Exploring the Potential Impacts of Climate Variability on Spring Wheat Yield with the APSIM Decision Support Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing the impacts of climate variability on agricultural productivity at regional, national or global scale is essential for defining adaptation and mitigation strategies. We explore in this study the potential changes in spring wheat yields at Swift Current and Melfort, Canada, for different sowing windows under projected climate scenarios (i.e., the representative concentration pathways, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). First, the APSIM model was calibrated and evaluated at the study sites using data from long term experimental field plots. Then, the impacts of change in sowing dates on final yield were assessed over the 2030-2099 period with a 1990-2009 baseline period of observed yield data, assuming that other crop management practices remained unchanged. Results showed that the performance of APSIM was quite satisfactory with an index of agreement of 0.80, R2 of 0.54, and mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) of 529 kg/ha and 1023 kg/ha, respectively (MAE = 476 kg/ha and RMSE = 684 kg/ha in calibration phase). Under the projected climate conditions, a general trend in yield loss was observed regardless of the sowing window, with a range from -24% to -94% depending on the site and the RCP, and noticeable losses during the 2060s and beyond (increasing CO2 effects being excluded). Smallest yield losses obtained through earlier possible sowing date (i.e., mid-April) under the projected future climate suggested that this option might be explored for mitigating possible adverse impacts of climate variability. Our findings could therefore serve as a basis for using APSIM as a decision support tool for adaptation/mitigation options under potential climate variability within Western Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".