作物模式集合平均:气候变化下全球作物产量预测的一个巨大但未被充分认识的不确定性来源

IF 7.3 1区 地球科学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Earths Future Pub Date : 2025-05-31 DOI:10.1029/2024EF005900
Xiaomeng Yin, Guoyong Leng, Jiali Qiu, Xiaoyong Liao, Shengzhi Huang, Jian Peng
{"title":"作物模式集合平均:气候变化下全球作物产量预测的一个巨大但未被充分认识的不确定性来源","authors":"Xiaomeng Yin,&nbsp;Guoyong Leng,&nbsp;Jiali Qiu,&nbsp;Xiaoyong Liao,&nbsp;Shengzhi Huang,&nbsp;Jian Peng","doi":"10.1029/2024EF005900","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Using an ensemble of crop models have been encouraged for global crop yield projections, which would, however, introduce additional uncertainty from the choice of ensemble averaging methods. Here, we use seven ensemble averaging methods including simple average, regression, Support Vector Regressor, Bayesian model average (BMA), Random Forest (RF), Artificial neural network (ANN) and Long-short term memory to derive the ensemble mean of eight process-based crop models for global maize yield projections. Results show that the choice of ensemble averaging methods has a large impact on the projection of long-term mean yield and year-to-year yield variability, with a range of −19.79%–16.62% and −47.92%–55.39% for the globe, respectively. Regionally, the largest uncertainties from the choice of ensemble averaging methods are observed in Indonesia and Canada. Further uncertainty decomposition analysis shows that ensemble averaging methods contributes to 39%–87% of total uncertainties for global yield projections, which is even higher than climate models. These results imply that although using an ensemble of crop models is valuable for informing risk-based policy-makings, how we choose to combine and derive the best estimates of crop model ensembles has large influence on the assessment outcomes. This study highlights an important but not well recognized uncertainty source for global yield predictions which arises from the choice of ensemble averaging methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":48748,"journal":{"name":"Earths Future","volume":"13 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2024EF005900","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Crop Model Ensemble Averaging: A Large But Underappreciated Uncertainty Source for Global Crop Yield Projections Under Climate Change\",\"authors\":\"Xiaomeng Yin,&nbsp;Guoyong Leng,&nbsp;Jiali Qiu,&nbsp;Xiaoyong Liao,&nbsp;Shengzhi Huang,&nbsp;Jian Peng\",\"doi\":\"10.1029/2024EF005900\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Using an ensemble of crop models have been encouraged for global crop yield projections, which would, however, introduce additional uncertainty from the choice of ensemble averaging methods. Here, we use seven ensemble averaging methods including simple average, regression, Support Vector Regressor, Bayesian model average (BMA), Random Forest (RF), Artificial neural network (ANN) and Long-short term memory to derive the ensemble mean of eight process-based crop models for global maize yield projections. Results show that the choice of ensemble averaging methods has a large impact on the projection of long-term mean yield and year-to-year yield variability, with a range of −19.79%–16.62% and −47.92%–55.39% for the globe, respectively. Regionally, the largest uncertainties from the choice of ensemble averaging methods are observed in Indonesia and Canada. Further uncertainty decomposition analysis shows that ensemble averaging methods contributes to 39%–87% of total uncertainties for global yield projections, which is even higher than climate models. These results imply that although using an ensemble of crop models is valuable for informing risk-based policy-makings, how we choose to combine and derive the best estimates of crop model ensembles has large influence on the assessment outcomes. This study highlights an important but not well recognized uncertainty source for global yield predictions which arises from the choice of ensemble averaging methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Earths Future\",\"volume\":\"13 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1029/2024EF005900\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Earths Future\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024EF005900\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Earths Future","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024EF005900","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在全球作物产量预测中鼓励使用作物模型的集合,然而,这将由于选择集合平均方法而引入额外的不确定性。本文采用简单平均、回归、支持向量回归、贝叶斯模型平均(BMA)、随机森林(RF)、人工神经网络(ANN)和长短期记忆等7种集成平均方法,推导了8种基于过程的作物模型的集成平均值,用于全球玉米产量预测。结果表明,集合平均方法的选择对长期平均产量和年际产量变化的预测影响较大,全球范围分别为- 19.79% ~ 16.62%和- 47.92% ~ 55.39%。从区域来看,印度尼西亚和加拿大观测到的总体平均方法选择的不确定性最大。进一步的不确定性分解分析表明,集合平均方法对全球产量预估总不确定性的贡献率为39%-87%,甚至高于气候模式。这些结果表明,尽管使用作物模型集合对于为基于风险的政策制定提供信息是有价值的,但我们如何选择组合并得出作物模型集合的最佳估计对评估结果有很大影响。这项研究强调了全球产量预测的一个重要但尚未得到很好认识的不确定性来源,这是由集合平均方法的选择引起的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Crop Model Ensemble Averaging: A Large But Underappreciated Uncertainty Source for Global Crop Yield Projections Under Climate Change

Crop Model Ensemble Averaging: A Large But Underappreciated Uncertainty Source for Global Crop Yield Projections Under Climate Change

Using an ensemble of crop models have been encouraged for global crop yield projections, which would, however, introduce additional uncertainty from the choice of ensemble averaging methods. Here, we use seven ensemble averaging methods including simple average, regression, Support Vector Regressor, Bayesian model average (BMA), Random Forest (RF), Artificial neural network (ANN) and Long-short term memory to derive the ensemble mean of eight process-based crop models for global maize yield projections. Results show that the choice of ensemble averaging methods has a large impact on the projection of long-term mean yield and year-to-year yield variability, with a range of −19.79%–16.62% and −47.92%–55.39% for the globe, respectively. Regionally, the largest uncertainties from the choice of ensemble averaging methods are observed in Indonesia and Canada. Further uncertainty decomposition analysis shows that ensemble averaging methods contributes to 39%–87% of total uncertainties for global yield projections, which is even higher than climate models. These results imply that although using an ensemble of crop models is valuable for informing risk-based policy-makings, how we choose to combine and derive the best estimates of crop model ensembles has large influence on the assessment outcomes. This study highlights an important but not well recognized uncertainty source for global yield predictions which arises from the choice of ensemble averaging methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Earths Future
Earths Future ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCESGEOSCIENCES, MULTIDI-GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
CiteScore
11.00
自引率
7.30%
发文量
260
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Earth’s Future: A transdisciplinary open access journal, Earth’s Future focuses on the state of the Earth and the prediction of the planet’s future. By publishing peer-reviewed articles as well as editorials, essays, reviews, and commentaries, this journal will be the preeminent scholarly resource on the Anthropocene. It will also help assess the risks and opportunities associated with environmental changes and challenges.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信