Search

Your search keyword '"Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)"' showing total 18 results
Start Over Author "Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)" Topic agriculture
18 results on '"Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)"'

1. Modeling maize growth and nitrogen dynamics using CERES-Maize (DSSAT) under diverse nitrogen management options in a conservation agriculture-based maize-wheat system.

Author

Kumar K, Parihar CM, Nayak HS, Sena DR, Godara S, Dhakar R, Patra K, Sarkar A, Bharadwaj S, Ghasal PC, L Meena A, Reddy KS, Das TK, Jat SL, Sharma DK, Saharawat YS, Singh U, Jat ML, and Gathala MK

Subjects
Triticum growth & development, Triticum metabolism, Crops, Agricultural growth & development, Biomass, Zea mays growth & development, Zea mays metabolism, Nitrogen metabolism, Agriculture methods, Fertilizers, Soil chemistry
Abstract

Agricultural field experiments are costly and time-consuming, and often struggling to capture spatial and temporal variability. Mechanistic crop growth models offer a solution to understand intricate crop-soil-weather system, aiding farm-level management decisions throughout the growing season. The objective of this study was to calibrate and the Crop Environment Resource Synthesis CERES-Maize (DSSAT v 4.8) model to simulate crop growth, yield, and nitrogen dynamics in a long-term conservation agriculture (CA) based maize system. The model was also used to investigate the relationship between, temperature, nitrate and ammoniacal concentration in soil, and nitrogen uptake by the crop. Additionally, the study explored the impact of contrasting tillage practices and fertilizer nitrogen management options on maize yields. Using field data from 2019 and 2020, the DSSAT-CERES-Maize model was calibrated for plant growth stages, leaf area index-LAI, biomass, and yield. Data from 2021 were used to evaluate the model's performance. The treatments consisted of four nitrogen management options, viz., N0 (without nitrogen), N150 (150 kg N/ha through urea), GS (Green seeker-based urea application) and USG (urea super granules @150kg N/ha) in two contrasting tillage systems, i.e., CA-based zero tillage-ZT and conventional tillage-CT. The model accurately simulated maize cultivar's anthesis and physiological maturity, with observed value falling within 5% of the model's predictions range. LAI predictions by the model aligned well with measured values (RMSE 0.57 and nRMSE 10.33%), with a 14.6% prediction error at 60 days. The simulated grain yields generally matched with measured values (with prediction error ranging from 0 to 3%), except for plots without nitrogen application, where the model overestimated yields by 9-16%. The study also demonstrated the model's ability to accurately capture soil nitrate-N levels (RMSE 12.63 kg/ha and nRMSE 12.84%). The study concludes that the DSSAT-CERES-Maize model accurately assessed the impacts of tillage and nitrogen management practices on maize crop's growth, yield, and soil nitrogen dynamics. By providing reliable simulations during the growing season, this modelling approach can facilitate better planning and more efficient resource management. Future research should focus on expanding the model's capabilities and improving its predictions further., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Genomic resources in plant breeding for sustainable agriculture.

Author

Thudi M, Palakurthi R, Schnable JC, Chitikineni A, Dreisigacker S, Mace E, Srivastava RK, Satyavathi CT, Odeny D, Tiwari VK, Lam HM, Hong YB, Singh VK, Li G, Xu Y, Chen X, Kaila S, Nguyen H, Sivasankar S, Jackson SA, Close TJ, Shubo W, and Varshney RK

Subjects
Agriculture classification, Agriculture methods, Crops, Agricultural genetics, Genome, Plant, Genomics, Plant Breeding methods
Abstract

Climate change during the last 40 years has had a serious impact on agriculture and threatens global food and nutritional security. From over half a million plant species, cereals and legumes are the most important for food and nutritional security. Although systematic plant breeding has a relatively short history, conventional breeding coupled with advances in technology and crop management strategies has increased crop yields by 56 % globally between 1965-85, referred to as the Green Revolution. Nevertheless, increased demand for food, feed, fiber, and fuel necessitates the need to break existing yield barriers in many crop plants. In the first decade of the 21st century we witnessed rapid discovery, transformative technological development and declining costs of genomics technologies. In the second decade, the field turned towards making sense of the vast amount of genomic information and subsequently moved towards accurately predicting gene-to-phenotype associations and tailoring plants for climate resilience and global food security. In this review we focus on genomic resources, genome and germplasm sequencing, sequencing-based trait mapping, and genomics-assisted breeding approaches aimed at developing biotic stress resistant, abiotic stress tolerant and high nutrition varieties in six major cereals (rice, maize, wheat, barley, sorghum and pearl millet), and six major legumes (soybean, groundnut, cowpea, common bean, chickpea and pigeonpea). We further provide a perspective and way forward to use genomic breeding approaches including marker-assisted selection, marker-assisted backcrossing, haplotype based breeding and genomic prediction approaches coupled with machine learning and artificial intelligence, to speed breeding approaches. The overall goal is to accelerate genetic gains and deliver climate resilient and high nutrition crop varieties for sustainable agriculture., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier GmbH.. All rights reserved.)

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Revisiting the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: lessons from the past and objectives for the future.

Author

Aeron A, Khare E, Jha CK, Meena VS, Aziz SMA, Islam MT, Kim K, Meena SK, Pattanayak A, Rajashekara H, Dubey RC, Maurya BR, Maheshwari DK, Saraf M, Choudhary M, Verma R, Meena HN, Subbanna ARNS, Parihar M, Shukla S, Muthusamy G, Bana RS, Bajpai VK, Han YK, Rahman M, Kumar D, Singh NP, and Meena RK

Subjects
Bacteria metabolism, Nitrogen metabolism, Plant Development, Soil chemistry, Stress, Physiological, Agriculture trends, Bacterial Physiological Phenomena, Plants microbiology, Soil Microbiology
Abstract

Plant beneficial rhizobacteria (PBR) is a group of naturally occurring rhizospheric microbes that enhance nutrient availability and induce biotic and abiotic stress tolerance through a wide array of mechanisms to enhance agricultural sustainability. Application of PBR has the potential to reduce worldwide requirement of agricultural chemicals and improve agro-ecological sustainability. The PBR exert their beneficial effects in three major ways; (1) fix atmospheric nitrogen and synthesize specific compounds to promote plant growth, (2) solubilize essential mineral nutrients in soils for plant uptake, and (3) produce antimicrobial substances and induce systemic resistance in host plants to protect them from biotic and abiotic stresses. Application of PBR as suitable inoculants appears to be a viable alternative technology to synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. Furthermore, PBR enhance nutrient and water use efficiency, influence dynamics of mineral recycling, and tolerance of plants to other environmental stresses by improving health of soils. This report provides comprehensive reviews and discusses beneficial effects of PBR on plant and soil health. Considering their multitude of functions to improve plant and soil health, we propose to call the plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPR) as PBR.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

4. Energy auditing and carbon footprint under long-term conservation agriculture-based intensive maize systems with diverse inorganic nitrogen management options.

Author

Jat SL, Parihar CM, Singh AK, Kumar B, Choudhary M, Nayak HS, Parihar MD, Parihar N, and Meena BR

Subjects
Crops, Agricultural, Nitrogen analysis, Agriculture methods, Carbon Footprint, Conservation of Natural Resources methods, Environmental Monitoring, Zea mays growth & development
Abstract

A greater energy grant in diesel-fed machinery driven farming substantiate the higher GHGs emission along with improper input (fertilizer, pesticide and irrigation) use and intensive soil management. Practicing conservation tillage, residue retention and diversified crop rotations were advocated because of their multiple benefits. Hence we explored the energy requirement and carbon footprint of conservation agriculture (CA) based maize production systems. Coated N fertilizer [sulphur coated urea (SCU) and neem coated urea (NCU)] were compared with unfertilized and uncoated prilled urea (PU) in the scenario of with and without residue retention on permanent beds (PB) under diversified maize systems [MMuMb, maize-mustard-mungbean and MWMb, maize-wheat-mungbean] in search of a sustainable and energy efficient production system with lesser C-footprint. Results of the 4-year study showed that crops planted on permanent bed with crop residue (PB+R) registered 11.7% increase in system productivity compared to PB without residue (PB-R). N management through Neem coated urea (NCU) recorded 2.3 and 10.9% higher system productivity compared with non-coated prilled urea plot under PB-R and PB+R, respectively. MMuMb was marginally superior than MWMb system in terms of cropping sequence yield, profitability, and energy and carbon use efficiency. Crop residue retention in zero tilled PB increased cost of cultivation by 125 and 147 USD/ha in MMuMb and MWMb systems, respectively. The quantified carbon footprint value was higher in MWMb system. In CA-based practices, crop residues management contributed the highest energy input (61.5-68.4%) followed by fertilizer application (17-20%). Among N management practices, neem coated urea (NCU) significantly improved system productivity and profitability in all the residue applied plots compared to un-fertilized and prilled urea (PU) applied plots. Similarly, higher energy output was also observed in NCU treated plots. However, carbon footprint value was higher in PU (268-285 CO 2 -e kg/Mg) plots than NCU (259-264 CO 2 -e kg/Mg) treated plots. Thus, the study supports and recommends that the CA-based MMuMb system with efficient N management through NCU is an environmentally safe, clean and energy efficient one, hence can reduce carbon footprint, will ensure food security and will mitigate climate change., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

5. Long-term impact of conservation agriculture and diversified maize rotations on carbon pools and stocks, mineral nitrogen fractions and nitrous oxide fluxes in inceptisol of India.

