Abstract: Sunflower is one of the major oilseeds produced in Tanzania, but due to insufficient domestic production more than half of the country’s demand is imported. The improvement of the sunflower food value chain (FVC) understanding is important to ensure an increase in the production, availability, and quality of edible oil. In order to analyse causes and propose solutions to increase the production of sunflower oil, a conceptual framework that proposes the combined use of different models to provide insights about the sunflower FVC was developed. This research focus on the identification of agricultural models that can provide a better understanding of the sunflower FVC in Tanzania, especially within the context of food security improvement. A FVC scheme was designed considering the main steps of sunflower production. Thereafter, relevant models were selected and placed along each step of the FVC. As result, the sunflower FVC model in Tanzania is organized in five steps, namely (1) natural resources; (2) crop production; (3) oil processing; (4) trade; and (5) consumption. Step 1 uses environmental indicators to analyse soil parameters on soil-water models (SWAT, LPJmL, APSIM or CroSyst), with outputs providing data for step 2 of the FVC. In the production step, data from step 1, together with other inputs, is used to run crop models (DSSAT, HERMES, MONICA, STICS, EPIC or AquaCrop) that analyse the impact on sunflower yields. Thereafter, outputs from crop models serve as input for bio-economic farm models (FSSIM or MODAM) to estimate production costs and farm income by optimizing resource allocation planning for step 2. In addition, outputs from crop models are used as inputs for macro-economic models (GTAP, MAGNET or MagPie) by adjusting supply functions and environmental impacts within steps 3, 4, and 5. These models simulate supply and demand, including the processing of products to determine prices and trade volumes at market equilibrium. In turn, these data is used by bio-economic farm models to assess sunflower returns for different farm types and agro-environmental conditions. Due to the large variety of models, it is possible to assess significant parts of the FVC, reducing the need to make assumptions, while improving the understanding of the FVC.

Abstract: Two independently developed simulation models – the grassland-specific PaSim and the biome-generic Biome-BGC MuSo (BBGC MuSo) – linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to ecosystem biogeochemical cycles were compared in a simulation of carbon (C) and water fluxes. The results were assessed against eddy-covariance flux data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions in Europe: Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland. Model comparison (after calibration) gave substantial agreement, the performances being marginal to acceptable for weekly-aggregated gross primary production and ecosystem respiration (R-2 similar to 0.66 – 0.91), weekly evapotranspiration (R-2 similar to 0.78 – 0.94), soil water content in the topsoil (R-2 similar to 0.1 -0.7) and soil temperature (R-2 similar to 0.88 – 0.96). The bias was limited to the range -13 to 9 g C m(-2) week(-1) for C fluxes (-11 to 8 g C m(-2) week(-1) in case of BBGC MuSo, and -13 to 9 g C m(-2) week(-1) in case of PaSim) and -4 to 6 mm week for water fluxes (with BBGC MuSo providing somewhat higher estimates than PaSim), but some higher relative root mean square errors indicate low accuracy for prediction, especially for net ecosystem exchange The sensitivity of simulated outputs to changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]), temperature and precipitation indicate, with certain agreement between the two models, that C outcomes are dominated by [CO2] and temperature gradients, and are less due to precipitation. ET rates decrease with increasing [CO2] in PaSim (consistent with experimental knowledge), while lack of appropriate stomatal response could be a limit in BBGC MuSo responsiveness. Results of the study indicate that some of the errors might be related to the improper representation of soil water content and soil temperature. Improvement is needed in the model representations of soil processes (especially soil water balance) that strongly influence the biogeochemical cycles of managed and unmanaged grasslands. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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.