than between simulations with different soil information. The observed spatial variability can be represented well from both models even with little information on soils and management but APSIM simulates a higher variation between single locations than LPJmL. The agreement of simulated and observed temporal variability is lower due to non-climatic factors e.g. investment in agricultural research and development between 1987 and 1991 in Burkina Faso which resulted in a doubling of maize yields. The findings of our study highlight the importance of scale and model choice and show that the most detailed input data does not necessarily improve model performance.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Soil, climate and management input resolution influenced simulated maize yields in both models.
Not reportedTaxonDirection
Verbatim
e0“the resolution of different soil, climate and management information influences the simulated crop yields in both models.”
Claim · model-written summary
Differences between models exceeded differences between input data.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the difference between models is larger than between input data”
Claim · model-written summary
Climate and management information produced larger differences than soil information.
- Outcome
- simulations with different climate and management informatione0
- Direction
- largere0
- Comparator
- simulations with different soil informatione0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“larger between simulations with different climate and management information than between simulations with different soil information.”
Claim · model-written summary
Both models represented spatial yield variability well despite little soil and management information.
- Outcome
- observed spatial variabilitye0
- Qualifier
- little information on soils and managemente0
- Comparator
- both modelse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The observed spatial variability can be represented well from both models even with little information on soils and management”
Claim · model-written summary
APSIM simulated greater variation between locations than LPJmL.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“APSIM simulates a higher variation between single locations than LPJmL.”
Claim · model-written summary
Agreement between simulated and observed temporal variability was lower.
- Outcome
- agreement of simulated and observed temporal variabilitye0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Comparator
- simulated and observede0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The agreement of simulated and observed temporal variability is lower due to non-climatic factors”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize yields doubled in Burkina Faso between 1987 and 1991 following research and development investment.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“investment in agricultural research and development between 1987 and 1991 in Burkina Faso which resulted in a doubling of maize yields.”
Claim · model-written summary
The most detailed input data did not necessarily improve model performance.
- Outcome
- model performancee0
- Direction
- does not necessarily improvee0
- Comparator
- most detailed input datae0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“the most detailed input data does not necessarily improve model performance.”