Author

Parihar CM, Parihar MD, Sapkota TB, Nanwal RK, Singh AK, Jat SL, Nayak HS, Mahala DM, Singh LK, Kakraliya SK, Stirling CM, and Jat ML

Subjects
Carbon analysis, Crops, Agricultural, India, Minerals, Nitrogen analysis, Nitrous Oxide analysis, Zea mays growth & development, Agriculture methods, Conservation of Natural Resources methods, Soil chemistry
Abstract

Given the increasing scarcity of production resources such as water, energy and labour coupled with growing climatic risks, maize-based production systems could be potential alternatives to intensive rice-wheat (RW) rotation in western Indo-Gangetic Plains (IGP). Conservation agriculture (CA) in maize systems has been widely promoted for minimizing soil degradation and ensuring sustainability under emerging climate change scenario. Such practices are also believed to provide mitigation co-benefits through reduced GHG emission and increased soil carbon sequestration. However, the combined effects of diversified crop rotations and CA-based management on GHG mitigation potential and other co-benefits are generally over looked and hence warrant greater attention. A field trial was conducted for 5-years to assess the changes in soil organic carbon fractions, mineral-N, N 2 O emission and global warming potential (GWP) of maize-based production systems under different tillage & crop establishment methods. Four diversified cropping systems i.e. maize-wheat-mungbean (MWMb), maize-chickpea-Sesbania (MCS), maize-mustard-mungbean (MMuMb) and maize-maize-Sesbania (MMS) were factorially combined with three tillage & crop establishment methods i.e. zero tilled permanent beds (PB), zero-tillage flat (ZT) and conventional tillage (CT) in a split-plot design. After 5-years of continued experimentation, we recorded that across the soil depths, SOC content, its pools and mineral-N fractions were greatly affected by tillage & crop establishment methods and cropping systems. ZT and PB increased SOC stock (0-30 cm depth) by 7.22-7.23 Mg C ha -1 whereas CT system increased it only by 0.88 Mg C ha -1 as compared to initial value. Several researchers reported that SOC & mineral-N fraction contents in the top 30 cm soil depth are correlated with N 2 O-N emission. In our study, global warming potential (GWP) under CT system was higher by 18.1 and 17.4%, compared to CA-based ZT and PB, respectively. Among various maize systems, GWP of MMS were higher by 11.2, 6.7 and 6.6%, compared that of MWMb (1212 kg CO 2 -eq. ha -1 ), MCS (1274 kg CO 2 -eq. ha -1 ) and MMuMb (1275 kg CO 2 -eq. ha -1 ), respectively. The results of our study suggest that CA and diversified crop rotations should be promoted in north-western IGP and other similar agro-ecologies across the globe for ensuring food security, restoration of soil health and climate change mitigation, the key sustainable development goals (SDGs)., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

6. Multimodel ensembles improve predictions of crop-environment-management interactions.

Author

Wallach D, Martre P, Liu B, Asseng S, Ewert F, Thorburn PJ, van Ittersum M, Aggarwal PK, Ahmed M, Basso B, Biernath C, Cammarano D, Challinor AJ, De Sanctis G, Dumont B, Eyshi Rezaei E, Fereres E, Fitzgerald GJ, Gao Y, Garcia-Vila M, Gayler S, Girousse C, Hoogenboom G, Horan H, Izaurralde RC, Jones CD, Kassie BT, Kersebaum KC, Klein C, Koehler AK, Maiorano A, Minoli S, Müller C, Naresh Kumar S, Nendel C, O'Leary GJ, Palosuo T, Priesack E, Ripoche D, Rötter RP, Semenov MA, Stöckle C, Stratonovitch P, Streck T, Supit I, Tao F, Wolf J, and Zhang Z

Subjects
Environment, Triticum, Agriculture methods, Climate Change, Models, Theoretical
Abstract

A recent innovation in assessment of climate change impact on agricultural production has been to use crop multimodel ensembles (MMEs). These studies usually find large variability between individual models but that the ensemble mean (e-mean) and median (e-median) often seem to predict quite well. However, few studies have specifically been concerned with the predictive quality of those ensemble predictors. We ask what is the predictive quality of e-mean and e-median, and how does that depend on the ensemble characteristics. Our empirical results are based on five MME studies applied to wheat, using different data sets but the same 25 crop models. We show that the ensemble predictors have quite high skill and are better than most and sometimes all individual models for most groups of environments and most response variables. Mean squared error of e-mean decreases monotonically with the size of the ensemble if models are added at random, but has a minimum at usually 2-6 models if best-fit models are added first. Our theoretical results describe the ensemble using four parameters: average bias, model effect variance, environment effect variance, and interaction variance. We show analytically that mean squared error of prediction (MSEP) of e-mean will always be smaller than MSEP averaged over models and will be less than MSEP of the best model if squared bias is less than the interaction variance. If models are added to the ensemble at random, MSEP of e-mean will decrease as the inverse of ensemble size, with a minimum equal to squared bias plus interaction variance. This minimum value is not necessarily small, and so it is important to evaluate the predictive quality of e-mean for each target population of environments. These results provide new information on the advantages of ensemble predictors, but also show their limitations., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

7. The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions.

Author

Wang E, Martre P, Zhao Z, Ewert F, Maiorano A, Rötter RP, Kimball BA, Ottman MJ, Wall GW, White JW, Reynolds MP, Alderman PD, Aggarwal PK, Anothai J, Basso B, Biernath C, Cammarano D, Challinor AJ, De Sanctis G, Doltra J, Dumont, Fereres E, Garcia-Vila M, Gayler S, Hoogenboom G, Hunt LA, Izaurralde RC, Jabloun M, Jones CD, Kersebaum KC, Koehler AK, Liu L, Müller C, Naresh Kumar S, Nendel C, O'Leary G, Olesen JE, Palosuo T, Priesack E, Eyshi Rezaei E, Ripoche D, Ruane AC, Semenov MA, Shcherbak I, Stöckle C, Stratonovitch P, Streck T, Supit I, Tao F, Thorburn P, Waha K, Wallach D, Wang Z, Wolf J, Zhu Y, and Asseng S

Subjects
Computer Simulation, Models, Biological, Agriculture, Crops, Agricultural growth & development, Temperature
Abstract

Increasing the accuracy of crop productivity estimates is a key element in planning adaptation strategies to ensure global food security under climate change. Process-based crop models are effective means to project climate impact on crop yield, but have large uncertainty in yield simulations. Here, we show that variations in the mathematical functions currently used to simulate temperature responses of physiological processes in 29 wheat models account for >50% of uncertainty in simulated grain yields for mean growing season temperatures from 14 °C to 33 °C. We derived a set of new temperature response functions that when substituted in four wheat models reduced the error in grain yield simulations across seven global sites with different temperature regimes by 19% to 50% (42% average). We anticipate the improved temperature responses to be a key step to improve modelling of crops under rising temperature and climate change, leading to higher skill of crop yield projections.

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. Energy budgeting and carbon footprint of transgenic cotton-wheat production system through peanut intercropping and FYM addition.

Author

Singh RJ and Ahlawat IP

Subjects
Arachis growth & development, Carbon analysis, Crops, Agricultural growth & development, Environmental Monitoring, Gossypium genetics, Gossypium growth & development, Nitrogen analysis, Triticum genetics, Triticum growth & development, Agriculture methods, Carbon Footprint statistics & numerical data, Crops, Agricultural genetics, Fertilizers, Manure
Abstract

Two of the most pressing sustainability issues are the depletion of fossil energy resources and the emission of atmospheric green house gases like carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The aim of this study was to assess energy budgeting and carbon footprint in transgenic cotton-wheat cropping system through peanut intercropping with using 25-50% substitution of recommended dose of nitrogen (RDN) of cotton through farmyard manure (FYM) along with 100% RDN through urea and control (0 N). To quantify the residual effects of previous crops and their fertility levels, a succeeding crop of wheat was grown with varying rates of nitrogen, viz. 0, 50, 100, and 150 kg ha(-1). Cotton + peanut-wheat cropping system recorded 21% higher system productivity which ultimately helped to maintain higher net energy return (22%), energy use efficiency (12%), human energy profitability (3%), energy productivity (7%), carbon outputs (20%), carbon efficiency (17%), and 11% lower carbon footprint over sole cotton-wheat cropping system. Peanut addition in cotton-wheat system increased the share of renewable energy inputs from 18 to 21%. With substitution of 25% RDN of cotton through FYM, share of renewable energy resources increased in the range of 21% which resulted into higher system productivity (4%), net energy return (5%), energy ratio (6%), human energy profitability (74%), energy productivity (6%), energy profitability (5%), and 5% lower carbon footprint over no substitution. The highest carbon footprint (0.201) was recorded under control followed by 50 % substitution of RDN through FYM (0.189). With each successive increase in N dose up to 150 kg N ha(-1) to wheat, energy productivity significantly reduced and share of renewable energy inputs decreased from 25 to 13%. Application of 100 kg N ha(-1) to wheat maintained the highest grain yield (3.71 t ha(-1)), net energy return (105,516 MJ ha(-1)), and human energy profitability (223.4) over other N doses applied to wheat. Application of 50 kg N ha(-1) to wheat maintained the least carbon footprint (0.091) followed by 100 kg N ha(-1) (0.100). Our study indicates that system productivity as well as energy and carbon use efficiencies of transgenic cotton-wheat production system can be enhanced by inclusion of peanut as an intercrop in cotton and substitution of 25% RDN of cotton through FYM, as well as application of 100 kg N ha(-1) to succeeding wheat crop.

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. Determination of pesticide residues in IPM and non-IPM samples of mango (Mangifera indica).

Author

Singh SB, Mukherjee I, Maisnam J, Kumar P, Gopal M, and Kulshrestha G

Subjects
Maximum Allowable Concentration, Reproducibility of Results, Sensitivity and Specificity, Agriculture methods, Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid methods, Food Contamination analysis, Mangifera chemistry, Pesticide Residues analysis
Abstract

Studies were conducted to analyze the residue of commonly used pesticides viz. methyl parathion, chloropyrifos, endosulfan, cypermethrin, fenvalerate, carbendazim, imidacloprid and carbaryl in mango, Dashehari variety, integrated pest management (IPM) and non-IPM samples were collected from the IPM and non-IPM orchards, Lucknow, India. We also present a method for the simultaneous determination of these pesticides in mango samples. Residues of methyl parathion, chloropyriphos, endosulfan, cypermethrin, fenvalerate were extracted from the samples with acetone: cyclohexane: ethyl acetate in the ratio 2:1:1 followed by cleanup using neutral alumina. Analysis was performed by gas chromatography-electron capture detector (GC-ECD) with a megabore column (OV-1). Residues of carbendazim, imidacloprid and carbaryl were extracted with acetone and after cleanup, analysis was performed by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) using photo diode array (PDA) detector. Recoveries of all the pesticides ranged between 72.7-110.6%, at 0.1 and 1.0 microg g(-1) level of fortification. The residues detected in non-IPM samples of mango were found to be below the prescribed limits of maximum residue limit (MRL) while IPM samples were free from pesticide residues.

