Abstract: Models are increasingly used to estimate greenhouse gas emissions at site to regional and national scales and are outlined as the most advanced methodology for national emission reporting in the framework of UNFCCC. Process-based models incorporate the major processes of the carbon and nitrogen cycle and are thus thought to be widely applicable at various spatial and temporal scales. The definition of the spatial scale is determined by the objectives. GHG emission reporting requests spatially and temporally aggregated information whereas for the assessment of mitigation options on hot spots and hot moments of emissions a high spatial simulation resolution is required. In addition, other input data also determine the simulation scale. Low resolution simulations needs less effort in computation and data management, but important details could be lost during the process of data aggregation associated with high uncertainties of the simulation results. This study presents the aggregation effects of climate input data on the simulations of soil N2O emissions and nitrate leaching by comparing different biogeochemistry models. Using process-based models (DailyDayCent, LandscapeDNDC, Stics, Mode, Coup, Epic), we simulated a 30-year cropping system for two crops (winter wheat and maize monocultures) under water- and nutrient-limited conditions based on a 1 km resolution climate dataset. We aggregated the climate data to resolutions of 10, 25, 50, and 100 km and repeated the simulations on these spatial scales. We calculated the N2O emissions as well as the nitrate leaching on all scales. Results will be presented and discussed.

Abstract: Highlights • New method to investigate biogeochemical model structure performance. • Process based hydrological modelling can improve biogeochemical model predictions. • Modelling efficiency dramatically drops with multiple objectives. Abstract This work presents a novel way for assessing and comparing different hydro-biogeochemical model structures and their performances. We used the LandscapeDNDC modelling framework to set up four models of different complexity, considering two soil-biogeochemical and two hydrological modules. The performance of each model combination was assessed using long-term (8 years) data and applying different thresholds, considering multiple criteria and objective functions. Our results show that each model combination had its strength for particular criteria. However, only 0.01% of all model runs passed the complete rejectionist framework. In contrast, our comparatively applied assessments of single thresholds, as frequently used in other studies, lead to a much higher acceptance rate of 40–70%. Therefore, our study indicates that models can be right for the wrong reasons, i.e., matching GHG emissions while at the same time failing to simulate other criteria such as soil moisture or plant biomass dynamics.