Abstract: Apart from measurements, numerical models are the most convenient instruments to analyze the carbon and water balance of terrestrial ecosystems and their interactions with changing environmental conditions. The process-based Biome-BGC model is widely used to simulate the storage and flux of water, carbon, and nitrogen within the vegetation, litter, and soil of unmanaged terrestrial ecosystems. Considering herbaceous vegetation related simulations with Biome-BGC, soil moisture and growing season control on ecosystem functioning is inaccurate due to the simple soil hydrology and plant phenology representation within the model. Consequently, Biome-BGC has limited applicability in herbaceous ecosystems because (1) they are usually managed; (2) they are sensitive to soil processes, most of all hydrology; and (3) their carbon balance is closely connected with the growing season length. Our aim was to improve the applicability of Biome-BGC for managed herbaceous ecosystems by implementing several new modules, including management. A new index (heatsum growing season index) was defined to accurately estimate the first and the final days of the growing season. Instead of a simple bucket soil sub-model, a multilayer soil sub-model was implemented, which can handle the processes of runoff, diffusion and percolation. A new module was implemented to simulate the ecophysiological effect of drought stress on plant mortality. Mowing and grazing modules were integrated in order to quantify the functioning of managed ecosystems. After modifications, the Biome-BGC model was calibrated and validated using eddy covariance-based measurement data collected in Hungarian managed grassland ecosystems. Model calibration was performed based on the Bayes theorem. As a result of these developments and calibration, the performance of the model was substantially improved. Comparison with measurement-based estimate showed that the start and the end of the growing season are now predicted with an average accuracy of 5 and 4 days instead of 46 and 85 days as in the original model. Regarding the different sites and modeled fluxes (gross primary production, total ecosystem respiration, evapotranspiration), relative errors were between 18-60% using the original model and 10-18% using the developed model; squares of the correlation coefficients were between 0.02-0.49 using the original model and 0.50-0.81 using the developed model. (c) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Crop growth simulation models can differ greatly in their treatment of key processes and hence in their response to environmental conditions. Here, we used an ensemble of 26 process-based wheat models applied at sites across a European transect to compare their sensitivity to changes in temperature (-2 to +9 degrees C) and precipitation (-50 to +50%). Model results were analysed by plotting them as impact response surfaces (IRSs), classifying the IRS patterns of individual model simulations, describing these classes and analysing factors that may explain the major differences in model responses. The model ensemble was used to simulate yields of winter and spring wheat at four sites in Finland, Germany and Spain. Results were plotted as IRSs that show changes in yields relative to the baseline with respect to temperature and precipitation. IRSs of 30-year means and selected extreme years were classified using two approaches describing their pattern. The expert diagnostic approach (EDA) combines two aspects of IRS patterns: location of the maximum yield (nine classes) and strength of the yield response with respect to climate (four classes), resulting in a total of 36 combined classes defined using criteria pre-specified by experts. The statistical diagnostic approach (SDA) groups IRSs by comparing their pattern and magnitude, without attempting to interpret these features. It applies a hierarchical clustering method, grouping response patterns using a distance metric that combines the spatial correlation and Euclidian distance between IRS pairs. The two approaches were used to investigate whether different patterns of yield response could be related to different properties of the crop models, specifically their genealogy, calibration and process description. Although no single model property across a large model ensemble was found to explain the integrated yield response to temperature and precipitation perturbations, the application of the EDA and SDA approaches revealed their capability to distinguish: (i) stronger yield responses to precipitation for winter wheat than spring wheat; (ii) differing strengths of response to climate changes for years with anomalous weather conditions compared to period-average conditions; (iii) the influence of site conditions on yield patterns; (iv) similarities in IRS patterns among models with related genealogy; (v) similarities in IRS patterns for models with simpler process descriptions of root growth and water uptake compared to those with more complex descriptions; and (vi) a closer correspondence of IRS patterns in models using partitioning schemes to represent yield formation than in those using a harvest index. Such results can inform future crop modelling studies that seek to exploit the diversity of multi-model ensembles, by distinguishing ensemble members that span a wide range of responses as well as those that display implausible behaviour or strong mutual similarities.

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.