Abstract: Highlights
• 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments
Abstract
Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.

Abstract: Ruminant production systems are important producers of food, support rural communities and culture, and help to maintain a range of ecosystem services including the sequestering of carbon in grassland soils. However, these systems also contribute significantly to climate change through greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, while intensi- fication of production has driven biodiversity and nutrient loss, and soil degradation. Modeling can offer insights into the complexity underlying the relationships between climate change, management and policy choices, food production, and the maintenance of ecosystem services. This paper 1) provides an overview of how ruminant systems modeling supports the efforts of stakeholders and policymakers to predict, mitigate and adapt to climate change and 2) provides ideas for enhancing modeling to fulfil this role. Many grassland models can predict plant growth, yield and GHG emissions from mono-specific swards, but modeling multi-species swards, grassland quality and the impact of management changes requires further development. Current livestock models provide a good basis for predicting animal production; linking these with models of animal health and disease is a prior- ity. Farm-scale modeling provides tools for policymakers to predict the emissions of GHG and other pollutants from livestock farms, and to support the management decisions of farmers from environmental and economic standpoints. Other models focus on how policy and associated management changes affect a range of economic and environmental variables at regional, national and European scales. Models at larger scales generally utilise more empirical approaches than those applied at animal, field and farm-scales and include assumptions which may not be valid under climate change conditions. It is therefore important to continue to develop more realistic representations of processes in regional and global models, using the understanding gained from finer-scale modeling. An iterative process of model development, in which lessons learnt from mechanistic models are ap- plied to develop ‘smart’ empirical modeling, may overcome the trade-off between complexity and usability. De- veloping the modeling capacity to tackle the complex challenges related to climate change, is reliant on closer links between modelers and experimental researchers, and also requires knowledge-sharing and increasing technical compatibility across modeling disciplines. Stakeholder engagement throughout the process of model development and application is vital for the creation of relevant models, and important in reducing problems re- lated to the interpretation of modeling outcomes. Enabling modeling to meet the demands of policymakers and other stakeholders under climate change will require collaboration within adequately-resourced, long-term inter-disciplinary research networks

Abstract: In this study, we compare the relative importance of climate change to technological, management, price and policy changes on European arable farming systems. This required linking four models: the SIMPLACE crop growth modelling framework to calculate future yields under climate change for arable crops; the CAPRI model to estimate impacts on global agricultural markets, specifically product prices; the bio-economic farm model FSSIM to calculate the future changes in cropping patterns and farm net income at the farm and regional level; and the environmental model INTEGRATOR to calculate nitrogen (N) uptake and losses to air and water. First, the four linked models were applied to analyse the effect of climate change only or a most likely baseline (i.e. B1) scenario for 2050 as well as for two alternative scenarios with, respectively, strong (i.e. A1-b1) and weak economic growth (B2) for five regions/countries across Europe (i.e. Denmark, Flevoland, Midi Pyrenees, Zachodniopomorsld and Andalucia). These analyses Were repeated but assuming in addition to climate change impacts, also the effects of changes in technology and management on crop yields, the effects of changes in prices and policies in 2050, and the effects of all factors together. The outcomes show that the effects of climate change to 2050 result in higher farm net incomes in the Northern and Northern-Central EU regions, in practically unchanged farm net incomes in the Central and Central-Southern EU regions, and in much lower farm net incomes in Southern EU regions compared to those in the base year. Climate change in combination with improved technology and farm management and/or with price changes towards 2050 results in a higher to much higher farm net incomes. Increases in farm net income for the B1 and A1-b1 scenarios are moderately stronger than those for the B2 scenario, due to the smaller increases in product prices and/or yields for the B2 scenario. Farm labour demand slightly to moderately increases towards 2050 as related to changes in cropping patterns. Changes in N2O emissions and N leaching compared to the base year are mainly caused by changes in total N inputs from the applied fertilizers and animal manure, which in turn are influenced by changes in crop yields and cropping patterns, whereas NH3 emissions are mainly determined by assumed improvements in manure application techniques. N emissions and N leaching strongly increase in Denmark and Zachodniopomorski, slightly decrease to moderately increase in Flevoland and Midi-Pyrenees, and strongly decrease in Andalucia, except for NH3 emissions which zero to moderately decrease in Flevoland and Denmark. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All tights reserved.