Search

Crop models are often used to project future crop yield under climate and global change and typically show a broad range of outcomes. To understand differences in modeled responses, we analyzed modeled crop yield response types using impact response surfaces along four drivers of crop yield: carbon dioxide (C), temperature (T), water (W), and nitrogen (N). Crop yield response types help to understand differences in simulated responses per driver and their combinations rather than aggregated changes in yields as the result of simultaneous changes in various drivers. We find that models' sensitivities to the individual drivers are substantially different and often more different across models than across regions. There is some agreement across models with respect to the spatial patterns of response types but strong differences in the distribution of response types across models and their configurations suggests that models need to undergo further scrutiny. We suggest establishing standards in model evaluation based on emergent functionality not only against historical yield observations but also against dedicated experiments across different drivers to analyze emergent functional patterns of crop models. Plain Language Summary: Crop models are widely used to compute crop yields under future climate change. Yields are determined by many interacting processes. Simulated future crop yields often show a broad uncertainty range. We investigate the sensitivity of nine different crop models to individual model inputs (carbon dioxide, temperature, water, nitrogen) in a very large simulation data set and find that there are substantial differences. We conclude that crop model evaluation needs to include analyses of functional properties to avoid that very diverse model responses to drivers are not tracked if interacting processes cancel out in the historical evaluation period but not in future scenarios, leading to large differences between models. Key Points: Crop models show strong differences in input sensitivitiesStandardized modeling experiments reveal differences in emergent functional relationshipsNew standards in model evaluation are needed [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about food security under climate change motivate efforts to better understand future changes in crop yields. Process-based crop models, which represent plant physiological and soil processes, are necessary tools for this purpose since they allow representing future climate and management conditions not sampled in the historical record and new locations to which cultivation may shift. However, process-based crop models differ in many critical details, and their responses to different interacting factors remain only poorly understood. The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) Phase 2 experiment, an activity of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), is designed to provide a systematic parameter sweep focused on climate change factors and their interaction with overall soil fertility, to allow both evaluating model behavior and emulating model responses in impact assessment tools. In this paper we describe the GGCMI Phase 2 experimental protocol and its simulation data archive. A total of 12 crop models simulate five crops with systematic uniform perturbations of historical climate, varying CO2 , temperature, water supply, and applied nitrogen ("CTWN") for rainfed and irrigated agriculture, and a second set of simulations represents a type of adaptation by allowing the adjustment of growing season length. We present some crop yield results to illustrate general characteristics of the simulations and potential uses of the GGCMI Phase 2 archive. For example, in cases without adaptation, modeled yields show robust decreases to warmer temperatures in almost all regions, with a nonlinear dependence that means yields in warmer baseline locations have greater temperature sensitivity. Inter-model uncertainty is qualitatively similar across all the four input dimensions but is largest in high-latitude regions where crops may be grown in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Water erosion in agricultural fields can reduce soil fertility and agricultural productivity. Despite the impact of water erosion on crops, it is typically neglected in global crop yield projections. Furthermore, previous efforts to quantify global water erosion have paid little attention to the effects of field management on the magnitude of water erosion. In this study, we analyse the robustness of simulated water erosion estimates in wheat and maize fields between the years 1980 to 2010 based on daily model outputs from a global gridded version of the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) crop model. Using the MUSS water erosion equation and country-specific and environmental indicators determining different intensities in tillage, residue handling and cover crops, we simulate global annual median and average water erosion rates of 6 t ha-1 and 19 t ha-1 and an annual soil removal of 7 Gt in global wheat and maize fields. A comparison of our simulation results with field data demonstrates an overlap of simulated and measured water erosion values for the majority of global cropland. Slope inclination and daily precipitation are key factors in determining the agreement between simulated and measured erosion values and are the most critical input parameters controlling all water erosion equations included in EPIC. The many differences between field management methods worldwide and the varying water erosion estimates from different equations add uncertainty to the simulation results. To reduce the uncertainties addressed here and to improve global water erosion estimates generally, more data on global field management and more field data from study sites representing the diversity of environmental conditions where crops are grown are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing temperature trends are expected to impact yields of major field crops by affecting various plant processes, such as phenology, growth, and evapotranspiration. However, future projections typically do