Abstract: The precise spatially explicit knowledge about crop yield potentials and yield gaps is essential to guide sustainable intensification of agriculture. In this study, the maize yield potentials from 1980 to 2008 across the major maize production regions of China were firstly estimated by county using ensemble simulation of a well-validated large scale crop model, i.e., MCWLA-Maize model. Then, the temporal and spatial patterns of maize yield potentials and yield gaps during 1980-2008 were presented and analyzed. The results showed that maize yields became stagnated at 32.4% of maize-growing areas during the period. In the major maize production regions, i.e., northeastern China, the North China Plain (NCP) and southwestern China, yield gap percentages were generally less than 40% and particularly less than 20% in some areas. By contrast, in northern and southern China, where actual yields were relatively lower, yield gap percentages were generally larger than 40%. The areas with yield gap percentages less than 20% and less than 40% accounted for 8.2% and 27.6% of maize-growing areas, respectively. During the period, yield potentials decreased in the NCP and southwestern China due to increase in temperature and decrease in solar radiation; by contrast, increased in northern, northeastern and southeastern China due to increases in both temperature and solar radiation. Yield gap percentages decreased generally by 2% per year across the major maize production regions, although increased in some areas in northern and northeastern China. The shrinking of yield gap was due to increases in actual yields and decreases in yield potentials in the NCP and southwestern China; and due to larger increases in actual yields than in yield potentials in northeastern and southeastern China. The results highlight the importance of sustainable intensification of agriculture to close yield gaps, as well as breeding new cultivars to increase yield potentials, to meet the increasing food demand. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: We adapted a large area crop model, MCWLA-Wheat, to winter wheat Triticum aestivum L. and spring wheat in Finland. We then applied Bayesian probability inversion and a Markov Chain Monte Carlo technique to analyze uncertainties in parameter estimations and to optimize parameters. Finally, a super-ensemble-based probabilistic projection system was updated and applied to project the effects of climate change on wheat productivity and water use in Finland. The system used 6 climate scenarios and 20 sets of crop model parameters. We projected spatiotemporal changes of wheat productivity and water use due to climate change/variability during 2021-2040, 2041-2070, and 2071-2100. The results indicate that with a high probability wheat yields will increase substantially in Finland under the tested climate change scenarios, and spring wheat can benefit more from climate change than winter wheat. Nevertheless, in some areas of southern Finland, wheat production will face increasing risk of high temperature and drought, which can offset the benefits of climate change on wheat yield, resulting in an increase in yield variability and about 30% probability of yield decrease for spring wheat. Compared with spring wheat, the development, photosynthesis, and consequently yield will be much less enhanced for winter wheat, which, together with the risk of extreme weather, will result in an up to 56% probability of yield decrease in eastern parts of Finland. Our study explicitly para meterized the effects of extreme temperature and drought stress on wheat yields, and accounted for a wide range of wheat cultivars with contrasting phenological characteristics and thermal requirements.

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.