Abstract: Field-scale crop models are often applied at spatial resolutions coarser than that of the arable field. However, little is known about the response of the models to spatially aggregated climate input data and why these responses can differ across models. Depending on the model, regional yield estimates from large-scale simulations may be biased, compared to simulations with high-resolution input data. We evaluated this so-called aggregation effect for 13 crop models for the region of North Rhine-Westphalia in Germany. The models were supplied with climate data of 1 km resolution and spatial aggregates of up to 100 km resolution raster. The models were used with 2 crops (winter wheat and silage maize) and 3 production situations (potential, water-limited and nitrogen-water-limited growth) to improve the understanding of errors in model simulations related to data aggregation and possible interactions with the model structure. The most important climate variables identified in determining the model-specific input data aggregation on simulated yields were mainly related to changes in radiation (wheat) and temperature (maize). Additionally, aggregation effects were systematic, regardless of the extent of the effect. Climate input data aggregation changed the mean simulated regional yield by up to 0.2 t ha(-1), whereas simulated yields from single years and models differed considerably, depending on the data aggregation. This implies that large-scale crop yield simulations are robust against climate data aggregation. However, large-scale simulations can be systematically biased when being evaluated at higher temporal or spatial resolution depending on the model and its parameterization.

Abstract: Agricultural systems models are complex and tend to be over-parameterized with respect to observational datasets. Practical identifiability analysis based on local sensitivity analysis has proved effective in investigating identifiable parameter sets in environmental models, but has not been applied to agricultural systems models. Here, we demonstrate that identifiability analysis improves experimental design to ensure independent parameter estimation for yield and quality outputs of a complex grassland model. The Pasture Simulation model (PaSim) was used to demonstrate the effectiveness of practical identifiability analysis in designing experiments and measurement protocols within phe-notyping experiments with perennial ryegrass. Virtual experiments were designed combining three factors: frequency of measurements, duration of the experiment. and location of trials. Our results demonstrate that (i) PaSim provides sufficient detail in terms of simulating biomass yield and quality of perennial ryegrass for use in breeding, (ii) typical breeding trials are insufficient to parameterize all influential parameters, (iii) the frequency of measurements is more important than the number of growing seasons to improve the identifiability of PaSim parameters, and (iv) identifiability analysis provides a sound approach for optimizing the design of multi-location trials. Practical identifiability analysis can play an important role in ensuring proper exploitation of phenotypic data and cost-effective multi-location experimental designs. Considering the growing importance of simulation models, this study supports the design of experiments and measurement protocols in the phenotyping networks that have recently been organized.

Abstract: The diversity in farmers’ objectives and responses to external drivers is usually not considered in integrated assessment studies that investigate impacts and adaptation to climate and socio-economic change. Here, we present an approach to assess how farmers’ stated objectives relate to their currently implemented practices and to preferred adaptation options, and we discuss what this implies for assessments of future changes. We based our approach on a combination of multi-criteria decision-making methods. We consistently assessed the importance of farmers’ objectives and adaptation preferences from what farmers say (based on interviews), from what farmers actually do (by analysing current farm performance) and from what farmers want (through a selected alternative farm plan). Our study was performed for six arable farms in Flevoland, a province in the Netherlands. Based on interviews with farmers, we reduced the long list of possible objectives to the most important ones. The objectives we assessed included maximization of economic result and soil organic matter, and minimization of gross margin variance, working hours and nitrogen balance. In our sample, farmers’ stated preferences in objectives were often not fully reflected in realized farming practices. Adaptation preferences of farmers largely resembled their current performance, but generally involved a trend towards stated preferences. Our results suggest that in Flevoland, although farmers do have more objectives, in practical decision-making they focus on economic result maximization, while for strategic decision-making they account for objectives influencing long-term performance and indicators associated with sustainability, in this case soil organic matter.