Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. We compare two criteria of prediction error; MSEPfixed, which evaluates mean squared error of prediction for a model with fixed structure, parameters and inputs, and MSEPuncertain(X), which evaluates mean squared error averaged over the distributions of model structure, inputs and parameters. Comparison of model outputs with data can be used to estimate the former. The latter has a squared bias term, which can be estimated using hindcasts, and a model variance term, which can be estimated from a simulation experiment. The separate contributions to MSEPuncertain(X) can be estimated using a random effects ANOVA. It is argued that MSEPuncertain(X) is the more informative uncertainty criterion, because it is specific to each prediction situation.

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: During the past few years, several studies have compared the performance of crop simulation models to assess the uncertainties in model-based climate change impact assessments and other modelling studies. Many of these studies have concentrated on cereal crops, while fewer model comparisons have been conducted for grasses. We compared the predictions for timothy grass (Phleum pratertse L.) yields for first and second cuts along with the dynamics of above-ground biomass for the grass simulation models BASGRA and CATIMO, and the soil -crop model STICS. The models were calibrated and evaluated using field data from seven sites across Northern Europe and Canada with different climates, soil conditions and management practices. Altogether the models were compared using data on timothy grass from 33 combinations of sites, cultivars and management regimes. Model performances with two calibration approaches, cultivar-specific and generic calibrations, were compared. All the models studied estimated the dynamics of above-ground biomass and the leaf area index satisfactorily, but tended to underestimate the first cut yield. Cultivar-specific calibration resulted in more accurate first cut yield predictions than the generic calibration achieving root mean square errors approximately one third lower for the cultivar-specific calibration. For the second cut, the difference between the calibration methods was small. The results indicate that detailed soil process descriptions improved the overall model performance and the model responses to management, such as nitrogen applications. The results also suggest that taking the genetic variability into account between cultivars of timothy grass also improves the yield estimates. Calibrations using both spring and summer growth data simultaneously revealed that processes determining the growth in these two periods require further attention in model development.