Simulating crop-parasitic weed interactions using APSIM: Model evaluation and application

The parasitic weed Orobanche crenata inflicts major damage on faba bean, lentil, pea and other crops in Mediterranean environments. The development of methods to control O. crenata is to a large extent hampered by the complexity of host-parasite systems. Using a model of host-parasite interactions can help to explain and understand this intricacy. This paper reports on the evaluation and application of a model simulating host-parasite competition as affected by environment and management that was implemented in the framework of the Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM). Model-predicted faba bean and O. crenata growth and development were evaluated against independent data. The APSIM-Fababean and -Parasite modules displayed a good capability to reproduce effects of pedoclimatic conditions, faba bean sowing date and O. crenata infestation on host-parasite competition. The r(2) values throughout exceeded 0.84 (RMSD: 5.36 days) for phenological, 0.85 (RMSD: 223.00 g m(-2)) for host growth and 0.78 (RMSD: 99.82 g m(-2)) for parasite growth parameters. Inaccuracies of simulated faba bean root growth that caused some bias of predicted parasite number and host yield loss may be dealt with by more flexibly simulating vertical root distribution. The model was applied in simulation experiments to determine optimum sowing windows for infected and non-infected faba bean in Mediterranean environments. Simulation results proved realistic and testified to the capability of APSIM to contribute to the development of tactical approaches in parasitic weed control.

Climate change and heat-related mortality in six cities Part 2: climate model evaluation and projected impacts from changes in the mean and variability of temperature with climate change

Previous assessments of the impacts of climate change on heat-related mortality use the "delta method" to create temperature projection time series that are applied to temperature-mortality models to estimate future mortality impacts. The delta method means that climate model bias in the modelled present does not influence the temperature projection time series and impacts. However, the delta method assumes that climate change will result only in a change in the mean temperature but there is evidence that there will also be changes in the variability of temperature with climate change. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the importance of considering changes in temperature variability with climate change in impacts assessments of future heat-related mortality. We investigate future heatrelated mortality impacts in six cities (Boston, Budapest, Dallas, Lisbon, London and Sydney) by applying temperature projections from the UK Meteorological Office HadCM3 climate model to the temperature-mortality models constructed and validated in Part 1. We investigate the impacts for four cases based on various combinations of mean and variability changes in temperature with climate change. The results demonstrate that higher mortality is attributed to increases in the mean and variability of temperature with climate change rather than with the change in mean temperature alone. This has implications for interpreting existing impacts estimates that have used the delta method. We present a novel method for the creation of temperature projection time series that includes changes in the mean and variability of temperature with climate change and is not influenced by climate model bias in the modelled present. The method should be useful for future impacts assessments. Few studies consider the implications that the limitations of the climate model may have on the heatrelated mortality impacts. Here, we demonstrate the importance of considering this by conducting an evaluation of the daily and extreme temperatures from HadCM3, which demonstrates that the estimates of future heat-related mortality for Dallas and Lisbon may be overestimated due to positive climate model bias. Likewise, estimates for Boston and London may be underestimated due to negative climate model bias. Finally, we briefly consider uncertainties in the impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions and acclimatisation. The uncertainties in the mortality impacts due to different emissions scenarios of greenhouse gases in the future varied considerably by location. Allowing for acclimatisation to an extra 2°C in mean temperatures reduced future heat-related mortality by approximately half that of no acclimatisation in each city.

Problems with binary pattern measures for flood model evaluation

As the calibration and evaluation of flood inundation models are a prerequisite for their successful application, there is a clear need to ensure that the performance measures that quantify how well models match the available observations are fit for purpose. This paper evaluates the binary pattern performance measures that are frequently used to compare flood inundation models with observations of flood extent. This evaluation considers whether these measures are able to calibrate and evaluate model predictions in a credible and consistent way, i.e. identifying the underlying model behaviour for a number of different purposes such as comparing models of floods of different magnitudes or on different catchments. Through theoretical examples, it is shown that the binary pattern measures are not consistent for floods of different sizes, such that for the same vertical error in water level, a model of a flood of large magnitude appears to perform better than a model of a smaller magnitude flood. Further, the commonly used Critical Success Index (usually referred to as F<2 >) is biased in favour of overprediction of the flood extent, and is also biased towards correctly predicting areas of the domain with smaller topographic gradients. Consequently, it is recommended that future studies consider carefully the implications of reporting conclusions using these performance measures. Additionally, future research should consider whether a more robust and consistent analysis could be achieved by using elevation comparison methods instead.

