|
|
Elliott, J., Müller, C., Deryng, D., Chryssanthacopoulos, J., Boote, K. J., Büchner, M., et al. (2015). The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev., 8(2), 261–277.
Abstract: We present protocols and input data for Phase 1 of the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison, a project of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). The project includes global simulations of yields, phenologies, and many land-surface fluxes using 12-15 modeling groups for many crops, climate forcing data sets, and scenarios over the historical period from 1948 to 2012. The primary outcomes of the project include (1) a detailed comparison of the major differences and similarities among global models commonly used for large-scale climate impact assessment, (2) an evaluation of model and ensemble hindcasting skill, (3) quantification of key uncertainties from climate input data, model choice, and other sources, and (4) a multi-model analysis of the agricultural impacts of large-scale climate extremes from the historical record.
|
|
|
|
Caubel, J., García de Cortázar-Atauri, I., Launay, M., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Huard, F., Bertuzzi, P., et al. (2015). Broadening the scope for ecoclimatic indicators to assess crop climate suitability according to ecophysiological, technical and quality criteria. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 207, 94–106.
Abstract: The cultivation of crops in a given area is highly dependent of climatic conditions. Assessment of how the climate is favorable is highly useful for planners, land managers, farmers and plant breeders who can propose and apply adaptation strategies to improve agricultural potentialities. The aim of this study was to develop an assessment method for crop-climate suitability that was generic enough to be applied to a wide range of issues and crops. The method proposed is based on agroclimatic indicators that are calculated over phenological periods (ecoclimatic indicators). These indicators are highly relevant since they provide accurate information about the effect of climate on particular plant processes and cultural practices that take place during specific phenological periods. Three case studies were performed in order to illustrate the potentialities of the method. They concern annual (maize and wheat) and perennial (grape) crops and focus on the study of climate suitability in terms of the following criteria: ecophysiological, days available to carry out cultural practices, and harvest quality. The analysis of the results revealed both the advantages and limitations of the method. The method is general and flexible enough to be applied to a wide range of issues even if an expert assessment is initially needed to build the analysis framework. The limited number of input data makes it possible to use it to explore future possibilities for agriculture in many areas. The access to intermediate information through elementary ecoclimatic indicators allows users to propose targeted adaptations when climate suitability is not satisfactory.
|
|
|
|
Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Martre, P., Rötter, R. P., Lobell, D. B., Cammarano, D., et al. (2014). Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production. Nat. Clim. Change, 5(2), 143–147.
Abstract: Crop models are essential tools for assessing the threat of climate change to local and global food production1. Present models used to predict wheat grain yield are highly uncertain when simulating how crops respond to temperature2. Here we systematically tested 30 different wheat crop models of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project against field experiments in which growing season mean temperatures ranged from 15 °C to 32 °C, including experiments with artificial heating. Many models simulated yields well, but were less accurate at higher temperatures. The model ensemble median was consistently more accurate in simulating the crop temperature response than any single model, regardless of the input information used. Extrapolating the model ensemble temperature response indicates that warming is already slowing yield gains at a majority of wheat-growing locations. Global wheat production is estimated to fall by 6% for each °C of further temperature increase and become more variable over space and time.
|
|
|
|
Tao, F., Zhang, S., Zhang, Z., & Rötter, R. P. (2014). Maize growing duration was prolonged across China in the past three decades under the combined effects of temperature, agronomic management, and cultivar shift. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20(12), 3686–3699.
Abstract: Maize phenology observations at 112 national agro-meteorological experiment stations across China spanning the years 1981-2009 were used to investigate the spatiotemporal changes of maize phenology, as well as the relations to temperature change and cultivar shift. The greater scope of the dataset allows us to estimate the effects of temperature change and cultivar shift on maize phenology more precisely. We found that maize sowing date advanced significantly at 26.0% of stations mainly for spring maize in northwestern, southwestern and northeastern China, although delayed significantly at 8.0% of stations mainly in northeastern China and the North China Plain (NCP). Maize maturity date delayed significantly at 36.6% of stations mainly in the northeastern China and the NCP. As a result, duration of maize whole growing period (GPw) was prolonged significantly at 41.1% of stations, although mean temperature (Tmean) during GPw increased at 72.3% of stations, significantly at 19.6% of stations, and Tmean was negatively correlated with the duration of GPw at 92.9% of stations and significantly at 42.9% of stations. Once disentangling the effects of temperature change and cultivar shift with an approach based on accumulated thermal development unit, we found that increase in temperature advanced heading date and maturity date and reduced the duration of GPw at 81.3%, 82.1% and 83.9% of stations on average by 3.2, 6.0 and 3.5 days/decade, respectively. By contrast, cultivar shift delayed heading date and maturity date and prolonged the duration of GPw at 75.0%, 94.6% and 92.9% of stations on average by 1.5, 6.5 and 6.5 days/decade, respectively. Our results suggest that maize production is adapting to ongoing climate change by shift of sowing date and adoption of cultivars with longer growing period. The spatiotemporal changes of maize phenology presented here can further guide the development of adaptation options for maize production in near future.
|
|
|
|
Nelson, G. C., Valin, H., Sands, R. D., Havlík, P., Ahammad, H., Deryng, D., et al. (2014). Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 111(9), 3274–3279.
Abstract: Agricultural production is sensitive to weather and thus directly affected by climate change. Plausible estimates of these climate change impacts require combined use of climate, crop, and economic models. Results from previous studies vary substantially due to differences in models, scenarios, and data. This paper is part of a collective effort to systematically integrate these three types of models. We focus on the economic component of the assessment, investigating how nine global economic models of agriculture represent endogenous responses to seven standardized climate change scenarios produced by two climate and five crop models. These responses include adjustments in yields, area, consumption, and international trade. We apply biophysical shocks derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s representative concentration pathway with end-of-century radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m(2). The mean biophysical yield effect with no incremental CO2 fertilization is a 17% reduction globally by 2050 relative to a scenario with unchanging climate. Endogenous economic responses reduce yield loss to 11%, increase area of major crops by 11%, and reduce consumption by 3%. Agricultural production, cropland area, trade, and prices show the greatest degree of variability in response to climate change, and consumption the lowest. The sources of these differences include model structure and specification; in particular, model assumptions about ease of land use conversion, intensification, and trade. This study identifies where models disagree on the relative responses to climate shocks and highlights research activities needed to improve the representation of agricultural adaptation responses to climate change.
|
|
