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: Highlights • Regularization techniques for regression outperformed the classical regression techniques in predicting crop yields. • Different regression techniques with similar prediction accuracy showed different responses of major climatic variables to crop yield. • The regression models showed some responses of crop yield to climatic conditions that is mostly absent in process based crop models. Abstract Statistical regression models represent alternatives to process-based dynamic models for predicting the response of crop yields to variation in climatic conditions. Regression models can be used to quantify the effect of change in temperature and precipitation on yields. However, it is difficult to identify the most relevant input variables that should be included in regression models due to the high number of candidate variables and to their correlations. This paper compares several regression techniques for modeling response of winter oilseed rape yield to a high number of correlated input variables. Several statistical regression methods were fitted to a dataset including 689 observations of winter oilseed rape yield from replicated field experiments conducted in 239 sites in Denmark, covering nearly all regions of the country from 1992 to 2013. Regression methods were compared by cross-validation. The regression methods leading to the most accurate yield predictions were Lasso and Elastic Net, and the least accurate methods were ordinary least squares and stepwise regression. Partial least squares and ridge regression methods gave intermediate results. The estimated relative yield change for a +1°C temperature increase during flowering was estimated to range between 0 and +6 %, depending on choice of regression method. Precipitation was found to have an adverse effect on yield during autumn and winter. It was estimated that an increase in precipitation of +1 mm/day would result in a relative yield change ranging from 0 to −4 %. Soil type was also important for crop yields with lower yields on sandy soils compared to loamy soils. Later sowing was found to result in increased crop yield. The estimated effect of climate on yield was highly sensitive to the chosen regression method. Regression models showing similar performance led in some cases to different conclusions with respect to effect of temperature and precipitation. Hence, it is recommended to apply an ensemble of regression models, in order to account for the sensitivity of the data driven models for projecting crop yield under climate change.

Abstract: To improve climate change impact estimates and to quantify their uncertainty, multi-model ensembles (MMEs) have been suggested. Model improvements can improve the accuracy of simulations and reduce the uncertainty of climate change impact assessments. Furthermore, they can reduce the number of models needed in a MME. Herein, 15 wheat growth models of a larger MME were improved through re-parameterization and/or incorporating or modifying heat stress effects on phenology, leaf growth and senescence, biomass growth, and grain number and size using detailed field experimental data from the USDA Hot Serial Cereal experiment (calibration data set). Simulation results from before and after model improvement were then evaluated with independent field experiments from a CIMMYT world-wide field trial network (evaluation data set). Model improvements decreased the variation (10th to 90th model ensemble percentile range) of grain yields simulated by the MME on average by 39% in the calibration data set and by 26% in the independent evaluation data set for crops grown in mean seasonal temperatures >24 °C. MME mean squared error in simulating grain yield decreased by 37%. A reduction in MME uncertainty range by 27% increased MME prediction skills by 47%. Results suggest that the mean level of variation observed in field experiments and used as a benchmark can be reached with half the number of models in the MME. Improving crop models is therefore important to increase the certainty of model-based impact assessments and allow more practical, i.e. smaller MMEs to be used effectively.