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: Assessments of climate change impacts on agricultural markets and land-use patterns rely on quantification of climate change impacts on the spatial patterns of land productivity. We supply a set of climate impact scenarios on agricultural land productivity derived from two climate models and two biophysical crop growth models to account for some of the uncertainty inherent in climate and impact models. Aggregation in space and time leads to information losses that can determine climate change impacts on agricultural markets and land-use patterns because often aggregation is across steep gradients from low to high impacts or from increases to decreases. The four climate change impact scenarios supplied here were designed to represent the most significant impacts (high emission scenario only, assumed ineffectiveness of carbon dioxide fertilization on agricultural yields, no adjustments in management) but are consistent with the assumption that changes in agricultural practices are covered in the economic models. Globally, production of individual crops decrease by 10-38% under these climate change scenarios, with large uncertainties in spatial patterns that are determined by both the uncertainty in climate projections and the choice of impact model. This uncertainty in climate impact on crop productivity needs to be considered by economic assessments of climate change.

Abstract: This review examines relevant impact assessments identified by a literature search from 1991to date. A bibliographic search was applied to the CAB Abstracts database with a given searchstring. Resultant papers were checked for relevance, based on expert judgment. This yielded 91 papers, which were subjected to further analysis. Firstly, publication intensity over time and distribution by geographic location and cereal crop were examined. Next, for a given crop, the assessments and their outcomes were grouped by type and number of the change variables considered – that is, effects of climate change only, elevated CO 2 and technological progress(improved breeds, management). Finally, separately for individual countries/subregions and Europe as a whole, we examined whether and to what extent study results have changed over time, for example become more positive/negative. Based on our sample, we found that publication intensity increased exponentially during thelast 4 years, the majority of studies are Europe-wide, but some concentrated on a few countries(Italy, Spain and UK), whereby studies on wheat are clearly most popular. Taking the factor of technological progress into account has an overruling influence on results. Finally, over time, projected yield impacts have become more negative. This is in line with finding from global analyses, as reflected by the most recent comparison of agricultural impact chapters, of the 4thand 5th Assessment Reports of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II.In the future, there is particular need to consider impacts under various incremental and transformational adaptation measures in more depth (e.g. their interconnections across scales)and with more breadth (e.g. anticipated new breeds). Follow-up reviews should also examine how projected impacts are changing with the new climate scenario data sets (CMIP5) and with improved impact models and assessment approaches.