Abstract: Multi-Model Intercomparison of Wheat Water Use Patterns and Sensitivity to Temperature and CO2. (ASA, CSSA and SSSA International Annual Meetings)

74-8 Multi-Model Intercomparison of Wheat Water Use Patterns and Sensitivity to Temperature and CO2.

See more from this Division: ASA Section: Climatology & Modeling
See more from this Session: Symposium--Evapotranspiration in Crop and Hydrologic Models: Testing, Refinements and Cross-Comparisons: I

Monday, November 3, 2014: 3:35 PM

Hyatt Regency Long Beach, Beacon Ballroom A

Share |

Davide Cammarano¹, Reimund Rotter², Senthold Asseng³, Frank Ewert⁴, Daniel Wallach⁵, Pierre Martre⁶, Jerry L Hatfield⁷, James W. Jones⁸, Cynthia Rosenzweig⁹, Alex Ruane⁹, Kenneth J Boote¹⁰, Peter J Thorburn¹¹, Kurt C. Kersebaum¹², Pramod K. Aggarwal¹³, Carlos Angulo¹⁴, Bruno Basso¹⁵, Patrick Bertuzzi¹⁶, Christian Biernath¹⁷, Nadine Brisson¹⁶, Andrew J Challinor¹⁸, Jordi Doltra¹⁹, Sebastian Gayler²⁰, Richie Goldberg⁹, Lee Heng²¹, Josh E, Hooker²², Leslie Hunt²³, Joachim Ingwersen²⁴, Roberto Izaurralde²⁵, Christoph Müller²⁶, Naresh S. Kumar²⁷, Claas Nendel²⁸, Garry J O'Leary²⁹, Jøgen Eivind Olesen³⁰, Tom M. Osborne²², Taru Palosuo², Eckart Priesack¹⁷, Dominique Ripoche¹⁶, Mikhail Semenov³¹, Iurii Shcherbak³², Pasquale Steduto³³, Claudio O. Stockle³⁴, Pierre Stratonovitch³¹, Thilo Streck³⁵, Iwan Supit³⁶, Fulu Tao³⁷, Maria Travasso³⁸, Katharina Waha²⁶, Jeffrey W. White³⁹ and Joost Wolf⁴⁰, (1)James Hutton Institute, Dundee, Scotland
(2)MTT Agrifood Research, Mikkeli, Finland
(3)Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
(4)Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation (INRES), University of Bonn, Bonn, GERMANY
(5)UMR 1248 AGIR, INRA - National Institute of Agronomic Research, Castanet Tolosan, FRANCE
(6)INRA, Clermont-Ferrand, France
(7)Locked Bag 1797, National Laboratory for Agriculture and the Environment, Ames, IA
(8)Museum Road, Room 289, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
(9)NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY
(10)University of Florida, Gainesville, FL
(11)CSIRO, Brisbane, Australia
(12)Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Muencheberg, Germany
(13)CGIAR,Research Program on Climate Change, and International Water Institute, New Delhi, India
(14)University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
(15)Michigan State University, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI
(16)INRA, Avignon, France
(17)Helmholtz Zentrum München, Neuherberg, Germany
(18)University of Leeds, Leeds, England
(19)Cantabrian Agricultural Research and Training Centre, Muriedas, Spain
(20)Water & Earth System Science (WESS) Competence Cluster, Tübingen, Germany
(21)International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Wien, Austria
(22)University of Reading, Reading, England
(23)University of Guelph, Kemptville, ON, Canada
(24)University of Hohenheim, Stuttgard, Germany
(25)University of Maryland, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
(26)Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany
(27)Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture, New Delhi, India
(28)Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Müncheberg, Germany
(29)Department of Primary Industries, Horsham, Australia
(30)Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark
(31)Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, England
(32)Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia
(33)Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy
(34)Washington State University, Pullman, WA
(35)Universität Hohenheim, Stuttgard, Germany
(36)Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands
(37)Chinese Academy of Sciences, Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Beijing, China
(38)INTA-CIRN, Castelar, Argentina
(39)USDA-ARS, Maricopa, AZ
(40)Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands

Audio File Recorded Presentation

Twenty-six wheat simulation models and their crop and soil water routines were evaluated in four locations with contrasting agro-climatic conditions, representing a wide range in soil water availability of wheat cropping systems. The simulated impacts indicated that future crop water use will decline by 6 and 15% at +3°C and +6°C, respectively. With an increase in CO2 concentration to 720ppm, simulated water use will decline by 4.4%. The simulated crop water use was more uncertain than the potential evapotranspiration (ET0) with half of the uncertainty due to differences in simulated crop transpiration. To better understand future crop water patterns under a future climate, partitioning of ET0 into soil evaporation and crop transpiration needs improvement.

See more from this Division: ASA Section: Climatology & Modeling
See more from this Session: Symposium--Evapotranspiration in Crop and Hydrologic Models: Testing, Refinements and Cross-Comparisons: I

<< Previous Abstract | Next Abstract >>