Abstract: The crop simulation model AquaCrop, recently developed by FAO can be used for a wide range of purposes. However, in its present form, its use over large areas or for applications that require a large number of simulations runs (e.g., long-term analysis), is not practical without developing software to facilitate such applications. Two tools for managing the inputs and outputs of AquaCrop, named AquaData and AquaGIS, have been developed for this purpose and are presented here. Both software utilities have been programmed in Delphi v. 5 and in addition, AquaGIS requires the Geographic Information System (GIS) programming tool MapObjects. These utilities allow the efficient management of input and output files, along with a GIS module to develop spatial analysis and effect spatial visualization of the results, facilitating knowledge dissemination. A sample of application of the utilities is given here, as an AquaCrop simulation analysis of impact of climate change on wheat yield in Southern Spain, which requires extensive input data preparation and output processing. The use of AquaCrop without the two utilities would have required approximately 1000 h of work, while the utilization of AquaData and AquaGIS reduced that time by more than 99%. Furthermore, the use of GIS, made it possible to perform a spatial analysis of the results, thus providing a new option to extend the use of the AquaCrop model to scales requiring spatial and temporal analyses. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: ARMOSA is a dynamic simulation model which was developed to simulate crop growth and development, water and nitrogen dynamics under different pedoclimatic conditions and cropping systems in the arable land. The model is meant to be a tool for the evaluation of the impact of different crop management practices on soil nitrogen and carbon cycles and groundwater nitrate pollution. A large data set collected over three to six years from six monitoring sites in Lombardia plain was used to calibrate and validate the model parameters. Measured meteorological data, soil chemical and physical characterizations, crop-related data of different cropping systems allowed for a proper parameterization. Fit indexes showed the reliability of the model in adequately predicting crop-related variables, such as above ground biomass (RRMSE=11.18, EF=0.94, r=0.97), Leaf Area Index maximum value (RRMSE=8.24, EF=0.37, r=0.72), harvest index (RRMSE=19.4, EF=0.32, r=0.74), and crop N uptake (RRMSE=20.25, EF=0.69, r=0.85). Using two different one-year data set from each monitoring site, the model was calibrated and validated, getting to encouraging results: RRMSE=6.28, EF=0.52, r=0.68 for soil water content at different depths, and RRMSE=34.89, EF=0.59, r=0.75 for soil NO3-N content along soil profile. The simulated N leaching was in full agreement with measured data (RRMSE=26.62, EF=0.88, r=0.98).

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.