|
|
Challinor, A. J., Müller, C., Asseng, S., Deva, C., Nicklin, K. J., Wallach, D., et al. (2017). Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation. Agric. Syst., 159, 296–306.
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.
|
|
|
|
Heinemann, A. B., Barrios-Perez, C., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Arango-Londoño, D., Bonilla-Findji, O., Medeiros, J. C., et al. (2015). Variation and impact of drought-stress patterns across upland rice target population of environments in Brazil. J. Experim. Bot., 66(12), 3625–3638.
Abstract: The upland rice (UR) cropped area in Brazil has decreased in the last decade. Importantly, a portion of this decrease can be attributed to the current UR breeding programme strategy, according to which direct grain yield selection is targeted primarily to the most favourable areas. New strategies for more-efficient crop breeding under non-optimal conditions are needed for Brazil’s UR regions. Such strategies should include a classification of spatio-temporal yield variations in environmental groups, as well as a determination of prevalent drought types and their characteristics (duration, intensity, phenological timing, and physiological effects) within those environmental groups. This study used a process-based crop model to support the Brazilian UR breeding programme in their efforts to adopt a new strategy that accounts for the varying range of environments where UR is currently cultivated. Crop simulations based on a commonly grown cultivar (BRS Primavera) and statistical analyses of simulated yield suggested that the target population of environments can be divided into three groups of environments: a highly favorable environment (HFE, 19% of area), a favorable environment (FE, 44%), and least favourable environment (LFE, 37%). Stress-free conditions dominated the HFE group (69% likelihood) and reproductive stress dominated the LFE group (68% likelihood), whereas reproductive and terminal drought stress were found to be almost equally likely to occur in the FE group. For the best and worst environments, we propose specific adaptation focused on the representative stress, while for the FE, wide adaptation to drought is suggested. ‘Weighted selection’ is also a possible strategy for the FE and LFE environment groups.
|
|
|
|
Ramirez-Villegas, J., Watson, J., & Challinor, A. J. (2015). Identifying traits for genotypic adaptation using crop models. J. Experim. Bot., 66(12), 3451–3462.
Abstract: Genotypic adaptation involves the incorporation of novel traits in crop varieties so as to enhance food productivity and stability and is expected to be one of the most important adaptation strategies to future climate change. Simulation modelling can provide the basis for evaluating the biophysical potential of crop traits for genotypic adaptation. This review focuses on the use of models for assessing the potential benefits of genotypic adaptation as a response strategy to projected climate change impacts. Some key crop responses to the environment, as well as the role of models and model ensembles for assessing impacts and adaptation, are first reviewed. Next, the review describes crop-climate models can help focus the development of future-adapted crop germplasm in breeding programmes. While recently published modelling studies have demonstrated the potential of genotypic adaptation strategies and ideotype design, it is argued that, for model-based studies of genotypic adaptation to be used in crop breeding, it is critical that modelled traits are better grounded in genetic and physiological knowledge. To this aim, two main goals need to be pursued in future studies: (i) a better understanding of plant processes that limit productivity under future climate change; and (ii) a coupling between genetic and crop growth models-perhaps at the expense of the number of traits analysed. Importantly, the latter may imply additional complexity (and likely uncertainty) in crop modelling studies. Hence, appropriately constraining processes and parameters in models and a shift from simply quantifying uncertainty to actually quantifying robustness towards modelling choices are two key aspects that need to be included into future crop model-based analyses of genotypic adaptation.
|
|
|
|
Yang, H., Dobbie, S., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Feng, K., Challinor, A. J., Chen, B., et al. (2016). Potential negative consequences of geoengineering on crop production: A study of Indian groundnut. Geophys. Res. Let., 43(22), 11786–11795.
Abstract: Geoengineering has been proposed to stabilize global temperature, but its impacts on crop production and stability are not fully understood. A few case studies suggest that certain crops are likely to benefit from solar dimming geoengineering, yet we show that geoengineering is projected to have detrimental effects for groundnut. Using an ensemble of crop-climate model simulations, we illustrate that groundnut yields in India undergo a statistically significant decrease of up to 20% as a result of solar dimming geoengineering relative to RCP4.5. It is somewhat reassuring, however, to find that after a sustained period of 50 years of geoengineering crop yields return to the nongeoengineered values within a few years once the intervention is ceased.
|
|