Published
2008
Full Text
View/download PDF

10. The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions

Author

Alex C. Ruane, Peter J. Thorburn, Mikhail A. Semenov, Joost Wolf, Claudio O. Stöckle, Pramod K. Aggarwal, Gerard W. Wall, Margarita Garcia-Vila, Matthew P. Reynolds, Eckart Priesack, Jørgen E. Olesen, Enli Wang, Bruce A. Kimball, Jordi Doltra, Iurii Shcherbak, Ehsan Eyshi Rezaei, Jeffrey W. White, Leilei Liu, L. A. Hunt, Senthold Asseng, Frank Ewert, Yan Zhu, Fulu Tao, Christoph Müller, Daniel Wallach, Christian Biernath, Davide Cammarano, Mohamed Jabloun, Zhigan Zhao, Michael J. Ottman, Pierre Martre, Sebastian Gayler, Garry O'Leary, Zhimin Wang, Jakarat Anothai, Elias Fereres, Claas Nendel, Bruno Basso, Thilo Streck, Curtis D. Jones, Andrea Maiorano, Phillip D. Alderman, Andrew J. Challinor, Reimund P. Rötter, Taru Palosuo, Iwan Supit, Katharina Waha, Giacomo De Sanctis, Kurt Christian Kersebaum, Soora Naresh Kumar, Gerrit Hoogenboom, Dominique Ripoche, Pierre Stratonovitch, Ann-Kristin Koehler, Roberto C. Izaurralde, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia), Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Scholarship Council, Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (France), European Commission, International Food Policy Research Institute (US), CGIAR (France), Department of Agriculture (US), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit, Danish Council for Strategic Research, Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Germany), Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Helmholtz Association, Grains Research and Development Corporation (Australia), Texas AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (US), CSIRO, Écophysiologie des Plantes sous Stress environnementaux (LEPSE), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro)-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), College of Agronomy and Biotechnology, Southwest University, Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Division of Plant Nutrition-University of Bonn, Institute of Landscape Systems Analysis, Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung = Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Department of Crop Sciences, University of Goettingen, Centre of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use (CBL), United States Department of Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service, The School of Plant Sciences, University of Arizona, Global Wheat Program, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Washington State University (WSU), Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University [East Lansing], Michigan State University System-Michigan State University System, Institute of Biochemical Plant Pathology (BIOP), German Research Center for Environmental Health - Helmholtz Center München (GmbH), Agricultural and Biological Engineering Department, Purdue University [West Lafayette], Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science [Leeds] (ICAS), School of Earth and Environment [Leeds] (SEE), University of Leeds-University of Leeds, GMO Unit, European Food Safety Authority = Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments, Cantabrian Agricultural Research and Training Centre, Dep. Agronomia, University of Córdoba [Córdoba], Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation, University of Hohenheim, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland [College Park], University of Maryland System-University of Maryland System, Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center, Texas A&M University System, Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University [Aarhus], National Engineering and Technology Center for Information Agriculture, Nanjing Agricutural University, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture (CESCRA), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Department of Economic Development, Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR), Natural Resources Institute Finland, Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation (INRES), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, UE Agroclim (UE AGROCLIM), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Computational and Systems Biology Department, Rothamsted Research, Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, PPS and WSG &CALM, Wageningen University and Research Center (WUR), Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Beijing] (CAS), Agriculture and Food, Universidad de La Rioja (UR), UMR : AGroécologie, Innovations, TeRritoires, Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique de Toulouse, China Agricultural University, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra] (CSIRO), Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro), China Agricultural University (CAU), Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation [Bonn], Georg-August-University [Göttingen], Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] (CGIAR)-Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] (CGIAR), CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering [Gainesville] (UF|ABE), Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences [Gainesville] (UF|IFAS), University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF)-University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF), University of Leeds, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Catabrian Agricultural Research and Training Center (CIFA), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas [Madrid] (CSIC), AgWeatherNet Program, Texas A and M AgriLife Research, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Modern Crop Production, Landscape and Water Sciences, Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), Agroclim (AGROCLIM), Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires (AGIR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) (Toulouse INP), Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées, European Project: 267196,EC:FP7:PEOPLE,FP7-PEOPLE-2010-COFUND,AGREENSKILLS(2012), Écophysiologie des Plantes sous Stress environnementaux ( LEPSE ), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique ( INRA ) -Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques ( Montpellier SupAgro ) -Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier ( Montpellier SupAgro ), Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center ( CIMMYT ), CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security ( CCAFS ), Washington State University ( WSU ), Michigan State University, Institute of Biochemical Plant Pathology ( BIOP ), Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, School of Earth and Environment, European Food Safety Authority, Spanish National Research Council ( CSIC ), Texas A and M University ( TAMU ), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research ( PIK ), Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture ( CESCRA ), Indian Agricultural Research Institute ( IARI ), Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources ( DEDJTR ), University of Bonn (Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms), UE Agroclim ( UE AGROCLIM ), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique ( INRA ), NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ( GISS ), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center ( GSFC ), University of Wisconsin-Madison [Madison], Wageningen University and Research Center ( WUR ), Chinese Academy of Sciences [Beijing] ( CAS ), Universidad de La Rioja ( UR ), University of Bonn-Division of Plant Nutrition, Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro), USDA-ARS : Agricultural Research Service, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR]-Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR], Natural resources institute Finland, Georg-August-University = Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Universidad de Córdoba = University of Córdoba [Córdoba], Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)-Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), and Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT)

Subjects
Crops, Agricultural, 010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], Yield (finance), Water en Voedsel, Growing season, Climate change, klim, Plant Science, Agricultural engineering, Models, Biological, 01 natural sciences, [SHS]Humanities and Social Sciences, Crop, Life Science, Computer Simulation, Productivity, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, 2. Zero hunger, [ SDE.BE ] Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, WIMEK, Water and Food, Food security, business.industry, Crop yield, Temperature, Agriculture, 04 agricultural and veterinary sciences, 15. Life on land, Climate Resilience, Agronomy, Klimaatbestendigheid, 13. Climate action, [SDE]Environmental Sciences, 040103 agronomy & agriculture, 0401 agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, Environmental science, Water Systems and Global Change, [SDE.BE]Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, business
Abstract

Increasing the accuracy of crop productivity estimates is a key element in planning adaptation strategies to ensure global food security under climate change. Process-based crop models are effective means to project climate impact on crop yield, but have large uncertainty in yield simulations. Here, we show that variations in the mathematical functions currently used to simulate temperature responses of physiological processes in 29 wheat models account for >50% of uncertainty in simulated grain yields for mean growing season temperatures from 14 °C to 33 °C. We derived a set of new temperature response functions that when substituted in four wheat models reduced the error in grain yield simulations across seven global sites with different temperature regimes by 19% to 50% (42% average). We anticipate the improved temperature responses to be a key step to improve modelling of crops under rising temperature and climate change, leading to higher skill of crop yield projections., E.W. acknowledges support from the CSIRO project ‘Enhanced modelling of genotype by environment interactions’ and the project ‘Advancing crop yield while reducing the use of water and nitrogen’ jointly funded by CSIRO and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Z.Z. received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council through the CSIRO and the Chinese Ministry of Education PhD Research Program. P.M., A.M. and D.R. acknowledge support from the FACCE JPI MACSUR project (031A103B) through the metaprogram Adaptation of Agriculture and Forests to Climate Change (AAFCC) of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA). A.M. received the support of the EU in the framework of the Marie-Curie FP7 COFUND People Programme, through the award of an AgreenSkills fellowship under grant agreement No. PCOFUND-GA-2010-267196. S.A. and D.C. acknowledge support provided by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), the CGIAR Research Program on Wheat and the Wheat Initiative. C.S. was funded through USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture award 32011-68002-30191. C.M. received financial support from the KULUNDA project (01LL0905 L) and the FACCE MACSUR project (031A103B) funded through the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). F.E. received support from the FACCE MACSUR project (031A103B) funded through the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2812ERA115) and E.E.R. was funded through the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (Project: PARI). M.J. and J.E.O. were funded through the FACCE MACSUR project by the Danish Strategic Research Council. K.C.K. and C.N. were funded by the FACCE MACSUR project through the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). F.T., T.P. and R.P.R. received financial support from the FACCE MACSUR project funded through the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MMM); F.T. was also funded through the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41071030). C.B. was funded through the Helmholtz project ‘REKLIM-Regional Climate Change: Causes and Effects’ Topic 9: ‘Climate Change and Air Quality’. M.P.R. and PD.A. received funding from the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS). G.O'L. was funded through the Australian Grains Research and Development Corporation and the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Victoria, Australia. R.C.I. was funded by Texas AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University. B.B. was funded by USDA-NIFA Grant No: 2015-68007-23133.

