Abstract: The study ROTATIONEFFECT aims to compare the output of different models simulating field data sets with multi-year crop rotations including different treatments.Within the first Step (1a2a) data sets (comprising a total of 301 crop growth seasons) for 5 locations in Europe were distributed to 15 interested modeller groups.For this step only minimal information for calibration were provided to the modellers. In total 15 modelling teams sent their “uncalibrated” results as single-year calculations and/or continuous calculations of rotation depending on the capability of the model. Results have been evaluated and the paper submitted (European Journal of Agronomy).Now, within the 2nd step (1b2b) modellers were provided with more information on the crop for the calibration of models. Again, results of calibrated runs were collected.6 models were capable to run the rotations as continuous runs and another set of 6 models provided single year simulations.A first overview of the improvement of predictions due to calibration has been produced. Result files have been uploaded to the web platform for CropM results at Aarhus University (Work package C2 – data management). No Label

Abstract: Crop productivity and water consumption form the basis to calculate the water footprint (WF) of a specific crop. Under current climate conditions, calculated evapotranspiration is related to observed crop yields to calculate WF. The assessment of WF under future climate conditions requires the simulation of crop yields adding further uncertainty. To assess the uncertainty of model based assessments of WF, an ensemble of crop models was applied to data from five field experiments across Europe. Only limited data were provided for a rough calibration, which corresponds to a typical situation for regional assessments, where data availability is limited. Up to eight models were applied for wheat. The coefficient of variation for the simulated actual evapotranspiration between models was in the range of 13%–19%, which was higher than the inter-annual variability. Simulated yields showed a higher variability between models in the range of 17%–39%. Models responded differently to elevated CO2 in a FACE (Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment) experiment, especially regarding the reduction of water consumption. The variability of calculated WF between models was in the range of 15%–49%. Yield predictions contributed more to this variance than the estimation of water consumption. Transpiration accounts on average for 51%–68% of the total actual evapotranspiration.