Abstract: Impact of climate change on crop growth, groundwater recharge and nitrogen leaching in winter wheat production in Germany was assessed using the agro-ecosystem model HERMES with a downscaled (WETTREG) climate change scenario A1B from the ECHAM5 global circulation model. Three alternative algorithms describing the impact of atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop growth (a simple Farquhar-type algorithm, a combined light-use efficiency – maximum assimilation approach and a simple scaling of the maximum assimilation rate) in combination with a Penman-Monteith approach which includes a simple stomata conduction model for evapotranspiration under changing CO2 concentrations were compared within the framework of the HERMES model. The effect of differences in regional climate change, site conditions and different CO2 algorithms on winter wheat yield, groundwater recharge and nitrogen leaching was assessed in 22 regional simulation case studies across Germany. Results indicate that the effects of climate change on wheat production will vary across Germany due to different regional expressions of climate change projection. Predicted yield changes between the reference period (1961-1990) and a future period (2021-2050) range from -0.4 t ha(-1), -0.8 t ha(-1) and -0.6 t ha(-1) at sites in southern Germany to +0.8 t ha(-1), +0.6 t ha(-1) and +0.8 t ha(-1) at coastal regions for the three CO2 algorithms, respectively. On average across all regions, a relative yield change of +0.9%, +3.0%, and +6.0%, respectively, was predicted for Germany. In contrast, a decrease of -11.6% was predicted without the consideration of a CO2 effect. However, simulated yield changes differed even within regions as site conditions had a strong influence on crop growth. Particularly, groundwater-affected sites showed a lower vulnerability to increasing drought risk. Groundwater recharge was estimated to change correspondingly to changes in precipitation. The consideration of the CO2 effect on transpiration in the model led to a prediction of higher rates of annual deep percolation (+16 mm on average across all sites), which was due to higher water-use efficiency of the crops. In contrast to groundwater recharge, simulated nitrogen leaching varied with the choice of the photosynthesis algorithm, predicting a slight reduction in most of the areas. The results underline the necessity of high-resolution data for model-based regional climate change impact assessment and development of adaptation measures. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: We adapted a large area crop model, MCWLA-Wheat, to winter wheat Triticum aestivum L. and spring wheat in Finland. We then applied Bayesian probability inversion and a Markov Chain Monte Carlo technique to analyze uncertainties in parameter estimations and to optimize parameters. Finally, a super-ensemble-based probabilistic projection system was updated and applied to project the effects of climate change on wheat productivity and water use in Finland. The system used 6 climate scenarios and 20 sets of crop model parameters. We projected spatiotemporal changes of wheat productivity and water use due to climate change/variability during 2021-2040, 2041-2070, and 2071-2100. The results indicate that with a high probability wheat yields will increase substantially in Finland under the tested climate change scenarios, and spring wheat can benefit more from climate change than winter wheat. Nevertheless, in some areas of southern Finland, wheat production will face increasing risk of high temperature and drought, which can offset the benefits of climate change on wheat yield, resulting in an increase in yield variability and about 30% probability of yield decrease for spring wheat. Compared with spring wheat, the development, photosynthesis, and consequently yield will be much less enhanced for winter wheat, which, together with the risk of extreme weather, will result in an up to 56% probability of yield decrease in eastern parts of Finland. Our study explicitly para meterized the effects of extreme temperature and drought stress on wheat yields, and accounted for a wide range of wheat cultivars with contrasting phenological characteristics and thermal requirements.

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.