Abstract: The changing climate and environmental conditions play a key role on plant physiology. In this context, crop simulation models represent a useful tool for investigating the main plant processes and provide a reliable estimation of crop productivity and quality. However, the most common crop models showed many limitations, with particular concern on the effect of some meteorological variables on plant processes during sensitive stages of development. Improving models by implementing the effect of such variables on crop processes may help to improve the accuracy of models, thus their usefulness. Here we focus on the analysis of the effect of high and low temperatures during flowering in grapevine. To this, the fruit-set index, developed for taking into account for the effect of temperature on setting the number of berries per cluster and the fruit-set percentage, was applied in a preliminary explorative study to assess the impact of different conditions during flowering at European scales. The sensitivity of the index allowed to identify the differential impact of temperature around flowering in different environment and for different varieties. Once meteorological variables are available at field or sub-field scale, the index can be used to provide information about the spatial variability of crop growth, thus allowing to identify the most appropriate interventions to improve productivity.

Abstract: Modelling N transformations within cropping systems is crucial for N management optimization in order to increase N use efficiency and reduce N losses. Such modelling remains challenging because of the complexity of N cycling in soil–plant systems. In the current study, the uncertainties of six widely used process-based models (PBMs), including APSIM, CROPSYST, DAISY, FASSET, HERMES and STICS, were tested in simulating different N managements (catch crops (CC) and different N fertilizer rates) in 12-year rotations in Western Europe. Winter wheat, sugar beet and pea were the main crops, and radish was the main CC in the tested systems. Our results showed that PBMs simulated yield, aboveground biomass, N export and N uptake well with low RMSE values, except for sugar beet, which was generally less well parameterized. Moreover, PBMs provided more accurate crop simulations (i.e. N export and N uptake) compared to simulations of soil (N mineralization and soil mineral N (SMN)) and environmental variables (N leaching). The use of multi-model ensemble mean or median of four PBMs significantly reduced the mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) between simulations and observations to less than 15% for yield, aboveground biomass, N export and N uptake. Multi-model ensemble also significantly reduced the MAPE for net N mineralization and annual N leaching to around 15%, while it was larger than 20% for SMN. Generally, PBMs well simulated the CC effects on N fluxes, i.e. increasing N mineralization and reducing N leaching in both short-term and long-term, and all PBMs correctly predicted the effects of the reduced N rate on all measured variables in the study. The uncertainties of multi-model ensemble for N mineralization, SMN and N leaching were larger, mainly because these variables are influenced by plant-soil interactions and subject to cumulative long-term effects in crop rotations, which makes them more difficult to simulate. Large differences existed between individual PBMs due to the differences in formalisms for describing N processes in soil–plant systems, the skills of modelers and the model calibration level. In addition, the model performance also depended on the simulated variables, for instance, HERMES and FASSET performed better for yield and crop biomass, APSIM, DAISY and STICS performed better for N export and N uptake, STICS provided best simulation for SMN and N leaching among the six individual PBMs in the study, but all PBMs met difficulties to well predict either average or variance of soil N mineralization. Our results showed that better calibration for soil N variables is needed to improve model predictions of N cycling in order to optimize N management in crop rotations.

Abstract: 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. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.