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

11. Similar estimates of temperature impacts on global wheat yield by three independent methods

Author

Frank Ewert, Jakarat Anothai, P. V. Vara Prasad, Davide Cammarano, Curtis D. Jones, Elias Fereres, Margarita Garcia-Vila, Soora Naresh Kumar, Eckart Priesack, Phillip D. Alderman, Andrew J. Challinor, Reimund P. Rötter, Alex C. Ruane, Christian Folberth, Gerrit Hoogenboom, Pierre Martre, Roberto C. Izaurralde, Fulu Tao, Pramod K. Aggarwal, Mohamed Jabloun, Jordi Doltra, Joshua Elliott, Christoph Müller, Bing Liu, Iurii Shcherbak, Jeffrey W. White, Bruno Basso, Senthold Asseng, Pierre Stratonovitch, Peter J. Thorburn, Claas Nendel, Taru Palosuo, Joost Wolf, Ann-Kristin Koehler, Thilo Streck, Jørgen E. Olesen, David B. Lobell, Kurt Christian Kersebaum, Delphine Deryng, L. A. Hunt, Garry O'Leary, Katharina Waha, Giacomo De Sanctis, Daniel Wallach, Yan Zhu, James W. Jones, Elke Stehfest, Mikhail A. Semenov, Christian Biernath, Claudio O. Stöckle, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Matthew P. Reynolds, Enli Wang, Bruce A. Kimball, Erwin Schmid, Iwan Supit, Zhigan Zhao, Michael J. Ottman, Sebastian Gayler, Cynthia Rosenzweig, Ehsan Eyshi Rezaei, Gerard W. Wall, National Engineering and Technology Center for Information Agriculture, Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Information Agriculture, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Modern Crop Production, Nanjing Agricutural University, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering [Gainesville] (UF|ABE), Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences [Gainesville] (UF|IFAS), University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF)-University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation [Bonn] (INRES), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF), Leibniz Association, Center for Climate Systems Research [New York] (CCSR), Columbia University [New York], Computation Institute, Loyola University of Chicago, Department of Environmental Earth System Science and Center on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Génétique Diversité et Ecophysiologie des Céréales (GDEC), Université Blaise Pascal - Clermont-Ferrand 2 (UBP)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires (AGIR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) (Toulouse INP), Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées, CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, Borlaug Institute for South Asia, CIMMYT, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Mississippi State University [Mississippi], Department of Plant Science, Faculty of Natural Resources, Prince of Songkla University (PSU), Department of Geological Sciences, University of Oregon [Eugene], W. K. Kellogg Biological Station (KBS), Michigan State University [East Lansing], Michigan State University System-Michigan State University System, Institute of Soil Ecology [Neuherberg] (IBOE), Helmholtz-Zentrum München (HZM), The James Hutton Institute, Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science [Leeds] (ICAS), School of Earth and Environment [Leeds] (SEE), University of Leeds-University of Leeds, CGIAR-ESSP Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, European Commission - Joint Research Centre [Ispra] (JRC), Cantabrian Agricultural Research and Training Centre, Department of Agronomy, Purdue University [West Lafayette], Department of Geography, University of Liverpool, Ecosystem Services and Management Program, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation, University of Hohenheim, AgWeatherNet Program, Washington State University (WSU), Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland [College Park], University of Maryland System-University of Maryland System, Texas A and M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University System, Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University [Aarhus], US Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, United States Department of Agriculture, Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture (CESCRA), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Institute of Landscape Systems Analysis, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Landscape & Water Sciences, Department of Environment of Victoria, The School of Plant Sciences, University of Arizona, Natural resources institute Finland, Institute of Ecology, German Research Center for Environmental Health, Institut für Meteorologie und Klimaforschung - Atmosphärische Umweltforschung (IMK-IFU), Karlsruher Institut für Technologie (KIT), School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences [Birmingham], University of Birmingham [Birmingham], Birmingham Institute of Forest Research (BIFoR), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] (CGIAR), Center for Development Research (ZEF), Environmental Impacts Group, Georg-August-University [Göttingen], Universität für Bodenkultur Wien [Vienne, Autriche] (BOKU), Computational and Systems Biology Department, Rothamsted Research, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Department of Biological Systems Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, PPS, WSG and CALM, Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Beijing] (CAS), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra] (CSIRO), USDA-ARS, Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, China Agricultural University (CAU), National High-Tech Research and Development Program of China (2013AA100404), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31271616, 31611130182, 41571088 and 31561143003), the National Research Foundation for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China (20120097110042), the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD), China Scholarship Council., IFPRI through the Global Futures and Strategic Foresight project, the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), the CGIAR Research Program on Wheat, the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), Agricultural & Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida [Gainesville], Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, University of Bonn-Division of Plant Nutrition, Stanford University [Stanford], Écophysiologie des Plantes sous Stress environnementaux (LEPSE), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro)-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), UMR : AGroécologie, Innovations, TeRritoires, Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique de Toulouse, Prince of Songkla University, Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Wageningen University and Research Center (WUR), China Agricultural University, Division of Plant Nutrition-University of Bonn, Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro), University of Florida, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research ( PIK ), Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Institute for Landscape Biogeochemistry, Center for Climate Systems Research [New York] ( CCSR ), Écophysiologie des Plantes sous Stress environnementaux ( LEPSE ), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique ( INRA ) -Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques ( Montpellier SupAgro ) -Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier ( Montpellier SupAgro ), NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ( GISS ), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center ( GSFC ), Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research ( CGIAR ), W.K. Kellogg Biological Station, Institute of Soil Ecology [Neuherberg] ( IBOE ), Helmholtz-Zentrum München ( HZM ), James Hutton Institute, Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, European Commission - Joint Research Centre [Ispra] ( JRC ), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis ( IIASA ), Washington State University ( WSU ), Texas A and M University ( TAMU ), Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture ( CESCRA ), Indian Agricultural Research Institute ( IARI ), Institut für Meteorologie und Klimaforschung - Atmosphärische Umweltforschung ( IMK-IFU ), Karlsruher Institut für Technologie ( KIT ), School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Science and Birmingham Institute of Forest Research, University of Birmingham, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center ( CIMMYT ), Bonn Universität [Bonn], University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison [Madison], Wageningen University and Research Center ( WUR ), Chinese Academy of Sciences [Beijing] ( CAS ), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Université Blaise Pascal - Clermont-Ferrand 2 (UBP), Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT), Helmholtz Zentrum München = German Research Center for Environmental Health, Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), Georg-August-University = Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Universität für Bodenkultur Wien = University of Natural Resources and Life [Vienne, Autriche] (BOKU), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), and Institute of geographical sciences and natural resources research [CAS] (IGSNRR)

Subjects
0106 biological sciences, [SDV.SA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Agricultural sciences, [ SDV.BV ] Life Sciences [q-bio]/Vegetal Biology, régression statistique, 010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences, impact sur le rendement, klim, Atmospheric sciences, 01 natural sciences, incertitude, wheat, uncertainty, [ SDV.SA ] Life Sciences [q-bio]/Agricultural sciences, 2. Zero hunger, changement climatique, Regression analysis, statistical regression, simulation, PE&RC, [ SDE.MCG ] Environmental Sciences/Global Changes, sécurité alimentaire, Plant Production Systems, modèle de récolte, Yield (finance), comparaison de modèles, [SDE.MCG]Environmental Sciences/Global Changes, Climate change, Environmental Science (miscellaneous), Earth System Science, blé, température, Life Science, [SDV.BV]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Vegetal Biology, réchauffement climatique, global change, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, Hydrology, WIMEK, Global temperature, business.industry, Crop yield, Global warming, Climate Resilience, 13. Climate action, Agriculture, Klimaatbestendigheid, Plantaardige Productiesystemen, Environmental science, Leerstoelgroep Aardsysteemkunde, Climate model, business, Social Sciences (miscellaneous), 010606 plant biology & botany
Abstract

The potential impact of global temperature change on global crop yield has recently been assessed with different methods. Here we show that grid-based and point-based simulations and statistical regressions (from historic records), without deliberate adaptation or CO2 fertilization effects, produce similar estimates of temperature impact on wheat yields at global and national scales. With a 1 °C global temperature increase, global wheat yield is projected to decline between 4.1% and 6.4%. Projected relative temperature impacts from different methods were similar for major wheat-producing countries China, India, USA and France, but less so for Russia. Point-based and grid-based simulations, and to some extent the statistical regressions, were consistent in projecting that warmer regions are likely to suffer more yield loss with increasing temperature than cooler regions. By forming a multi-method ensemble, it was possible to quantify ‘method uncertainty’ in addition to model uncertainty. This significantly improves confidence in estimates of climate impacts on global food security. The potential impact of global temperature change on global crop yield has recently been assessed with different methods. Here we show that grid-based and point-based simulations and statistical regressions (from historic records), without deliberate adaptation or CO2 fertilization effects, produce similar estimates of temperature impact on wheat yields at global and national scales. With a 1 °C global temperature increase, global wheat yield is projected to decline between 4.1% and 6.4%. Projected relative temperature impacts from different methods were similar for major wheat-producing countries China, India, USA and France, but less so for Russia. Point-based and grid-based simulations, and to some extent the statistical regressions, were consistent in projecting that warmer regions are likely to suffer more yield loss with increasing temperature than cooler regions. By forming a multi-method ensemble, it was possible to quantify ‘method uncertainty’ in addition to model uncertainty. This significantly improves confidence in estimates of climate impacts on global food security.

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

12. Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability

Author

Carlos Angulo, Frank Ewert, Tom M. Osborne, Pramod K. Aggarwal, Senthold Asseng, Pasquale Steduto, Kurt Christian Kersebaum, Eckart Priesack, Patrick Bertuzzi, Roberto C. Izaurralde, Dominique Ripoche, Thilo Streck, Joost Wolf, Pierre Stratonovitch, Alex C. Ruane, Richard Goldberg, Robert F. Grant, Taru Palosuo, Iurii Shcherbak, Kenneth J. Boote, Christian Biernath, Garry O'Leary, J. Hooker, Peter J. Thorburn, Joachim Ingwersen, Soora Naresh Kumar, Lee Heng, Maria I. Travasso, Pierre Martre, Katharina Waha, Nicholas I. Hudson, Claas Nendel, Fulu Tao, Christoph Müller, Andrew J. Challinor, Jørgen E. Olesen, Reimund P. Rötter, Davide Camarrano, L. A. Hunt, Sebastian Gayler, Nadine Brisson, Daniel Wallach, Mikhail A. Semenov, Claudio O. Stöckle, Iwan Supit, Jordi Doltra, Jeffrey W. White, Bruno Basso, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Center for Climate Systems Research [New York] (CCSR), Columbia University [New York], Agricultural & Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida [Gainesville], The James Hutton Institute, Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung (ZALF), Leibniz Association, Écophysiologie des Plantes sous Stress environnementaux (LEPSE), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro)-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Génétique Diversité et Ecophysiologie des Céréales (GDEC), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Université Blaise Pascal - Clermont-Ferrand 2 (UBP), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra] (CSIRO), Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, International Water Management Institute, International Water Management Institute, Department of Geological Sciences and W. K. Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University [East Lansing], Michigan State University System-Michigan State University System, UE Agroclim (UE AGROCLIM), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Institute of Biochemical Plant Pathology, German Research Center for Environmental Health - Helmholtz Center München (GmbH), Agronomie, AgroParisTech-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science [Leeds] (ICAS), School of Earth and Environment [Leeds] (SEE), University of Leeds-University of Leeds, CGIAR-ESSP Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Cantabrian Agricultural Research and Training Centre, Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation, University of Hohenheim, Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta, International Atomic Energy Agency [Vienna] (IAEA), School of Agriculture, Policy and Development, University of Reading (UOR), Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland [College Park], University of Maryland System-University of Maryland System, Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture (CESCRA), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Landscape & Water Sciences, Department of Environment of Victoria, Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University, National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Meteorology, Environmental Impacts Group, Natural Resources Institute Finland, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Computational and Systems Biology Department, Rothamsted Research, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, Institute for Future Environments, Queensland University of Technology, Food and Agriculture Organization, Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State University (WSU), Earth System Science-Climate Change and Adaptive Land-use and Water Management, Wageningen University and Research Center (WUR), Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Changchun Branch] (CAS), Institute for Climate and Water [Castelnar], Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), UMR : AGroécologie, Innovations, TeRritoires, Ecole Nationale Supérieure Agronomique de Toulouse, USDA-ARS, Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, United States Department of Agriculture, Plant Production Systems, Modelling European Agriculture with Climate Change for Food Security (MACSUR), JPI FACCE, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering [Gainesville] (UF|ABE), Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences [Gainesville] (UF|IFAS), University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF)-University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF), Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation [Bonn], Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro), Agroclim (AGROCLIM), Aarhus University [Aarhus], Natural resources institute Finland, Georg-August-University [Göttingen], Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires (AGIR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) (Toulouse INP), Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-AgroParisTech, Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), Georg-August-University = Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Queensland University of Technology [Brisbane] (QUT), Institute of geographical sciences and natural resources research [CAS] (IGSNRR), Chinese Academy of Sciences [Beijing] (CAS), Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT), USDA Agricultural Research Service [Maricopa, AZ] (USDA), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ( GISS ), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center ( GSFC ), Center for Climate Systems Research [New York] ( CCSR ), University of Florida, University of Bonn (Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms), Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Écophysiologie des Plantes sous Stress environnementaux ( LEPSE ), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique ( INRA ) -Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques ( Montpellier SupAgro ) -Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier ( Montpellier SupAgro ), Génétique Diversité et Ecophysiologie des Céréales ( GDEC ), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique ( INRA ) -Université Blaise Pascal - Clermont-Ferrand 2 ( UBP ), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Department of Geological Sciences and Kellogg Biological Station, Michigan State University, UE Agroclim ( UE AGROCLIM ), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique ( INRA ), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique ( INRA ) -AgroParisTech, Institute for Climate and Atmospheric Science, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, International Atomic Energy Agency [Vienna] ( IAEA ), University of Reading ( UOR ), University of Maryland, Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture ( CESCRA ), Indian Agricultural Research Institute ( IARI ), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research ( PIK ), Washington State University ( WSU ), Wageningen University and Research Center ( WUR ), Chinese Academy of Sciences [Changchun Branch] ( CAS ), Institute for Climate and Water, and Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria

