Abstract: 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. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: • We simulate biomass, soil water content (SWC) and temperature (ST) in grasslands. • We compare nine models to the multi-model median (MMM) at nine sites. • With model calibration, we obtain satisfactory estimates of ST, less of SWC and biomass. • We observe discrepancies across models in the simulation of grassland processes. • We improve performance with multi-model approach. This study presents results from a major grassland model intercomparison exercise, and highlights the main challenges faced in the implementation of a multi-model ensemble prediction system in grasslands. Nine, independently developed simulation models linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to grassland biogeochemical cycles and production were compared in a simulation of soil water content (SWC) and soil temperature (ST) in the topsoil, and of biomass production. The results were assessed against SWC and ST data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions – Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland – and against yield measurements from the same sites and other experimental grassland sites in Europe and Israel. We present a comparison of model estimates from individual models to the multi-model ensemble (represented by multi-model median: MMM). With calibration (seven out of nine models), the performances were acceptable for weekly-aggregated ST (R² > 0.7 with individual models and >0.8–0.9 with MMM), but less satisfactory with SWC (R² < 0.6 with individual models and < ∼ 0.5 with MMM) and biomass (R² < ∼0.3 with both individual models and MMM). With individual models, maximum biases of about −5 °C for ST, −0.3 m3 m−3 for SWC and 360 g DM m−2 for yield, as well as negative modelling efficiencies and some high relative root mean square errors indicate low model performance, especially for biomass. We also found substantial discrepancies across different models, indicating considerable uncertainties regarding the simulation of grassland processes. The multi-model approach allowed for improved performance, but further progress is strongly needed in the way models represent processes in managed grassland systems.