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.

Abstract: A potato crop multimodel assessment was conducted to quantify variation among models and evaluate responses to climate change. Nine modeling groups simulated agronomic and climatic responses at low-input (Chinoli, Bolivia and Gisozi, Burundi)- and high-input (Jyndevad, Denmark and Washington, United States) management sites. Two calibration stages were explored, partial (P1), where experimental dry matter data were not provided, and full (P2). The median model ensemble response outperformed any single model in terms of replicating observed yield across all locations. Uncertainty in simulated yield decreased from 38% to 20% between P1 and P2. Model uncertainty increased with interannual variability, and predictions for all agronomic variables were significantly different from one model to another (P < 0.001). Uncertainty averaged 15% higher for low- vs. high-input sites, with larger differences observed for evapotranspiration (ET), nitrogen uptake, and water use efficiency as compared to dry matter. A minimum of five partial, or three full, calibrated models was required for an ensemble approach to keep variability below that of common field variation. Model variation was not influenced by change in carbon dioxide (C), but increased as much as 41% and 23% for yield and ET, respectively, as temperature (T) or rainfall (W) moved away from historical levels. Increases in T accounted for the highest amount of uncertainty, suggesting that methods and parameters for T sensitivity represent a considerable unknown among models. Using median model ensemble values, yield increased on average 6% per 100-ppm C, declined 4.6% per °C, and declined 2% for every 10% decrease in rainfall (for nonirrigated sites). Differences in predictions due to model representation of light utilization were significant (P < 0.01). These are the first reported results quantifying uncertainty for tuber/root crops and suggest modeling assessments of climate change impact on potato may be improved using an ensemble approach.

Abstract: Crop productivity and water consumption form the basis to calculate the water footprint (WF) of a specific crop. Under current climate conditions, calculated evapotranspiration is related to observed crop yields to calculate WF. The assessment of WF under future climate conditions requires the simulation of crop yields adding further uncertainty. To assess the uncertainty of model based assessments of WF, an ensemble of crop models was applied to data from five field experiments across Europe. Only limited data were provided for a rough calibration, which corresponds to a typical situation for regional assessments, where data availability is limited. Up to eight models were applied for wheat. The coefficient of variation for the simulated actual evapotranspiration between models was in the range of 13%–19%, which was higher than the inter-annual variability. Simulated yields showed a higher variability between models in the range of 17%–39%. Models responded differently to elevated CO2 in a FACE (Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment) experiment, especially regarding the reduction of water consumption. The variability of calculated WF between models was in the range of 15%–49%. Yield predictions contributed more to this variance than the estimation of water consumption. Transpiration accounts on average for 51%–68% of the total actual evapotranspiration.