Abstract: Process-based models (PBM) for simulation of weather dependent grass growth can assist farmers and plant breeders in addressing the challenges of climate change by simulating alternative roads of adaptation. They can also provide management decision support under current conditions. A drawback of existing grass models is that they do not take into account the effect of winter stresses, limiting their use for full-year simulations in areas where winter survival is a key factor for yield security. Here, we present a novel full-year PBM for grassland named BASGRA. It was developed by combining the LINGRA grassland model (Van Oijen et al., 2005a) with models for cold hardening and soil physical winter processes. We present the model and show how it was parameterized for timothy (Phleum pratense L.), the most important forage grass in Scandinavia and parts of North America and Asia. Uniquely, BASGRA simulates the processes taking place in the sward during the transition from summer to winter, including growth cessation and gradual cold hardening, and functions for simulating plant injury due to low temperatures, snow and ice affecting regrowth in spring. For the calibration, we used detailed data from five different locations in Norway, covering a wide range of agroclimatic regions, day lengths (latitudes from 59 degrees to 70 degrees N) and soil conditions. The total dataset included 11 variables, notably above-ground dry matter, leaf area index, tiller density, content of C reserves, and frost tolerance. All data were used in the calibration. When BASGRA was run with the maximum a-posteriori (MAP) parameter vector from the single, Bayesian calibration, nearly all measured variables were simulated to an overall normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE) <0.5. For many site x experiment combinations, NRMSE was <0.3. The temporal dynamics were captured well for most variables, as evaluated by comparing simulated time courses versus data for the individual sites. The results may suggest that BASGRA is a reasonably robust model, allowing for simulation of growth and several important underlying processes with acceptable accuracy for a range of agroclimatic conditions. However, the robustness of the model needs to be tested further using independent data from a wide range of growing conditions. Finally we show an example of application of the model, comparing overwintering risks in two climatically different sites, and discuss future model applications. Further development work should include improved simulation of the dynamics of C reserves, and validation of winter tiller dynamics against independent data. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Regional agricultural yield assessments allowing for weather effect quantifications are a valuable basis for deriving scenarios of climate change effects and developing adaptation strategies. Assessing weather effects by statistical methods is a classical approach, but for obtaining robust results many details deserve attention and require individual decisions as is demonstrated in this paper. We evaluated regression models for annual yield changes of winter wheat and silage maize in more than 300 German counties and revised them to increase their predictive power. A major effort of this study was, however, aggregating separately estimated time series models (STSM) into panel data models (PDM) based on cluster analyses. The cluster analyses were based on the per-county estimates of STSM parameters. The original STSM formulations (adopted from a parallel study) contained also the non-meteorological input variables acreage and fertilizer price. The models were revised to use only weather variables as estimation basis. These consisted of time aggregates of radiation, precipitation, temperature, and potential evapotranspiration. Altering the input variables generally increased the predictive power of the models as did their clustering into PDM. For each crop, five alternative clusterings were produced by three different methods, and similarities between their spatial structures seem to confirm the existence of objective clusters about common model parameters. Observed smooth transitions of STSM parameter values in space suggest, however, spatial autocorrelation effects that could also be modeled explicitly. Both clustering and autocorrelation approaches can effectively reduce the noise in parameter estimation through targeted aggregation of input data. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: 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. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.