Abstract: Global climate is changing and food production is very sensitive to weather and climate variations. Global assessments of climate change impacts on food production have been made since the early 1990s, initially with little attention to the uncertainties involved. Although there has been abundant analysis of uncertainties in future greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts on the climate system, uncertainties related to the way climate change projections are scaled down as appropriate for different analyses and in modelling crop responses to climate change, have been neglected. This review paper mainly addresses uncertainties in crop impact modelling and possibilities to reduce them. We specifically aim to (i) show ranges of projected climate change-induced impacts on crop yields, (ii) give recommendations on use of emission scenarios, climate models, regionalization and ensemble crop model simulations for different purposes and (iii) discuss improvements and a few known unknowns’ affecting crop impact projections.

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.

Abstract: Urea has become the predominant source of synthetic nitrogen (N) fertilizer used throughout the world. Among the various available mitigation tools, urease inhibitors like NBPT have the most potential to improve efficiency of urea by reducing N losses, mainly via ammonia volatilization. However, there is a lack of information on the effect of N-(n-butyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NBPT) on other N losses such as gaseous emissions of N2O and NO and NO3− leaching. A two-year field experiment using irrigated maize (Zea mays) crop was carried out under Mediterranean conditions to evaluate the effectiveness of urea coated with NBPT (0.4%, w/w) alone and with both NBPT and nitrification inhibitor dicyandiamide (DCD) (0.4 and 3%, w/w, respectively) to mitigate N2O–N, NO–N and NO3−–N losses. The different treatments of U, U+NBPT and U+NBPT+DCD were applied to the maize crop in 2009 and then in 2010. The 2010 maize crop followed a fallow period, during which the 2009 crop residues were incorporated into the soil. Two different irrigation regimes were followed each year. In 2009, irrigation was controlled for the first 2 weeks following urea fertilization; whereas, the 2010 crop period was characterized by increased irrigation in the same period. After each treatment application, measurements of the changes in soil mineral N, gaseous emissions of N2O and NO, nitrate leaching and biomass production were made. N2O emissions were effectively abated by NBPT and NBPT+DCD and were reduced by 54 and 24%, respectively, in 2009. A reduction in nitrification rate by the inhibitors was also observed during 2009. In 2010 cropping period, NBPT reduced N2O emissions by 4%; while the combination of NBPT and DCD treatment reduced N2O emission by 43%. Yield-scaled N2O emissions were reduced by 50 and 18% by NBPT and the mixture of NBPT+DCD, respectively, in 2009. Applying inhibitors did not have any significant effect on yield-scaled N2O emissions in the 2010 crop period. Total NO losses from urea were 2.25 kg NO–N ha−1 in the 2009 crop period and 5 times lower in the following year; this may provide an indicator of the prevalence of nitrification as the main process in the production of N2O in the 2009 maize crop. Most of the NO3− was lost within the fallow period (i.e. 92, 81 and 75% of the total NO3− leached for U, U+NBPT and U+NBPT+DCD, respectively), so the incorporation of crop residues was not as effective as expected at reducing these N losses. Our study suggests that the effectiveness of NBPT and combination of NBPT+DCD in reducing N losses from applied urea is influenced by management practices, such as irrigation, and climatic conditions.