Abstract: The objective of the present study was to compare the performance of seven different, widely applied crop models in predicting heat and drought stress effects. The study was part of a recent suite of model inter-comparisons initiated at European level and constitutes a component that has been lacking in the analysis of sources of uncertainties in crop models used to study the impacts of climate change. There was a specific focus on the sensitivity of models for winter wheat and maize to extreme weather conditions (heat and drought) during the short but critical period of 2 weeks after the start of flowering. Two locations in Austria, representing different agro-climatic zones and soil conditions, were included in the simulations over 2 years, 2003 and 2004, exhibiting contrasting weather conditions. In addition, soil management was modified at both sites by following either ploughing or minimum tillage. Since no comprehensive field experimental data sets were available, a relative comparison of simulated grain yields and soil moisture contents under defined weather scenarios with modified temperatures and precipitation was performed for a 2-week period after flowering. The results may help to reduce the uncertainty of simulated crop yields to extreme weather conditions through better understanding of the models’ behaviour. Although the crop models considered (DSSAT, EPIC, WOFOST, AQUACROP, FASSET, HERMES and CROPSYST) mostly showed similar trends in simulated grain yields for the different weather scenarios, it was obvious that heat and drought stress caused by changes in temperature and/or precipitation for a short period of 2 weeks resulted in different grain yields simulated by different models. The present study also revealed that the models responded differently to changes in soil tillage practices, which affected soil water storage capacity.

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: Genetic improvement of grain yield (GY) and grain protein concentration (GPC) is impeded by large genotype×environment×management interactions and by compensatory effects between traits. Here global uncertainty and sensitivity analyses of the process-based wheat model SiriusQuality2 were conducted with the aim of identifying candidate traits to increase GY and GPC. Three contrasted European sites were selected and simulations were performed using long-term weather data and two nitrogen (N) treatments in order to quantify the effect of parameter uncertainty on GY and GPC under variable environments. The overall influence of all 75 plant parameters of SiriusQuality2 was first analysed using the Morris method. Forty-one influential parameters were identified and their individual (first-order) and total effects on the model outputs were investigated using the extended Fourier amplitude sensitivity test. The overall effect of the parameters was dominated by their interactions with other parameters. Under high N supply, a few influential parameters with respect to GY were identified (e.g. radiation use efficiency, potential duration of grain filling, and phyllochron). However, under low N, >10 parameters showed similar effects on GY and GPC. All parameters had opposite effects on GY and GPC, but leaf and stem N storage capacity appeared as good candidate traits to change the intercept of the negative relationship between GY and GPC. This study provides a system analysis of traits determining GY and GPC under variable environments and delivers valuable information to prioritize model development and experimental work.