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.

Inhibitors are widely considered an efficient tool for reducing nitrogen (N) loss and improving N use efficiency, but their effectiveness is highly variable across agroecosystems. In this study, we synthesized 182 studies (222 sites) worldwide to evaluate the impacts of inhibitors (urease inhibitors [UI], nitrification inhibitors [NI] and combined inhibitors) on crop yields and gaseous N loss (ammonia [NH₃] and nitrous oxide [N₂O] emissions) and explored their responses to different management and environmental factors including inhibitor application timing, fertilization regime, cropping system, water management, soil properties and climatic conditions using subgroup meta‐analysis, meta‐regression and multivariate analyses. The UI were most effective in enhancing crop yields (by 5%) and reducing NH₃ volatilization (by 51%), whereas NI were most effective at reducing N₂O emissions (by 49%). The application of UI mitigates NH₃ loss and increases crop yields especially in high NH₃‐N loss scenarios, whereas NI application would minimize the net N₂O emissions and the resultant environmental impacts especially in low NH₃‐N loss scenarios. Alternatively, the combined application of UI and NI enables producers to balance crop production and environmental conservation goals without pollution tradeoffs. The inhibitor efficacy for decreasing gaseous N loss was dependent upon soil and climatic conditions and management practices. Notably, both meta‐regression and multivariate analyses suggest that inhibitors provide a greater opportunity for reducing fertilizer N inputs in high‐N‐surplus systems and presumably favor crop yield enhancement under soil N deficiency situations. The pursuit of an improved understanding of the interactions between plant‐soil‐climate‐management systems and different types of inhibitors should continue to optimize the effectiveness of inhibitors for reducing environmental losses while increasing productivity.