Abstract: Extreme temperature impacts on field crop are of key concern and increasingly assessed, however the studies have seldom taken into account the automatic adaptations such as shifts in planting dates, phenological dynamics and cultivars. In this present study, trial data on rice phenology, agro-meteorological hazards and yields during 1981-2009 at 120 national agro-meteorological experiment stations were used. The detailed data provide us a unique opportunity to quantify extreme temperature impacts on rice yield more precisely and in a setting with automatic adaptations. In this study, changes in an accumulated thermal index (growing degree day, GDD), a high temperature stress index (>35 degrees C high temperature degree day, HDD), and a cold stress index (<20 degrees C cold degree day, CDD), were firstly investigated. Then, their impacts on rice yield were further quantified by a multivariable analysis. The results showed that in the past three decades, for early rice, late rice and single rice in western part, and single rice in other parts of the middle and lower reaches of Yangtze River, respectively, rice yield increased by 5.83%, 1.71%, 8.73% and 3.49% due to increase in GDD. Rice yield was generally more sensitive to high temperature stress than to cold temperature stress. It decreased by 0.14%, 0.32%, 0.34% and 0.14% due to increase in HDD, by contrast increased by 1.61%, 0.26%, 0.16% and 0.01% due to decrease in CDD, respectively. In addition, decreases in solar radiation reduced rice yield by 0.96%, 0.13%, 9.34% and 6.02%. In the past three decades, the positive impacts of increase in GDD and the negative impacts of decrease in solar radiation played dominant roles in determining overall climate impacts on yield. However, with climate warming in future, the positive impacts of increase in GDD and decrease in CDD will be offset by increase in HDD, resulting in overall negative climate impacts on yield. Our findings highlight the risk of heat stress on rice yield and the importance of developing integrated adaptation strategies to cope with heat stress.

Abstract: AdaptaOlive is a simplified physically-based model that has been developed to assess the behavior of olive under future climate conditions in Andalusia, southern Spain. The integration of different approaches based on experimental data from previous studies, combined with weather data from 11 climate models, is aimed at overcoming the high degree of uncertainty in the simulation of the response of agricultural systems under predicted climate conditions. The AdaptaOlive model was applied in a representative olive orchard in the Baeza area, one of the main producer zone in Spain, with the cultivar ‘Picual’. Simulations for the end of the 21st century showed olive oil yield increases of 7.1 and 28.9% under rainfed and full irrigated conditions, respectively, while irrigation requirements decreased between 0.5 and 6.2% for full irrigation and regulated deficit irrigation, respectively. These effects were caused by the positive impact of the increase in atmospheric CO2 that counterbalanced the negative impacts of the reduction in rainfall. The high degree of uncertainty associated with climate projections translated into a high range of yield and irrigation requirement projections, confirming the need for an ensemble of climate models in climate change impact assessment. The AdaptaOlive model also was applied for evaluating adaptation strategies related to cultivars, irrigation strategies and locations. The best performance was registered for cultivars with early flowering dates and regulated deficit irrigation. Thus, in the Baeza area full irrigation requirements were reduced by 12% and the yield in rainfed conditions increased by 7% compared with late flowering cultivars. Similarly, regulated deficit irrigation requirements and yield were reduced by 46% and 18%, respectively, compared with full irrigation. The results confirm the promise offered by these strategies as adaptation measures for managing an olive crop under semi-arid conditions in a changing climate.

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.