Abstract: Soils are a significant source for the secondary greenhouse gas NO and assumed to be a significant source of tropospheric NOx in rural areas. Here we tested the LandscapeDNDC model for its capability to simulate magnitudes and dynamics of soil NO emissions for 22 sites differing in land use (arable, grassland and forest) and edaphic as well as climatic conditions. Overall, LandscapeDNDC simulated mean soil NO emissions agreed well with observations (r(2) = 0.82). However, simulated day to day variations of NO did only agree weakly with high temporal resolution measurements, though agreement between simulations and measurements significantly increased if data were aggregated to weekly, monthly and seasonal time scales. The model reproduced NO emissions from high and low emitting sites, and responded to fertilization (mineral and organic) events with pulse emissions. After evaluation, we linked the LandscapeDNDC model to a GIS database holding spatially explicit data on climate, land use, soil and management to quantify the contribution of soil biogenic NO emissions to the total NOx budget for the State of Saxony, Germany. Our calculations show that soils of both agricultural and forest systems are significant sources and contribute to about 8% (uncertainty range: 6 -13%) to the total annual tropospheric NO, budget for Saxony. However, the contributions of soil NO emission to total tropospheric NO, showed a high spatial variability and in some rural regions such as the Ore Mts., simulated soil NO emissions were by far more important than anthropogenic sources. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.