Search

Process-based agricultural models, applied in novel ways, can reproduce historical crop yield anomalies in the US, with median absolute deviation from observations of 6.7% at national-level and 11% at state-level. In seasons for which drought is the overriding factor, performance is further improved. Historical counterfactual scenarios for the 1988 and 2012 droughts show that changes in agricultural technologies and management have reduced system-level drought sensitivity in US maize production by about 25% in the intervening years. Finally, we estimate the economic costs of the two droughts in terms of insured and uninsured crop losses in each US county (for a total, adjusted for inflation, of $9 billion in 1988 and $21.6 billion in 2012). We compare these with cost estimates from the counterfactual scenarios and with crop indemnity data where available. Model-based measures are capable of accurately reproducing the direct agro-economic losses associated with extreme drought and can be used to characterize and compare events that occurred under very different conditions. This work suggests new approaches to modeling, monitoring, forecasting, and evaluating drought impacts on agriculture, as well as evaluating technological changes to inform adaptation strategies for future climate change and extreme events.

International audience; Field-scale crop models are increasingly applied at spatio-temporal scales that range from regions to the globe and from decades up to 100 years. Sufficiently detailed data to capture the prevailing spatio- temporal heterogeneity in weather, soil, and management conditions as needed by crop models are rarely available. Effective sampling may overcome the problem of missing data but has rarely been investigated. In this study the effect of sampling weather data has been evaluated for simulating yields of winter wheat in a region in Germany over a 30-year period (1982–2011) using 12 process-based crop models. A stratified sampling was applied to compare the effect of different sizes of spatially sampled weather data (10, 30, 50, 100, 500, 1000 and full coverage of 34,078 sampling points) on simulated wheat yields. Stratified sampling was further compared with random sampling. Possible interactions between sample size and crop model were evaluated. The results showed differences in simulated yields among crop models but all models reproduced well the pattern of the stratification. Importantly, the regional mean of simulated yields based on full coverage could already be reproduced by a small sample of 10 points. This was also true for reproducing the temporal variability in simulated yields but more sampling points (about 100) were required to accurately reproduce spatial yield variability. The number of sampling points can be smaller when a stratified sampling is applied as compared to a random sampling. However, differences between crop models were observed including some interaction between the effect of sampling on simulated yields and the model used. We concluded that stratified sampling can considerably reduce the number of required simulations. But, differences between crop models must be considered as the choice for a specific model can have larger effects on simulated yields than the sampling strategy. Assessing the impact of sampling soil and crop management data for regional simulations of crop yields is still needed.

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's (AgMIP's) Gridded Crop Modeling Initiative (AgGRID). The project includes global simulations of yields, phenologies, and many land-surface fluxes by 12–15 modeling groups for many crops, climate forcing datasets, and scenarios over the historical period from 1948–2012. 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 impacts to agriculture of large-scale climate extremes from the historical record.

Drought-induced agricultural loss is one of the most costly impacts of extreme weather, and without mitigation, climate change is likely to increase the severity and frequency of future droughts. The Dust Bowl of the 1930s was the driest and hottest for agriculture in modern US history. Improvements in farming practices have increased productivity, but yields today are still tightly linked to climate variation and the impacts of a 1930s-type drought on current and future agricultural systems remain unclear. Simulations of biophysical process and empirical models suggest that Dust-Bowl-type droughts today would have unprecedented consequences, with yield losses approx.50% larger than the severe drought of 2012. Damages at these extremes are highly sensitive to temperature, worsening by approx.25% with each degree centigrade of warming. We find that high temperatures can be more damaging than rainfall deficit, and, without adaptation, warmer mid-century temperatures with even average precipitation could lead to maize losses equivalent to the Dust Bowl drought. Warmer temperatures alongside consecutive droughts could make up to 85% of rain-fed maize at risk of changes that may persist for decades. Understanding the interactions of weather extremes and a changing agricultural system is therefore critical to effectively respond to, and minimize, the impacts of the next extreme drought event.

Problems related to food security and sustainable development are complex (Ericksenet al., 2009) and require consideration of biophysical, economic, political, and social factors, as well as their interactions, at the level of farms, regions, nations, and globally. While the solution to such societal problems may be largely political, there is a growing recognition of the need for science to provide sound information to decision-makers (Meinke et al., 2009). Achieving this, particularly in light of largely uncertain future climate and socio-economic changes, will necessitate integrated assessment approaches and appropriate integrated assessment modeling (IAM) tools to perform them. Recent (Ewertet al., 2009; van Ittersumet al., 2008) and ongoing (Rosenzweiget al., 2013) studies have tried to advance the integrated use of biophysical and economic models to represent better the complex interactions in agricultural systems that largely determine food supply and sustainable resource use. Nonetheless, the challenges for model integration across disciplines are substantial and range from methodological and technical details to an often still-weak conceptual basis on which to ground model integration (Ewertet al., 2009; Janssenet al., 2011). New generations of integrated assessment models based on well-understood, general relationships that are applicable to different agricultural systems across the world are still to be developed. Initial efforts are underway towards this advancement (Nelsonet al., 2014; Rosenzweiget al., 2013). Together with economic and climate models, crop models constitute an essential model group in IAM for large-area cropping systems climate change impact assessments. However, in addition to challenges associated with model integration, inadequate representation of many crops and crop management systems, as well as a lack of data for model initialization and calibration, limit the integration of crop models with climate and economic models (Ewertet al., 2014). A particular obstacle is the mismatch between the temporal and spatial scale of input/output variables required and delivered by the various models in the IAM model chain. Crop models are typically developed, tested, and calibrated for field-scale application (Booteet al., 2013; see also Part 1, Chapter 4 in this volume) and short time-series limited to one or few seasons. Although crop models are increasingly used for larger areas and longer time-periods (Bondeauet al., 2007; Deryng et al., 2011; Elliottet al., 2014) rigorous evaluation of such applications is pending. Among the different sources of uncertainty related to climate and soil data, model parameters, and structure, the uncertainty from methods used to scale-up crop models has received little attention, though recent evaluations indicate that upscaling of crop models for climate change impact assessment and the resulting errors and uncertainties deserve attention in order to advance crop modeling for climate change assessment (Ewertet al., 2014; R¨ otteret al., 2011). This reality is now reflected in the scientific agendas of new international research projects and programs such as the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP; Rosenzweiget al., 2013) and MACSUR (MACSUR, 2014). In this chapter, progress in evaluation of scaling methods with their related uncertainties is reviewed. Specific emphasis is on examining the results of systematic studies recently established in AgMIP and MACSUR. Main features of the respective simulation studies are presented together with preliminary results. Insights from these studies are summarized and conclusions for further work are drawn.