Abstract: Experimental field data are used at different levels of complexity to calibrate, validate and improve agroecosystem models to enhance their reliability for regional impact assessment. A methodological framework and software are presented to evaluate and classify data sets into four classes regarding their suitability for different modelling purposes. Weighting of inputs and variables for testing was set from the aspect of crop modelling. The software allows users to adjust weights according to their specific requirements. Background information is given for the variables with respect to their relevance for modelling and possible uncertainties. Examples are given for data sets of the different classes. The framework helps to assemble high quality data bases, to select data from data bases according to modellers requirements and gives guidelines to experimentalists for experimental design and decide on the most effective measurements to improve the usefulness of their data for modelling, statistical analysis and data assimilation. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Simulation models are frequently applied to determine the production potential of forage grasses under various scenarios, including climate change. Thorough calibrations and evaluations of forage grass models can help improve their applicability. This study evaluated the ability of the Light Interception and Utilization Simulator-GRAss (LINGRA) model to predict biomass yield of timothy (Phleum pratense L. cv. Grindstad) in the Nordic countries. Variety trial data for the first and second year after establishment were obtained for seven locations: Jokioinen, Finland (60 degrees 48 ‘ N; 23 degrees 29 ‘ E), Maaninka, Finland (63 degrees 09 ‘ N; 27 degrees 18 ‘ E), Korpa, Iceland (64 degrees 09 ‘ N; 21 degrees 45 ‘ W), Srheim, Norway (58 degrees 41 ‘ N; 5 degrees 39 ‘ E), Lillerud, Sweden (59 degrees 24’ N; 13 degrees 16 ‘ E), Ostersund, Sweden (63 degrees 15 ‘ N; 14 degrees 34 ‘ E) and Ulna Sweden (63 degrees 49 ‘ N; 20 degrees 13 ‘ E) from 1992 to 2012. Two calibrations of the LINGRA model were carried out using Bayesian techniques. In the first of these (SRrheim calibration), data on biomass yield and underlying variables obtained from independent field trials at Srheim were used. In the second (Nordic calibration), biomass data from the other locations were used as well. The model was validated against the remaining set of biomass yields from all locations not included in the Nordic calibration. The observed total seasonal yield the first and second year after establishment was 913 and 991 g DM m(-2) respectively on average across the locations. The corresponding average simulated yield after the Srheim calibration was 1044 (root mean square error (RMSE) 258) and 1112 g DM m(-2) (RMSE 312), respectively. After the Nordic calibration, the simulated average total seasonal yield was 863 (RMSE 242) the first year and 927 g DM m(-2) (RMSE 271) the second year after establishment. The differences between the observed and simulated first cut yield followed the same patterns, whereas the prediction accuracy for second cut yield did not differ substantially between the calibration approaches.Using the parameter set from the Nordic region decreased the model predictability at Srheim compared with only using model parameters derived from this location. These results show that using biomass data from several locations, instead of only one specific location, in the calibration of the LINGRA model improved the overall prediction accuracy of first cut dry matter yield and total seasonal dry matter yield across an environmentally heterogeneous region. To further analyse the usefulness of including multi-site data in forage grass model calibrations, other forage grass models could be evaluated against the same dataset.

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.