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.

Abstract: The accurate estimation of crop grain nitrogen (N; N in grain yield) is crucial for optimizing agricultural N management, especially in crop rotations. In the present study, 12 process-based models were applied to simulate the grain N of i) seven crops in rotations, ii) across various pedo-climatic and agro-management conditions in Europe, under both continuous simulation and single year simulation, and for iv) two calibration levels, namely minimal and detailed calibration. Generally, the results showed that the accuracy of the simulations in predicting grain N increased under detailed calibration. The models performed better in predicting the grain N of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), winter barley (Hordewn vulgare L.) and spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) compared to spring oat (Avena saliva L.), winter rye (Secale cereale L.), pea (Piswn sativum L.) and winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). These differences are linked to the intensity of parameterization with better parameterized crops showing lower prediction errors. The model performance was influenced by N fertilization and irrigation treatments, and a majority of the predictions were more accurate under low N and rainfed treatments. Moreover, the multi-model mean provided better predictions of grain N compared to any individual model. In regard to the Individual models, DAISY, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA and STICS are suitable for predicting grain N of the main crops in typical European crop rotations, which all performed well in both continuous simulation and single year simulation. Our results show that both the model initialization and the cover crop effects in crop rotations should be considered in order to achieve good performance of continuous simulation. Furthermore, the choice of either continuous simulation or single year simulation should be guided by the simulation objectives (e.g. grain yield, grain N content or N dynamics), the crop sequence (inclusion of legumes) and treatments (rate and type of N fertilizer) included in crop rotations and the model formalism.

Abstract: We compare 27 wheat models’ yield responses to interannual climate variability, analyzed at locations in Argentina, Australia, India, and The Netherlands as part of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Wheat Pilot. Each model simulated 1981-2010 grain yield, and we evaluate results against the interannual variability of growing season temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. The amount of information used for calibration has only a minor effect on most models’ climate response, and even small multi-model ensembles prove beneficial. Wheat model clusters reveal common characteristics of yield response to climate; however models rarely share the same cluster at all four sites indicating substantial independence. Only a weak relationship (R-2 <= 0.24) was found between the models’ sensitivities to interannual temperature variability and their response to long-term warming, suggesting that additional processes differentiate climate change impacts from observed climate variability analogs and motivating continuing analysis and model development efforts. Published by Elsevier Ltd.