Abstract: In crop insurance, the accuracy with which the insurer quantifies the actual risk is highly dependent on the availability on actual yield data. Crop models might be valuable tools to generate data on expected yields for risk assessment when no historical records are available. However, selecting a crop model for a specific objective, location and implementation scale is a difficult task. A look inside the different crop and soil modules to understand how outputs are obtained might facilitate model choice. The objectives of this paper were (i) to assess the usefulness of crop models to be used within a crop insurance analysis and design and (ii) to select the most suitable crop model for drought risk assessment in semi-arid regions in Spain. For that purpose first, a pre-selection of crop models simulating wheat yield under rainfed growing conditions at the field scale was made, and second, four selected models (Aquacrop, CERES-Wheat, CropSyst and WOFOST) were compared in terms of modelling approaches, process descriptions and model outputs. Outputs of the four models for the simulation of winter wheat growth are comparable when water is not limiting, but differences are larger when simulating yields under rainfed conditions. These differences in rainfed yields are mainly related to the dissimilar simulated soil water availability and the assumed linkages with dry matter formation. We concluded that for the simulation of winter wheat growth at field scale in such semi-arid conditions, CERES-Wheat and CropSyst are preferred. WOFOST is a satisfactory compromise between data availability and complexity when detail data on soil is limited. Aquacrop integrates physiological processes in some representative parameters, thus diminishing the number of input parameters, what is seen as an advantage when observed data is scarce. However, the high sensitivity of this model to low water availability limits its use in the region considered. Contrary to the use of ensembles of crop models, we endorse that efforts be concentrated on selecting or rebuilding a model that includes approaches that better describe the agronomic conditions of the regions in which they will be applied. The use of such complex methodologies as crop models is associated with numerous sources of uncertainty, although these models are the best tools available to get insight in these complex agronomic systems. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Global climate change is predicted to shift seasonal temperature and precipitation patterns. An increasing frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves and prolonged droughts is predicted, but there are high levels of uncertainty about the nature of local changes. Crop adaptation will be important in reducing potential damage to agriculture. Crop diversity may enhance resilience to climate variability and changes that are difficult to predict. Therefore, there has to be sufficient diversity within the set of available cultivars in response to weather parameters critical for yield formation. To determine the scale of such ‘weather response diversity’ within barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), an important crop in northern conditions, the yield responses of a wide range of modern and historical varieties were analysed according to a well-defined set of critical agro-meteorological variables. The Finnish long-term dataset of MTT Official Variety Trials was used together with historical weather records of the Finnish Meteorological Institute. The foci of the analysis were firstly to describe the general response of barley to different weather conditions and secondly to reveal the diversity among varieties in the sensitivity to each weather variable. It was established that barley yields were frequently reduced by drought or excessive rain early in the season, by high temperatures at around heading, and by accelerated temperature sum accumulation rates during periods 2 weeks before heading and between heading and yellow ripeness. Low temperatures early in the season increased yields, but frost during the first 4 weeks after sowing had no effect. After canopy establishment, higher precipitation on average resulted in higher yields. In a cultivar-specific analysis, it was found that there were differences in responses to all but three of the studied climatic variables: waterlogging and drought early in the season and temperature sum accumulation rate before heading. The results suggest that low temperatures early in the season, delayed sowing, rain 3-7 weeks after sowing, a temperature change 3-4 weeks after sowing, a high temperature sum accumulation rate from heading to yellow ripeness and high temperatures (25 degrees C) at around heading could mostly be addressed by exploiting the traits found in the range of varieties included in the present study. However, new technology and novel genetic material are needed to enable crops to withstand periods of excessive rain or drought early in the season and to enhance performance under increased temperature sum accumulation rates prior to heading.

Abstract: Crop models must be improved to account for the effects of heat stress events on crop yields. To date, most approaches in crop models use air temperature to define heat stress intensity as the cumulative sum of thermal times (TT) above a high temperature threshold during a sensitive period for yield formation. However, observational evidence indicates that crop canopy temperature better explains yield reductions associated with high temperature events than air temperature does. This study presents a canopy level energy balance using Monin ObukhovSimilarity Theory (MOST) with simplifications about the canopy resistance that render it suitable for application in crop models and other models of the plant environment. The model is evaluated for a uniform irrigated wheat canopy in Arizona and rainfed maize in Burkina Faso. No single variable regression relationships for key explanatory variables were found that were consistent across sowing dates to explain the deviation of canopy temperature from air temperature. Finally, thermal times determined with simulated canopy temperatures were able to reproduce thermal times calculated with observed canopy temperature, whereas those determined with air temperatures were not. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.