Abstract: Farmlands are increasingly exposed to degradation phenomena associated to climate change and agricultural practices, including irrigation. It is estimated that about 20% of the world’s irrigated land is salt affected. In this paper we aimed at evaluating the effect of seasonal and multiannual soil satinization on growth, yield, and radiation use efficiency of tomato in open field. Two field experiments were carried out at the Experimental Station of the University of Naples Federico II (latitude 40 degrees 31’N longitude 14 degrees 58’E) (Italy) on tomato during 2004 and 2005 to study the effect of five levels of water salinity: NSC (EC = 0.5 dS m(-1)), SW1 (EC= 2.3 dS m(-1)), SW2 (EC= 4.4 dS m(-1)), SW3 (EC= 8.5 dS m(-1)) and SW4 (EC= 15.7 dS m(-1)) in a soil exposed to one-season salinization (ST = short-term) and an adjacent soil exposed to >20 years salinization (LT = long-term). Plant growth, yield and fruit quality (pH, EC, total soluble solids and the concentration of reducing sugars and of titratable acids), and plant water relations were measured and radiation use efficiency (RUE) was calculated. Increasing water salinity negatively affected the leaf area index (LAI), radiation use efficiency (RUE) and above-ground dry weight (DW) accumulation resulting in lower total and marketable yield. Maximum total and marketable yield obtained with the NSC treatment were respectively 117.9 and 111.0 Mg ha(-1) in 2004 and 113.1 and 107.9 Mg ha(-1) in 2005. Although the smaller leaf area of salinized plants was largely responsible for reduced RUE, we found approximately 50% of this reduction to be accounted for by processes other than changed crop architecture. These may include an increased stomatal resistance, increased mesophyll resistance and other impaired metabolic functions that may occur at high salinity. Remarkably, we found that LT salinized plants had a slightly better efficiency of use of intercepted radiation (RUEIR) at a given EC of soil extract than ST salinized plants indicating that LT salinization, and consequent permanent modifications of the soil physical properties, may trigger additional physiological mechanisms of adaptation compared to ST salinized plants. These differences are relevant in light of the evolution of salinized areas, also in response to climate change.

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.