Abstract: The DNDC, LandscapeDNDC and IAP-N-GAS models have been designed to simulate the carbon and nitrogen processes of terrestrial ecosystems. Until now, a comparison of these models using simultaneous observations has not been reported, although such a comparison is essential for further model development and application. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of the models, delineate the strengths and limitations of each model for simulating soil nitrous oxide (N2O) and nitric oxide (NO) emissions, and explore short-comings of these models that may require reconsideration. We conducted comparisons among the models using simultaneous observations of both gases and relevant variables from the winter wheat-summer maize rotation system at three field sites with calcareous soils. Simulations of N2O and NO emissions by the three models agreed well with annual observations, but not with daily observations. All models failed to correctly simulate soil moisture, which could explain some of the incorrect daily fluxes of N2O and NO, especially for intensive fluxes during the growing season. Multi-model ensembles are promising approaches to better simulate daily gas emissions. IAP-N-GAS underestimated the priming effect of straw incorporation on N2O and NO emissions, but better results were obtained with DNDC95 and LandscapeDNDC. LandscapeDNDC and IAP-N-GAS need to improve the simulation of irrigation water allocation and residue decomposition processes, respectively, and together to distinguish different irrigation methods as DNDC95 does. All three models overestimated the emissions of the nitrogenous gases for high nitrogen fertilizer (>430 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1)) addition treatments, and therefore, future research should focus more on the simulation of the limitation of soil dissolvable organic carbon on denitrification in calcareous soils.

Abstract: HERMES is a widely used agricultural system model; however, it has never been tested for simulating N loss to subsurface drainage. Here, we integrated a simple drain flbw component into HERMES. We then compared the predictions to four years of data (2002-2005) from central Iowa fields in corn-oybean with winter rye as a cover crop (CC) and without winter rye (NCC). We also compared the HERMES predictions to the more complex Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM) predictions for the same dataset. The average annual observed and simulated N loss to drain flow were 43.8 and 44.4 kg N/ha (NCC) and 17.6 and 18.9 kg N/ha (CC). The slightly over predicted N loss for CC was because of over predicted nitrate concentration, which may be partly caused by slightly under predicted average annual rye shoot N (observed and simulated values were 47.8 and 46.0 kg N/ha). Also, recent research from the site suggests that the soil field capacity may be greater in CC while we used the same soil parameters for both treatments. A local sensitivity analysis suggests that increased field capacity affects HERMES simulations, which includes reduced drain flow nitrate concentrations, increased denitrification, and reduced drain flow volume. HERMES-simulated cumulative monthly drain flow and annual drain flow were reasonable compared to field data and HERMES performance was comparable to other published drainage model tests. Unlike the RZWQM simulations, however, the modified HERMES did riot accurately simulate the year to year variability in nitrate concentration difference between NCC and CC, possibly due in part to the lack of partial mixing and displacement of the soil solution. The results suggest that 1) the relatively simple model HERMES is a promising tool to estimate annual N loss to drain flow under corn-soybean rotations with winter rye as a cover crop and 2) soil field capacity is a critical parameter to investigate to more thoroughly understand and appropriately model denitrification and N losses to subsurface drainage. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Abstract: 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. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.