Abstract: Rather than on crop modelling only, climate change impact assessments in agriculture  need to be based on integrated assessment and farming systems analysis, and account for  adaptation at different levels. With a case study for Flevoland, the Netherlands, we  illustrate that 1) crop models cannot account for all relevant climate change impacts and  adaptation options, and 2) changes in technology, policy and prices have had and are likely  to have larger impacts on farms than climate change. While crop modelling indicates  positive impacts of climate change on yields of major crops in 2050, a semi-quantitative  and participatory method assessing impacts of extreme events shows that there are  nevertheless several climate risks. A range of adaptation measures are, however, available  to reduce possible negative effects at crop level. In addition, at farm level farmers can  change cropping patterns, and adjust inputs and outputs. Also farm structural change will  influence impacts and adaptation. While the 5th IPCC report is more negative regarding  impacts of climate change on agriculture compared to the previous report, also for  temperate regions, our results show that when putting climate change in context of other  drivers, and when explicitly accounting for adaptation at crop and farm level, impacts may  be less negative in some regions and opportunities are revealed. These results refer to a  temperate region, but an integrated assessment may also change perspectives on climate  change for other parts of the world. No Label

Abstract: Problems related to food security and sustainable development are complex (Ericksenet al., 2009) and require consideration of biophysical, economic, political, and social factors, as well as their interactions, at the level of farms, regions, nations, and globally. While the solution to such societal problems may be largely political, there is a growing recognition of the need for science to provide sound information to decision-makers (Meinke et al., 2009). Achieving this, particularly in light of largely uncertain future climate and socio-economic changes, will necessitate integrated assessment approaches and appropriate integrated assessment modeling (IAM) tools to perform them. Recent (Ewertet al., 2009; van Ittersumet al., 2008) and ongoing (Rosenzweiget al., 2013) studies have tried to advance the integrated use of biophysical and economic models to represent better the complex interactions in agricultural systems that largely determine food supply and sustainable resource use. Nonetheless, the challenges for model integration across disciplines are substantial and range from methodological and technical details to an often still-weak conceptual basis on which to ground model integration (Ewertet al., 2009; Janssenet al., 2011). New generations of integrated assessment models based on well-understood, general relationships that are applicable to different agricultural systems across the world are still to be developed. Initial efforts are underway towards this advancement (Nelsonet al., 2014; Rosenzweiget al., 2013). Together with economic and climate models, crop models constitute an essential model group in IAM for large-area cropping systems climate change impact assessments. However, in addition to challenges associated with model integration, inadequate representation of many crops and crop management systems, as well as a lack of data for model initialization and calibration, limit the integration of crop models with climate and economic models (Ewertet al., 2014). A particular obstacle is the mismatch between the temporal and spatial scale of input/output variables required and delivered by the various models in the IAM model chain. Crop models are typically developed, tested, and calibrated for field-scale application (Booteet al., 2013; see also Part 1, Chapter 4 in this volume) and short time-series limited to one or few seasons. Although crop models are increasingly used for larger areas and longer time-periods (Bondeauet al., 2007; Deryng et al., 2011; Elliottet al., 2014) rigorous evaluation of such applications is pending. Among the different sources of uncertainty related to climate and soil data, model parameters, and structure, the uncertainty from methods used to scale-up crop models has received little attention, though recent evaluations indicate that upscaling of crop models for climate change impact assessment and the resulting errors and uncertainties deserve attention in order to advance crop modeling for climate change assessment (Ewertet al., 2014; R¨ otteret al., 2011). This reality is now reflected in the scientific agendas of new international research projects and programs such as the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP; Rosenzweiget al., 2013) and MACSUR (MACSUR, 2014). In this chapter, progress in evaluation of scaling methods with their related uncertainties is reviewed. Specific emphasis is on examining the results of systematic studies recently established in AgMIP and MACSUR. Main features of the respective simulation studies are presented together with preliminary results. Insights from these studies are summarized and conclusions for further work are drawn. No Label

Abstract: Agricultural systems cover a range of organisational levels and spatial and temporal scales. To capture multi-scale problems of sustainable management in agricultural systems, Integrated assessment modelling (IAM) including crop models is often applied which require methods of scale changes (scaling methods). Scaling methods, however, are often not well understood and are therefore sources of uncertainty in models. The present report summarizes scaling methods as developed and applied in recent years (e.g. in SEAMLESS-IF and MACSUR) in a classification scheme based on Ewert et al. (2011, 2006). Scale changes refer to different spatial, temporal and functional scales with changes in extent, resolution, and coverage rate. Accordingly, there are a number of different scaling methods that can include data extrapolation, aggregation and disaggregation, sampling and nested simulation. Comparative quantitative analysis of alternative scaling methods are currently under way and covered by other reports in MACSUR and several publications (e.g. Ewert et al., 2014; Hoffmann et al., 2015; Zhao et al., 2015). The following classification of scaling methods assists to structure such analysis. Improved integration of scaling methods in IAM may help to overcome modelling limitations that are related to high data demand, complexity of models and scaling methods considered. No Label