Abstract: Eleven widely used crop simulation models (APSIM, CERES, CROPSYST, COUP, DAISY, EPIC, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) were tested using spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) data set under varying nitrogen (N) fertilizer rates from three experimental years in the boreal climate of Jokioinen, Finland. This is the largest standardized crop model inter-comparison under different levels of N supply to date. The models were calibrated using data from 2002 and 2008, of which 2008 included six N rates ranging from 0 to 150 kg N/ha. Calibration data consisted of weather, soil, phenology, leaf area index (LAI) and yield observations. The models were then tested against new data for 2009 and their performance was assessed and compared with both the two calibration years and the test year. For the calibration period, root mean square error between measurements and simulated grain dry matter yields ranged from 170 to 870 kg/ha. During the test year 2009, most models failed to accurately reproduce the observed low yield without N fertilizer as well as the steep yield response to N applications. The multi-model predictions were closer to observations than most single-model predictions, but multi-model mean could not correct systematic errors in model simulations. Variation in soil N mineralization and LAI development due to differences in weather not captured by the models most likely was the main reason for their unsatisfactory performance. This suggests the need for model improvement in soil N mineralization as a function of soil temperature and moisture. Furthermore, specific weather event impacts such as low temperatures after emergence in 2009, tending to enhance tillering, and a high precipitation event just before harvest in 2008, causing possible yield penalties, were not captured by any of the models compared in the current study.

Abstract: The models developed for simulating olive tree and grapevine yields were reviewed by focussing on the major limitations of these models for their application in a changing climate. Empirical models, which exploit the statistical relationship between climate and yield, and process based models, where crop behaviour is defined by a range of relationships describing the main plant processes, were considered. The results highlighted that the application of empirical models to future climatic conditions (i.e. future climate scenarios) is unreliable since important statistical approaches and predictors are still lacking. While process-based models have the potential for application in climate-change impact assessments, our analysis demonstrated how the simulation of many processes affected by warmer and CO2-enriched conditions may give rise to important biases. Conversely, some crop model improvements could be applied at this stage since specific sub-models accounting for the effect of elevated temperatures and CO2 concentration were already developed. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: ► We compared nine crop simulation models for spring barley at seven sites in Europe. ► Applying crop models with restricted calibration leads to high uncertainties. ► Multi-crop model mean yield estimates were in good agreement with observations. ► The degree of uncertainty for simulated grain yield of barley was similar to winter wheat. ► We need more suitable data enabling us to verify different processes in the models. 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.