Abstract: In crop insurance, the accuracy with which the insurer quantifies the actual risk is highly dependent on the availability on actual yield data. Crop models might be valuable tools to generate data on expected yields for risk assessment when no historical records are available. However, selecting a crop model for a specific objective, location and implementation scale is a difficult task. A look inside the different crop and soil modules to understand how outputs are obtained might facilitate model choice. The objectives of this paper were (i) to assess the usefulness of crop models to be used within a crop insurance analysis and design and (ii) to select the most suitable crop model for drought risk assessment in semi-arid regions in Spain. For that purpose first, a pre-selection of crop models simulating wheat yield under rainfed growing conditions at the field scale was made, and second, four selected models (Aquacrop, CERES-Wheat, CropSyst and WOFOST) were compared in terms of modelling approaches, process descriptions and model outputs. Outputs of the four models for the simulation of winter wheat growth are comparable when water is not limiting, but differences are larger when simulating yields under rainfed conditions. These differences in rainfed yields are mainly related to the dissimilar simulated soil water availability and the assumed linkages with dry matter formation. We concluded that for the simulation of winter wheat growth at field scale in such semi-arid conditions, CERES-Wheat and CropSyst are preferred. WOFOST is a satisfactory compromise between data availability and complexity when detail data on soil is limited. Aquacrop integrates physiological processes in some representative parameters, thus diminishing the number of input parameters, what is seen as an advantage when observed data is scarce. However, the high sensitivity of this model to low water availability limits its use in the region considered. Contrary to the use of ensembles of crop models, we endorse that efforts be concentrated on selecting or rebuilding a model that includes approaches that better describe the agronomic conditions of the regions in which they will be applied. The use of such complex methodologies as crop models is associated with numerous sources of uncertainty, although these models are the best tools available to get insight in these complex agronomic systems. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Within the context of nitrogen (N) management, since 1950, with the rapid intensification of agriculture, farmers have often applied much larger fertiliser quantities than what was required to reach the yield potential. However, to prevent pollution of surface and groundwater induced by nitrates, The European Community launched The European Nitrates Directive 91/6/76/EEC. In 2002, in Wallonia (Belgium), the Nitrates Directive has been transposed under the Sustainable Nitrogen Management in Agriculture Program (PGDA), with the aim of maintaining productivity and revenue for the country’s farmers, while reducing the environmental impact of excessive N application. A feasible approach for addressing climatic uncertainty lies in the use of crop models such as the one commonly known as STICS (simulateur multidisciplinaire pour les cultures standard). These models allow the impact on crops of the interaction between cropping systems and climatic records to be assessed. Comprehensive historical climatic records are rare, however, and therefore the yield distribution values obtained using such an approach can be discontinuous. In order to obtain better and more detailed yield distribution information, the use of a high number of stochastically generated climate time series was proposed, relying on the LARS-Weather Generator. The study focused on the interactions between varying N practices and climatic conditions. Historically and currently, Belgian farmers apply 180 kg N ha(-1), split into three equal fractions applied at the tillering, stem elongation and flag-leaf stages. This study analysed the effectiveness of this treatment in detail, comparing it to similar practices where only the N rates applied at the flag-leaf stage were modified. Three types of farmer decision-making were analysed. The first related to the choice of N strategy for maximising yield, the second to obtaining the highest net revenue, and the third to reduce the environmental impact of potential N leaching, which carries the likelihood of taxation if inappropriate N rates are applied. The results showed reduced discontinuity in the yield distribution values thus obtained. In general, the modulation of N levels to accord with current farmer practices showed considerable asymmetry. In other words, these practices maximised the probability of achieving yields that were at least superior to the mean of the distribution values, thus reducing risk for the farmers. The practice based on applying the highest amounts (60-60-100 kg N ha(-1)) produced the best yield distribution results. When simple economical criteria were computed, the 60-60-80 kg N ha(-1) protocol was found to be optimal for 80-90% of the time. There were no statistical differences, however, between this practice and Belgian farmers’ current practice. When the taxation linked to a high level of potentially leachable N remaining in the soil after harvest was considered, this methodology clearly showed that, in 3 years out of 4,30 kg N ha(-1) could systematically be saved in comparison with the usual practice.