Abstract: Rice models have been widely used in simulating and predicting rice phenology in contrasting climate zones, however the uncertainties from model structure (different equations or models) and/or model parameters were rarely investigated. Here, five rice phenological models/modules (Le., CERES-Rice, ORYZA2000, RCM, Beta Model and SIMRIW) were applied to simulate rice phenology at 23 experimental stations from 1992 to 2009 in two major rice cultivation regions of China: the northeastern China and the southwestern China. To investigate the uncertainties from model biophysical parameters, each model was run with randomly perturbed 50 sets of parameters. The results showed that the median of ensemble simulations were better than the simulation by most models. Models couldn’t simulate well in some specific years despite of parameters optimization, suggesting model structure limit model performance in some cases. The models adopting accumulative thermal time function (e.g., CERES-Rice and ORYZA2000) had better performance in the southwestern China, in contrast, those adopting exponential function (e.g., Beta model and RCM model) had better performance in the northeastern China. In northeastern China, the contribution of model structure and model parameters to model total variance was, respectively, about 55.90% and 44.10% in simulating heading date, and about 75.43% and 24.57% in simulating maturity date. In the southwestern China, the contribution of model structure and model parameters to model total variance was, respectively, about 79.97% and 27.03% in simulating heading date, about 92.15% and 7.85% in simulating maturity date. Uncertainty from model structure was the most relevant source. The results highlight that the temperature response functions of rice development rate under extreme climate conditions should be improved based on environment-controlled experimental data.

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.