Subjects
[SDV.SA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Agricultural sciences, Temperature sensitivity, 010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences, Precipitation, 01 natural sciences, modèle de croissance, wheat, uncertainty, [ SDV.SA ] Life Sciences [q-bio]/Agricultural sciences, climate impacts, 2. Zero hunger, Multi-model ensemble, changement climatique, Ecological Modeling, Temperature, Uncertainty, 04 agricultural and veterinary sciences, PE&RC, Plant Production Systems, Climatology, PRECIPITATION, Climate impacts, Environmental Engineering, interannual variability, Yield (finance), australie, variation interannuelle, Growing season, Climate change, multi-model ensemble, Earth System Science, Interannual variability, blé, température, pays bas, global change, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, [ SDE.BE ] Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, WIMEK, précipitation, business.industry, argentine, Simulation modeling, temperature, Global change, 15. Life on land, inde, Climate Resilience, 13. Climate action, Agriculture, Klimaatbestendigheid, Plantaardige Productiesystemen, 040103 agronomy & agriculture, AgMIP, 0401 agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, Environmental science, Leerstoelgroep Aardsysteemkunde, Crop modeling, [SDE.BE]Environmental Sciences/Biodiversity and Ecology, business, Software
Abstract

We compare 27 wheat models' yield responses to interannual climate variability, analyzed at locations in Argentina, Australia, India, and The Netherlands as part of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Wheat Pilot. Each model simulated 1981-2010 grain yield, and we evaluate results against the interannual variability of growing season temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. The amount of information used for calibration has only a minor effect on most models' climate response, and even small multi-model ensembles prove beneficial. Wheat model clusters reveal common characteristics of yield response to climate; however models rarely share the same cluster at all four sites indicating substantial independence. Only a weak relationship (R2???0.24) was found between the models' sensitivities to interannual temperature variability and their response to long-term warming, suggesting that additional processes differentiate climate change impacts from observed climate variability analogs and motivating continuing analysis and model development efforts. Compares interannual climate response of 27 wheat models at four locations.Calculates the diminishing return of constructing multi-model ensembles for assessment.Identifies similarities and major differences of model responses.Differentiates between interannual temperature sensitivity and climate change response.

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

13. How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors?

Author

Federico Sau, Sjaak Conijn, Delphine Deryng, Jean-Louis Durand, Katharina Waha, Edmar Teixeira, Iurii Shcherbak, R.E.E. Jongschaap, James W. Jones, Kenneth J. Boote, Maria Virginia Pravia, Jerry L. Hatfield, Alex C. Ruane, Christian Biernath, Patricio Grassini, H.L. Boogaard, Steven Hoek, K. Christian Kersebaum, Fulu Tao, Christian Baron, David Makowski, Claas Nendel, Sebastian Gayler, Dennis Timlin, Marc Corbeels, Christoph Müller, Nadine Brisson, Jon I. Lizaso, Naresh S. Kumar, Cynthia Rosenzweig, Simona Bassu, Armen R. Kemanian, Cesar Izaurralde, Bruno Basso, Giacomo De Sanctis, Myriam Adam, Soo-Hyung Kim, Eckart Priesack, Agronomie, AgroParisTech-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Unité de Recherche Pluridisciplinaire Prairies et Plantes Fourragères (P3F), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Department of agronomy, University of Florida [Gainesville], Department Produccion vegetal, Fitotecnia, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM), Department of agricultural and biological engineering, GISS Climate impacts group, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC)-NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Amélioration génétique et adaptation des plantes méditerranéennes et tropicales (UMR AGAP), Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro), Territoires, Environnement, Télédétection et Information Spatiale (UMR TETIS), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-AgroParisTech-Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environnement et l'agriculture (IRSTEA), Department of geological sciences, Michigan State University [East Lansing], Michigan State University System-Michigan State University System, Department crop systems, forestry and environmental sciences, University of Basilicata, Centre for Geo-Information, ALTERRA, WUR-Plant research international, Wageningen University and Research Centre [Wageningen] (WUR), Agroécologie et Intensification Durables des cultures annuelles (Cirad-Persyst-UPR 115 AIDA), Département Performances des systèmes de production et de transformation tropicaux (Cirad-PERSYST), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad), Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia [Norwich] (UEA), School of Environmental Sciences [Norwich], UE Agroclim (UE AGROCLIM), Water and earth system science [Tübingen] (WESS), Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen, Department of agronomy and horticulture, University of Nebraska [Lincoln], University of Nebraska System-University of Nebraska System, Department of plant science, University of Pensylvania, Institute of Lanscape Systems Analysis, Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung = Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), School of environmental and forest sciences, University of Washington [Seattle], Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture (CESCRA), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Institute of landscape systems analysis, Institute of geographical sciences and natural resources research, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Changchun Branch] (CAS), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique ( INRA ) -AgroParisTech, Unité de Recherche Pluridisciplinaire Prairies et Plantes Fourragères ( P3F ), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique ( INRA ), Universidad Politécnica de Madrid ( UPM ), NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies ( GISS ), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center ( GSFC ) -NASA Goddard Space Flight Center ( GSFC ), Amélioration génétique et adaptation des plantes méditerranéennes et tropicales ( UMR AGAP ), Institut national de la recherche agronomique [Montpellier] ( INRA Montpellier ) -Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques ( Montpellier SupAgro ) -Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement ( CIRAD ) -Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier ( Montpellier SupAgro ), Territoires, Environnement, Télédétection et Information Spatiale ( UMR TETIS ), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement ( CIRAD ) -AgroParisTech-Institut national de recherche en sciences et technologies pour l'environnement et l'agriculture ( IRSTEA ), Wageningen University and Research Centre [Wageningen] ( WUR ), Annual cropping systems, Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement, Tyndall Centre for climate change research and school of environmental sciences, University of East Anglia [Norwich] ( UEA ), UE Agroclim ( UE AGROCLIM ), Water and earth system science (WESS) competence cluster, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research, Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture ( CESCRA ), Indian Agricultural Research Institute ( IARI ), Chinese Academy of Sciences [Changchun Branch] ( CAS ), University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF), Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering [Gainesville] (UF|ABE), Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences [Gainesville] (UF|IFAS), University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF)-University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro)-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro), Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Agroécologie et Intensification Durables des cultures annuelles (UPR AIDA), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad), Agroclim (AGROCLIM), and Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen = Eberhard Karls University of Tuebingen

Subjects
[SDV.SA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Agricultural sciences, 010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences, nitrogen dynamics, Atmospheric sciences, maize, 01 natural sciences, Standard deviation, F01 - Culture des plantes, wheat, Aardobservatie en omgevingsinformatica, water-use efficiency, uncertainty, [ SDV.SA ] Life Sciences [q-bio]/Agricultural sciences, General Environmental Science, agriculture, 2. Zero hunger, Global and Planetary Change, elevated co2, Ecology, Geography, Phenology, U10 - Informatique, mathématiques et statistiques, Agricultura, 04 agricultural and veterinary sciences, simulation, Rendement des cultures, model intercomparison, climate change, CO2, Crop simulation model, Modèle mathématique, Crops, Agricultural, simulation-model, Earth Observation and Environmental Informatics, air co2 enrichment, P40 - Météorologie et climatologie, Agmip, Climate, Maize, Model Intercomparison, Simulation, Temperature, Uncertainty, Climate change, carbon-dioxide, Models, Biological, Zea mays, Agro Water- en Biobased Economy, Environmental Chemistry, Water-use efficiency, climate, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, Changement climatique, systems simulation, Modélisation des cultures, Crop yield, Simulation modeling, Water, temperature, Modèle de simulation, Carbon Dioxide, yield, Température, Agronomy, 13. Climate action, Yield (chemistry), 040103 agronomy & agriculture, AgMIP, 0401 agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, Environmental science, Dioxyde de carbone
Abstract

Comments This article is a U.S. government work, and is not subject to copyright in the United States. Abstract Potential consequences of climate change on crop production can be studied using mechanistic crop simulation models. While a broad variety of maize simulation models exist, it is not known whether different models diverge on grain yield responses to changes in climatic factors, or whether they agree in their general trends related to phenology, growth, and yield. With the goal of analyzing the sensitivity of simulated yields to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2], we present the largest maize crop model intercomparison to date, including 23 different models. These models were evaluated for four locations representing a wide range of maize production conditions in the world: Lusignan (France), Ames (USA), Rio Verde (Brazil) and Morogoro (Tanzania). While individual models differed considerably in absolute yield simulation at the four sites, an ensemble of a minimum number of models was able to simulate absolute yields accurately at the four sites even with low data for calibration, thus suggesting that using an ensemble of models has merit. Temperature increase had strong negative influence on modeled yield response of roughly 0.5 Mg ha 1 per °C. Doubling [CO2] from 360 to 720 lmol mol 1 increased grain yield by 7.5% on average across models and the sites. That would therefore make temperature the main factor altering maize yields at the end of this century. Furthermore, there was a large uncertainty in the yield response to [CO2] among models. Model responses to temperature and [CO2] did not differ whether models were simulated with low calibration information or, simulated with high level of calibration information.

