Abstract: Heat stress impacts on crop growth and yield have been investigated by controlled-environment experiments, however little is known about the impacts under field conditions at large spatial and temporal scales, particularly in a setting with farmers’ autonomous adaptations. Here, using detailed experiment Observations at 34 national agricultural meteorological stations spanning from 1981 to 2009 in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain (HHHP) of China, we investigated the changes in climate and heat stress during wheat reproductive growing period (from heading to maturity) and the impacts of climate change and heat stress on reproductive growing duration (RGD) and yield in a setting with farmers’ autonomous adaptations. We found that RGD and growing degree days above 0 degrees C (GDD) from heading to maturity increased, which increased yield by similar to 14.85%, although heat stress had negative impacts on RGD and yield. During 1981-2009, high temperature (>34 degrees C) degree days (HDD) increased in the northern part, however decreased in the middle and southern parts of HHHP due to advances in heading and maturity dates. Change in HDD, together with increase in GDD and decrease in solar radiation (SRD), jointly increased wheat yield in the northern and middle parts but reduced it in the southern part of HHHP. During the study period, increase in GDD and decrease in SRD had larger impacts on yield than change in HDD. However, with climate warming of 2 degrees C, damage of heat stress on yield may offset a large portion of the benefits from increases in RGD and GDD, and eventually result in net negative impacts on yield in the northern part of HHHP. Our study showed that shifts in cultivars and wheat production system dynamics in the past three decades reduced heat stress impacts in the HHHP. The insights into crop response and adaptation to climate change and climate extremes provide excellent evidences and basis for improving climate change impact study and designing adaptation measures for the future. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Highlights • The larger simulated attainable yield for a specific crop season, the larger the yield gap. • Average size of the yield gap is not affected by the inter-annual variability of attainable yield. • Technology levels (resource input and accessibility) determine average yield gap. • To reduce yield gaps in rainfed environments, farmers need to improve season-specific crop management. Abstract Provision of food security in the face of increasing global food demand requires narrowing of the gap between actual farmer’s yield and maximum attainable yield. So far, assessments of yield gaps have focused on average yield over 5–10 years, but yield gaps can vary substantially between crop seasons. In this study we hypothesized that climate-induced inter-annual yield variability and associated risk is a major barrier for farmers to invest, i.e. increase inputs to narrow the yield gap. We evaluated the importance of inter-annual attainable yield variability for the magnitude of the yield gap by utilizing data for wheat and maize at ten sites representing some major food production systems and a large range of climate and soil conditions across the world. Yield gaps were derived from the difference of simulated attainable yields and regional recorded farmer yields for 1981 to 2010. The size of the yield gap did not correlate with the amplitude of attainable yield variability at a site, but was rather associated with the level of available resources such as labor, fertilizer and plant protection inputs. For the sites in Africa, recorded yield reached only 20% of the attainable yield, while for European, Asian and North American sites it was 56–84%. Most sites showed that the higher the attainable yield of a specific season the larger was the yield gap. This significant relationship indicated that farmers were not able to take advantage of favorable seasonal weather conditions. To reduce yield gaps in the different environments, reliable seasonal weather forecasts would be required to allow farmers to manage each seasonal potential, i.e. overcoming season-specific yield limitations.

Abstract: 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. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.