Abstract: • Comparison of two methods for soil organic C quantification is presented. • Springer–Klee wet digestion and dry combustion with automated analyser were compared. • Soil samples were collected from three different sites in a Southern Italy area. • Recoveries close to one were observed for whole dataset and for data grouped per site. • The strong agreement between the methods would enable direct comparison of results. Abstract Soil organic carbon (SOC) is the largest carbon pool in the terrestrial biosphere and it is among the most important factors responsible for conservation of soil quality. Automated dry combustion techniques are gradually replacing traditional quantification methods based on wet digestion chemistry. Critical comparison of different methods is fundamental to reevaluate archives of SOC data and accurately assess and model long-term carbon stock variation and should be performed for different soil types and management conditions. Two analytical methods, the Springer–Klee wet digestion and the dry combustion using an automated analyser, were compared for soils typical of a Mediterranean environment in Southern Italy. Soil samples were collected from three sites, at two depths. Soils were fine textured (from clay–loam to clay) with total carbonate ranging from 6.6 to 16.7 g 100 g− 1. SOC content varied from 6.92 to 28.86 g kg− 1 (as average of the two methods), with values and ranges typical of Southern Europe. On average, Springer–Klee method gave slightly higher values and showed greater data variability. This behaviour, in agreement with other studies, can be attributed to the reaction of K2Cr2O7 with other soil constituents and to analytical constraints. Our results suggest high consistency between Springer–Klee and dry combustion techniques and show recoveries close to one both for the whole dataset and for data grouped per experimental site or soil depth. Linear regression equations between the two methods were slightly affected by different soil types (P = 0.0621). The best fitting of the relationship was a linear regression passing through the origin for the whole dataset (Radj2 = 0.965; RPD = 3.41). The strong overall agreement observed between the two methods would enable the direct comparison of new data set with those already existing in Southern Italy for soils with similar characteristics.

Abstract: Using the detailed field experiment data from 1981 to 2009 at four representative agro-meteorological experiment stations in China, along with the Agricultural Production System Simulator (APSIM) rice-wheat model, we evaluated the impact of sowing/transplanting date on phenology and yield of rice-wheat rotation system (RWRS). We also disentangled the contributions of climate change, modern cultivars, sowing/transplanting density and fertilization management, as well as changes in each climate variables, to yield change in RWRS, in the past three decades. We found that change in sowing/transplanting date did not significantly affect rice and wheat yield in RWRS, although alleviated the negative impact of climate change to some extent. From 1981 to 2009, climate change jointly caused rice and wheat yield change by -17.4 to 1.5 %, of which increase in temperature reduced yield by 0.0-5.8 % and decrease in solar radiation reduced it by 1.5-8.7 %. Cultivars renewal, modern sowing/transplanting density and fertilization management contributed to yield change by 14.4-27.2, -4.7- -0.1 and 2.3-22.2 %, respectively. Our findings highlight that modern cultivars and agronomic management compensated the negative impacts of climate change and played key roles in yield increase in the past three decades.

Abstract: In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.