Published
2014
Full Text
View/download PDF

14. Tuta absoluta continues to disperse in Asia: damage, ongoing management and future challenges

Author

Su Wang, Nicolas Desneux, Uulu Tair Esenali, Abid Ali, Peng Han, Fang-Hao Wan, Fariba Sohrabi, Antonio Biondi, Anvar Jalilov, P. R. Shashank, Guifen Zhang, Yunus Bayram, Liora Shaltiel-Harpaz, Anitha Saji, Khasan Ismoilov, Zhaozhi Lu, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Beijing] (CAS), University of Chinese Academy of Sciences [Beijing] (UCAS), General Directorate Of Food And Control, Galilee Research Institute (Migal), Persian Gulf University, Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University (KTU MANAS), Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tajikistan, University of Agriculture Faisalabad (UAF), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Institute of Plant and Environment Protection, Beijing Academy of Agriculture and Forestry Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), Department of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Université de Catane, Institut Sophia Agrobiotech (ISA), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS)-Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (... - 2019) (UNS), and COMUE Université Côte d'Azur (2015-2019) (COMUE UCA)-COMUE Université Côte d'Azur (2015-2019) (COMUE UCA)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)

Subjects
0106 biological sciences, Integrated pest management, Invasive pest, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], Biology, 010603 evolutionary biology, 01 natural sciences, Cross-regional network, RNA interference, Genetically modified crops, Asian country, Economic impact analysis, China, 2. Zero hunger, business.industry, Agroforestry, fungi, food and beverages, 15. Life on land, biology.organism_classification, Biological control, Chemical control, Quarantine, Sterile insect technique, Agronomy and Crop Science, 010602 entomology, Agriculture, South american, [SDE]Environmental Sciences, Tuta absoluta, PEST analysis, business
Abstract

Since its initial detection in Turkey in 2009, the invasive destructive pest South American tomato pinworm Tuta absoluta (Meyrick) (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) has started its new invasion journey to east and invaded most Asian countries. This pest currently causes extensive damage to tomato production and potentially threatens key production areas such as China. To provide an overview of current status of T. absoluta in Asia, we have briefly reviewed the damage and economic impacts by this pest locally and discussed why this species has spread so rapidly among the countries. Moreover, ongoing integrated pest management options are summarized in newly invaded areas with an emphasis of discussing the potential control failures by chemical insecticides. Future research efforts on developing promising management technologies are recommended. Finally, we suggest building a cross-regional network to enhance the sustainable control of this pest.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. Global wheat production with 1.5 and 2.0°C above pre‐industrial warming

Author

Mónica Espadafor, Bing Liu, Frank Ewert, Mukhtar Ahmed, Liujun Xiao, Thilo Streck, Senthold Asseng, Soora Naresh Kumar, Gerrit Hoogenboom, John R. Porter, Sara Minoli, Margarita Garcia-Vila, Joost Wolf, Juraj Balkovic, Alex C. Ruane, Giacomo De Sanctis, Pierre Martre, Roberto C. Izaurralde, Marijn van der Velde, Dominique Ripoche, Roberto Ferrise, Davide Cammarano, Fulu Tao, Bruno Basso, Christoph Müller, Heidi Webber, Yujing Gao, Andrea Maiorano, Christian Klein, Ann-Kristin Koehler, Andrew J. Challinor, Reimund P. Rötter, Garry O'Leary, Manuel Montesino San Martin, Eckart Priesack, Peter J. Thorburn, Heidi Horan, Kurt Christian Kersebaum, Iwan Supit, Zhigan Zhao, Taru Palosuo, Belay T. Kassie, Christian Biernath, Pramod K. Aggarwal, Katharina Waha, Sebastian Gayler, Daniel Wallach, Yan Zhu, Marco Bindi, Zhao Zhang, Claas Nendel, Enli Wang, Curtis D. Jones, Ehsan Eyshi Rezaei, Mikhail A. Semenov, Claudio O. Stöckle, Benjamin Dumont, National Science Foundation (US), National Natural Science Foundation of China, International Food Policy Research Institute (US), CGIAR (France), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (France), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (UK), China Scholarship Council, Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (Australia), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole Alimentari e Forestali, Gorgan University, Victoria State Government, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (US), Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Germany), German Research Foundation, Academy of Finland, LabEx Agro, Natural Resources Institute Finland, National Engineering and Technology Center for Information Agriculture, Key Laboratory for Crop System Analysis and Decision Making, Ministry of Agriculture, Jiangsu Key Laboratory for Information Agriculture, Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center for Modern Crop Production, Nanjing Agricutural University, Écophysiologie des Plantes sous Stress environnementaux (LEPSE), Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro), Institut für Nutzpflanzenwissenschaften und Ressourcenschutz (INRES), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung = Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Fonctionnement et conduite des systèmes de culture tropicaux et méditerranéens (UMR SYSTEM), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (Cirad)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro)-Centre International de Hautes Etudes Agronomiques Méditerranéennes - Institut Agronomique Méditerranéen de Montpellier (CIHEAM-IAMM), Centre International de Hautes Études Agronomiques Méditerranéennes (CIHEAM)-Centre International de Hautes Études Agronomiques Méditerranéennes (CIHEAM)-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro), University of Copenhagen = Københavns Universitet (KU), Lincoln University, University of Leeds, CGIAR-ESSP Program on Climate Change,Agriculture and Food Security, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Agriculture and Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra] (CSIRO), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre [Inde] (CIMMYT), International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] (CGIAR)-Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] (CGIAR), Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State University (WSU), Department of Agronomy, University of El-Tarf, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Ecosystem Services and Management Program, affiliation inconnue, Comenius University in Bratislava, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences [East Lansing], Michigan State University [East Lansing], Michigan State University System-Michigan State University System, W. K. Kellogg Biological Station (KBS), Institute of Biochemical Plant Pathology (BIOP), German Research Center for Environmental Health - Helmholtz Center München (GmbH), Department of Agrifood Production and Environmental Sciences (DISPAA), Università degli Studi di Firenze = University of Florence [Firenze] (UNIFI), The James Hutton Institute, GMO Unit, European Food Safety Authority = Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments, Université de Liège, University of Córdoba, Department of Crop Sciences, Georg-August-University [Göttingen], Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation, University of Hohenheim, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering [Gainesville] (UF|ABE), Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences [Gainesville] (UF|IFAS), University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF)-University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF), Food Systems Institute [Gainesville] (UF|IFAS), Department of Geographical Sciences, College Park, University of Maryland [College Park], University of Maryland System-University of Maryland System, Texas A and M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University System, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture (CESCRA), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Agriculture Victoria Research, Institute for Natural Resources, Agroclim (AGROCLIM), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Tropical Plant Production and Agricultural Systems Modelling (TROPAGS), Centre of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use (CBL), University of Göttingen - Georg-August-Universität Göttingen, Rothamsted Research, Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR), Institute of geographical sciences and natural resources research, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Changchun Branch] (CAS), European Commission - Joint Research Centre [Ispra] (JRC), AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires (AGIR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) (Toulouse INP), Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées, Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University (BNU), Department of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University (CAU), Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Grant/Award Number: BB/, P016855/1

Subjects
[SDV.SA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Agricultural sciences, 0106 biological sciences, 010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences, Food prices, Water en Voedsel, Climate change, Atmospheric sciences, 010603 evolutionary biology, 01 natural sciences, Model ensemble, Extreme low yields, model ensemble, 1.5°C warming, Temperate climate, [SDV.BV]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Vegetal Biology, Environmental Chemistry, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, General Environmental Science, 2. Zero hunger, Global and Planetary Change, WIMEK, Water and Food, Food security, Ecology, business.industry, wheat production, Crop yield, Global warming, food security, 15. Life on land, PE&RC, climate change, Plant Production Systems, 13. Climate action, Agriculture, Plantaardige Productiesystemen, extreme low yields, 8. Economic growth, Environmental science, Wheat production, Water Systems and Global Change, business, Cropping
Abstract