not consider the effects of agronomic adaptation in farming practices. We use an ensemble of seven Global Gridded Crop Models to quantify the impacts and adaptation potential of field crops under increasing temperature up to 6 K, accounting for model uncertainty. We find that without adaptation, the dominant effect of temperature increase is to shorten the growing period and to reduce grain yields and production. We then test the potential of two agronomic measures to combat warming‐induced yield reduction: (i) use of cultivars with adjusted phenology to regain the reference growing period duration and (ii) conversion of rainfed systems to irrigated ones in order to alleviate the negative temperature effects that are mediated by crop evapotranspiration. We find that cultivar adaptation can fully compensate global production losses up to 2 K of temperature increase, with larger potentials in continental and temperate regions. Irrigation could also compensate production losses, but its potential is highest in arid regions, where irrigation expansion would be constrained by water scarcity. Moreover, we discuss that irrigation is not a true adaptation measure but rather an intensification strategy, as it equally increases production under any temperature level. In the tropics, even when introducing both adapted cultivars and irrigation, crop production declines already at moderate warming, making adaptation particularly challenging in these areas. Plain Language Summary: Global warming affects yields of grain crops, which are at the base of human diets. We use crop models to quantify its impacts on global crop production and to assess how adaptation could compensate for the adverse effects. We find that up to 2 K of increased temperature production can be maintained at the current level by using new cultivars, selected to maintain current growing period length under warming. Irrigation, as another management strategy, is shown to have the potential to increase yields in dry regions if water is available. However, models do not indicate that irrigation reduces the crops' sensitivity to warming. We find large differences in the yield response to warming and adaptation across climatic regions. While continental and temperate regions may benefit from higher temperatures but also show sizable adaptation potentials, tropical and arid regions show largest temperature impacts and smaller adaptation potentials. After all, these two crop management options appear effective to balance the effects of moderate warming but cannot fully compensate impacts above 2 K of warming. Key Points: Without agronomic adaptation, the dominant effect of temperature increase is to shorten growing periods and to reduce yields and productionAdaptation via cultivars that maintain current growing periods under warming can compensate global production losses up to 2 KIrrigation would act as intensification rather than true adaptation, as it hardly affects the sensitivity of crop yields to warming [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about food security under climate change motivate efforts to better understand future changes in crop yields. Process-based crop models, which represent plant physiological and soil processes, are necessary tools for this purpose since they allow representing future climate and management conditions not sampled in the historical record and new locations to which cultivation may shift. However, process-based crop models differ in many critical details, and their responses to different interacting factors remain only poorly understood. The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) Phase II experiment, an activity of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), is designed to provide a systematic parameter sweep focused on climate change factors and their interaction with overall soil fertility, to allow both evaluating model behavior and emulating model responses in impact assessment tools. In this paper we describe the GGCMI Phase II experimental protocol and its simulation data archive. Twelve crop models simulate five crops with systematic uniform perturbations of historical climate, varying CO2, temperature, water supply, and applied nitrogen ("CTWN") for rainfed and irrigated agriculture, and a second set of simulations represents a type of adaptation by allowing the adjustment of growing season length. We present some crop yield results to illustrate general characteristics of the simulations and potential uses of the GGCMI Phase II archive. For example, modeled yields show robust decreases to warmer temperatures in almost all regions, with a nonlinear dependence that indicates yields in warmer baseline locations have greater temperature sensitivity. Inter-model uncertainty is qualitatively similar across all the four input dimensions, but is largest in high-latitude regions where crops may be grown in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global gridded crop models (GGCMs) combine agronomic or plant growth models with gridded spatial input data to estimate spatially explicit crop yields and agricultural externalities at the global scale. Differences in GGCM outputs arise from the use of different biophysical models, setups, and input data. GGCM ensembles are frequently employed to bracket uncertainties in impact studies without investigating the causes of divergence in outputs. This study explores differences in maize yield estimates from five GGCMs based on the public domain field-scale model Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) that participate in the AgMIP Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison initiative. Albeit using the same crop model, the GGCMs differ in model version, input data, management assumptions, parameterization, and selection of subroutines affecting crop yield estimates via cultivar distributions, soil attributes, and hydrology among others. The analyses reveal inter-annual yield variability and absolute yield levels in the EPIC-based GGCMs to be highly sensitive to soil parameterization and crop management. All GGCMs show an intermediate performance in reproducing reported yields with a higher