Abstract: Climate change impact assessments are plagued with uncertainties from many sources, such as climate projections or the inadequacies in structure and parameters of the impact model. Previous studies tried to account for the uncertainty from one or two of these. Here, we developed a triple-ensemble probabilistic assessment using seven crop models, multiple sets of model parameters and eight contrasting climate projections together to comprehensively account for uncertainties from these three important sources. We demonstrated the approach in assessing climate change impact on barley growth and yield at Jokioinen, Finland in the Boreal climatic zone and Lleida, Spain in the Mediterranean climatic zone, for the 2050s. We further quantified and compared the contribution of crop model structure, crop model parameters and climate projections to the total variance of ensemble output using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Based on the triple-ensemble probabilistic assessment, the median of simulated yield change was -4% and +16%, and the probability of decreasing yield was 63% and 31% in the 2050s, at Jokioinen and Lleida, respectively, relative to 1981-2010. The contribution of crop model structure to the total variance of ensemble output was larger than that from downscaled climate projections and model parameters. The relative contribution of crop model parameters and downscaled climate projections to the total variance of ensemble output varied greatly among the seven crop models and between the two sites. The contribution of downscaled climate projections was on average larger than that of crop model parameters. This information on the uncertainty from different sources can be quite useful for model users to decide where to put the most effort when preparing or choosing models or parameters for impact analyses. We concluded that the triple-ensemble probabilistic approach that accounts for the uncertainties from multiple important sources provide more comprehensive information for quantifying uncertainties in climate change impact assessments as compared to the conventional approaches that are deterministic or only account for the uncertainties from one or two of the uncertainty sources.

Abstract: We present protocols and input data for Phase 1 of the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison, a project of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). The project includes global simulations of yields, phenologies, and many land-surface fluxes using 12-15 modeling groups for many crops, climate forcing data sets, and scenarios over the historical period from 1948 to 2012. The primary outcomes of the project include (1) a detailed comparison of the major differences and similarities among global models commonly used for large-scale climate impact assessment, (2) an evaluation of model and ensemble hindcasting skill, (3) quantification of key uncertainties from climate input data, model choice, and other sources, and (4) a multi-model analysis of the agricultural impacts of large-scale climate extremes from the historical record.

Abstract: 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. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.