Abstract: Crop models, used to make projections of climate change impacts, differ greatly in structural detail. Complexity of model structure has generic effects on uncertainty and error propagation in climate change impact assessments. We applied Bayesian calibration to three distinctly different empirical and mechanistic wheat models to assess how differences in the extent of process understanding in models affects uncertainties in projected impact. Predictive power of the models was tested via both accuracy (bias) and precision (or tightness of grouping) of yield projections for extrapolated weather conditions. Yields predicted by the mechanistic model were generally more accurate than the empirical models for extrapolated conditions. This trend does not hold for all extrapolations; mechanistic and empirical models responded differently due to their sensitivities to distinct weather features. However, higher accuracy comes at the cost of precision of the mechanistic model to embrace all observations within given boundaries. The approaches showed complementarity in sensitivity to weather variables and in accuracy for different extrapolation domains. Their differences in model precision and accuracy make them suitable for generic model ensembles for near-term agricultural impact assessments of climate change.

Abstract: HERMES is a widely used agricultural system model; however, it has never been tested for simulating N loss to subsurface drainage. Here, we integrated a simple drain flbw component into HERMES. We then compared the predictions to four years of data (2002-2005) from central Iowa fields in corn-oybean with winter rye as a cover crop (CC) and without winter rye (NCC). We also compared the HERMES predictions to the more complex Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM) predictions for the same dataset. The average annual observed and simulated N loss to drain flow were 43.8 and 44.4 kg N/ha (NCC) and 17.6 and 18.9 kg N/ha (CC). The slightly over predicted N loss for CC was because of over predicted nitrate concentration, which may be partly caused by slightly under predicted average annual rye shoot N (observed and simulated values were 47.8 and 46.0 kg N/ha). Also, recent research from the site suggests that the soil field capacity may be greater in CC while we used the same soil parameters for both treatments. A local sensitivity analysis suggests that increased field capacity affects HERMES simulations, which includes reduced drain flow nitrate concentrations, increased denitrification, and reduced drain flow volume. HERMES-simulated cumulative monthly drain flow and annual drain flow were reasonable compared to field data and HERMES performance was comparable to other published drainage model tests. Unlike the RZWQM simulations, however, the modified HERMES did riot accurately simulate the year to year variability in nitrate concentration difference between NCC and CC, possibly due in part to the lack of partial mixing and displacement of the soil solution. The results suggest that 1) the relatively simple model HERMES is a promising tool to estimate annual N loss to drain flow under corn-soybean rotations with winter rye as a cover crop and 2) soil field capacity is a critical parameter to investigate to more thoroughly understand and appropriately model denitrification and N losses to subsurface drainage. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Abstract: Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.