skill if a static soil profile is assumed or sufficient plant nutrients are supplied. An in-depth comparison of setup domains for two EPIC-based GGCMs shows that GGCM performance and plant stress responses depend substantially on soil parameters and soil process parameterization, i.e. hydrology and nutrient turnover, indicating that these often neglected domains deserve more scrutiny. For agricultural impact assessments, employing a GGCM ensemble with its widely varying assumptions in setups appears the best solution for coping with uncertainties from lack of comprehensive global data on crop management, cultivar distributions and coefficients for agro-environmental processes. However, the underlying assumptions require systematic specifications to cover representative agricultural systems and environmental conditions. Furthermore, the interlinkage of parameter sensitivity from various domains such as soil parameters, nutrient turnover coefficients, and cultivar specifications highlights that global sensitivity analyses and calibration need to be performed in an integrated manner to avoid bias resulting from disregarded core model domains. Finally, relating evaluations of the EPIC-based GGCMs to a wider ensemble based on individual core models shows that structural differences outweigh in general differences in configurations of GGCMs based on the same model, and that the ensemble mean gains higher skill from the inclusion of structurally different GGCMs. Although the members of the wider ensemble herein do not consider crop-soil-management interactions, their sensitivity to nutrient supply indicates that findings for the EPIC-based sub-ensemble will likely become relevant for other GGCMs with the progressing inclusion of such processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural production must increase to feed a growing and wealthier population, as well as to satisfy increasing demands for biomaterials and biomass-based energy. At the same time, deforestation and land-use change need to be minimized in order to preserve biodiversity and maintain carbon stores in vegetation and soils. Consequently, agricultural land use needs to be intensified in order to increase food production per unit area of land. Here we use simulations of AgMIP’s Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 to assess implications of input-driven intensification (water, nutrients) on crop yield and yield stability, which is an important aspect in food security. We find region- and crop-specific responses for the simulated period 1980–2009 with broadly increasing yield variability under additional nitrogen inputs and stabilizing yields under additional water inputs (irrigation), reflecting current patterns of water and nutrient limitation. The different models of the GGCMI ensemble show similar response patterns, but model differences warrant further research on management assumptions, such as variety selection and soil management, and inputs as well as on model implementation of different soil and plant processes, such as on heat stress, and parameters. Higher variability in crop productivity under higher fertilizer input will require adequate buffer mechanisms in trade and distribution/storage networks to avoid food price volatility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global gridded crop models (GGCMs) combine field-scale agronomic models or sets of plant growth algorithms with gridded spatial input data to estimate spatially explicit crop yields and agricultural externalities at the global scale. Differences in GGCM outputs arise from the use of different bio-physical models, setups, and input data. While algorithms have been in the focus of recent GGCM comparisons, this study investigates differences in maize and wheat yield estimates from five GGCMs based on the public domain field-scale model Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) that participate in the AgMIP Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) project. Albeit using the same crop model, the GGCMs differ in model version, input data, management assumptions, parameterization, geographic distribution of cultivars, and selection of subroutines e.g. for the estimation of potential evapotranspiration or soil erosion. The analyses reveal long-term trends and inter-annual yield variability in the EPIC-based GGCMs to be highly sensitive to soil parameterization and crop management. Absolute yield levels as well depend not only on nutrient supply but also on the parameterization and distribution of crop cultivars. All GGCMs show an intermediate performance in reproducing reported absolute yield levels or inter-annual dynamics. Our findings suggest that studies focusing on the evaluation of differences in bio-physical routines may require further harmonization of input data and management assumptions in order to eliminate background noise resulting from differences in model setups. For agricultural impact assessments, employing a GGCM ensemble with its widely varying assumptions in setups appears the best solution for bracketing such uncertainties as long as comprehensive global datasets taking into account regional differences in crop management, cultivar distributions and coefficients for parameterizing agro-environmental processes are lacking. Finally, we recommend improvements in the documentation of setups and input data of GGCMs in order to allow for sound interpretability, comparability and reproducibility of published results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop yields at the global scale, but there so far is no general framework on how to assess model performance. We here evaluate the simulation results of 14 global gridded crop modeling groups that have contributed historic crop yield simulations for maize, wheat, rice and soybean to the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). Simulation results are compared to reference data at global, national and grid cell scales and we evaluate model performance with respect to time series correlation, spatial correlation and mean bias. We find that GGCMs show mixed skill in reproducing time-series correlations or spatial patterns