Needs for applied climate education in agriculture

This paper reports on a purposive survey study which aimed to identify needs for the development, delivery and evaluation of applied climate education for targeted groups, to improve knowledge and skills to better manage under variable climatic conditions. The survey sample consisted of 80 producers and other industry stakeholders in Australia (including representatives from consulting, agricultural extension and agricultural education sectors), with a 58% response rate to the survey. The survey included an assessment of (i) knowledge levels of the Southern Oscillation Index and sea surface temperatures, and (ii) skill and ability in interpreting weather and climate parameters. Results showed that despite many of the respondents having more than 20 years experience in their industry, the only formal climate education or training undertaken by most was a 1-day workshop. Over 80% of the applied climate skills listed in the survey were regarded by respondents as essential or important, but only 42% of educators, 30% of consultants and 28% of producers rated themselves as competent in applying such skills. Essential skills were deemed as those that would enable respondents or their clients to be better prepared for the next extended wet or dry meteorological event, and improved capability in identifying and capitalising on key decision points from climate information and a seasonal climate outlook. The complex issue of forecast accuracy is a confounding obstacle for many in the application of climate information and forecasts in management. Addressing this problem by describing forecast 'limitations and skill' can help to overcome this problem. The survey also highlighted specific climatic tactical and strategic information collated from grazing, cropping and agribusiness enterprises, and showed the value of such information from a users perspective.

Inferential, non-parametric statistics to assess quality of probabilistic forecast systems

Many statistical forecast systems are available to interested users. In order to be useful for decision-making, these systems must be based on evidence of underlying mechanisms. Once causal connections between the mechanism and their statistical manifestation have been firmly established, the forecasts must also provide some quantitative evidence of `quality’. However, the quality of statistical climate forecast systems (forecast quality) is an ill-defined and frequently misunderstood property. Often, providers and users of such forecast systems are unclear about what ‘quality’ entails and how to measure it, leading to confusion and misinformation. Here we present a generic framework to quantify aspects of forecast quality using an inferential approach to calculate nominal significance levels (p-values) that can be obtained either by directly applying non-parametric statistical tests such as Kruskal-Wallis (KW) or Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) or by using Monte-Carlo methods (in the case of forecast skill scores). Once converted to p-values, these forecast quality measures provide a means to objectively evaluate and compare temporal and spatial patterns of forecast quality across datasets and forecast systems. Our analysis demonstrates the importance of providing p-values rather than adopting some arbitrarily chosen significance levels such as p < 0.05 or p < 0.01, which is still common practice. This is illustrated by applying non-parametric tests (such as KW and KS) and skill scoring methods (LEPS and RPSS) to the 5-phase Southern Oscillation Index classification system using historical rainfall data from Australia, The Republic of South Africa and India. The selection of quality measures is solely based on their common use and does not constitute endorsement. We found that non-parametric statistical tests can be adequate proxies for skill measures such as LEPS or RPSS. The framework can be implemented anywhere, regardless of dataset, forecast system or quality measure. Eventually such inferential evidence should be complimented by descriptive statistical methods in order to fully assist in operational risk management.

The accuracy of varietal selection using factor analytic models for multi-environment plant breeding trials

Modeling of cultivar x trial effects for multienvironment trials (METs) within a mixed model framework is now common practice in many plant breeding programs. The factor analytic (FA) model is a parsimonious form used to approximate the fully unstructured form of the genetic variance-covariance matrix in the model for MET data. In this study, we demonstrate that the FA model is generally the model of best fit across a range of data sets taken from early generation trials in a breeding program. In addition, we demonstrate the superiority of the FA model in achieving the most common aim of METs, namely the selection of superior genotypes. Selection is achieved using best linear unbiased predictions (BLUPs) of cultivar effects at each environment, considered either individually or as a weighted average across environments. In practice, empirical BLUPs (E-BLUPs) of cultivar effects must be used instead of BLUPs since variance parameters in the model must be estimated rather than assumed known. While the optimal properties of minimum mean squared error of prediction (MSEP) and maximum correlation between true and predicted effects possessed by BLUPs do not hold for E-BLUPs, a simulation study shows that E-BLUPs perform well in terms of MSEP.