Abstract: The impact of climate change on crop yield is compounded by cultivar shifts and agronomic management practices. To determine the relative contributions of climate change, cultivar shift, and management practice to changes in maize (Zea mays L.) yield in the past three decades, detailed field data for 1981-2009 from four representative experimental stations in North China Plain (NCP) were analyzed via model simulation. The four representative experimental stations are geographically and climatologically different, represent the typical cropping system in the study area, and have more complete weather/crop records for the period of 1981-2009. The results showed that while the shift from traditional to modern cultivar increased yield by 23.9-40.3 %, new fertilizer management increased yield by 3.3-8.6 %. However, the trends in climate variables for 1981-2009 reduced maize yield by 15-30 % in the study area. Among the main climate variables, solar radiation had the largest effect on maize yield, followed by temperature and then precipitation. While a significant decline in solar radiation in 1981-2009 (maybe due to air pollution) reduced yield by 12-24 %, a significant increase in temperature reduced yield by 3-9 %. In contrast, a non-significant increase in precipitation during the maize growth period increased yield by 0.9-3 % at three of the four investigated stations. However, a decline in precipitation reduced yield by 3 % in the remaining station. The study revealed that although the shift from traditional to modern cultivars and agronomic management practices contributed most to the increase in maize yield, the negative impact of climate change was large enough to offset 46-67 % of the trend in the observed yields in the past three decades in NCP. The reduction in solar radiation, especially in the most critical period of maize growth, limited the process of photosynthesis and thereby further reduced maize yield.

Abstract: Introduction: policy context•Impact Assessment: options, models, examples•Proposal for Effort Sharing Regulation and LULUCF Regulation•Conclusions and Outlook: more work for modellers 1. Fully in line with Paris Agreement, no backsliding on robustness and transparency2.Provides for continuity•Addresses Member States and not individual farmers or foresters•Stand-alone LULUCF pillar•No-debit rule (from KP)•Flexibility within LULUCF and from ESR to LULUCF3.Proposes limited innovations•Flexibility to the ESR up to 280 mt CO2•Aligning accounting rules (AF,CM/GM)•Defining EU-internal process to set national forest management levels•Simplifying administrationConclusions (2)

Abstract: While crop models are widely used to assess the change in crop productivity with climate change, their skill in assessing irrigation water demand or the risk of crop failure in large area impact assessments is relatively unknown. The objective of this study is to investigate which aspects of modeling crop water use (reference crop evapotranspiration (ET0), soil water extraction, soil evaporation, soil water balance and root growth) contributes most to the variability in estimates of maize crop water use and the risk of crop failure, and demonstrate the resulting uncertainty in a climate change impact study for Europe. The SIMPLACE crop modeling framework was used to couple the LINTUL5 crop model in factorial combinations of 2-3 different approaches for simulating the 5 aspects of crop water use, resulting in 51 modeling approaches. Using experiments in France and New Zeland, analysis of total sensitivity revealed that ET0 explained the most variability in both irrigated maize water use and rainfed grain yield levels, with soil evaporation also imporatant in the French experiment. In the European impact study, net irrigation requirement differed by 36% between the Penman and Hargreaves ET0 methods in the baseline period. Average EU grain yields were similar between models, but differences approached 1-2 tonnes in parts of France and Southern Europe. EU wide esimates of crop failure in the historical period ranged between 5.4 years for Priestley-Taylor to every 7.9 years for the Penman ET0 methods. While the uncertainty in absolute values between models was significant, estimates of relative changes were similar between models, confirming the utility of crop models in assessing climate change impacts. If ET0 estimates in crop models can be improved, through the use of appropriate methods, uncertainty in irrigation water demand as well as in yield estimates under drought can be reduced.