Abstract: • This study combines crop, livestock and economic models.
• Models interaction is through use of relevant input and output variables.
• Future climate change will result in increased grass and wheat dry matter yields.
• Changes in grass, wheat and milk yields in future reduce farm emissions intensity.
• Changes in future dry matter yields and emissions lead to increased profitability.
There is a scientific consensus that the future climate change will affect grass and crop dry matter (DM) yields. Such yield changes may entail alterations to farm management practices to fulfill the feed requirements and reduce the farm greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from dairy farms. While a large number of studies have focused on the impacts of projected climate change on a single farm output (e.g. GHG emissions or economic performance), several attempts have been made to combine bio-economic systems models with GHG accounting frameworks. In this study, we aimed to determine the physical impacts of future climate scenarios on grass and wheat DM yields, and demonstrate the effects such changes in future feed supply may have on farm GHG emissions and decision-making processes. For this purpose, we combined four models: BASGRA and CSM-CERES-Wheat models for simulating forage grass DM and wheat DM grain yields respectively; HolosNor for estimating the farm GHG emissions; and JORDMOD for calculating the impacts of changes in the climate and management on land use and farm economics. Four locations, with varying climate and soil conditions were included in the study: south-east Norway, south-west Norway, central Norway and northern Norway. Simulations were carried out for baseline (1961–1990) and future (2046–2065) climate conditions (projections based on two global climate models and the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1B GHG emission scenario), and for production conditions with and without a milk quota. The GHG emissions intensities (kilogram carbon dioxide equivalent: kgCO2e emissions per kg fat and protein corrected milk: FPCM) varied between 0.8 kg and 1.23 kg CO2e (kg FPCM)− 1, with the lowest and highest emissions found in central Norway and south-east Norway, respectively. Emission intensities were generally lower under future compared to baseline conditions due mainly to higher future milk yields and to some extent to higher crop yields. The median seasonal above-ground timothy grass yield varied between 11,000 kg and 16,000 kg DM ha− 1 and was higher in all projected future climate conditions than in the baseline. The spring wheat grain DM yields simulated for the same weather conditions within each climate projection varied between 2200 kg and 6800 kg DM ha− 1. Similarly, the farm profitability as expressed by total national land rents varied between 1900 million Norwegian krone (NOK) for median yields under baseline climate conditions up to 3900 million NOK for median yield under future projected climate conditions.

Abstract: ► We compared nine crop simulation models for spring barley at seven sites in Europe. ► Applying crop models with restricted calibration leads to high uncertainties. ► Multi-crop model mean yield estimates were in good agreement with observations. ► The degree of uncertainty for simulated grain yield of barley was similar to winter wheat. ► We need more suitable data enabling us to verify different processes in the models. 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.