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: Empirical findings on actors’ roles and responsibilities in the climate change adaptation process are rare even though cooperation between private and public actors is perceived important to foster adaptation in agriculture. We therefore developed the framework SAER (Stimuli-Actions-Effects-Responses) to investigate perceived relationships between private and public climate change adaptation in agriculture at regional scale. In particular, we explore agricultural experts’ perceptions on (i) climatic and non climatic factors stimulating private adaptation, (ii) farm adaption actions, (iii) potential on-farm and off-farm effects from adaptation, and (iv) the relationships between private and public adaptation. The SAER-framework is built on a comprehensive literature review and empirical findings from semi structured interviews with agricultural experts from two case study regions in Austria. We find that private adaptation is perceived as incremental, systemic or transformational. It is typically stimulated by a mix of bio-physical and socio-economic on-farm and off-farm factors. Stimulating factors related to climate change are perceived of highest relevance for systemic and transformational adaptation whereas already implemented adaptation is mostly perceived to be incremental. Perceived effects of private adaptation are related to the environment, weather and climate, quality and quantity of agricultural products as well as human, social and economic resources. Our results also show that public adaptation can influence factors stimulating private adaptation as well as adaptation effects through the design and development of the legal, policy and organizational environment as well as the provision of educational, informational, financial, and technical infrastructure. Hence, facilitating existing and new collaborations between private and public actors may enable farmers to adapt effectively to climate change. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.