Abstract: For each region or agro-ecological zone in Europe the major cropping systems have been identified based on their cropping area. Next, for each of the selected cropping systems the most widely applied models that fulfil a number of criteria (including their documentation in peer reviewed publications; good user guides and documentation of code; source code available) have been identified. Some possible model comparisons have been hypothesized on the basis of cropping systems and model availability. No Label

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: As well as the entire Mediterranean area, the Italian Apennines have been affected by increasing temperatures, rainfall extreme events and decreases in annual precipitation due to climate change. Moreover, permanent grasslands, species-diverse ecosystems characterizing the marginal areas of the Apennines landscape, are acknowledged as very sensitive and vulnerable to climate variation. Building on these premises, statistical classification models coupled with data integration by GIS techniques, were used to territorially assess future climate change impacts on pastoral communities on the Italian Apennines chain. Specifically, a machine learning approach (Random Forest – RF), firstly calibrated  for the present period and then applied to future conditions, as projected by HadCM3 General Circulation Model (GCM), was used to simulate potential expansion/reduction and/or altitudinal shifts of the Apennine pasturelands in two time slices, centred on 2050 and 2080, under A2 and B2 SRES scenarios. RF classification model proved to be robust and very efficient to predict lands suited to pastures with regards to present period (classification error: 12%). Furthermore, according to RF simulations, relevant reductions (46 and 34%) of areas potentially suitable for pastoral resource are expected under A2 at the middle and end of the century, respectively, as depicted by the GCM and SRES scenarios. Moreover, progressive upwards shifts are predicted by the model under both SRES scenarios. These reductions will likely interest the central area of the chain threatening the typical and unique herbaceous biodiversity characterizing the Apennine pasturelands.