at the different spatial scales. Generally, maize, wheat and soybean simulations of many GGCMs are capable of reproducing larger parts of observed temporal variability (time series correlation coefficients (r) of up to 0.888 for maize, 0.673 for wheat and 0.643 for soybean at the global scale) but rice yield variability cannot be well reproduced by most models. Yield variability can be well reproduced for most major producer countries by many GGCMS and for all countries by at least some. A comparison with gridded yield data and a statistical analysis of the effects of weather variability on yield variability shows that the ensemble of GGCMs can explain more of the yield variability than an ensemble of regression models for maize and soybean, but not for wheat and rice. We identify future research needs in global gridded crop modeling and for all individual crop modeling groups. In the absence of a purely observation-based benchmark for model evaluation, we propose that the best performing crop model per crop and region establishes the benchmark for all others, and modelers are encouraged to investigate how crop model performance can be increased. We make our evaluation system accessible to all crop modelers so that also other modeling groups can test their model performance against the reference data and the GGCMI benchmark. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The impact of soil nutrient depletion on crop production has been known for decades, but robust assessments of the impact of increasingly unbalanced nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) application rates on crop production are lacking. Here, we use crop response functions based on 741 FAO maize crop trials and EPIC crop modeling across Africa to examine maize yield deficits resulting from unbalanced N : P applications under low, medium, and high input scenarios, for past (1975), current, and future N : P mass ratios of respectively, 1 : 0.29, 1 : 0.15, and 1 : 0.05. At low N inputs (10 kg ha−1), current yield deficits amount to 10% but will increase up to 27% under the assumed future N : P ratio, while at medium N inputs (50 kg N ha−1), future yield losses could amount to over 40%. The EPIC crop model was then used to simulate maize yields across Africa. The model results showed relative median future yield reductions at low N inputs of 40%, and 50% at medium and high inputs, albeit with large spatial variability. Dominant low-quality soils such as Ferralsols, which are strongly adsorbing P, and Arenosols with a low nutrient retention capacity, are associated with a strong yield decline, although Arenosols show very variable crop yield losses at low inputs. Optimal N : P ratios, i.e. those where the lowest amount of applied P produces the highest yield (given N input) where calculated with EPIC to be as low as 1 : 0.5. Finally, we estimated the additional P required given current N inputs, and given N inputs that would allow Africa to close yield gaps (ca. 70%). At current N inputs, P consumption would have to increase 2.3-fold to be optimal, and to increase 11.7-fold to close yield gaps. The P demand to overcome these yield deficits would provide a significant additional pressure on current global extraction of P resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa is partly due to low staple crop yields, resulting from poor soil fertility and low nutrient inputs. Integrated soil fertility management (ISFM), which includes the combined use of mineral and organic fertilizers, can contribute to increasing yields and sustaining soil organic carbon (SOC) in the long term. Soil-crop simulation models can help assess the performance and trade-offs of a range of crop management practices including ISFM, under current and future climate. Yet, uncertainty in model simulations can be high, resulting from poor model calibration and/or inadequate model structure. Multi-model simulations have been shown to be more robust than those with single models and help understand and reduce modelling uncertainty. In this study, we aim to perform the first multi-model comparison for long-term simulations of crop yield and SOC and their feedbacks in SSA. We evaluated the performance of 16 soil-crop models using data from four long-term maize experiments at sites in SSA with contrasting climates and soils. Each experiment had four treatments: i) no exogenous inputs, ii) addition of mineral nitrogen (N) fertilizer, iii) use of organic amendments, and iv) combined use of mineral and organic inputs. We assessed model performance in two steps: through blind calibration involving a minimum level of experimental data provided to the modeling teams, and subsequently through full calibration, which included a more extensive set of observational data. Model ensemble accuracy was greater with full calibration than blind calibration. Improvement in model accuracy was larger for maize yields (nRMSE 48 vs 18%) than for topsoil SOC (nRMSE 22 vs 14%). Model ensemble uncertainty (defined as the coefficient of variation across the 16 models) increased over the duration of the long-term experiments. Uncertainty of SOC simulations increased when organic amendments were used, whilst uncertainty of yield predictions was largest when no inputs were applied. Our study revealed large discrepancies among the models in simulating i) crop-to-soil feedbacks due to uncertainties in simulated carbon coming from roots, and ii) soil-to-crop feedbacks due to large uncertainties in simulated crop N supply from soil organic matter decomposition. These discrepancies were largest when organic amendments were applied. The results highlight the need for long-term experiments in which root and soil N dynamics are monitored. This will provide the corresponding data to improve and calibrate soil-crop models, which will lead to more robust and reliable simulations of SOC and crop productivity, and their interactions. • Multi-model assessment for long-term simulations of crop yield and soil carbon • Model ensemble uncertainty in simulating soil carbon increase with organic amendment • Model ensemble uncertainty in simulating yield increase in no-input treatments • Models