Abstract: Two independently developed simulation models – the grassland-specific PaSim and the biome-generic Biome-BGC MuSo (BBGC MuSo) – linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to ecosystem biogeochemical cycles were compared in a simulation of carbon (C) and water fluxes. The results were assessed against eddy-covariance flux data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions in Europe: Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland. Model comparison (after calibration) gave substantial agreement, the performances being marginal to acceptable for weekly-aggregated gross primary production and ecosystem respiration (R-2 similar to 0.66 – 0.91), weekly evapotranspiration (R-2 similar to 0.78 – 0.94), soil water content in the topsoil (R-2 similar to 0.1 -0.7) and soil temperature (R-2 similar to 0.88 – 0.96). The bias was limited to the range -13 to 9 g C m(-2) week(-1) for C fluxes (-11 to 8 g C m(-2) week(-1) in case of BBGC MuSo, and -13 to 9 g C m(-2) week(-1) in case of PaSim) and -4 to 6 mm week for water fluxes (with BBGC MuSo providing somewhat higher estimates than PaSim), but some higher relative root mean square errors indicate low accuracy for prediction, especially for net ecosystem exchange The sensitivity of simulated outputs to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]), temperature and precipitation indicate, with certain agreement between the two models, that C outcomes are dominated by [CO2] and temperature gradients, and are less due to precipitation. ET rates decrease with increasing [CO2] in PaSim (consistent with experimental knowledge), while lack of appropriate stomatal response could be a limit in BBGC MuSo responsiveness. Results of the study indicate that some of the errors might be related to the improper representation of soil water content and soil temperature. Improvement is needed in the model representations of soil processes (especially soil water balance) that strongly influence the biogeochemical cycles of managed and unmanaged grasslands. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: The aim of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of a non-standardised Model Requirements Analysis (MRA) used for the purpose of developing the Sustainability Impact Assessment Tool (SIAT). By ‘non-standardised’ we mean not strictly following a published MRA method. The underlying question we are interested in addressing is how non-standardised methods, often employed in research driven projects, compare to defined methods with more standardised structure, with regards their ability to capture model requirements effectively, and with regards their overall usability. Through describing and critically assessing the specific features of the non-standardised MRA employed, the ambition of this paper is to provide insights useful for impact assessment tool (IAT) development. Specifically, the paper will (i) characterise kinds of user requirements relevant to the functionality and design of IATs; (ii) highlight the strengths and weaknesses of non-standardised MRA for user requirements capture, analysis and reflection in the context of IAT; (iii) critically reflect on the process and outcomes of having used a non-standardised MRA in comparison with other more standardised approaches. To accomplish these aims, we first review methods available for IAT development before describing the SIAT development process, including the MRA employed. Major strengths and weaknesses of the MRA method are then discussed in terms of user identification and characterisation, organisational characterisation and embedding, and ability to capture design options for ensuring usability and usefulness. A detailed assessment on the structural differences of MRA with two advanced approaches (Integrated DSS design and goal directed design) and their role in performance of the MRA tool is used to critique the approach employed. The results show that MRA is able to bring thematic integration, establish system performance and technical thresholds as well as detailing quality and transparency guidelines. Nevertheless the discussion points out to a number of deficiencies in application – (i) a need to more effectively characterise potential users, and; (ii) a need to better foster communication among the distinguished roles in the development process. If addressed these deficiencies, SIAT non-standardised MRA could have brought out better outcomes in terms of tool usability and usefulness, and improved embedding of the tool into conditions of targeted end-users. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.