Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.

Abstract: All mechanistic rumen models cover the main drivers of variation in rumen function, which are feed intake, the differences between feedstuffs and feeds in their intrinsic rumen degradation characteristics, and fractional outflow rate of fluid and particulate matter. Dynamic modeling approaches are best suited to the prediction of more nuanced responses in rumen metabolism, and represent the dynamics of the interactions between substrates and micro-organisms and inter-microbial interactions. The concepts of dynamics are discussed for the case of rumen starch digestion as influenced by starch intake rate and frequency of feed intake, and for the case of fermentation of fiber in the large intestine. Adding representations of new functional classes of micro-organisms (i.e., with new characteristics from the perspective of whole rumen function) in rumen models only delivers new insights if complemented by the dynamics of their interactions with other functional classes. Rumen fermentation conditions have to be represented due to their profound impact on the dynamics of substrate degradation and microbial metabolism. Although the importance of rumen pH is generally acknowledged, more emphasis is needed on predicting its variation as well as variation in the processes that underlie rumen fluid dynamics. The rumen wall has an important role in adapting to rapid changes in the rumen environment, clearing of volatile fatty acids (VFA), and maintaining rumen pH within limits. Dynamics of rumen wall epithelia and their role in VFA absorption needs to be better represented in models that aim to predict rumen responses across nutritional or physiological states. For a detailed prediction of rumen N balance there is merit in a dynamic modeling approach compared to the static approaches adopted in current protein evaluation systems. Improvement is needed on previous attempts to predict rumen VFA profiles, and this should be pursued by introducing factors that relate more to microbial metabolism. For rumen model construction, data on rumen microbiomes are preferably coupled with knowledge consolidated in rumen models instead of relying on correlations with rather general aspects of treatment or animal. This helps to prevent the disregard of basic principles and underlying mechanisms of whole rumen function.

Abstract: Using the detailed field experiment data from 1981 to 2009 at four representative agro-meteorological experiment stations in China, along with the Agricultural Production System Simulator (APSIM) rice-wheat model, we evaluated the impact of sowing/transplanting date on phenology and yield of rice-wheat rotation system (RWRS). We also disentangled the contributions of climate change, modern cultivars, sowing/transplanting density and fertilization management, as well as changes in each climate variables, to yield change in RWRS, in the past three decades. We found that change in sowing/transplanting date did not significantly affect rice and wheat yield in RWRS, although alleviated the negative impact of climate change to some extent. From 1981 to 2009, climate change jointly caused rice and wheat yield change by -17.4 to 1.5 %, of which increase in temperature reduced yield by 0.0-5.8 % and decrease in solar radiation reduced it by 1.5-8.7 %. Cultivars renewal, modern sowing/transplanting density and fertilization management contributed to yield change by 14.4-27.2, -4.7- -0.1 and 2.3-22.2 %, respectively. Our findings highlight that modern cultivars and agronomic management compensated the negative impacts of climate change and played key roles in yield increase in the past three decades.