Abstract: Process-based models (PBM) for simulation of weather dependent grass growth can assist farmers and plant breeders in addressing the challenges of climate change by simulating alternative roads of adaptation. They can also provide management decision support under current conditions. A drawback of existing grass models is that they do not take into account the effect of winter stresses, limiting their use for full-year simulations in areas where winter survival is a key factor for yield security. Here, we present a novel full-year PBM for grassland named BASGRA. It was developed by combining the LINGRA grassland model (Van Oijen et al., 2005a) with models for cold hardening and soil physical winter processes. We present the model and show how it was parameterized for timothy (Phleum pratense L.), the most important forage grass in Scandinavia and parts of North America and Asia. Uniquely, BASGRA simulates the processes taking place in the sward during the transition from summer to winter, including growth cessation and gradual cold hardening, and functions for simulating plant injury due to low temperatures, snow and ice affecting regrowth in spring. For the calibration, we used detailed data from five different locations in Norway, covering a wide range of agroclimatic regions, day lengths (latitudes from 59 degrees to 70 degrees N) and soil conditions. The total dataset included 11 variables, notably above-ground dry matter, leaf area index, tiller density, content of C reserves, and frost tolerance. All data were used in the calibration. When BASGRA was run with the maximum a-posteriori (MAP) parameter vector from the single, Bayesian calibration, nearly all measured variables were simulated to an overall normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE) <0.5. For many site x experiment combinations, NRMSE was <0.3. The temporal dynamics were captured well for most variables, as evaluated by comparing simulated time courses versus data for the individual sites. The results may suggest that BASGRA is a reasonably robust model, allowing for simulation of growth and several important underlying processes with acceptable accuracy for a range of agroclimatic conditions. However, the robustness of the model needs to be tested further using independent data from a wide range of growing conditions. Finally we show an example of application of the model, comparing overwintering risks in two climatically different sites, and discuss future model applications. Further development work should include improved simulation of the dynamics of C reserves, and validation of winter tiller dynamics against independent data. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Process-based crop simulation models are increasingly used in regional climate change impact studies, but little is known about the implications of different calibration strategies on simulated yields. This study aims to assess the importance of region-specific calibration of five important field crops (winter wheat, winter barley, potato, sugar beet and maize) across 25 member countries of the European Union (EU25). We examine three calibration strategies and their implications on spatial and temporal yield variability in response to climate change: (i) calculation of phenology parameters only, (ii) consideration of both phenology calibration and a yield correction factor and (iii) calibration of phenology and selected growth processes. The analysis is conducted for 533 climate zones, considering 24 years of observed yield data (1983-2006). The best performing strategy is used to estimate the impacts of climate change, increasing CO2 concentration and technology development on yields for the five crops across EU25, using seven climate change scenarios for the period 2041-2064. Simulations and calibrations are performed with the crop model LINTUL2 combined with a calibration routine implemented in the modelling interface LINTUL-FAST. The results show that yield simulations improve if growth parameters are considered in the calibration for individual regions (strategy 3); e.g. RMSE values for simulated winter wheat yield are 2.36, 1.10 and 0.70 Mg ha(-1) for calibration strategies 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The calibration strategy did not only affect the model simulations under reference climate but also the extent of the simulated climate change impacts. Applying the calibrated model for impact assessment revealed that climatic change alone will reduce crop yields. Consideration of the effects of increasing CO2 concentration and technology development resulted in yield increases for all crops except maize (i.e. the negative effects of climate change were outbalanced by the positive effects of CO2 and technology change), with considerable differences between scenarios and regions. Our simulations also suggest some increase in yield variability due to climate change which, however, is less pronounced than the differences among scenarios which are particularly large when the effects of CO2 concentration and technology development are considered. Our results stress the need for region-specific calibration of crop models used for Europe-wide assessments. Limitations of the considered strategies are discussed. We recommend that future work should focus on obtaining more comprehensive, high quality data with a finer resolution allowing application of improved strategies for model calibration that better account for spatial differences and changes over time in the growth and development parameters used in crop models. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Crop models, used to make projections of climate change impacts, differ greatly in structural detail. Complexity of model structure has generic effects on uncertainty and error propagation in climate change impact assessments. We applied Bayesian calibration to three distinctly different empirical and mechanistic wheat models to assess how differences in the extent of process understanding in models affects uncertainties in projected impact. Predictive power of the models was tested via both accuracy (bias) and precision (or tightness of grouping) of yield projections for extrapolated weather conditions. Yields predicted by the mechanistic model were generally more accurate than the empirical models for extrapolated conditions. This trend does not hold for all extrapolations; mechanistic and empirical models responded differently due to their sensitivities to distinct weather features. However, higher accuracy comes at the cost of precision of the mechanistic model to embrace all observations within given boundaries. The approaches showed complementarity in sensitivity to weather variables and in accuracy for different extrapolation domains. Their differences in model precision and accuracy make them suitable for generic model ensembles for near-term agricultural impact assessments of climate change.