Abstract: Soil water percolation is a key process in the life cycle of water in fields, watersheds, and river basins. The Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) and the Agricultural Policy/Environmental eXtender (APEX) are continuous models developed for evaluating the environmental effects of agricultural management. Traditionally, these models have simulated soil water percolation processes using a tipping-bucket approach, with the rate of flow limited by the saturated hydraulic conductivity. This simple approach often leads to inaccuracy in simulating elevated soil water conditions where soil water content (SWC) levels may remain above field capacity under prolonged wet weather periods or limited drainage. To overcome this deficiency, a new sub-model, the variable saturation hydraulic conductivity (VSHC) method, was developed for simulating soil water percolation processes using a nonlinear equation to estimate the effective hydraulic conductivity as a function of the SWC and soil properties. The VSHC method was evaluated at three sites in the United States and two sites in Europe. In addition, a numerical solution of the Richards equation was used as a benchmark for SWC comparison. Results show that the VSHC method substantially improves the accuracy of the SWC simulation in long-term simulations, particularly during wet periods. At the watershed scale, results on the Riesel Y2 watershed indicate that the VSHC method enhances model performance in the high-flow regime of channel peak flows because of the improved estimation of SWC, which implies that the improved SWC simulation at the field scale is beneficial to hydrologic modeling at the watershed scale.

Abstract: Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.