Abstract
A comparison of the performance of 5 wheat models was carried out for 2 sites in Europe with considerably different agroclimatic conditions: Rothamsted, UK, and Seville, Spain. The models were calibrated against field data sets from both sites. For Rothamsted the measured time courses of crop growth, evapo-transpiration and nitrogen uptake were reproduced reasonably well by the different models, except for leaf area index. For Seville, the experimental data set was insufficient for such a detailed comparison and mainly simulated results were compared. The sensitivity of the model results to stepwise changes In individual weather variables was then determined. In the different model runs a temperature rise generally resulted in lower yields, an increase in precipitation and atmospheric CO2 concentration resulted in higher ylelds, and increased variability of weather variables often resulted in lower yields with increased yleld varlab~lity.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 5
Claim · model-written summary
At Rothamsted the five wheat models reproduced measured time courses of crop growth, evapo-transpiration and nitrogen uptake reasonably well, except for leaf area index.
- Taxon
- wheat
Triticum aestivumt0 - Outcome
- crop growth, evapo-transpiration and nitrogen uptakee0
- Comparator
- measured time coursese0
- Setting
- Rothamstede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat simulation models”
e0“For Rothamsted the measured time courses of crop growth, evapo-transpiration and nitrogen uptake were reproduced reasonably well by the different models, except for leaf area index”
Claim · model-written summary
In the model runs a temperature rise generally resulted in lower wheat yields.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- temperature risee0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat simulation models”
e0“a temperature rise generally resulted in lower yields”
Claim · model-written summary
In the model runs an increase in precipitation resulted in higher wheat yields.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- increase in precipitatione0
- Outcome
- yleldse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat simulation models”
e0“an increase in precipitation and atmospheric CO2 concentration resulted in higher ylelds”
Claim · model-written summary
In the model runs an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration resulted in higher wheat yields.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- atmospheric CO2 concentratione0
- Outcome
- yleldse0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat simulation models”
e0“an increase in precipitation and atmospheric CO2 concentration resulted in higher ylelds”
Claim · model-written summary
In the model runs increased variability of weather variables often resulted in lower wheat yields with increased yield variability.
- Taxon
- wheatTriticum aestivumt0
- Treatment
- increased variability of weather variablese0
- Outcome
- yieldse0
- Direction
- lowere0
- Qualifier
- increased yleld varlab~litye0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“wheat simulation models”
e0“increased variability of weather variables often resulted in lower yields with increased yleld varlab~lity”
The same questions in other papers
climate site · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
81 papers in the same direction as this paper · 72 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- positive
150 papers more in this group
See all 154 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.