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: Climate change will increase the number and severity of heat waves, and is expected to negatively affect crop yields. Here we show for wheat and maize across Europe that heat stress is considerably reduced by irrigation due to surface cooling for both current and projected future climate. We demonstrate that crop heat stress impact assessments should be based on canopy temperature because simulations with air temperatures measured at standard weather stations cannot reproduce differences in crop heat stress between irrigated and rainfed conditions. Crop heat stress was overestimated on irrigated land when air temperature was used with errors becoming larger with projected climate change. Corresponding errors in mean crop yield calculated across Europe for baseline climate 1984-2013 of 0.2 Mg yr(-1) (2%) and 0.6 Mg yr(-1) (5%) for irrigated winter wheat and irrigated grain maize, respectively, would increase to up to 1.5 Mg yr (1) (16%) for irrigated winter wheat and 4.1 Mg yr (1) (39%) for irrigated grain maize, depending on the climate change projection/GCM combination considered. We conclude that climate change impact assessments for crop heat stress need to account explicitly for the impact of irrigation.

Abstract: This study evaluates the impacts of projected climate change on irrigation requirements and yields of six crops (winter wheat, winter barley, rapeseed, grain maize, potato, and sugar beet) in Europe. Furthermore, the uncertainty deriving from consideration of irrigation, CO2 effects on crop growth and transpiration, and different climate change scenarios in climate change impact assessments is quantified. Net irrigation requirement (NIR) and yields of the six crops were simulated for a baseline (1982-2006) and three SRES scenarios (B1, B2 and A1B, 2040-2064) under rainfed and irrigated conditions, using a process-based crop model, SIMPLACE <LINTUL5, DRUNIR, HEAT>. We found that projected climate change decreased NIR of the three winter crops in northern Europe (up to 81 mm), but increased NIR of all the six crops in the Mediterranean regions (up to 182 mm yr(-1)). Climate change increased yields of the three winter crops and sugar beet in middle and northern regions (up to 36%), but decreased their yields in Mediterranean countries (up to 81%). Consideration of CO2 effects can alter the direction of change in NIR for irrigated crops in the south and of yields for C3 crops in central and northern Europe. Constraining the model to rainfed conditions for spring crops led to a negative bias in simulating climate change impacts on yields (up to 44%), which was proportional to the irrigation ratio of the simulation unit. Impacts on NIR and yields were generally consistent across the three SRES scenarios for the majority of regions in Europe. We conclude that due to the magnitude of irrigation and CO2 effects, they should both be considered in the simulation of climate change impacts on crop production and water availability, particularly for crops and regions with a high proportion of irrigated crop area.