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: To improve climate change impact estimates and to quantify their uncertainty, multi-model ensembles (MMEs) have been suggested. Model improvements can improve the accuracy of simulations and reduce the uncertainty of climate change impact assessments. Furthermore, they can reduce the number of models needed in a MME. Herein, 15 wheat growth models of a larger MME were improved through re-parameterization and/or incorporating or modifying heat stress effects on phenology, leaf growth and senescence, biomass growth, and grain number and size using detailed field experimental data from the USDA Hot Serial Cereal experiment (calibration data set). Simulation results from before and after model improvement were then evaluated with independent field experiments from a CIMMYT world-wide field trial network (evaluation data set). Model improvements decreased the variation (10th to 90th model ensemble percentile range) of grain yields simulated by the MME on average by 39% in the calibration data set and by 26% in the independent evaluation data set for crops grown in mean seasonal temperatures >24 °C. MME mean squared error in simulating grain yield decreased by 37%. A reduction in MME uncertainty range by 27% increased MME prediction skills by 47%. Results suggest that the mean level of variation observed in field experiments and used as a benchmark can be reached with half the number of models in the MME. Improving crop models is therefore important to increase the certainty of model-based impact assessments and allow more practical, i.e. smaller MMEs to be used effectively.

Abstract: Local-scale daily climate scenarios are required for assessment of climate change impacts. ELPIS is a repository of local-scale climate scenarios for Europe, which are based on the LARS-WG weather generator and future projections from 2 multi-model ensembles, CMIP3 and EU-ENSEMBLES. In ELPIS, the site parameters for the 1980-2010 baseline scenarios were estimated by LARS-WG using daily weather from the European Crop Growth Monitoring System (CGMS) used in many European agricultural assessment studies. The objective of this paper was to compare ELPIS baseline scenarios with observed daily weather obtained independently from the European Climate Assessment (ECA) data set. Several statistical tests were used to compare distributions of climatic variables derived from ECA-observed daily weather and ELPIS-generated baseline scenarios. About 30% of selected sites have a difference in altitude of > 50 m compared with the CGMS grid-cell altitude that was selected to represent agricultural land within a grid-cell. Differences in altitude can explain significant Kolmogorov-Smirnov test (KS-test) results for distribution of daily temperature and in t-tests for temperature monthly means, because of the well-known negative correlation between temperature and elevation. For daily precipitation, the KS-test showed little difference between generated and observed data; however, the more sensitive t-test showed significant results for the sites where altitude differences were large. Approximately 11% of sites showed small positive or negative bias in monthly solar radiation, although 86% sites showed > 3 significant t-test results for monthly means. These results can be explained by differences in conversion of sunshine hours to solar radiation used in CGMS and LARS-WG. We conclude that, considering the limitations above, ELPIS baseline scenarios are suitable for agricultural impact assessments in Europe.