largely differed in simulating root biomass and nitrogen mineralisation • More detailed experiments on soil crop feedback are needed to improve models [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing demand for food is driving a worldwide trend of agricultural input intensification.However, there is no comprehensive knowledge about the interrelations between potentialyield gains and environmental trade-offs that would enable the identification of regions whereinput-driven intensification could achieve higher yields, yet with minimal environmentalimpacts. We explore ways of enhancing global yields, while avoiding significant nitrogen (N)emissions (Ne) by exploring a range of N and irrigation management scenarios. Thesimulated responses of yields and Ne to increased N inputs (Nin) and irrigation show highspatial variations due to differences in current agricultural inputs and agro-climaticconditions. Nitrogen use efficiency (NUE) of yield gains is negatively correlated withincremental Ne due to Nin additions. Avoiding further intensification in regions where highfractions of climatic yield potentials, ≥80%, are already achieved is key to maintain goodNUE. Depending on the intensification scenarios, relative increases in Ne couldbe reduced by 0.3–29.6% of the baseline Ne with this intensification strategy ascompared to indiscriminate further intensification, at the cost of a loss of yield increasesby 0.2–16.7% of the baseline yields. In addition, irrigation water requirementsand Nin would dramatically decrease by considering this intensification strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aggregation of simulated gridded crop yields to national or regional scale requires information on temporal and spatial patterns of crop-specific harvested areas. This analysis estimates the uncertainty of simulated gridded yield time series related to the aggregation with four different harvested area data sets. We compare aggregated yield time series from the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison project for four crop types from 14 models at global, national, and regional scale to determine aggregation-driven differences in mean yields and temporal patterns as measures of uncertainty. The quantity and spatial patterns of harvested areas differ for individual crops among the four data sets applied for the aggregation. Also simulated spatial yield patterns differ among the 14 models. These differences in harvested areas and simulated yield patterns lead to differences in aggregated productivity estimates, both in mean yield and in the temporal dynamics. Among the four investigated crops, wheat yield (17% relative difference) is most affected by the uncertainty introduced by the aggregation at the global scale. The correlation of temporal patterns of global aggregated yield time series can be as low as for soybean (r = 0.28). For the majority of countries, mean relative differences of nationally aggregated yields account for 10% or less. The spatial and temporal difference can be substantial higher for individual countries. Of the top-10 crop producers, aggregated national multi-annual mean relative difference of yields can be up to 67% (maize, South Africa), 43% (wheat, Pakistan), 51% (rice, Japan), and 427% (soybean, Bolivia). Correlations of differently aggregated yield time series can be as low as r = 0.56 (maize, India), r = 0.05 (wheat, Russia), r = 0.13 (rice, Vietnam), and r = −0.01 (soybean, Uruguay). The aggregation to sub-national scale in comparison to country scale shows that spatial uncertainties can cancel out in countries with large harvested areas per crop type. We conclude that the aggregation uncertainty can be substantial for crop productivity and production estimations in the context of food security, impact assessment, and model evaluation exercises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Water erosion removes soil nutrients, soil carbon, and in extreme cases can remove topsoil altogether. Previous studies have quantified crop yield losses from water erosion using a range of methods, applied mostly to single plots or fields, and cannot be systematically compared. This study assesses the worldwide impact of water erosion on maize and wheat production using a global gridded modeling approach for the first time. The EPIC crop model is used to simulate the global impact of water erosion on maize and wheat yields, from 1980 to 2010, for a range of field management strategies. Maize and wheat yields were reduced by a median of 3% annually in grid cells affected by water erosion, which represent approximately half of global maize and wheat cultivation areas. Water erosion reduces the annual global production of maize and wheat by 8.9 million tonnes and 5.6 million tonnes, with a value of $3.3bn globally. Nitrogen fertilizer necessary to reduce losses is valued at $0.9bn. As cropland most affected by water erosion is outside major maize and wheat production regions, the production losses account for less than 1% of the annual global production by volume. Countries with heavy rainfall, hilly agricultural regions and low fertilizer use are most vulnerable to water erosion. These characteristics are most common in South and Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and South and Central America. Notable uncertainties remain around large-scale water erosion estimates that will need to be addressed by better integration of models and observations. Yet, an integrated bio-physical modeling framework – considering plant growth, soil processes and input requirements – as presented herein can provide a link between robust water erosion estimates, economics and policy-making so far lacking in global agricultural assessments. • Water erosion reduces maize and wheat yields by 3% on half of the global cropland. • Simulated erosion impacts are mostly driven by slope, precipitation and fertilizer rates. • Highest water erosion impacts are in Asia, sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America. • Maize and wheat losses due to water erosion account for less than 1% of the global production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]