Abstract: Farm planning is based on awareness of climate variability, here assumed to depend on experience gained over the years, and to generate expectations on climatic variables. Expectations are based on probability distributions (pdfs) estimated on climate data and used to generate managing choices by means of Discrete Stochastic Programming. The model simulates the income losses in case farmers do not recognize the ongoing CC, and continue to plan assuming climate stability. In particular, the use of resources in 2010 is simulated based on the pdfs of the early 2000s, despite CC has changed the probabilities of the various states of nature. The model, calibrated with Positive Mathematical Programming, generates a 0.9% income increase when is allowed to adapt to 2010 climate pdfs. The model is also calibrated according to pdfs of 2010, i.e. recognizing CC: in this case income falls of 0.7% when farmers are simulated to use their soil mistakenly based of the 2000 pdfs. Given the short period of CC, the differences represent an appreciable error that farmers may be already committing. Properly specifying with the CC at local level can help building farmers’ awareness on it, and to properly manage their resources, recovering profitability.

Abstract: Croplands and grasslands are agricultural systems that contribute to land–atmosphere exchanges of carbon (C). We evaluated and compared gross primary production (GPP), ecosystem respiration (RECO), net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2, and two derived outputs – C use efficiency (CUE=-NEE/GPP) and C emission intensity (IntC= -NEE/Offtake [grazed or harvested biomass]). The outputs came from 23 models (11 crop-specific, eight grassland-specific, and four models covering both systems) at three cropping sites over several rotations with spring and winter cereals, soybean and rapeseed in Canada, France and India, and two temperate permanent grasslands in France and the United Kingdom. The models were run independently over multi-year simulation periods in five stages (S), either blind with no calibration and initialization data (S1), using historical management and climate for initialization (S2), calibrated against plant data (S3), plant and soil data together (S4), or with the addition of C and N fluxes (S5). Here, we provide a framework to address methodological uncertainties and contextualize results. Most of the models overestimated or underestimated the C fluxes observed during the growing seasons (or the whole years for grasslands), with substantial differences between models. For each simulated variable, changes in the multi-model median (MMM) from S1 to S5 was used as a descriptor of the ensemble performance. Overall, the greatest improvements (MMM approaching the mean of observations) were achieved at S3 or higher calibration stages. For instance, grassland GPP MMM was equal to 1632 g C m−2 yr-1 (S5) while the observed mean was equal to 1763 m-2 yr-1 (average for two sites). Nash-Sutcliffe modelling efficiency coefficients indicated that MMM outperformed individual models in 92.3 % of cases. Our study suggests a cautious use of large-scale, multi-model ensembles to estimate C fluxes in agricultural sites if some site-specific plant and soil observations are available for model calibration. The further development of crop/grassland ensemble modelling will hinge upon the interpretation of results in light of the way models represent the processes underlying C fluxes in complex agricultural systems (grassland and crop rotations including fallow periods).