Abstract: Global climate change is predicted to shift seasonal temperature and precipitation patterns. An increasing frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves and prolonged droughts is predicted, but there are high levels of uncertainty about the nature of local changes. Crop adaptation will be important in reducing potential damage to agriculture. Crop diversity may enhance resilience to climate variability and changes that are difficult to predict. Therefore, there has to be sufficient diversity within the set of available cultivars in response to weather parameters critical for yield formation. To determine the scale of such ‘weather response diversity’ within barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), an important crop in northern conditions, the yield responses of a wide range of modern and historical varieties were analysed according to a well-defined set of critical agro-meteorological variables. The Finnish long-term dataset of MTT Official Variety Trials was used together with historical weather records of the Finnish Meteorological Institute. The foci of the analysis were firstly to describe the general response of barley to different weather conditions and secondly to reveal the diversity among varieties in the sensitivity to each weather variable. It was established that barley yields were frequently reduced by drought or excessive rain early in the season, by high temperatures at around heading, and by accelerated temperature sum accumulation rates during periods 2 weeks before heading and between heading and yellow ripeness. Low temperatures early in the season increased yields, but frost during the first 4 weeks after sowing had no effect. After canopy establishment, higher precipitation on average resulted in higher yields. In a cultivar-specific analysis, it was found that there were differences in responses to all but three of the studied climatic variables: waterlogging and drought early in the season and temperature sum accumulation rate before heading. The results suggest that low temperatures early in the season, delayed sowing, rain 3-7 weeks after sowing, a temperature change 3-4 weeks after sowing, a high temperature sum accumulation rate from heading to yellow ripeness and high temperatures (25 degrees C) at around heading could mostly be addressed by exploiting the traits found in the range of varieties included in the present study. However, new technology and novel genetic material are needed to enable crops to withstand periods of excessive rain or drought early in the season and to enhance performance under increased temperature sum accumulation rates prior to heading.

Abstract: Crop models of crop growth are increasingly used to quantify the impact of global changes due to climate or crop management. Therefore, accuracy of simulation results is a major concern. Studies with ensembles of crop models can give valuable information about model accuracy and uncertainty, but such studies are difficult to organize and have only recently begun. We report on the largest ensemble study to date, of 27 wheat models tested in four contrasting locations for their accuracy in simulating multiple crop growth and yield variables. The relative error averaged over models was 24-38% for the different end-of-season variables including grain yield (GY) and grain protein concentration (GPC). There was little relation between error of a model for GY or GPC and error for in-season variables. Thus, most models did not arrive at accurate simulations of GY and GPC by accurately simulating preceding growth dynamics. Ensemble simulations, taking either the mean (e-mean) or median (e-median) of simulated values, gave better estimates than any individual model when all variables were considered. Compared to individual models, e-median ranked first in simulating measured GY and third in GPC. The error of e-mean and e-median declined with an increasing number of ensemble members, with little decrease beyond 10 models. We conclude that multimodel ensembles can be used to create new estimators with improved accuracy and consistency in simulating growth dynamics. We argue that these results are applicable to other crop species, and hypothesize that they apply more generally to ecological system models.

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.