Abstract: Heat stress impacts on crop growth and yield have been investigated by controlled-environment experiments, however little is known about the impacts under field conditions at large spatial and temporal scales, particularly in a setting with farmers’ autonomous adaptations. Here, using detailed experiment Observations at 34 national agricultural meteorological stations spanning from 1981 to 2009 in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain (HHHP) of China, we investigated the changes in climate and heat stress during wheat reproductive growing period (from heading to maturity) and the impacts of climate change and heat stress on reproductive growing duration (RGD) and yield in a setting with farmers’ autonomous adaptations. We found that RGD and growing degree days above 0 degrees C (GDD) from heading to maturity increased, which increased yield by similar to 14.85%, although heat stress had negative impacts on RGD and yield. During 1981-2009, high temperature (>34 degrees C) degree days (HDD) increased in the northern part, however decreased in the middle and southern parts of HHHP due to advances in heading and maturity dates. Change in HDD, together with increase in GDD and decrease in solar radiation (SRD), jointly increased wheat yield in the northern and middle parts but reduced it in the southern part of HHHP. During the study period, increase in GDD and decrease in SRD had larger impacts on yield than change in HDD. However, with climate warming of 2 degrees C, damage of heat stress on yield may offset a large portion of the benefits from increases in RGD and GDD, and eventually result in net negative impacts on yield in the northern part of HHHP. Our study showed that shifts in cultivars and wheat production system dynamics in the past three decades reduced heat stress impacts in the HHHP. The insights into crop response and adaptation to climate change and climate extremes provide excellent evidences and basis for improving climate change impact study and designing adaptation measures for the future. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Impacts of climate change on European agricultural production, land use and the environment depend on its impact on crop yields. However, many impact studies assume that crop management remains unchanged in future scenarios, while farmers may adapt their sowing dates and cultivar thermal time requirements to minimize yield losses or realize yield gains. The main objective of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of climate change impacts on European crop yields, land use, production and environmental variables to adaptations in crops sowing dates and varieties’ thermal time requirements. A crop, economic and environmental model were coupled in an integrated assessment modelling approach for six important crops, for 27 countries of the European Union (EU27) to assess results of three SRES climate change scenarios to 2050. Crop yields under climate change were simulated considering three different management cases; (i) no change in crop management from baseline conditions (NoAd), (ii) adaptation of sowing date and thermal time requirements to give highest yields to 2050 (Opt) and (iii) a more conservative adaptation of sowing date and thermal time requirements (Act). Averaged across EU27, relative changes in water-limited crop yields due to climate change and increased CO2 varied between -6 and + 21% considering NoAd management, whereas impacts with Opt management varied between + 12 and + 53%, and those under Act management between 2 and + 27%. However, relative yield increases under climate change increased to + 17 and + 51% when technology progress was also considered. Importantly, the sensitivity to crop management assumptions of land use, production and environmental impacts were less pronounced than for crop yields due to the influence of corresponding market, farm resource and land allocation adjustments along the model chain acting via economic optimization of yields. We conclude that assumptions about crop sowing dates and thermal time requirements affect impact variables but to a different extent and generally decreasing for variables affected by economic drivers.

Abstract: In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.