Abstract: Recent studies assessing plausible futures for agricultural markets and global food security have had contradictory outcomes. To advance our understanding of the sources of the differences, 10 global economic models that produce long-term scenarios were asked to compare a reference scenario with alternate socioeconomic, climate change, and bioenergy scenarios using a common set of key drivers. Several key conclusions emerge from this exercise: First, for a comparison of scenario results to be meaningful, a careful analysis of the interpretation of the relevant model variables is essential. For instance, the use of real world commodity prices differs widely across models, and comparing the prices without accounting for their different meanings can lead to misleading results. Second, results suggest that, once some key assumptions are harmonized, the variability in general trends across models declines but remains important. For example, given the common assumptions of the reference scenario, models show average annual rates of changes of real global producer prices for agricultural products on average ranging between -0.4% and +0.7% between the 2005 base year and 2050. This compares to an average decline of real agricultural prices of 4% p.a. between the 1960s and the 2000s. Several other common trends are shown, for example, relating to key global growth areas for agricultural production and consumption. Third, differences in basic model parameters such as income and price elasticities, sometimes hidden in the way market behavior is modeled, result in significant differences in the details. Fourth, the analysis shows that agro-economic modelers aiming to inform the agricultural and development policy debate require better data and analysis on both economic behavior and biophysical drivers. More interdisciplinary modeling efforts are required to cross-fertilize analyses at different scales.

Abstract: The precise spatially explicit knowledge about crop yield potentials and yield gaps is essential to guide sustainable intensification of agriculture. In this study, the maize yield potentials from 1980 to 2008 across the major maize production regions of China were firstly estimated by county using ensemble simulation of a well-validated large scale crop model, i.e., MCWLA-Maize model. Then, the temporal and spatial patterns of maize yield potentials and yield gaps during 1980-2008 were presented and analyzed. The results showed that maize yields became stagnated at 32.4% of maize-growing areas during the period. In the major maize production regions, i.e., northeastern China, the North China Plain (NCP) and southwestern China, yield gap percentages were generally less than 40% and particularly less than 20% in some areas. By contrast, in northern and southern China, where actual yields were relatively lower, yield gap percentages were generally larger than 40%. The areas with yield gap percentages less than 20% and less than 40% accounted for 8.2% and 27.6% of maize-growing areas, respectively. During the period, yield potentials decreased in the NCP and southwestern China due to increase in temperature and decrease in solar radiation; by contrast, increased in northern, northeastern and southeastern China due to increases in both temperature and solar radiation. Yield gap percentages decreased generally by 2% per year across the major maize production regions, although increased in some areas in northern and northeastern China. The shrinking of yield gap was due to increases in actual yields and decreases in yield potentials in the NCP and southwestern China; and due to larger increases in actual yields than in yield potentials in northeastern and southeastern China. The results highlight the importance of sustainable intensification of agriculture to close yield gaps, as well as breeding new cultivars to increase yield potentials, to meet the increasing food demand. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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.