Abstract: The expected climate change will affect the maize yields in view of air temperature increase and scarce water availability. The application of biophysical models offers the chance to design a drought-resistant ideotype and to assist plant breeders and agronomists in the assessment of its suitability in future scenarios. The aim of the present work was to perform a model-based estimation of the yields of two hybrids, current vs ideotype, under future climate scenarios (2030-2060 and 2070-2100) in Lombardy (northern Italy), testing two options of irrigation (small amount at fixed dates vs optimal water supply), nitrogen (N) fertilization (300 vs 400 kg N ha(-1)), and crop cycle durations (current vs extended). For the designing of the ideotype we set several parameters of the ARMOSA process-based crop model: the root elongation rate and maximum depth, stomatal resistance, four stage-specific crop coefficients for the actual transpiration estimation, and drought tolerance factor. The work findings indicated that the current hybrid ensures good production only with high irrigation amount (245-565 mm y(-1)). With respect to the current hybrid, the ideotype will require less irrigation water (-13%, p<0.01) and it resulted in significantly higher yield under water stress condition (+15%, p<0.01) and optimal water supply (+2%, p<0.05). The elongated cycle has a positive effect on yield under any combination of options. Moreover, higher yields projected for the ideotype implicate more crop residues to be incorporated into the soil, which are positively correlated with the SOC sequestration and negatively with N leaching. The crop N uptake is expected to be adequate in view of higher rate of soil mineralization; the N fertilization rate of 400 kg N ha(-1) will involve significant increasing of grain yield, and it is expected to involve a higher rate of SOC sequestration.

Abstract: While crop models are widely used to assess the change in crop productivity with climate change, their skill in assessing irrigation water demand or the risk of crop failure in large area impact assessments is relatively unknown. The objective of this study is to investigate which aspects of modeling crop water use (reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0), soil water extraction, soil evaporation, soil water balance and root growth) contributes most to the variability in estimates of maize crop water use and the risk of crop failure, and demonstrate the resulting uncertainty in a climate change impact study for Europe. The SIMPLACE crop modeling framework was used to couple the LINTUL5 crop model in factorial combinations of 2-3 different approaches for simulating the 5 aspects of crop water use, resulting in 51 modeling approaches. Using experiments in France and New Zeland, analysis of total sensitivity revealed that ET0 explained the most variability in both irrigated maize water use and rainfed grain yield levels, with soil evaporation also imporatant in the French experiment. In the European impact study, net irrigation requirement differed by 36% between the Penman and Hargreaves ET0 methods in the baseline period. Average EU grain yields were similar between models, but differences approached 1-2 tonnes in parts of France and Southern Europe. EU wide esimates of crop failure in the historical period ranged between 5.4 years for Priestley-Taylor to every 7.9 years for the Penman ET0 methods. While the uncertainty in absolute values between models was significant, estimates of relative changes were similar between models, confirming the utility of crop models in assessing climate change impacts. If ET0 estimates in crop models can be improved, through the use of appropriate methods, uncertainty in irrigation water demand as well as in yield estimates under drought can be reduced.

Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. We compare two criteria of prediction error; MSEPfixed, which evaluates mean squared error of prediction for a model with fixed structure, parameters and inputs, and MSEPuncertain(X), which evaluates mean squared error averaged over the distributions of model structure, inputs and parameters. Comparison of model outputs with data can be used to estimate the former. The latter has a squared bias term, which can be estimated using hindcasts, and a model variance term, which can be estimated from a simulation experiment. The separate contributions to MSEPuncertain(X) can be estimated using a random effects ANOVA. It is argued that MSEPuncertain(X) is the more informative uncertainty criterion, because it is specific to each prediction situation.