Abstract: Predicting regional and global carbon (C) and water dynamics on grasslands has become of major interest, as grasslands are one of the most widespread vegetation types worldwide, providing a number of ecosystem services (such as forage production and C storage). The present study is a contribution to a regional-scale analysis of the C and water cycles on managed grasslands. The mechanistic biogeochemical model PaSim (Pasture Simulation model) was evaluated at 12 grassland sites in Europe. A new parameterization was obtained on a common set of eco-physiological parameters, which represented an improvement of previous parameterization schemes (essentially obtained via calibration at specific sites). We found that C and water fluxes estimated with the parameter set are in good agreement with observations. The model with the new parameters estimated that European grassland are a sink of C with 213 g C m(-2) yr(-1), which is close to the observed net ecosystem exchange (NEE) flux of the studied sites (185 g C m(-2) yr(-1) on average). The estimated yearly average gross primary productivity (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (RECO) for all of the study sites are 1220 and 1006 g C m(-2) yr(-1), respectively, in agreement with observed average GPP (1230 g C m(-2) yr(-1)) and RECO (1046 g C m(-2) yr(-1)). For both variables aggregated on a weekly basis, the root mean square error (RMSE) was similar to 5-16 g C week(-1) across the study sites, while the goodness of fit (R-2) was similar to 0.4-0.9. For evapotranspiration (ET), the average value of simulated ET (415 mmyr(-1)) for all sites and years is close to the average value of the observed ET (451 mm yr(-1)) by flux towers (on a weekly basis, RMSE similar to 2-8 mm week(-1); R-2 = 0.3-0.9). However, further model development is needed to better represent soil water dynamics under dry conditions and soil temperature in winter. A quantification of the uncertainties introduced by spatially generalized parameter values in C and water exchange estimates is also necessary. In addition, some uncertainties in the input management data call for the need to improve the quality of the observational system.

Abstract: The empirical evidence of decline in ecosystem services (ES) over the last century has reinforced the call for ES quantification, monitoring and valuation. Usually, only provisioning ES are marketable and accounted for, whereas regulating, supporting and cultural ES are typically non-marketable and overlooked in connection with land-use or management decisions. The objective of this study was to quantify and value total ES (marketable and non-marketable) of diverse production systems and management intensities in Denmark to provide a basis for decisions based on economic values. The production systems were conventional wheat (Cwheat), a combined food and energy (CFE) production system and beech forest. Marketable (provisioning ES) and non-marketable ES (supporting, regulating and cultural) ES were quantified by dedicated on-site field measurements supplemented by literature data. The value of total ES was highest in CFE (US$ 3142 ha(-1) yr(-1)) followed by Cwheat (US$ 2767 ha (1) yr(-1)) and beech forest (US$ 2328 ha(-1) yr(-1)). As the production system shifted from Cwheat – CFE-beech, the marketable ES share decreased from 88% to 75% in CFE and 55% in beech whereas the non-marketable ES share increased to 12%, 25% and 45% of total ES in Cwheat, CFE and beech respectively, demonstrating production system and management effects on ES values. Total ES valuation, disintegrated into marketable and non-marketable share is a potential way forward to value ES and `tune’ our production systems for enhanced ES provision. Such monetary valuation can be used by policy makers and land managers as a tool to assess ES value and monitor the sustained flow of ES. The application of ES-based valuation for land management can enhance ES provision for maintaining the productive capacity of the land without depending on the external fossil-based fertilizer and chemical input. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.