Abstract: Climate change implies higher frequency and magnitude of agroclimatic extremes threatening plant production and the provision of other ecosystem services. This review is motivated by a mismatch between advances made regarding deeper understanding of abiotic stress physiology and its incorporation into ecophysiological models in order to more accurately quantifying the impacts of extreme events at crop system or higher aggregation levels. Adverse agroclimatic extremes considered most detrimental to crop production include drought, heat, heavy rains/hail and storm, flooding and frost, and, in particular, combinations of them. Our core question is: How have and could empirical data be exploited to improve the capability of widely used crop simulation models in assessing crop impacts of key agroclimatic extremes for the globally most important grain crops? To date there is no comprehensive review synthesizing available knowledge for a broad range of extremes, grain crops and crop models as a basis for identifying research gaps and prospects. To address these issues, we selected eight major grain crops and performed three systematic reviews using SCOPUS for period 1995-2016. Furthermore, we amended/complemented the reviews manually and performed an in-depth analysis using a sub-sample of papers. Results show that by far the majority of empirical studies (1631 out of 1772) concentrate on the three agroclimatic extremes drought, heat and heavy rain and on the three major staples wheat, maize and rice (1259 out of 1772); the concentration on just a few has increased over time. With respect to modelling studies two model families, i.e. CERES-DSSAT and APSIM, are dearly dominating for wheat and maize; for rice, ORYZA2000 and CERES-Rice predominate and are equally strong. For crops other than maize and wheat the number of studies is small. Empirical and modelling papers don’t differ much in the proportions the various extreme events are dealt with drought and heat stress together account for approx. 80% of the studies. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of papers, especially after 2010. As a way forward, we suggest to have very targeted and well-designed experiments on the specific crop impacts of a given extreme as well as of combinations of them. This in particular refers to extremes addressed with insufficient specificity (e.g. drought) or being under-researched in relation to their economic importance (heavy rains/storm and flooding). Furthermore, we strongly recommend extending research to crops other than wheat, maize and rice.

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: We compare 27 wheat models’ yield responses to interannual climate variability, analyzed at locations in Argentina, Australia, India, and The Netherlands as part of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Wheat Pilot. Each model simulated 1981-2010 grain yield, and we evaluate results against the interannual variability of growing season temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. The amount of information used for calibration has only a minor effect on most models’ climate response, and even small multi-model ensembles prove beneficial. Wheat model clusters reveal common characteristics of yield response to climate; however models rarely share the same cluster at all four sites indicating substantial independence. Only a weak relationship (R-2 <= 0.24) was found between the models’ sensitivities to interannual temperature variability and their response to long-term warming, suggesting that additional processes differentiate climate change impacts from observed climate variability analogs and motivating continuing analysis and model development efforts. Published by Elsevier Ltd.