Abstract: Grapevine is a worldwide valuable crop characterized by a high economic importance for the production of high quality wines. However, the impact of climate change on the narrow climate niches in which grapevine is currently cultivated constitute a great risk for future suitability of grapevine. In this context, grape simulation models are considered promising tools for their contribution to investigate plant behavior in different environments. In this study, six models developed for simulating grapevine growth and development were tested by focusing on their performances in simulating main grapevine processes under two calibration levels: minimum and full calibration. This would help to evaluate major limitations/strength points of these models, especially in the view of their application to climate change impact and adaptation assessments. Preliminary results from two models (GrapeModel and STICS) showed contrasting abilities in reproducing the observed data depending on the site, the year and the target variable considered. These results suggest that a limited dataset for model calibration would lead to poor simulation outputs. However, a more complete interpretation and detailed analysis of the results will be provided when considering the other models simulations.

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.