Abstract: ► Introduces the special issue on Agricultural prediction using climate model ensembles. ► Discuss remaining scientific challenges. ► Develops distinction between projection- and utility-based ensemble modelling. ► Recommendations made RE modelling and the analysis and reporting of uncertainty. Significant progress has been made in the use of ensemble agricultural and climate modelling, and observed data, to project future productivity and to develop adaptation options. An increasing number of agricultural models are designed specifically for use with climate ensembles, and improved methods to quantify uncertainty in both climate and agriculture have been developed. Whilst crop–climate relationships are still the most common agricultural study of this sort, on-farm management, hydrology, pests, diseases and livestock are now also examined. This paper introduces all of these areas of progress, with more detail being found in the subsequent papers in the special issue. Remaining scientific challenges are discussed, and a distinction is developed between projection- and utility-based approaches to agro-climate ensemble modelling. Recommendations are made regarding the manner in which uncertainty is analysed and reported, and the way in which models and data are used to make inferences regarding the future. A key underlying principle is the use of models as tools from which information is extracted, rather than as competing attempts to represent reality.

Abstract: Wheat yields in Europe have shown stagnating trends during the last two decades, partly attributed to climate change. Such developments challenge the needs for increased production, in particular at higher latitudes, to meet increasing global demands and expected productivity reductions at lower latitudes. Climate change projections from three General Circulation Models or GCMs (UKMO-HadGEM1, INM-GM3.0 and CSIRO-Mk3.1) for the A1FI SIZES emission scenario for 2000 to 2100 were downscaled at a northern latitude location (Foulum, Denmark) using LARS-WG5.3. The scenarios accounted for changes in temperature, precipitation and atmospheric CO2 concentration. In addition, three temperature-variability scenarios were included assuming different levels of decreased temperature variability in winter and increased in summer. Crop yield was simulated for the different climate change scenarios by a calibrated version of AFRCWHEAT2 to model several combinations of genotypes (varying in crop growth, development and tolerance to water and nitrogen scarcity) and management (sowing dates and nitrogen fertilization rate). The simulations showed a slight improvement of grain yields (0.3-1.2 Mg ha(-1)) in the medium-term (2030-2050), but not enough to cope with expected increases in demand for food and feed. Optimum management added up to 1.8 Mg ha(-1). Genetic modifications regarding winter wheat crop development exhibit the greatest sensitivity to climate and larger potential for improvement (+3.8 Mg ha(-1)). The results consistently points towards need for cultivars with a longer reproductive phases (2.9-7.5% per 1 degrees C) and lower photoperiod sensitivities. Due to the positive synergies between several genotypic characteristics, multiple-target breeding programmes would be necessary, possibly assisted by model-based assessments of optimal phenotypic characteristics.

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.