Abstract: The region Auvergne (France) is a major livestock territory in Europe (beef and dairy cattle with permanent grasslands), with a place in climate change regional studies assisting policy makers and actors in identifying adaptation and mitigation measures. Vul’Clim is a research grant (Bourse Recherche Filière) of the region Auvergne (February 2014-September 2015) to develop model-based vulnerability analysis approaches for a detailed assessment of climate change impacts at regional scale. Its main goal is the creation of a computer-aided platform for vulnerability assessment of grasslands, in interaction with stakeholders from a cluster of eco-enterprises. A modelling engine provided by the mechanistic, biogeochemical model PaSim (Pasture Simulation model) is the core of the platform. An action studies the changes of scales by varying the granularity of the data available at a given scale (e.g. climate data supplied by global scenarios) to let them being exploited at another scale (e.g. high-resolution pixels). Another action is to develop an assessment framework linking modelling tools to entry data and outputs, including a variety of components: data-entry manager at different spatial resolutions; automatic computation of indicators; gap-filling and data quality check; simulation kernel with the model(s) used; device to represent results as maps and integrated indicators. No Label

Abstract: The most common way to evaluate simulation models is to quantify the agreement between observations and simulations via statistical metrics such as the root mean squared error and the linear regression coefficient of determination. It is agreed that the aggregation of metrics of different nature intro integrated indicators offers a valuable way to assess models. Expanded notions of model evaluation that have recently emerged, based on the trade-off between properties of the model and agreement between predictions and actual data under contrasting conditions, integrate sensitivity analysis measures and information criteria for model selection, as well as concepts of model robustness, and point to expert judgments to explore the importance of different metrics. As a FACCE MACSUR CropM-LiveM action, a composite indicator (MQIm: Model Quality Indicator for multi-site assessment) was elaborated, by a group of specialists, on metrics commonly used to evaluate crop models (with extension to grassland models) while also integrating aspects of model complexity and stability of performances. The indicator, based on fuzzy bounds applied to a set of weighed metrics, was first revised by a broader group of modellers and then assessed via questionnaire survey of scientists and end-users. We document a crop model evaluation in Europe and assess to what extent the MQIm reflects the main components of model quality and supports inferences about model performances. No Label

Abstract: In estimating responses of crops to future climate realisations, it is necessary to understand and differentiate between the sources of uncertainty in climate models and how these lead to errors in estimating the past climate and biases in future projections, and how these affect crop model estimates. This paper investigates the complexities in using climate model projections representing different spatial scales within climate change impacts and adaptation studies. This is illustrated by simulating spring barley with three crop models run using site-specific observed, original (50•50 km) and bias corrected downscaled (site-specific) hindcast (1960-1990) weather data from the HadRM3 Regional Climate Model (RCM). Original and bias corrected downscaled weather data were evaluated against the observed data. The comparisons made between the crop models were in the light of lessons learned from this data evaluation. Though the bias correction downscaling method improved the match between observed and hindcast data, this did not always translate into better matching of crop models estimates. At four sites the original HadRM3 data produced near identical mean simulated yield values as from the observed weather data, despite differences in the weather data, giving a situation of ‘right results for the wrong reasons’. This was likely due to compensating errors in the input weather data and non-linearity in crop models processes, making interpretation of results problematic. Overall, bias correction downscaling improved the quality of simulated outputs. Understanding how biases in climate data manifest themselves in crop models gives greater confidence in the utility of the estimates produced using downscaled future climate projections. The results indicate implications on how future projections of climate change impacts are interpreted. Fundamentally, considerable care is required in determining the impact weather data sources have in climate change impact and adaptation studies, whether from individual models or ensembles. No Label