Abstract: Ensembles of process-based crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop growth for scenarios of temperature and/or precipitation changes corresponding to different projections of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This approach generates large datasets with thousands of simulated crop yield data. Such datasets potentially provide new information but it is difficult to summarize them in a useful way due to their structural complexities. An associated issue is that it is not straightforward to compare crops and to interpolate the results to alternative climate scenarios not initially included in the simulation protocols. Here we demonstrate that statistical models based on random-coefficient regressions are able to emulate ensembles of process-based crop models. An important advantage of the proposed statistical models is that they can interpolate between temperature levels and between CO2 concentration levels, and can thus be used to calculate temperature and [CO2] thresholds leading to yield loss or yield gain, without rerunning the original complex crop models. Our approach is illustrated with three yield datasets simulated by 19 maize models, 26 wheat models, and 13 rice models. Several statistical models are fitted to these datasets, and are then used to analyze the variability of the yield response to [CO2] and temperature. Based on our results, we show that, for wheat, a [CO2] increase is likely to outweigh the negative effect of a temperature increase of +2 degrees C in the considered sites. Compared to wheat, required levels of [CO2] increase are much higher for maize, and intermediate for rice. For all crops, uncertainties in simulating climate change impacts increase more with temperature than with elevated [CO2].

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.