Search

Climate oscillations are periodically fluctuating oceanic and atmospheric phenomena, which are related to variations in weather patterns and crop yields worldwide. In terms of crop production, the most widespread impacts have been observed for the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which has been found to impact crop yields on all continents that produce crops, while two other climate oscillations – the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) – have been shown to especially impact crop production in Australia and Europe, respectively. In this study, we analyse the impacts of ENSO, IOD, and NAO on the growing conditions of maize, rice, soybean, and wheat at the global scale by utilising crop yield data from an ensemble of global gridded crop models simulated for a range of crop management scenarios. Our results show that, while accounting for their potential co-variation, climate oscillations are correlated with simulated crop yield variability to a wide extent (half of all maize and wheat harvested areas for ENSO) and in several important crop-producing areas, e.g. in North America (ENSO, wheat), Australia (IOD and ENSO, wheat), and northern South America (ENSO, soybean). Further, our analyses show that higher sensitivity to these oscillations can be observed for rainfed and fully fertilised scenarios, while the sensitivity tends to be lower if crops were to be fully irrigated. Since the development of ENSO, IOD, and NAO can potentially be forecasted well in advance, a better understanding about the relationship between crop production and these climate oscillations can improve the resilience of the global food system to climate-related shocks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The lack of spatially detailed crop calendars is a significant source of uncertainty in modeling, monitoring, and forecasting crop production. In this paper, we present a rule‐based model to estimate the sowing and harvesting windows of major crops over the global land area. The model considers field workability due to snow cover and heavy rainfall in addition to crop biological requirements for heat, chilling, and moisture. Using daily weather data for the period 1996–2005 as model input, we derive calendars for maize, rice, winter and spring wheat, and soybeans around the year 2000 with a spatial resolution of 0.5° in latitude and longitude. Separate calendars for rainfed and irrigated conditions and three representative varieties (short‐, medium‐ and long‐season varieties) are estimated. The daily probabilities of sowing and harvesting derived using the model well capture the major characteristics of reported calendars. Our modeling reveals that field workability is an important determinant of sowing and harvesting dates and that multicropping patterns influence the calendars of individual crops. The case studies show that the model is capable of capturing multicropping patterns such as triple rice cropping in Bangladesh, double rice cropping in the Philippines, winter wheat‐maize rotations in France, and maize‐winter wheat‐soybean rotations in Brazil. The model outputs are particularly valuable for agricultural and hydrological applications in regions where existing crop calendars are sparse or unreliable. Plain Language Summary: This manuscript describes a numerical model to estimate location‐specific sowing and harvesting dates of crops over the globe. Ten‐year‐long daily weather data and a few coefficients that represent the physiological characteristics of a crop (for instance, the amount of water needs to complete the life cycle of an annual crop) are only inputs to the model. Comparisons with the reported crop calendars indicate that the model well reproduces calendars of maize, rice, winter and spring wheat, and soybean around the year 2000 in major crop‐producing countries. We also find that snow cover and heavy rainfall, which influence field workability but have not considered in earlier modeling, are important to estimate sowing and harvesting dates and multicropping patterns (for instance, a combination of winter and summer crops) affect the calendar of individual crops. Our findings are useful when simulating the responses of crop calendars to climate change. Key Points: The model estimates the daily probabilities of sowing and harvesting in the year 2000Winter and spring wheat and rainfed versus irrigated conditions are differentiatedOur findings have implications to improve modeling multicropping patterns [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Systematically examines climatic forcing data in agricultural model performance • Explores uncertainty across up to 91 climate data / crop model combinations • Isolates key climatic features driving interannual yield variation in each region • Quantifies performance of climatic forcing datasets for top countries and crop species • More extensive bias correction improves climatic forcing datasets for crop models We present results from the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) Phase I, which aligned 14 global gridded crop models (GGCMs) and 11 climatic forcing datasets (CFDs) in order to understand how the selection of climate data affects simulated historical crop productivity of maize, wheat, rice and soybean. Results show that CFDs demonstrate mean biases and differences in the probability of extreme events, with larger uncertainty around extreme precipitation and in regions where observational data for climate and crop systems are scarce. Countries where simulations correlate highly with reported FAO national production anomalies tend to have high correlations across most CFDs, whose influence we isolate using multi-GGCM ensembles for each CFD. Correlations compare favorably with the climate signal detected in other studies, although production in many countries is not primarily climate-limited (particularly for rice). Bias-adjusted CFDs most often were among the highest model-observation correlations, although all CFDs produced the highest correlation in at least one top-producing country. Analysis of larger multi-CFD-multi-GGCM ensembles (up to 91 members) shows benefits over the use of smaller subset of models in some regions and farming systems, although bigger is not always better. Our analysis suggests that global assessments should prioritize ensembles based on multiple crop models over multiple CFDs as long as a top-performing CFD is utilized for the focus region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]