Using ensemble-mean climate scenarios for future crop yield projections: a stochastic weather generator approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using climate scenarios from only 1 or a small number of global climate models (GCMs) in climate change impact studies may lead to biased assessment due to large uncertainty in climate projections. Ensemble means in impact projections derived from a multi-GCM ensemble are often used as best estimates to reduce bias. However, it is often time consuming to run process-based models (e.g. hydrological and crop models) in climate change impact studies using numerous climate scenarios. It would be interesting to investigate if using a reduced number of climate scenarios could lead to a reasonable estimate of the ensemble mean. In this study, we generated a single ensemble-mean climate scenario (En-WG scenario) using ensemble means of the change factors derived from 20 GCMs included in CMIP5 to perturb the parameters in a weather generator, LARS-WG, for selected locations across Canada. We used En-WG scenarios to drive crop growth models in DSSAT ver. 4.7 to simulate crop yields for canola and spring wheat under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 emission scenarios. We evaluated the potential of using the En-WG scenarios to simulate crop yields by comparing them with crop yields simulated with the LARS-WG generated climate scenarios based on each of the 20 GCMs (WG scenarios). Our results showed that simulated crop yields using the En-WG scenarios were often close to the ensemble means of simulated crop yields using the 20 WG scenarios with a high probability of outperforming simulations based on a randomly selected GCM. Further studies are required, as the results of the proposed approach may be influenced by selected crop types, crop models, weather generators, and GCM ensembles.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".