Abstract: The phenological development of cereal crops from emergence through flowering to maturity is largely controlled by temperature, but also affected by day length and potential physiological stresses. Responses may vary between species and varieties. Climate change will affect the timing of cereal crop development, but exact changes will also depend on changes in varieties as affected by plant breeding and variety choices. This study aimed to assess changes in timing of major phenological stages of cereal crops in Northern and Central Europe under climate change. Records on dates of sowing, flowering, and maturity of wheat, oats and maize were collected from field experiments conducted during the period 1985-2009. Data for spring wheat and spring oats covered latitudes from 46 to 64°N, winter wheat from 46 to 61°N, and maize from 47 to 58°N. The number of observations (site-year-variety combinations) varied with phenological phase, but exceeded 2190, 227, 2076 and 1506 for winter wheat, spring wheat, spring oats and maize, respectively. The data were used to fit simple crop development models, assuming that the duration of the period until flowering depends on temperature and day length for wheat and oats, and on temperature for maize, and that the duration of the period from flowering to maturity in all species depends on temperature only. Species-specific base temperatures were used. Sowing date of spring cereals was estimated using a threshold temperature for the mean air temperature during 10 days prior to sowing. The mean estimated temperature thresholds for sowing were 6.1, 7.1 and 10.1°C for oats, wheat and maize, respectively. For spring oats and wheat the temperature threshold increased with latitude. The effective temperature sums required for both flowering and maturity increased with increasing mean annual temperature of the location, indicating that varieties are well adapted to given conditions. The responses of wheat and oats were largest for the period from flowering to maturity. Changes in timing of cereal phenology by 2040 were assessed for two climate model projections according to the observed dependencies on temperature and day length. The results showed advancements of sowing date of spring cereals by 1-3 weeks depending on climate model and region within Europe. The changes were largest in Northern Europe. Timing of flowering and maturity were projected to advance by 1-3 weeks. The changes were largest for grain maize and smallest for winter wheat, and they were generally largest in the western and northern part of the domain. There were considerable differences in predicted timing of sowing, flowering and maturity between the two climate model projections applied.

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: A common format for model input variables and model output variables has been defined to be distributed to modellers participating in the model inter-comparison and improvement. The aim of common formats is to support the communication between the modellers, those providing empirical data of the experiments and those analysing the simulation results. The input format facilitates the model application in a way that each cropping-system to be modelled will be defined in the same way. Data will be delivered in EXCEL sheets with sub-tables for each block of inputs. Tables are mostly organized in a way that allows export and sequential read-in by the models. The common output format enables effective processing of results estimating model performance indicators. No Label