Abstract: The human population is projected to reach more than 10 billion in the year 2100. Together with changing consumption pattern, population growth will lead to increasing food demand. The question arises whether or not the Earth is capable of fulfilling this demand. In this study, we approach this question by estimating the carrying capacity of current agricultural systems (K-C), which does not measure the maximum number of people the Earth is likely to feed in the future, but rather allows for an indirect assessment of the increases in agricultural productivity required to meet demands. We project agricultural food production under progressing climate change using the state-of-the-art dynamic global vegetation model LPJmL, and input data of 3 climate models. For 1990 to 2100 the worldwide annual caloric yield of the most important 11 crop types is simulated. Model runs with and without elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations are performed in order to investigate CO2 fertilization effects. Country-specific per-capita caloric demands fixed at current levels and changing demands based on future GDP projections are considered to assess the role of future dietary shifts. Our results indicate that current population projections may considerably exceed the maximum number of people that can be fed globally if climate change is not accompanied by significant changes in land use, agricultural efficiencies and/or consumption pathways. We estimate the gap between projected population size and K-C to reach 2 to 6.8 billion people by 2100. We also present possible caloric self-supply changes between 2000 and 2100 for all countries included in this study. The results show that predominantly developing countries in tropical and subtropical regions will experience vast decreases of self-supply. Therefore, this study is important for planning future large-scale agricultural management, as well as the critical assessment of population projections, which should take food-mediated climate change feedbacks into account

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: 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.