Abstract: The complexity of risks posed by climate change and possible adaptations for crop production has called for integrated assessment and modelling (IAM) approaches linking biophysical and economic models. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the present state of crop modelling to assess climate change risks to food production and to which extent crop models comply with IAM demands. Considerable progress has been made in modelling effects of climate variables, where crop models best satisfy IAM demands. Demands are partly satisfied for simulating commonly required assessment variables. However, progress on the number of simulated crops, uncertainty propagation related to model parameters and structure, adaptations and scaling are less advanced and lagging behind IAM demands. The limitations are considered substantial and apply to a different extent to all crop models. Overcoming these limitations will require joint efforts, and consideration of novel modelling approaches.

Abstract: The frequency and intensity of extreme weather is increasing concomitant with changes in the global climate change. Although wheat is the most important food crop in Europe, there is currently no comprehensive empirical information available regarding the sensitivity of European wheat to extreme weather. In this study, we assessed the sensitivity of European wheat yields to extreme weather related to phenology (sowing, heading) in cultivar trials across Europe (latitudes 37.21 degrees to 61.34 degrees and longitudes- 6.02 degrees to 26.24 degrees) during the period 1991-2014. All the observed agro-climatic extremes (>= 31 degrees C, >= 35 degrees C, or drought around heading; >= 35 degrees C from heading to maturity; excessive rainfall; heavy rainfall and low global radiation) led to marked yield penalties in a selected set of European cultivars, whereas few cultivars were found to with no yield penalty in such conditions. There were no European wheat cultivars that responded positively (+ 10%) to drought after sowing, or frost during winter (- 15 degrees C and – 20 degrees C). Positive responses to extremes were often shown by cultivars associated with specific regions, such as good performance under high temperatures by southern-origin cultivars. Consequently, a major future breeding challenge will be to evaluate the potential of combining such cultivar properties with other properties required under different growing conditions with, for example, long day conditions at higher latitudes, when the intensity and frequency of extremes rapidly increase.

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.