Abstract: Crop growth simulation models can differ greatly in their treatment of key processes and hence in their response to environmental conditions. Here, we used an ensemble of 26 process-based wheat models applied at sites across a European transect to compare their sensitivity to changes in temperature (−2 to +9°C) and precipitation (−50 to +50%). Model results were analysed by plotting them as impact response surfaces (IRSs), classifying the IRS patterns of individual model simulations, describing these classes and analysing factors that may explain the major differences in model responses.   The model ensemble was used to simulate yields of winter and spring wheat at sites in Finland, Germany and Spain. Results were plotted as IRSs that show changes in yields relative to the baseline with respect to temperature and precipitation. IRSs of 30-year means and selected extreme years were classified using two approaches describing their pattern.   The expert diagnostic approach (EDA) combines two aspects of IRS patterns: location of the maximum yield (nine classes, Figure 1) and strength of the yield response with respect to climate (four classes), resulting in a total of 36 combined classes defined using criteria pre-specified by experts. The statistical diagnostic approach (SDA) groups IRSs by comparing their pattern and magnitude, without attempting to interpret these features. It applies a hierarchical clustering method, grouping response patterns using a distance metric that combines the spatial correlation and Euclidian distance between IRS pairs. The two approaches were used to investigate whether different patterns of yield response could be related to different properties of the crop models, specifically their genealogy, calibration and process description.   Although no single model property across a large model ensemble was found to explain the integrated yield response to temperature and precipitation perturbations, the application of the EDA and SDA approaches revealed their capability to distinguish: (i) stronger yield responses to precipitation for winter wheat than spring wheat; (ii) differing strengths of response to climate changes for years with anomalous weather conditions compared to period-average conditions; (iii) the influence of site conditions on yield patterns; (iv) similarities in IRS patterns among models with related genealogy; (v) similarities in IRS patterns for models with simpler process descriptions of root growth and water uptake compared to those with more complex descriptions; and (vi) a closer correspondence of IRS patterns in models using partitioning schemes to represent yield formation than in those using a harvest index.   Such results can inform future crop modelling studies that seek to exploit the diversity of multi-model ensembles, by distinguishing ensemble members that span a wide range of responses as well as those that display implausible behaviour or strong mutual similarities.   The full manuscript of this study is currently under revision (Fronzek et al. 2017).

Abstract: We show the error in water-limited yields simulated by crop models which is associated with spatially aggregated soil and climate input data. Crop simulations at large scales (regional, national, continental) frequently use input data of low resolution. Therefore, climate and soil data are often generated via averaging and sampling by area majority. This may bias simulated yields at large scales, varying largely across models. Thus, we evaluated the error associated with spatially aggregated soil and climate data for 14 crop models. Yields of winter wheat and silage maize were simulated under water-limited production conditions. We calculated this error from crop yields simulated at spatial resolutions from 1 to 100 km for the state of North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Most models showed yields biased by <15% when aggregating only soil data. The relative mean absolute error (rMAE) of most models using aggregated soil data was in the range or larger than the inter-annual or inter-model variability in yields. This error increased further when both climate and soil data were aggregated. Distinct error patterns indicate that the rMAE may be estimated from few soil variables. Illustrating the range of these aggregation effects across models, this study is a first step towards an ex-ante assessment of aggregation errors in large-scale simulations.

Abstract: Maize phenology observations at 112 national agro-meteorological experiment stations across China spanning the years 1981-2009 were used to investigate the spatiotemporal changes of maize phenology, as well as the relations to temperature change and cultivar shift. The greater scope of the dataset allows us to estimate the effects of temperature change and cultivar shift on maize phenology more precisely. We found that maize sowing date advanced significantly at 26.0% of stations mainly for spring maize in northwestern, southwestern and northeastern China, although delayed significantly at 8.0% of stations mainly in northeastern China and the North China Plain (NCP). Maize maturity date delayed significantly at 36.6% of stations mainly in the northeastern China and the NCP. As a result, duration of maize whole growing period (GPw) was prolonged significantly at 41.1% of stations, although mean temperature (Tmean) during GPw increased at 72.3% of stations, significantly at 19.6% of stations, and Tmean was negatively correlated with the duration of GPw at 92.9% of stations and significantly at 42.9% of stations. Once disentangling the effects of temperature change and cultivar shift with an approach based on accumulated thermal development unit, we found that increase in temperature advanced heading date and maturity date and reduced the duration of GPw at 81.3%, 82.1% and 83.9% of stations on average by 3.2, 6.0 and 3.5 days/decade, respectively. By contrast, cultivar shift delayed heading date and maturity date and prolonged the duration of GPw at 75.0%, 94.6% and 92.9% of stations on average by 1.5, 6.5 and 6.5 days/decade, respectively. Our results suggest that maize production is adapting to ongoing climate change by shift of sowing date and adoption of cultivars with longer growing period. The spatiotemporal changes of maize phenology presented here can further guide the development of adaptation options for maize production in near future.