Abstract: Robust projections of climate impact on crop growth and productivity by crop models are key to designing effective adaptations to cope with future climate risk. However, current crop models diverge strongly in their climate impact projections. Previous studies tried to compare or improve crop models regarding the impact of one single climate variable. However, this approach is insufficient, considering that crop growth and yield are affected by the interactive impacts of multiple climate change factors and multiple interrelated biophysical processes. Here, a new comprehensive analysis was conducted to look holistically at the reasons why crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections and to investigate which biophysical processes and knowledge gaps are key factors affecting this uncertainty and should be given the highest priorities for improvement. First, eight barley models and eight climate projections for the 2050s were applied to investigate the uncertainty from crop model structure in climate impact projections for barley growth and yield at two sites: Jokioinen, Finland (Boreal) and Lleida, Spain (Mediterranean). Sensitivity analyses were then conducted on the responses of major crop processes to major climatic variables including temperature, precipitation, irradiation, and CO2, as well as their interactions, for each of the eight crop models. The results showed that the temperature and CO2 relationships in the models were the major sources of the large discrepancies among the models in climate impact projections. In particular, the impacts of increases in temperature and CO2 on leaf area development were identified as the major causes for the large uncertainty in simulating changes in evapotranspiration, above-ground biomass, and grain yield. Our findings highlight that advancements in understanding the basic processes and thresholds by which climate warming and CO2 increases will affect leaf area development, crop evapotranspiration, photosynthesis, and grain formation in contrasting environments are needed for modeling their impacts.

Abstract: unless local adaptation can ameliorate these impacts. Ensembles of crop simulation models can be useful tools for assessing if proposed adaptation options are capable of achieving target yields, whilst also quantifying the share of uncertainty in the simulated crop impact resulting from the crop models themselves. Although some studies have analysed the influence of ensemble size on model outcomes, the effect of ensemble composition has not yet been properly appraised. Moreover, results and derived recommendations typically rely on averaged ensemble simulation results without accounting sufficiently for the spread of model outcomes. Therefore, we developed an Ensemble Outcome Agreement (EOA) index, which analyses the effect of changes in composition and size of a multi-model ensemble (MME) to evaluate the level of agreement between MME outcomes with respect to a given hypothesis (e.g. that adaptation measures result in positive crop responses). We analysed the recommendations of a previous study performed with an ensemble of 17 crop models and testing 54 adaptation options for rainfed winter wheat (Triticum aestivwn L.) at Lleida (NE Spain) under perturbed conditions of temperature, precipitation and atmospheric CO2 concentration. Our results confirmed that most adaptations recommended in the previous study have a positive effect. However, we also showed that some options did not remain recommendable in specific conditions if different ensembles were considered. Using EOA, we were able to identify the adaptation options for which there is high confidence in their effectiveness at enhancing yields, even under severe climate perturbations. These include substituting spring wheat for winter wheat combined with earlier sowing dates and standard or longer duration cultivars, or introducing supplementary irrigation, the latter increasing EOA values in all cases. There is low confidence in recovering yields to baseline levels, although this target could be attained for some adaptation options under moderate climate perturbations. Recommendations derived from such robust results may provide crucial information for stakeholders seeking to implement adaptation measures.

Abstract: The main aim of the paper is to show how, and how many, simulations carried out using the Land Surface Model UTOPIA (University of TOrino model of land Process Interaction with Atmosphere) are representative of the micro-meteorological conditions and exchange processes at the atmosphere/biosphere interface, with a particular focus on heat and hydrologic transfers, over an area of the Piemonte (Piedmont) region, NW Italy, which is characterized by the presence of many vineyards. Another equally important aim is to understand how much the quality of the simulation outputs was influenced by the input data, whose measurements are often unavailable for long periods over country areas at an hourly basis. Three types of forcing data were used: observations from an experimental campaign carried out during the 2008, 2009, and 2010 vegetative seasons in three vineyards, and values extracted from the freely available Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS, versions 2.0 and 2.1). Since GLDAS also contains the outputs of the simulations performed using the Land Surface Model NOAH, an additional intercomparison between the two models, UTOPIA and NOAH, both driven by the same GLDAS datasets, was performed. The intercomparisons were performed on the following micro-meteorological variables: net radiation, sensible and latent turbulent heat fluxes, and temperature and humidity of soil. The results of this study indicate that the methodology of employing land surface models driven by a gridded database to evaluate variables of micro-meteorological and agronomic interest in the absence of observations is suitable and gives satisfactory results, with uncertainties comparable to measurement errors, thus, allowing us to also evaluate some time trends. The comparison between GLDAS2.0 and GLDAS2.1 indicates that the latter generally produces simulation outputs more similar to the observations than the former, using both UTOPIA and NOAH models.