|
|
Nelson, G. C., Valin, H., Sands, R. D., Havlík, P., Ahammad, H., Deryng, D., et al. (2014). Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 111(9), 3274–3279.
Abstract: Agricultural production is sensitive to weather and thus directly affected by climate change. Plausible estimates of these climate change impacts require combined use of climate, crop, and economic models. Results from previous studies vary substantially due to differences in models, scenarios, and data. This paper is part of a collective effort to systematically integrate these three types of models. We focus on the economic component of the assessment, investigating how nine global economic models of agriculture represent endogenous responses to seven standardized climate change scenarios produced by two climate and five crop models. These responses include adjustments in yields, area, consumption, and international trade. We apply biophysical shocks derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s representative concentration pathway with end-of-century radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m(2). The mean biophysical yield effect with no incremental CO2 fertilization is a 17% reduction globally by 2050 relative to a scenario with unchanging climate. Endogenous economic responses reduce yield loss to 11%, increase area of major crops by 11%, and reduce consumption by 3%. Agricultural production, cropland area, trade, and prices show the greatest degree of variability in response to climate change, and consumption the lowest. The sources of these differences include model structure and specification; in particular, model assumptions about ease of land use conversion, intensification, and trade. This study identifies where models disagree on the relative responses to climate shocks and highlights research activities needed to improve the representation of agricultural adaptation responses to climate change.
|
|
|
|
Zhao, G., Siebert, S., Enders, A., Rezaei, E. E., Yan, C., & Ewert, F. (2015). Demand for multi-scale weather data for regional crop modeling. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 200, 156–171.
Abstract: A spatial resolution needs to be determined prior to using models to simulate crop yields at a regional scale, but a dilemma exists in compromising between different demands. A fine spatial resolution demands extensive computation load for input data assembly, model runs, and output analysis. A coarse spatial resolution could result in loss of spatial detail in variability. This paper studied the impact of spatial resolution, data aggregation and spatial heterogeneity of weather data on simulations of crop yields, thus providing guidelines for choosing a proper spatial resolution for simulations of crop yields at regional scale. Using a process-based crop model SIMPLACE (LINTUL2) and daily weather data at 1 km resolution we simulated a continuous rainfed winter wheat cropping system at the national scale of Germany. Then we aggregated the weather data to four resolutions from 10 to 100 km, repeated the simulation, compared them with the 1 km results, and correlated the difference with the intra-pixel heterogeneity quantified by an ensemble of four semivariogram models. Aggregation of weather data had small effects over regions with a flat terrain located in northern Germany, but large effects over southern regions with a complex topography. The spatial distribution of yield bias at different spatial resolutions was consistent with the intra-pixel spatial heterogeneity of the terrain and a log-log linear relationship between them was established. By using this relationship we demonstrated the way to optimize the model resolution to minimize both the number of simulation runs and the expected loss of spatial detail in variability due to aggregation effects. We concluded that a high spatial resolution is desired for regions with high spatial environmental heterogeneity, and vice versa. This calls for the development of multi-scale approaches in regional and global crop modeling. The obtained results require substantiation for other production situations, crops, output variables and for different crop models. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
