Abstract: Impact of climate change on crop growth, groundwater recharge and nitrogen leaching in winter wheat production in Germany was assessed using the agro-ecosystem model HERMES with a downscaled (WETTREG) climate change scenario A1B from the ECHAM5 global circulation model. Three alternative algorithms describing the impact of atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop growth (a simple Farquhar-type algorithm, a combined light-use efficiency – maximum assimilation approach and a simple scaling of the maximum assimilation rate) in combination with a Penman-Monteith approach which includes a simple stomata conduction model for evapotranspiration under changing CO2 concentrations were compared within the framework of the HERMES model. The effect of differences in regional climate change, site conditions and different CO2 algorithms on winter wheat yield, groundwater recharge and nitrogen leaching was assessed in 22 regional simulation case studies across Germany. Results indicate that the effects of climate change on wheat production will vary across Germany due to different regional expressions of climate change projection. Predicted yield changes between the reference period (1961-1990) and a future period (2021-2050) range from -0.4 t ha(-1), -0.8 t ha(-1) and -0.6 t ha(-1) at sites in southern Germany to +0.8 t ha(-1), +0.6 t ha(-1) and +0.8 t ha(-1) at coastal regions for the three CO2 algorithms, respectively. On average across all regions, a relative yield change of +0.9%, +3.0%, and +6.0%, respectively, was predicted for Germany. In contrast, a decrease of -11.6% was predicted without the consideration of a CO2 effect. However, simulated yield changes differed even within regions as site conditions had a strong influence on crop growth. Particularly, groundwater-affected sites showed a lower vulnerability to increasing drought risk. Groundwater recharge was estimated to change correspondingly to changes in precipitation. The consideration of the CO2 effect on transpiration in the model led to a prediction of higher rates of annual deep percolation (+16 mm on average across all sites), which was due to higher water-use efficiency of the crops. In contrast to groundwater recharge, simulated nitrogen leaching varied with the choice of the photosynthesis algorithm, predicting a slight reduction in most of the areas. The results underline the necessity of high-resolution data for model-based regional climate change impact assessment and development of adaptation measures. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: ► We compared nine crop simulation models for spring barley at seven sites in Europe. ► Applying crop models with restricted calibration leads to high uncertainties. ► Multi-crop model mean yield estimates were in good agreement with observations. ► The degree of uncertainty for simulated grain yield of barley was similar to winter wheat. ► We need more suitable data enabling us to verify different processes in the models. In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction.

Abstract: The available evidence suggests that the current increasing trend in global surface temperatures will continue during this century, which will be accompanied by a greater frequency of extreme events. The IPCC has projected that higher temperatures may outscore the known optimal and maximum temperatures for maize. The purpose of this study was to improve the ability of the maize model CSM-IXIM to simulate crop development, growth, and yield under hot conditions, especially with regards to the impact of above-optimal temperatures around anthesis. Field and greenhouse experiments that were performed over three years (2014-2016) using the same short-season hybrid, PR37N01 (FAO 300), provided the data for this work. Maize was sown at a target population density of 5 plants M-2 on two sowing dates in 2014 and 2015 and on one in 2016 at three locations in Spain (northern, central, and southern Spain) with a well-defined thermal gradient. The same hybrid was also sown in two greenhouse chambers with daytime target temperatures of approximately 25 and above 35 degrees C. During the nighttime, the temperature in both chambers was allowed to equilibrate with the outside temperature. The greenhouse treatments consisted of moving 18 plants at selected phenological stages (V4, V9, anthesis, lag phase, early grain filling) from the cool chamber to the hot chamber over a week and then returning the plants back to the cool chamber. An additional control treatment remained in the cool chamber all season, and in 2015 and 2016, one treatment remained permanently in the hot chamber. Two maize models in the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) V4.6 were compared, namely CERES and IXIM. The HUM version included additional components that were previously developed to improve the crop N simulation and to incorporate the anthesis-silking interval (ASI). A new thermal time calculation, a heat stress index, the impact of pollen-sterilizing temperatures, and the explicit simulation of male and female flowering as affected by the daily heat conditions were added to IXIM. The phenology simulation in field experiments by IXIM improved substantially. The RMSE for silking and maturity in CERES were 7.9 and 13.7 days, decreasing in DCIM to 2.8 and 7.3 days, respectively. Similarly, the estimated kernel numbers, kernel weight, grain yield and final biomass were always closer to the measurements in HUM than in CERES. The worst simulations were for kernel weight, and for that reason, the differences in grain yield between the models were small (the RMSE in CERES was 1219 kg ha(-1) vs. 1082 kg ha(-1) in IXIM). The greenhouse results also supported the improved estimations of crop development by IXIM (RMSE of 2.6 days) relative to CERES (7.4 days). The impact of the heat treatments on grain yield was consistently overestimated by CERES, while HUM captured the general trend. The new HUM model improved the CERES simulations when elevated temperatures were included in the evaluation data. Additional model testing with measurements from a wider latitudinal range and relevant heat conditions are required.