Abstract: Impact response surfaces (IRSs) of spring and winter wheat yields were constructed from a 26-member ensemble of process-based crop simulation models for sites in Finland, Germany and Spain across a latitudinal transect in Europe. The sensitivity of modelled yield to systematic increments of changes in temperature (-2 to +9°C) and precipitation (-50 to +50%) was tested by modifying values of 1981–2010 baseline weather.In spite of large differences in simulated yield responses to both baseline and changed climate between models, sites, crops and years, several common messages emerged. Ensemble average yields decline with higher temperatures (3–7% per 1°C) and decreased precipitation  (3–9% per 10% decrease), but benefit from increased precipitation (0-8% per 10% increase). Yields are more sensitive to temperature than precipitation changes at the Finnish site while sensitivities are mixed at the German and Spanish sites. Precipitation effects diminish under higher temperature changes. Inter-model variability is highest for baseline climate at the Spanish site, but relatively insensitive to changed climate. Modelled responses diverge most at the Finnish and German sites for winter wheat under temperature change. The IRS pattern of yield reliability tracks average yield levels. Inter-annual yield variability is more sensitive to precipitation than temperature, except at the Spanish site for spring wheat.Optimal temperatures for present-day cultivars are close to the baseline under Finnish conditions but below the baseline at the German and Spanish sites. This suggests that adoption of later maturing cultivars with higher temperature requirements might already be advantageous, and increasingly so under future warming. No Label

Abstract: MACSUR — Modelling European Agriculture with Climate Change for Food Security — is a  knowledge hub that was formally created in June 2012 as a European scientific network.  The strategic aim of the knowledge hub is to create a coordinated and globally visible  network of European researchers and research groups, with intra- and interdisciplinary  interaction and shared expertise creating synergies for the development of scientific  resources (data, models, methods) to model the impacts of climate change on agriculture  and related issues. This objective encompasses a wide range of political and sociological  aspects, as well as the technical development of modelling capacity through impact  assessments at different scales and assessing uncertainties in model outcomes. We achieve  this through model intercomparisons and model improvements, harmonization and  exchange of data sets, training in the selection and use of models, assessment of benefits  of ensemble modelling, and cross-disciplinary linkages of models and tools. The project  engages with a diverse range of stakeholder groups and to support the development of  resources for capacity building of individuals and countries. Commensurate with this broad  challenge, a network of currently 300 scientists (measured by the number of individuals on  the central e-mail list) from 18 countries evolved from the original set of research groups  selected by FACCE.   In the spirit of creating and maintaining a network for intra- and interdisciplinary  knowledge exchange, network activities focused on meetings of researchers for sharing  expertise and, depending on group resources (both financial and personnel), development  of collaborative research activities. The outcome of these activities is the enhanced  knowledge of the individual researchers within the network, contributions to conference  presentations and scholarly papers, input to stakeholders and the general public, organised  courses for students, junior and senior scientists. The most visible outcome are the  scientific results of the network activities, represented in the contributions of MACSUR  members to the impressive number of more than 200 collaborative papers in peer-reviewed  publications.   Here, we present a selection of overview and cross-disciplinary papers which include  contributions from MACSUR members. It highlights the major scientific challenges  addressed, and the methodological solutions and insights obtained. Over and above these  highlights, major achievements have been reached regarding data collection, data  processing, evaluation, model testing, modelling assessments of the effects of agriculture  on ecosystem services, policy, and development of scenarios. Details on these  achievements in the context of MACSUR can be found in our online publication FACCE  MACSUR Reports at http://ojs.macsur.eu.

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.