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

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 <2°C on wheat production is therefore not evenly distributed and will affect regional food security across the globe as well as food prices and trade.

Climate change impact and adaptation for wheat protein.

Wheat grain protein concentration is an important determinant of wheat quality for human nutrition that is often overlooked in efforts to improve crop production. We tested and applied a 32-multi-model ensemble to simulate global wheat yield and quality in a changing climate. Potential benefits of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration by 2050 on global wheat grain and protein yield are likely to be negated by impacts from rising temperature and changes in rainfall, but with considerable disparities between regions. Grain and protein yields are expected to be lower and more variable in most low-rainfall regions, with nitrogen availability limiting growth stimulus from elevated CO2 . Introducing genotypes adapted to warmer temperatures (and also considering changes in CO2 and rainfall) could boost global wheat yield by 7% and protein yield by 2%, but grain protein concentration would be reduced by -1.1 percentage points, representing a relative change of -8.6%. Climate change adaptations that benefit grain yield are not always positive for grain quality, putting additional pressure on global wheat production.

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

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.

Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation.

Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1.Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk?2.Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output.3.Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.

Integrating Plant Science and Crop Modeling: Assessment of the Impact of Climate Change on Soybean and Maize Production.

Increasing global CO2 emissions have profound consequences for plant biology, not least because of direct influences on carbon gain. However, much remains uncertain regarding how our major crops will respond to a future high CO2 world. Crop model inter-comparison studies have identified large uncertainties and biases associated with climate change. The need to quantify uncertainty has drawn the fields of plant molecular physiology, crop breeding and biology, and climate change modeling closer together. Comparing data from different models that have been used to assess the potential climate change impacts on soybean and maize production, future yield losses have been predicted for both major crops. When CO2 fertilization effects are taken into account significant yield gains are predicted for soybean, together with a shift in global production from the Southern to the Northern hemisphere. Maize production is also forecast to shift northwards. However, unless plant breeders are able to produce new hybrids with improved traits, the forecasted yield losses for maize will only be mitigated by agro-management adaptations. In addition, the increasing demands of a growing world population will require larger areas of marginal land to be used for maize and soybean production. We summarize the outputs of crop models, together with mitigation options for decreasing the negative impacts of climate on the global maize and soybean production, providing an overview of projected land-use change as a major determining factor for future global crop production.

Climate change is predicted to alter the current pest status of Globodera pallida and G. rostochiensis in the United Kingdom.

The potato cyst nematodes Globodera pallida and G. rostochiensis are economically important plant pathogens causing losses to UK potato harvests estimated at £50 m/ year. Implications of climate change on their future pest status have not been fully considered. Here, we report growth of female G. pallida and G. rostochiensis over the range 15 to 25°C. Females per plant and their fecundity declined progressively with temperatures above 17.5°C for G. pallida, whilst females per plant were optimal between 17.5 and 22.5°C for G. rostochiensis. Relative reproductive success with temperature was confirmed on two potato cultivars infected with either species at 15, 22.5 and 25°C. The reduced reproductive success of G. pallida at 22.5°C relative to 15°C was also recorded for a further seven host cultivars studied. The differences in optimal temperatures for reproductive success may relate to known differences in the altitude of their regions of origin in the Andes. Exposure of G. pallida to a diurnal temperature stress for one week during female growth significantly suppressed subsequent growth for one week at 17.5°C but had no effect on G. rostochiensis. However, after two weeks of recovery, female size was not significantly different from that for the control treatment. Future soil temperatures were simulated for medium- and high-emission scenarios and combined with nematode growth data to project future implications of climate change for the two species. Increased soil temperatures associated with climate change may reduce the pest status of G. pallida but benefit G. rostochiensis especially in the southern United Kingdom. We conclude that plant breeders may be able to exploit the thermal limits of G. pallida by developing potato cultivars able to grow under future warm summer conditions. Existing widely deployed resistance to G. rostochiensis is an important characteristic to retain for new potato cultivars.

Potential negative consequences of geoengineering on crop production: A study of Indian groundnut.

Geoengineering has been proposed to stabilize global temperature, but its impacts on crop production and stability are not fully understood. A few case studies suggest that certain crops are likely to benefit from solar dimming geoengineering, yet we show that geoengineering is projected to have detrimental effects for groundnut. Using an ensemble of crop-climate model simulations, we illustrate that groundnut yields in India undergo a statistically significant decrease of up to 20% as a result of solar dimming geoengineering relative to RCP4.5. It is somewhat reassuring, however, to find that after a sustained period of 50 years of geoengineering crop yields return to the nongeoengineered values within a few years once the intervention is ceased.

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

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nplants.2017.102.

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

This corrects the article DOI: 10.1038/nplants.2017.102.

Author Correction: The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions.

Nature Plants 3, 17102 (2017); published online 17 July 2017; corrected online 27 September 2017.

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

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.