Abstract: ► Introduces the special issue on Agricultural prediction using climate model ensembles. ► Discuss remaining scientific challenges. ► Develops distinction between projection- and utility-based ensemble modelling. ► Recommendations made RE modelling and the analysis and reporting of uncertainty. Significant progress has been made in the use of ensemble agricultural and climate modelling, and observed data, to project future productivity and to develop adaptation options. An increasing number of agricultural models are designed specifically for use with climate ensembles, and improved methods to quantify uncertainty in both climate and agriculture have been developed. Whilst crop–climate relationships are still the most common agricultural study of this sort, on-farm management, hydrology, pests, diseases and livestock are now also examined. This paper introduces all of these areas of progress, with more detail being found in the subsequent papers in the special issue. Remaining scientific challenges are discussed, and a distinction is developed between projection- and utility-based approaches to agro-climate ensemble modelling. Recommendations are made regarding the manner in which uncertainty is analysed and reported, and the way in which models and data are used to make inferences regarding the future. A key underlying principle is the use of models as tools from which information is extracted, rather than as competing attempts to represent reality.

Abstract: The DNDC, LandscapeDNDC and IAP-N-GAS models have been designed to simulate the carbon and nitrogen processes of terrestrial ecosystems. Until now, a comparison of these models using simultaneous observations has not been reported, although such a comparison is essential for further model development and application. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the models, delineate the strengths and limitations of each model for simulating soil nitrous oxide (N2O) and nitric oxide (NO) emissions, and explore short-comings of these models that may require reconsideration. We conducted comparisons among the models using simultaneous observations of both gases and relevant variables from the winter wheat-summer maize rotation system at three field sites with calcareous soils. Simulations of N2O and NO emissions by the three models agreed well with annual observations, but not with daily observations. All models failed to correctly simulate soil moisture, which could explain some of the incorrect daily fluxes of N2O and NO, especially for intensive fluxes during the growing season. Multi-model ensembles are promising approaches to better simulate daily gas emissions. IAP-N-GAS underestimated the priming effect of straw incorporation on N2O and NO emissions, but better results were obtained with DNDC95 and LandscapeDNDC. LandscapeDNDC and IAP-N-GAS need to improve the simulation of irrigation water allocation and residue decomposition processes, respectively, and together to distinguish different irrigation methods as DNDC95 does. All three models overestimated the emissions of the nitrogenous gases for high nitrogen fertilizer (>430 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1)) addition treatments, and therefore, future research should focus more on the simulation of the limitation of soil dissolvable organic carbon on denitrification in calcareous soils.

Abstract: This paper deals with the problem of predicting biomass and grain protein content using improved particle filtering (IPF) based on minimizing the Kullback-Leibler divergence. The performances of IPF are compared with those of the conventional particle filtering (PF) in two comparative studies. In the first one, we apply IPF and PF at a simple dynamic crop model with the aim to predict a single state variable, namely the winter wheat biomass, and to estimate several model parameters. In the second study, the proposed IPF and the PF are applied to a complex crop model (AZODYN) to predict a winter-wheat quality criterion, namely the grain protein content. The results of both comparative studies reveal that the IPF method provides a better estimation accuracy than the PF method. The benefit of the IPF method lies in its ability to provide accuracy related advantages over the PF method since, unlike the PF which depends on the choice of the sampling distribution used to estimate the posterior distribution, the IPF yields an optimum choice of this sampling distribution, which also utilizes the observed data. The performance of the proposed method is evaluated in terms of estimation accuracy, root mean square error, mean absolute error and execution times.