Abstract: This deliverable focuses on the collation, screening, and consolidation of data for selected grassland sites in Europe and peri-Mediterranean regions. No Label

Abstract: In estimating responses of crops to future climate realisations, it is necessary to understand and differentiate between the sources of uncertainty in climate models and how these lead to errors in estimating the past climate and biases in future projections, and how these affect crop model estimates. This paper investigates the complexities in using climate model projections representing different spatial scales within climate change impacts and adaptation studies. This is illustrated by simulating spring barley with three crop models run using site-specific observed, original (50•50 km) and bias corrected downscaled (site-specific) hindcast (1960-1990) weather data from the HadRM3 Regional Climate Model (RCM). Original and bias corrected downscaled weather data were evaluated against the observed data. The comparisons made between the crop models were in the light of lessons learned from this data evaluation. Though the bias correction downscaling method improved the match between observed and hindcast data, this did not always translate into better matching of crop models estimates. At four sites the original HadRM3 data produced near identical mean simulated yield values as from the observed weather data, despite differences in the weather data, giving a situation of ‘right results for the wrong reasons’. This was likely due to compensating errors in the input weather data and non-linearity in crop models processes, making interpretation of results problematic. Overall, bias correction downscaling improved the quality of simulated outputs. Understanding how biases in climate data manifest themselves in crop models gives greater confidence in the utility of the estimates produced using downscaled future climate projections. The results indicate implications on how future projections of climate change impacts are interpreted. Fundamentally, considerable care is required in determining the impact weather data sources have in climate change impact and adaptation studies, whether from individual models or ensembles. No Label

Abstract: Simulation of the biogeochemical cycles of extensively and intensively managed grasslands and croplands are of particular interest due to the strong connection between ecosystem production, animal husbandry and food security. In the frame of MACSUR LiveM activities, we conducted a series of „blind tests” (i.e. uncalibrated model simulations with previously optimized model) on differently managed grasslands within Europe and Israel. We used the latest version of Biome-BGC MuSo model, the modified version of the widely used biogeochemical Biome-BGC model. Biome-BGC MuSo contains structural improvements, development of management modules, and the extension of the model to simulate herbaceouos ecosystem carbon and water cycles more faithfully. The studied ecosystems were meadows and pastures located in a variety of climate zones from the Atlantic sector to Central Europe, including Mediterranean sites. Managements were intensive and extensive grazing or mowing with or without different kind of fertilizers. Under similar options we simulated ecosystem variables, e.g. Gross Primary Production (GPP) and Net Ecosystem Exchange (NEE). Our experiences show that different sites have different sensitivity to the parameters (maximum root depth, soil parameters, etc.), but overall the model provided realistic fluxes. Experiences gained during the blind tests led us to further improve the model. Biome-BGC MuSo is available as a standalone model in personal computers, but also through virtual laboratory environment and Biome-BGC Projects database (http://ecos.okologia.mta.hu/bbgcdb) developed within the BioVeL project (http://www.biovel.eu). Scientific workflow management, web service and desktop grid technology can support model optimization in the so-called „calibrated runs” within MACSUR.