Abstract: The development of methodologies for predicting crop yield, in real-time and in response to different agro-climatic conditions, could help to improve the farm management decision process by providing an analysis of expected yields in relation to the costs of investment in particular practices. Based on the use of crop models, this paper compares the ability of two methodologies to predict wheat yield (Triticum aestivum L.), one based on stochastically generated climatic data and the other on mean climate data. It was shown that the numerical experimental yield distribution could be considered as a log-normal distribution. This function is representative of the overall model behaviour. The lack of statistical differences between the numerical realisations and the logistic curve showed in turn that the Generalised Central Limit Theorem (GCLT) was applicable to our case study. In addition, the predictions obtained using both climatic inputs were found to be similar at the inter and intra-annual time-steps, with the root mean square and normalised deviation values below an acceptable level of 10% in 90% of the climatic situations. The predictive observed lead-times were also similar for both approaches. Given (i) the mathematical formulation of crop models, (ii) the applicability of the CLT and GLTC to the climatic inputs and model outputs, respectively, and (iii) the equivalence of the predictive abilities, it could be concluded that the two methodologies were equally valid in terms of yield prediction. These observations indicated that the Convergence in Law Theorem was applicable in this case study. For purely predictive purposes, the findings favoured an algorithm based on a mean climate approach, which needed far less time (by 300-fold) to run and converge on same predictive lead time than the stochastic approach. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Process-based crop simulation models are increasingly used in regional climate change impact studies, but little is known about the implications of different calibration strategies on simulated yields. This study aims to assess the importance of region-specific calibration of five important field crops (winter wheat, winter barley, potato, sugar beet and maize) across 25 member countries of the European Union (EU25). We examine three calibration strategies and their implications on spatial and temporal yield variability in response to climate change: (i) calculation of phenology parameters only, (ii) consideration of both phenology calibration and a yield correction factor and (iii) calibration of phenology and selected growth processes. The analysis is conducted for 533 climate zones, considering 24 years of observed yield data (1983-2006). The best performing strategy is used to estimate the impacts of climate change, increasing CO2 concentration and technology development on yields for the five crops across EU25, using seven climate change scenarios for the period 2041-2064. Simulations and calibrations are performed with the crop model LINTUL2 combined with a calibration routine implemented in the modelling interface LINTUL-FAST. The results show that yield simulations improve if growth parameters are considered in the calibration for individual regions (strategy 3); e.g. RMSE values for simulated winter wheat yield are 2.36, 1.10 and 0.70 Mg ha(-1) for calibration strategies 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The calibration strategy did not only affect the model simulations under reference climate but also the extent of the simulated climate change impacts. Applying the calibrated model for impact assessment revealed that climatic change alone will reduce crop yields. Consideration of the effects of increasing CO2 concentration and technology development resulted in yield increases for all crops except maize (i.e. the negative effects of climate change were outbalanced by the positive effects of CO2 and technology change), with considerable differences between scenarios and regions. Our simulations also suggest some increase in yield variability due to climate change which, however, is less pronounced than the differences among scenarios which are particularly large when the effects of CO2 concentration and technology development are considered. Our results stress the need for region-specific calibration of crop models used for Europe-wide assessments. Limitations of the considered strategies are discussed. We recommend that future work should focus on obtaining more comprehensive, high quality data with a finer resolution allowing application of improved strategies for model calibration that better account for spatial differences and changes over time in the growth and development parameters used in crop models. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.