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.

Abstract: Understanding the relationship between climate and crop productivity is a key component of projections of future food production, and hence assessments of food security. Climate models and crop yield datasets have errors, but the effects of these errors on regional scale crop models is not well categorized and understood. In this study we compare the effect of synthetic errors in temperature and precipitation observations on the hindcast skill of a process-based crop model and a statistical crop model. We find that errors in temperature data have a significantly stronger influence on both models than errors in precipitation. We also identify key differences in the responses of these models to different types of input data error. Statistical and process-based model responses differ depending on whether synthetic errors are overestimates or underestimates. We also investigate the impact of crop yield calibration data on model skill for both models, using datasets of yield at three different spatial scales. Whilst important for both models, the statistical model is more strongly influenced by crop yield scale than the process-based crop model. However, our results question the value of high resolution yield data for improving the skill of crop models; we find a focus on accuracy to be more likely to be valuable. For both crop models, and for all three spatial scales of yield calibration data, we found that model skill is greatest where growing area is above 10-15 %. Thus information on area harvested would appear to be a priority for data collection efforts. These results are important for three reasons. First, understanding how different crop models rely on different characteristics of temperature, precipitation and crop yield data allows us to match the model type to the available data. Second, we can prioritize where improvements in climate and crop yield data should be directed. Third, as better climate and crop yield data becomes available, we can predict how crop model skill should improve.

Abstract: The ecosystem services (ES) approach is a framework for describing the benefits of nature to human well-being, and this has become a popular instrument for assessment and evaluation of ecosystems and their functions. Grazing lands can provide a wide array of ES that depend on their management practices and intensity. This article reviews the trends and approaches used in the analysis of some relevant ES provided by grazing systems, in line with the framework principles of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). The scientific literature provides reports of many studies on ES in general, but the search here focused on grazing systems, which returned only sixty-two papers. This review of published papers highlights that: (i) in some papers, the concept of ES as defined by the MA is misunderstood (e.g., lack of anthropocentric vision); (ii) 34% of the papers dealt only with one ES, which neglects the need for the multisectoral approach suggested by the MA; (iii) few papers included stakeholder involvement to improve local decision-making processes; (iv) cultural ES have been poorly studied despite being considered the most relevant for local and general stakeholders; and (v) stakeholder awareness of well-being as provided by ES in grazing systems can foster both agri-environmental schemes and the willingness to pay for these services.