Abstract: ► Introduces the special issue on Agricultural prediction using climate model ensembles. ► Discuss remaining scientific challenges. ► Develops distinction between projection- and utility-based ensemble modelling. ► Recommendations made RE modelling and the analysis and reporting of uncertainty. Significant progress has been made in the use of ensemble agricultural and climate modelling, and observed data, to project future productivity and to develop adaptation options. An increasing number of agricultural models are designed specifically for use with climate ensembles, and improved methods to quantify uncertainty in both climate and agriculture have been developed. Whilst crop–climate relationships are still the most common agricultural study of this sort, on-farm management, hydrology, pests, diseases and livestock are now also examined. This paper introduces all of these areas of progress, with more detail being found in the subsequent papers in the special issue. Remaining scientific challenges are discussed, and a distinction is developed between projection- and utility-based approaches to agro-climate ensemble modelling. Recommendations are made regarding the manner in which uncertainty is analysed and reported, and the way in which models and data are used to make inferences regarding the future. A key underlying principle is the use of models as tools from which information is extracted, rather than as competing attempts to represent reality.

Abstract: Climate change is likely to have a profound effect on many agricultural variables, although the extent of its influence will vary over the course of the annual farm management cycle. Consequently, the effect of different and interconnected physical, technical and economic factors must be modeled in order to estimate the effects of climate change on agricultural productivity. Such modeling commonly makes use of indicators that summarize the among environmental factors that are considered when farmers plan their activities. This study uses net evapotranspiration (ETN), estimated using EPIC, as a proxy index for the physical factors considered by farmers when managing irrigation. Recent trends suggest that the probability distribution function of ETN may continue to change in the near future due to changes in the irrigation needs of crops. Also, water availability may continue to vary due to changes in the rainfall regime. The impacts of the uncertainties related to these changes on costs are evaluated using a Discrete Stochastic Programming model representing an irrigable Mediterranean area where limited water is supplied from a reservoir. In this context, adaptation to climate change can be best supported by improvements to the collective irrigation systems, rather than by measures aimed at individual farms such as those contained within the rural development policy.

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.