Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.

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.