|
|
Müller, C., Elliott, J., & Levermann, A. (2014). Food security: Fertilizing hidden hunger. Nat. Clim. Change, 4(7), 540–541.
Abstract: Atmospheric CO2 fertilization may go some way to compensating the negative impact of climatic changes on crop yields, but it comes at the expense of a deterioration of the current nutritional value of food.
|
|
|
|
Müller, C., & Robertson, R. D. (2014). Projecting future crop productivity for global economic modeling. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 37–50.
Abstract: Assessments of climate change impacts on agricultural markets and land-use patterns rely on quantification of climate change impacts on the spatial patterns of land productivity. We supply a set of climate impact scenarios on agricultural land productivity derived from two climate models and two biophysical crop growth models to account for some of the uncertainty inherent in climate and impact models. Aggregation in space and time leads to information losses that can determine climate change impacts on agricultural markets and land-use patterns because often aggregation is across steep gradients from low to high impacts or from increases to decreases. The four climate change impact scenarios supplied here were designed to represent the most significant impacts (high emission scenario only, assumed ineffectiveness of carbon dioxide fertilization on agricultural yields, no adjustments in management) but are consistent with the assumption that changes in agricultural practices are covered in the economic models. Globally, production of individual crops decrease by 10-38% under these climate change scenarios, with large uncertainties in spatial patterns that are determined by both the uncertainty in climate projections and the choice of impact model. This uncertainty in climate impact on crop productivity needs to be considered by economic assessments of climate change.
|
|
|
|
van Bussel, L. G. J., Stehfest, E., Siebert, S., Müller, C., & Ewert, F. (2015). Simulation of the phenological development of wheat and maize at the global scale. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr., 24(9), 1018–1029.
Abstract: AimTo derive location-specific parameters that reflect the geographic differences among cultivars in vernalization requirements, sensitivity to day length (photoperiod) and temperature, which can be used to simulate the phenological development of wheat and maize at the global scale. LocationGlobal. Methods Based on crop calendar observations and literature describing the large-scale patterns of phenological characteristics of cultivars, we developed algorithms to compute location-specific parameters to represent this large-scale pattern. Vernalization requirements were related to the duration and coldness of winter, sensitivity to day length was assumed to be represented by the minimum and maximum day lengths occurring at a location, and sensitivity to temperature was related to temperature conditions during the vegetative development phase of the crop. Results Application of the derived location-specific parameters resulted in high agreement between simulated and observed lengths of the cropping period. Agreement was especially high for wheat, with mean absolute errors of less than 3 weeks. In the main maize cropping regions, cropping periods were over- and underestimated by 0.5-1.5 months. We also found that interannual variability in simulated wheat harvest dates was more realistic when accounting for photoperiod effects. Main conclusions The methodology presented here provides a good basis for modelling the phenological characteristics of cultivars at the global scale. We show that current global patterns of growing season length as described in cropping calendars can be largely reproduced by phenology models if location-specific parameters are derived from temperature and day length indicators. Growing seasons can be modelled more accurately for wheat than for maize, especially in warm regions. Our method for computing parameters for phenology models from temperature and day length offers opportunities to improve the simulation of crop productivity by crop simulation models developed for large spatial areas and for long-term climate impact projections that account for adaptation in the selection of varieties
|
|
|
|
Nelson, G. C., van der Mensbrugghe, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Calvin, K., Hasegawa, T., et al. (2014). Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 85.
Abstract: Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty.
|
|
|
|
Nelson, G. C., van der Mensbrugghe, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Calvin, K., Hasegawa, T., et al. (2014). Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 85–101.
Abstract: Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty.
|
|