Efforts to limit global warming to below 2°C in relation to the pre‐industrial level are under way, in accordance with the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, most impact research on agriculture to date has focused on impacts of warming >2°C on mean crop yields, and many previous studies did not focus sufficiently on extreme events and yield interannual variability. Here, with the latest climate scenarios from the Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts (HAPPI) project, we evaluated the impacts of the 2015 Paris Agreement range of global warming (1.5 and 2.0°C warming above the pre‐industrial period) on global wheat production and local yield variability. A multi‐crop and multi‐climate model ensemble over a global network of sites developed by the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) for Wheat was used to represent major rainfed and irrigated wheat cropping systems. Results show that projected global wheat production will change by −2.3% to 7.0% under the 1.5°C scenario and −2.4% to 10.5% under the 2.0°C scenario, compared to a baseline of 1980–2010, when considering changes in local temperature, rainfall, and global atmospheric CO2 concentration, but no changes in management or wheat cultivars. The projected impact on wheat production varies spatially; a larger increase is projected for temperate high rainfall regions than for moderate hot low rainfall and irrigated regions. Grain yields in warmer regions are more likely to be reduced than in cooler regions. Despite mostly positive impacts on global average grain yields, the frequency of extremely low yields (bottom 5 percentile of baseline distribution) and yield inter‐annual variability will increase under both warming scenarios for some of the hot growing locations, including locations from the second largest global wheat producer—India, which supplies more than 14% of global wheat. The projected global impact of warming, We thank the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) for support. B.L., L.X., and Y.Z. were supported by the National Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholars (31725020), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31801260, 51711520319, and 31611130182), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu province (BK20180523), the 111 Project (B16026), and the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD). S.A. and B.K. received support from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) through the Global Futures and Strategic Foresight project, the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), and the CGIAR Research Program on Wheat. P.M, D.R., and D.W. acknowledge support from the FACCE JPI MACSUR project (031A103B) through the metaprogram Adaptation of Agriculture and Forests to Climate Change (AAFCC) of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA). F.T. and Z.Z. were supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (41571088, 41571493, 31761143006, and 31561143003). R.R. acknowledges support from the German Federal Ministry for Research and Education (BMBF) through project “Limpopo Living Landscapes” project (SPACES program; grant number 01LL1304A). Rothamsted Research receives grant‐aided support from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) Designing Future Wheat project [BB/P016855/1]. L.X. and Y.G. acknowledge support from the China Scholarship Council. M.B and R.F. were funded by JPI FACCE MACSUR2 through the Italian Ministry for Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies and thank A. Soltani from Gorgan Univ. of Agric. Sci. & Natur. Resour for his support. K.C.K. and C.N. received support from the German Ministry for Research and Education (BMBF) within the FACCE JPI MACSUR project. S.M. and C.M. acknowledge financial support from the MACMIT project (01LN1317A) funded through BMBF. G.J.O. acknowledges support from the Victorian Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources, the Australian Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. P.K.A. was supported by the multiple donors contributing to the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). B.B. received financial support from USDA NIFA‐Water Cap Award 2015‐68007‐23133. F.E. acknowledges support from the FACCE JPI MACSUR project through the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (2815ERA01J) and from the German Science Foundation (project EW 119/5‐1). J.R.P. acknowledges the support of the Labex Agro (Agropolis no. 1501‐003). La. T.P. and F.T. received financial support from the Academy of Finland through the project PLUMES (decision nos. 277403 and 292836) and from Natural Resources Institute Finland through the project ClimSmartAgri.

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Assessing uncertainties in crop and pasture ensemble model simulations of productivity and N2O emissions

Author

Fiona Ehrhardt, Mark A. Liebig, Raphaël Martin, Jordi Doltra, Russel McAuliffe, Val Snow, Joël Léonard, Andrew D. Moore, Stephanie K. Jones, Lutz Merbold, Pete Smith, Lianhai Wu, Elizabeth A. Meier, Paul C. D. Newton, Arti Bhatia, Gianni Bellocchi, Massimiliano De Antoni Migliorati, Miko U. F. Kirschbaum, Ward Smith, Brian Grant, Renáta Sándor, Joanna Sharp, Lorenzo Brilli, Nuala Fitton, Jean-François Soussana, Elizabeth Pattey, Luca Doro, Katja Klumpp, Christopher D. Dorich, Bruno Basso, Raia Silvia Massad, Sylvie Recous, Patricia Laville, Qing Zhang, Matthew T. Harrison, Sandro José Giacomini, Susanne Rolinski, Mark Lieffering, Peter Grace, Vasileios Myrgiotis, Collège de Direction (CODIR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Unité Mixte de Recherche sur l'Ecosystème Prairial - UMR (UREP), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-VetAgro Sup - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur et de recherche en alimentation, santé animale, sciences agronomiques et de l'environnement (VAS), Queensland University of Technology, Agresearch Ltd, Fractionnement des AgroRessources et Environnement (FARE), Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne (URCA)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), University of Aberdeen, Michigan State University [East Lansing], Michigan State University System, Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Università degli Studi di Firenze = University of Florence [Firenze] (UNIFI), Catabrian Agricultural Research and Training Center (CIFA), Colorado State University [Fort Collins] (CSU), Università degli Studi di Sassari, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria = Federal University of Santa Maria [Santa Maria, RS, Brazil] (UFSM), Agriculture and Agri-Food [Ottawa] (AAFC), Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture, Scotland's Rural College (SRUC), Manaaki Whenua – Landcare Research [Lincoln], Ecologie fonctionnelle et écotoxicologie des agroécosystèmes (ECOSYS), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-AgroParisTech, Agroressources et Impacts environnementaux (AgroImpact), USDA-ARS : Agricultural Research Service, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra] (CSIRO), Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule - Swiss Federal Institute of Technology [Zürich] (ETH Zürich), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), New Zealand Institute for Crop and Food Research, Partenaires INRAE, Rothamsted Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), ANR, European Project: 277610,EC:FP7:KBBE,FP7-JPROG-2011-RTD,FACCE CSA(2011), Queensland University of Technology [Brisbane] (QUT), Università degli Studi di Firenze = University of Florence (UniFI), Università degli Studi di Sassari = University of Sassari [Sassari] (UNISS), Agriculture and Agri-Food (AAFC), Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), and Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM)

Subjects
biogeochemical models, 010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], Climate change, Atmospheric sciences, 01 natural sciences, Grassland, [SDV.IDA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Food engineering, Environmental Chemistry, [SDV.BV]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Vegetal Biology, [SPI.GPROC]Engineering Sciences [physics]/Chemical and Process Engineering, Agricultural productivity, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, General Environmental Science, agriculture, 2. Zero hunger, Global and Planetary Change, geography, geography.geographical_feature_category, Ecology, Ensemble forecasting, nitrous oxide, Crop yield, Simulation modeling, 04 agricultural and veterinary sciences, benchmarking, climate change, greenhouse gases, soil, yield, Climate change mitigation, Agronomy, 13. Climate action, greenhouse gas, Greenhouse gas, [SDE]Environmental Sciences, 040103 agronomy & agriculture, 0401 agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, Environmental science
Abstract

International audience; Simulation models are extensively used to predict agricultural productivity and greenhouse gas emissions. However, the uncertainties of (reduced) model ensemble simulations have not been assessed systematically for variables affecting food security and climate change mitigation, within multi-species agricultural contexts. We report an international model comparison and benchmarking exercise, showing the potential of multi-model ensembles to predict productivity and nitrous oxide (N2O)emissions for wheat, maize, rice and temperate grasslands. Using a multi-stage modelling protocol, from blind simulations (stage 1) to partial (stages 2–4) and full calibration (stage 5), 24 process-based biogeochemical models were assessed individually or as an ensemble against long-term experimental data from four temperate grassland and five arable crop rotation sites spanning four continents.Comparisons were performed by reference to the experimental uncertainties of observed yields and N2O emissions. Results showed that across sites and crop/grassland types, 23%–40% of the uncalibrated individual models were within two standard deviations (SD) of observed yields, while 42 (rice) to 96% (grasslands) of the models were within 1SD of observed N2O emissions. At stage 1, ensembles formed by the three lowest prediction model errors predicted both yields and N2O emissions within experimental uncertainties for 44% and 33% of the crop and grass-land growth cycles, respectively. Partial model calibration (stages 2–4) markedly reduced prediction errors of the full model ensemble E-median for crop grain yields(from 36% at stage 1 down to 4% on average) and grassland productivity (from 44%to 27%) and to a lesser and more variable extent for N2O emissions. Yield-scaled N2O emissions (N2O emissions divided by crop yields) were ranked accurately by three-model ensembles across crop species and field sites. The potential of using process-based model ensembles to predict jointly productivity and N2O emissions at field scale is discussed.

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

17. Multimodel ensembles improve predictions of crop–environment–management interactions

Author

Giacomo De Sanctis, Taru Palosuo, Davide Cammarano, Frank Ewert, Soora Naresh Kumar, Roberto C. Izaurralde, Gerrit Hoogenboom, Elias Fereres, Bing Liu, Thilo Streck, Mikhail A. Semenov, Ehsan Eyshi Rezaei, Peter J. Thorburn, Claudio O. Stöckle, Benjamin Dumont, Andrea Maiorano, Eckart Priesack, Iwan Supit, Heidi Horan, Kurt Christian Kersebaum, Pierre Martre, Margarita Garcia-Vila, Dominique Ripoche, Pierre Stratonovitch, Yujing Gao, Zhao Zhang, Ann-Kristin Koehler, Curtis D Jones, Fulu Tao, Claas Nendel, Christoph Müller, Andrew J. Challinor, Reimund P. Rötter, Mukhtar Ahmed, Senthold Asseng, Christine Girousse, Bruno Basso, Christian Klein, Pramod K. Aggarwal, Joost Wolf, Glenn J. Fitzgerald, Martin K. van Ittersum, Garry O'Leary, Belay T. Kassie, Christian Biernath, Sebastian Gayler, Daniel Wallach, Sara Minoli, AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires (AGIR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) (Toulouse INP), Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées, Écophysiologie des Plantes sous Stress environnementaux (LEPSE), Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement (Institut Agro)-Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro), Nanjing Agricultural University, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering [Gainesville] (UF|ABE), Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences [Gainesville] (UF|IFAS), University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF)-University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF), Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation [Bonn] (INRES), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung = Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra] (CSIRO), Plant Production Systems Group, Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Biological Systems Engineering, Washington State University (WSU), Department of Agronomy, University of El-Tarf, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences [East Lansing], Michigan State University [East Lansing], Michigan State University System-Michigan State University System, Plant Pathology, The James Hutton Institute, University of Leeds, Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), GMO Unit, European Food Safety Authority = Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments, Department Terra & AgroBioChem, Gembloux Agro‐Bio Tech, Université de Liège, Center for Development Research, University of Córdoba, Agriculture Victoria Research, University of Melbourne, Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation, University of Hohenheim, Génétique Diversité et Ecophysiologie des Céréales (GDEC), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Université Clermont Auvergne [2017-2020] (UCA [2017-2020]), University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF), Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland [College Park], University of Maryland System-University of Maryland System, Texas A and M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University System, Institute of landscape systems analysis, School of Earth and Environment, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture (CESCRA), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources (DEDJTR), Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), Agroclim (AGROCLIM), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), University Medical Center Göttingen (UMG), Computational and Systems Biology Department, Rothamsted Research, Water & Food and Water Systems & Global Change Group, Wageningen University, Institute of geographical sciences and natural resources research, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Changchun Branch] (CAS), Plant Production Systems, State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Beijing Normal University (BNU), European Project: 267196,EC:FP7:PEOPLE,FP7-PEOPLE-2010-COFUND,AGREENSKILLS(2012), Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques (Montpellier SupAgro)-Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier (Montpellier SupAgro), Nanjing Agricultural University (NAU), Universidad de Córdoba = University of Córdoba [Córdoba], Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)-Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Institute of geographical sciences and natural resources research [CAS] (IGSNRR), and Chinese Academy of Sciences [Beijing] (CAS)

