Abstract: Soil-crop models are increasingly used as predictive tools to assess yield and environmental impacts of agriculture in a growing diversity of contexts. They are however seldom evaluated at a given time over a wide domain of use. We tested here the performances of the STICS model (v8.2.2) with its standard set of parameters over a dataset covering 15 crops and a wide range of agropedoclimatic conditions in France. Model results showed a good overall accuracy, with little bias. Relative RMSE was larger for soil nitrate (49%) than for plant biomass (35%) and nitrogen (33%) and smallest for soil water (10%). Trends induced by contrasted environmental conditions and management practices were well reproduced. Finally, limited dependency of model errors on crops or environments indicated a satisfactory robustness. Such performances make STICS a valuable tool for studying the effects of changes in agro-ecosystems over the domain explored. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Increased climate variability and higher mean temperatures are expected across many world regions, both of which will contribute to more frequent extreme high temperatures events. Empirical evidence increasingly shows that short episodes of high temperature experienced around flowering can have large negative impacts on cereal grain yields, a phenomenon increasingly referred to as heat stress. Crop models are currently the best tools available to investigate how crops will grow under future climatic conditions, though the need to include heat stress effects has been recognized only relatively recently. We reviewed literature on both how key crop physiological processes and the observed yields under production conditions are impacted by high temperatures occurring particularly in the flowering and grain filling phases for wheat, maize and rice. This state of the art in crop response to heat stress was then contrasted with generic approaches to simulate the impacts of high temperatures in crop growth models. We found that the observed impacts of heat stress on crop yield are the end result of the integration of many processes, not all of which will be affected by a “high temperature” regime. This complexity confirms an important role for crop models in systematizing the effects of high temperatures on many processes under a range of environments and realizations of crop phenology. Four generic approaches to simulate high temperature impacts on yield were identified: (1) empirical reduction of final yield, (2) empirical reduction in daily increment in harvest index, (3) empirical reduction in grain number, and (4) semi-deterministic models of sink and source limitation. Consideration of canopy temperature is suggested as a promising approach to concurrently account for heat and drought stress, which are likely to occur simultaneously. Improving crop models’ response to high temperature impacts on cereal yields will require experimental data representative of field production and should be designed to connect what is already known about physiological responses and observed yield impacts. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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.