A multi-model evaluation of aerosols over South Asia: common problems and possible causes

Atmospheric pollution over South Asia attracts special attention due to its effects on regional climate, water cycle and human health. These effects are potentially growing owing to rising trends of anthropogenic aerosol emissions. In this study, the spatio-temporal aerosol distributions over South Asia from seven global aerosol models are evaluated against aerosol retrievals from NASA satellite sensors and ground-based measurements for the period of 2000–2007. Overall, substantial underestimations of aerosol loading over South Asia are found systematically in most model simulations. Averaged over the entire South Asia, the annual mean aerosol optical depth (AOD) is underestimated by a range 15 to 44% across models compared to MISR (Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer), which is the lowest bound among various satellite AOD retrievals (from MISR, SeaWiFS (Sea-Viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor), MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) Aqua and Terra). In particular during the post-monsoon and wintertime periods (i.e., October–January), when agricultural waste burning and anthropogenic emissions dominate, models fail to capture AOD and aerosol absorption optical depth (AAOD) over the Indo–Gangetic Plain (IGP) compared to ground-based Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) sunphotometer measurements. The underestimations of aerosol loading in models generally occur in the lower troposphere (below 2 km) based on the comparisons of aerosol extinction profiles calculated by the models with those from Cloud–Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) data. Furthermore, surface concentrations of all aerosol components (sulfate, nitrate, organic aerosol (OA) and black carbon (BC)) from the models are found much lower than in situ measurements in winter. Several possible causes for these common problems of underestimating aerosols in models during the post-monsoon and wintertime periods are identified: the aerosol hygroscopic growth and formation of secondary inorganic aerosol are suppressed in the models because relative humidity (RH) is biased far too low in the boundary layer and thus foggy conditions are poorly represented in current models, the nitrate aerosol is either missing or inadequately accounted for, and emissions from agricultural waste burning and biofuel usage are too low in the emission inventories. These common problems and possible causes found in multiple models point out directions for future model improvements in this important region.

Current model capabilities for simulating black carbon and sulfate concentrations in the Arctic atmosphere: a multi-model evaluation using a comprehensive measurement data set

The concentrations of sulfate, black carbon (BC) and other aerosols in the Arctic are characterized by high values in late winter and spring (so-called Arctic Haze) and low values in summer. Models have long been struggling to capture this seasonality and especially the high concentrations associated with Arctic Haze. In this study, we evaluate sulfate and BC concentrations from eleven different models driven with the same emission inventory against a comprehensive pan-Arctic measurement data set over a time period of 2 years (2008–2009). The set of models consisted of one Lagrangian particle dispersion model, four chemistry transport models (CTMs), one atmospheric chemistry-weather forecast model and five chemistry climate models (CCMs), of which two were nudged to meteorological analyses and three were running freely. The measurement data set consisted of surface measurements of equivalent BC (eBC) from five stations (Alert, Barrow, Pallas, Tiksi and Zeppelin), elemental carbon (EC) from Station Nord and Alert and aircraft measurements of refractory BC (rBC) from six different campaigns. We find that the models generally captured the measured eBC or rBC and sulfate concentrations quite well, compared to previous comparisons. However, the aerosol seasonality at the surface is still too weak in most models. Concentrations of eBC and sulfate averaged over three surface sites are underestimated in winter/spring in all but one model (model means for January–March underestimated by 59 and 37 % for BC and sulfate, respectively), whereas concentrations in summer are overestimated in the model mean (by 88 and 44 % for July–September), but with overestimates as well as underestimates present in individual models. The most pronounced eBC underestimates, not included in the above multi-site average, are found for the station Tiksi in Siberia where the measured annual mean eBC concentration is 3 times higher than the average annual mean for all other stations. This suggests an underestimate of BC sources in Russia in the emission inventory used. Based on the campaign data, biomass burning was identified as another cause of the modeling problems. For sulfate, very large differences were found in the model ensemble, with an apparent anti-correlation between modeled surface concentrations and total atmospheric columns. There is a strong correlation between observed sulfate and eBC concentrations with consistent sulfate/eBC slopes found for all Arctic stations, indicating that the sources contributing to sulfate and BC are similar throughout the Arctic and that the aerosols are internally mixed and undergo similar removal. However, only three models reproduced this finding, whereas sulfate and BC are weakly correlated in the other models. Overall, no class of models (e.g., CTMs, CCMs) performed better than the others and differences are independent of model resolution.

Model Evaluation Based on the Distribution of Estimated Absolute Prediction Error

The construction of a reliable, practically useful prediction rule for future response is heavily dependent on the "adequacy" of the fitted regression model. In this article, we consider the absolute prediction error, the expected value of the absolute difference between the future and predicted responses, as the model evaluation criterion. This prediction error is easier to interpret than the average squared error and is equivalent to the mis-classification error for the binary outcome. We show that the distributions of the apparent error and its cross-validation counterparts are approximately normal even under a misspecified fitted model. When the prediction rule is "unsmooth", the variance of the above normal distribution can be estimated well via a perturbation-resampling method. We also show how to approximate the distribution of the difference of the estimated prediction errors from two competing models. With two real examples, we demonstrate that the resulting interval estimates for prediction errors provide much more information about model adequacy than the point estimates alone.