Subjects
[SDV.SA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Agricultural sciences, 010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences, Mean squared error, Climate Change, [SDE.MCG]Environmental Sciences/Global Changes, Inverse, Water en Voedsel, Monotonic function, multi-model ensemble, Environment, High skill, 01 natural sciences, crop models, ensemble mean, Statistics, Environmental Chemistry, Triticum, 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, General Environmental Science, Mathematics, 2. Zero hunger, ensemble median, Global and Planetary Change, WIMEK, Water and Food, Ecology, Ensemble average, Simulation modeling, Agriculture, 04 agricultural and veterinary sciences, Variance (accounting), prediction, Models, Theoretical, PE&RC, Plant Production Systems, multimodel ensemble, 13. Climate action, Plantaardige Productiesystemen, climate change impact, 040103 agronomy & agriculture, 0401 agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, Water Systems and Global Change, Environment management
Abstract

International audience; A recent innovation in assessment of climate change impact on agricultural production has been to use crop multi model ensembles (MMEs). These studies usually find large variability between individual models but that the ensemble mean (e‐mean) and median (e‐median) often seem to predict quite well. However few studies have specifically been concerned with the predictive quality of those ensemble predictors. We ask what is the predictive quality of e‐mean and e‐median, and how does that depend on the ensemble characteristics. Our empirical results are based on five MME studies applied to wheat, using different data sets but the same 25 crop models. We show that the ensemble predictors have quite high skill and are better than most and sometimes all individual models for most groups of environments and most response variables. Mean squared error of e‐mean decreases monotonically with the size of the ensemble if models are added at random, but has a minimum at usually 2‐6 models if best‐fit models are added first. Our theoretical results describe the ensemble using four parameters; average bias, model effect variance, environment effect variance and interaction variance. We show analytically that mean squared error of prediction (MSEP) of e‐mean will always be smaller than MSEP averaged over models, and will be less than MSEP of the best model if squared bias is less than the interaction variance. If models are added to the ensemble at random, MSEP of e‐mean will decrease as the inverse of ensemble size, with a minimum equal to squared bias plus interaction variance. This minimum value is not necessarily small, and so it is important to evaluate the predictive quality of e‐mean for each target population of environments. These results provide new information on the advantages of ensemble predictors, but also show their limitations.

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

18. Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production

Author

Margarita Garcia-Vila, L. A. Hunt, Jørgen E. Olesen, P. V. V. Prasad, Pierre Martre, Katharina Waha, Curtis D. Jones, Pramod K. Aggarwal, Yan Zhu, Phillip D. Alderman, Christian Biernath, Fulu Tao, Bruno Basso, Davide Cammarano, Christoph Müller, Eckart Priesack, Taru Palosuo, Mohamed Jabloun, Thilo Streck, Zhigan Zhao, Jordi Doltra, Roberto C. Izaurralde, Alex C. Ruane, Andrew J. Challinor, Michael J. Ottman, Jeffrey W. White, Garry O'Leary, Reimund P. Rötter, David B. Lobell, Sebastian Gayler, Gerard W. Wall, G. De Sanctis, Matthew P. Reynolds, Senthold Asseng, Iurii Shcherbak, Peter J. Thorburn, Enli Wang, Bruce A. Kimball, Daniel Wallach, Mikhail A. Semenov, Claudio O. Stöckle, Claas Nendel, Jakarat Anothai, Ehsan Eyshi Rezaei, Pierre Stratonovitch, Ann-Kristin Koehler, Joost Wolf, Kurt Christian Kersebaum, Gerrit Hoogenboom, Frank Ewert, Iwan Supit, S. Naresh Kumar, Elias Fereres, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Columbia University, University of Florida, Department of Agriculture (US), Oregon State University, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Shahid Beheshti University, ARVALIS, International Food Policy Research Institute (US), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Germany), German Research Foundation, Danish Council for Strategic Research, Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (Germany), Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, National Natural Science Foundation of China, CGIAR (France), Grains Research and Development Corporation (Australia), Department of Environment and Primary Industries (Australia), Texas AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia), Chinese Academy of Sciences, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering [Gainesville] (UF|ABE), Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences [Gainesville] (UF|IFAS), University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF)-University of Florida [Gainesville] (UF), Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation [Bonn] (INRES), Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Génétique Diversité et Ecophysiologie des Céréales (GDEC), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Université Blaise Pascal - Clermont-Ferrand 2 (UBP), Plant Production Research, Agrifood Research Finland, Stanford University, Agricultural Research Service / US Arid Land Agricultural Research Center, United States Department of Agriculture, The School of Plant Sciences, University of Arizona, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research [CGIAR] (CGIAR), Department of Agronomy, Purdue University [West Lafayette], CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Washington State University (WSU), Department of geological sciences, Michigan State University [East Lansing], Michigan State University System-Michigan State University System, W. K. Kellogg Biological Station (KBS), Institute of Soil Ecology, Helmholtz-Zentrum München (HZM), CGIAR-ESSP Program on Climate Change,Agriculture and Food Security, International Center for Tropical Agriculture, University of Leeds, Agroclim (AGROCLIM), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), Catabrian Agricultural Research and Training Center (CIFA), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Universidad de Córdoba [Cordoba], WESS-Water and Earth System Science Competence Cluster, Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen = Eberhard Karls University of Tuebingen, Biological Systems Engineering, Department of Plant Agriculture, University of Guelph, Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland [College Park], University of Maryland System-University of Maryland System, Texas A&M University System, Department of Agroecology, Aarhus University [Aarhus], Institute of Landscape System Analysis, Leibniz-Zentrum für Agrarlandschaftsforschung = Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Centre for Environment Science and Climate Resilient Agriculture (CESCRA), Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Institute of landscape systems analysis, Department of Environment and Primary Industries, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), Computational and Systems Biology Department, Rothamsted Research, Department of Geological Sciences, University of Michigan [Ann Arbor], University of Michigan System-University of Michigan System, Computational and Systems Biology, John Innes Centre [Norwich], Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation, University of Hohenheim, Plant Production Systems and Earth System Science, Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Institute of geographical sciences and natural resources research, Chinese Academy of Sciences [Changchun Branch] (CAS), Agriculture Flagship, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [Canberra] (CSIRO), AGroécologie, Innovations, teRritoires (AGIR), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Institut National Polytechnique (Toulouse) (Toulouse INP), Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées-Université Fédérale Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées, Department of Agronomy and Biotechnology, China Agricultural University (CAU), Nanjing Agricultural University, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture [32011-68002-30191], KULUNDA [01LL0905L], FACCE MACSUR project through the German FederalMinistry of Education and Research (BMBF) [031A103B, 2812ERA115], German Science Foundation [EW119/5-1], FACCEMACSUR project by the Danish Strategic Research Council, FACCE MACSUR project through the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL), FACCE MACSUR project funded through the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, National Natural Science Foundation of China [41071030], Helmholtz project 'REKLIM-Regional Climate Change: Causes and Effects' Topic 9: 'Climate Change and Air Quality', CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS), Australian Grains Research and Development Corporation, Department of Environment and Primary Industries Victoria, Australia, Texas AgriLife Research, Texas AM University, CSIRO, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), Helmholtz Zentrum München = German Research Center for Environmental Health, Universidad de Córdoba = University of Córdoba [Córdoba], Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)-Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), Institute of geographical sciences and natural resources research [CAS] (IGSNRR), Chinese Academy of Sciences [Beijing] (CAS), Université de Toulouse (UT)-Université de Toulouse (UT), and Nanjing Agricultural University (NAU)

Subjects
0106 biological sciences, 010504 meteorology & atmospheric sciences, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], Yield (finance), Growing season, Climate change, Environmental Science (miscellaneous), Atmospheric sciences, 01 natural sciences, [SHS]Humanities and Social Sciences, Crop, [SDV.BV]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Vegetal Biology, Production (economics), 0105 earth and related environmental sciences, 2. Zero hunger, business.industry, Global warming, Simulation modeling, 15. Life on land, Agronomy, 13. Climate action, Agriculture, [SDE]Environmental Sciences, Environmental science, business, Social Sciences (miscellaneous), 010606 plant biology & botany
Abstract

Asseng, S. et al., 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., We thank the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project and its leaders C. Rosenzweig from NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University (USA), J. Jones from University of Florida (USA), J. Hatfield from United States Department of Agriculture (USA) and J. Antle from Oregon State University (USA) for support. We also thank M. Lopez from CIMMYT (Turkey), M. Usman Bashir from University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (Pakistan), S. Soufizadeh from Shahid Beheshti University (Iran), and J. Lorgeou and J-C. Deswarte from ARVALIS—Institut du Végétal (France) for assistance with selecting key locations and quantifying regional crop cultivars, anthesis and maturity dates and R. Raymundo for assistance with GIS. S.A. and D.C. received financial support from the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). C.S. was funded through USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture award 32011-68002-30191. C.M. received financial support from the KULUNDA project (01LL0905L) and the FACCE MACSUR project (031A103B) funded through the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). F.E. received support from the FACCE MACSUR project (031A103B) funded through the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2812ERA115) and E.E.R. was funded through the German Science Foundation (project EW 119/5-1). M.J. and J.E.O. were funded through the FACCE MACSUR project by the Danish Strategic Research Council. K.C.K. and C.N. were funded by the FACCE MACSUR project through the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). F.T., T.P. and R.P.R. received financial support from FACCE MACSUR project funded through the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MMM); F.T. was also funded through National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41071030). C.B. was funded through the Helmholtz project ‘REKLIM—Regional Climate Change: Causes and Effects’ Topic 9: ‘Climate Change and Air Quality’. M.P.R. and P.D.A. received funding from the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS). G.O’L. was funded through the Australian Grains Research and Development Corporation and the Department of Environment and Primary Industries Victoria, Australia. R.C.I. was funded by Texas AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University. E.W. and Z.Z. were funded by CSIRO and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) through the research project ‘Advancing crop yield while reducing the use of water and nitrogen’ and by the CSIRO-MoE PhD Research Program.

Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results