Abstract: Potential consequences of climate change on crop production can be studied using mechanistic crop simulation models. While a broad variety of maize simulation models exist, it is not known whether different models diverge on grain yield responses to changes in climatic factors, or whether they agree in their general trends related to phenology, growth, and yield. With the goal of analyzing the sensitivity of simulated yields to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2 ], we present the largest maize crop model intercomparison to date, including 23 different models. These models were evaluated for four locations representing a wide range of maize production conditions in the world: Lusignan (France), Ames (USA), Rio Verde (Brazil) and Morogoro (Tanzania). While individual models differed considerably in absolute yield simulation at the four sites, an ensemble of a minimum number of models was able to simulate absolute yields accurately at the four sites even with low data for calibration, thus suggesting that using an ensemble of models has merit. Temperature increase had strong negative influence on modeled yield response of roughly -0.5 Mg ha(-1) per °C. Doubling [CO2 ] from 360 to 720 μmol mol(-1) increased grain yield by 7.5% on average across models and the sites. That would therefore make temperature the main factor altering maize yields at the end of this century. Furthermore, there was a large uncertainty in the yield response to [CO2 ] among models. Model responses to temperature and [CO2 ] did not differ whether models were simulated with low calibration information or, simulated with high level of calibration information.

Abstract: An environmental dynamic system is usually modeled as a nonlinear system described by a set of nonlinear ODEs. A central challenge in computational modeling of environmental systems is the determination of the model parameters. In these cases, estimating these variables or parameters from other easily obtained measurements can be extremely useful. This work addresses the problem of monitoring and modeling a leaf area index and soil moisture model (LSM) using state estimation. The performances of various conventional and state-of-the-art state estimation techniques are compared when they are utilized to achieve this objective. These techniques include the extended Kalman filter (EKF), particle filter (PF), and the more recently developed technique variational filter (VF). Specifically, two comparative studies are performed. In the first comparative study, the state variables (the leaf-area index LAI, the volumetric water content of the soil layer 1, HUR1 and the volumetric water content of the soil layer 2, HUR2) are estimated from noisy measurements of these variables, and the various estimation techniques are compared by computing the estimation root mean square error (RMSE) with respect to the noise-free data. In the second comparative study, the state variables as well as the model parameters are simultaneously estimated. In this case, in addition to comparing the performances of the various state estimation techniques, the effect of number of estimated model parameters on the accuracy and convergence of these techniques are also assessed. The results of both comparative studies show that the PF provides a higher accuracy than the EKF, which is due to the limited ability of the EKF to handle highly nonlinear processes. The results also show that the VF provides a significant improvement over the PF because, unlike the PF which depends on the choice of sampling distribution used to estimate the posterior distribution, the VF yields an optimum choice of the sampling distribution, which also accounts for the observed data. The results of the second comparative study show that, for all techniques, estimating more model parameters affects the estimation accuracy as well as the convergence of the estimated states and parameters. However, the VF can still provide both convergence as well as accuracy related advantages over other estimation methods. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.