We compared the performance of eight widely used, easily accessible and well-documented crop growth simulation models (APES, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT, FASSET, HERMES, STICS and WOFOST) for winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) during 49 growing seasons at eight sites in northwestern, Central and southeastern Europe. The aim was to examine how different process-based crop models perform at the field scale when provided with a limited set of information for model calibration and simulation, reflecting the typical use of models for large-scale applications, and to present the uncertainties related to this type of model application. Data used in the simulations consisted of daily weather statistics, information on soil properties, information on crop phenology for each cultivar, and basic crop and soil management information. Our results showed that none of the models perfectly reproduced recorded observations at all sites and in all years, and none could unequivocally be labelled robust and accurate in terms of yield prediction across different environments and crop cultivars with only minimum calibration. The best performance regarding yield estimation was for DAISY and DSSAT, for which the RMSE values were lowest (1428 and 1603 kg ha−1) and the index of agreement (0.71 and 0.74) highest. CROPSYST systematically underestimated yields (MBE – 1186 kg ha−1), whereas HERMES, STICS and WOFOST clearly overestimated them (MBE 1174, 1272 and 1213 kg ha−1, respectively). APES, DAISY, HERMES, STICS and WOFOST furnished high total above-ground biomass estimates, whereas CROPSYST, DSSAT and FASSET provided low total above-ground estimates. Consequently, DSSAT and FASSET produced very high harvest index values, followed by HERMES and WOFOST. APES and DAISY, on the other hand, returned low harvest index values. In spite of phenological observations being provided, the calibration results for wheat phenology, i.e. estimated dates of anthesis and maturity, were surprisingly variable, with the largest RMSE for anthesis being generated by APES (20.2 days) and for maturity by HERMES (12.6). The wide range of grain yield estimates provided by the models for all sites and years reflects substantial uncertainties in model estimates achieved with only minimum calibration. Mean predictions from the eight models, on the other hand, were in good agreement with measured data. This applies to both results across all sites and seasons as well as to prediction of observed yield variability at single sites – a very important finding that supports the use of multi-model estimates rather than reliance on single model

Understanding the drivers of yield levels under climate change is required to support adaptation planning and respond to changing production risks. This study uses an ensemble of crop models applied on a spatial grid to quantify the contributions of various climatic drivers to past yield variability in grain maize and winter wheat of European cropping systems (1984–2009) and drivers of climate change impacts to 2050. Results reveal that for the current genotypes and mix of irrigated and rainfed production, climate change would lead to yield losses for grain maize and gains for winter wheat. Across Europe, on average heat stress does not increase for either crop in rainfed systems, while drought stress intensifies for maize only. In low-yielding years, drought stress persists as the main driver of losses for both crops, with elevated CO₂ offering no yield benefit in these years.

Biogeochemical simulation models are important tools for describing and quantifying the contribution of agricultural systems to C sequestration and GHG source/sink status. The abundance of simulation tools developed over recent decades, however, creates a difficulty because predictions from different models show large variability. Discrepancies between the conclusions of different modelling studies are often ascribed to differences in the physical and biogeochemical processes incorporated in equations of C and N cycles and their interactions. Here we review the literature to determine the state-of-the-art in modelling agricultural (crop and grassland) systems. In order to carry out this study, we selected the range of biogeochemical models used by the CN-MIP consortium of FACCE-JPI (http://www.faccejpi.com): APSIM, CERES-EGC, DayCent, DNDC, DSSAT, EPIC, PaSim, RothC and STICS. In our analysis, these models were assessed for the quality and comprehensiveness of underlying processes related to pedo-climatic conditions and management practices, but also with respect to time and space of application, and for their accuracy in multiple contexts. Overall, it emerged that there is a possible impact of ill-defined pedo-climatic conditions in the unsatisfactory performance of the models (46.2%), followed by limitations in the algorithms simulating the effects of management practices (33.1%). The multiplicity of scales in both time and space is a fundamental feature, which explains the remaining weaknesses (i.e. 20.7%). Innovative aspects have been identified for future development of C and N models. They include the explicit representation of soil microbial biomass to drive soil organic matter turnover, the effect of N shortage on SOM decomposition, the improvements related to the production and consumption of gases and an adequate simulations of gas transport in soil. On these bases, the assessment of trends and gaps in the modelling approaches currently employed to represent biogeochemical cycles in crop and grassland systems appears an essential step for future research.