Abstract: • We simulate biomass, soil water content (SWC) and temperature (ST) in grasslands. • We compare nine models to the multi-model median (MMM) at nine sites. • With model calibration, we obtain satisfactory estimates of ST, less of SWC and biomass. • We observe discrepancies across models in the simulation of grassland processes. • We improve performance with multi-model approach. This study presents results from a major grassland model intercomparison exercise, and highlights the main challenges faced in the implementation of a multi-model ensemble prediction system in grasslands. Nine, independently developed simulation models linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to grassland biogeochemical cycles and production were compared in a simulation of soil water content (SWC) and soil temperature (ST) in the topsoil, and of biomass production. The results were assessed against SWC and ST data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions – Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland – and against yield measurements from the same sites and other experimental grassland sites in Europe and Israel. We present a comparison of model estimates from individual models to the multi-model ensemble (represented by multi-model median: MMM). With calibration (seven out of nine models), the performances were acceptable for weekly-aggregated ST (R² > 0.7 with individual models and >0.8–0.9 with MMM), but less satisfactory with SWC (R² < 0.6 with individual models and < ∼ 0.5 with MMM) and biomass (R² < ∼0.3 with both individual models and MMM). With individual models, maximum biases of about −5 °C for ST, −0.3 m3 m−3 for SWC and 360 g DM m−2 for yield, as well as negative modelling efficiencies and some high relative root mean square errors indicate low model performance, especially for biomass. We also found substantial discrepancies across different models, indicating considerable uncertainties regarding the simulation of grassland processes. The multi-model approach allowed for improved performance, but further progress is strongly needed in the way models represent processes in managed grassland systems.

Abstract: Given the energetic, demographic and the climatic challenges faced today, we designed a combined food and energy (CFE) production system integrating food, fodder and mixed belts of Salix, Alnus and Corylus sp. as bioenergy belts. The objective was to assess the shoot dry weight-stem diameter allometric relationship based on stem diameter at 10 (SD10) and 55 cm (SD55) from the shoot base in the mixed bioenergy belts. Allometric relations based on SD10 and SD55 explained 90-96% and 90-98% of the variation in shoot dry weights respectively with no differences between the destructive and the non-destructive methods. The individual stool yields varied widely among the species and within willow species with biomass yield range of 37.60-92.00 oven dry tons (ODT) ha (1) in 4-year growth cycle. The biomass yield of the bioenergy belt, predicted by allometric relations was 48.84 ODT ha 1 in 4-year growth cycle corresponding to 12.21 ODT ha (1) year (1). The relatively high biomass yield is attributed to the border effects and the ‘fertilizing effect’ of alder due to nitrogen fixation, benefitting other SWRC components. On termination of 4-year growth cycle, the bioenergy belts were harvested and the biomass yield recorded was 12.54 ODT ha (1) year (1), in close proximity to the biomass yield predicted by the allometric equations, lending confidence and robustness of the model for biomass yield determination in such integrated agro-ecosystem. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper is part review and part opinion piece; it has three parts of increasing novelty and speculation in approach. The first presents an overview of how some of the major crop simulation models approach the issue of simulating the responses of crops to changing climatic and weather variables, mainly atmospheric CO2 concentration and increased and/or varying temperatures. It illustrates an important principle in models of a single cause having alternative effects and vice versa. The second part suggests some features, mostly missing in current crop models, that need to be included in the future, focussing on extreme events such as high temperature or extreme drought. The final opinion part is speculative but novel. It describes an approach to deconstruct resource use efficiencies into their constituent identities or elements based on the Kaya-Porter identity, each of which can be examined for responses to climate and climatic change. We give no promise that the final part is correct’, but we hope it can be a stimulation to thought, hypothesis and experiment, and perhaps a new modelling approach.