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.

Abstract: This study evaluates the impacts of projected climate change on irrigation requirements and yields of six crops (winter wheat, winter barley, rapeseed, grain maize, potato, and sugar beet) in Europe. Furthermore, the uncertainty deriving from consideration of irrigation, CO2 effects on crop growth and transpiration, and different climate change scenarios in climate change impact assessments is quantified. Net irrigation requirement (NIR) and yields of the six crops were simulated for a baseline (1982-2006) and three SRES scenarios (B1, B2 and A1B, 2040-2064) under rainfed and irrigated conditions, using a process-based crop model, SIMPLACE <LINTUL5, DRUNIR, HEAT>. We found that projected climate change decreased NIR of the three winter crops in northern Europe (up to 81 mm), but increased NIR of all the six crops in the Mediterranean regions (up to 182 mm yr(-1)). Climate change increased yields of the three winter crops and sugar beet in middle and northern regions (up to 36%), but decreased their yields in Mediterranean countries (up to 81%). Consideration of CO2 effects can alter the direction of change in NIR for irrigated crops in the south and of yields for C3 crops in central and northern Europe. Constraining the model to rainfed conditions for spring crops led to a negative bias in simulating climate change impacts on yields (up to 44%), which was proportional to the irrigation ratio of the simulation unit. Impacts on NIR and yields were generally consistent across the three SRES scenarios for the majority of regions in Europe. We conclude that due to the magnitude of irrigation and CO2 effects, they should both be considered in the simulation of climate change impacts on crop production and water availability, particularly for crops and regions with a high proportion of irrigated crop area.