Evaluating the utility of dynamical downscaling in agricultural impacts projections.

Interest in estimating the potential socioeconomic costs of climate change has led to the increasing use of dynamical downscaling--nested modeling in which regional climate models (RCMs) are driven with general circulation model (GCM) output--to produce fine-spatial-scale climate projections for impacts assessments. We evaluate here whether this computationally intensive approach significantly alters projections of agricultural yield, one of the greatest concerns under climate change. Our results suggest that it does not. We simulate US maize yields under current and future CO2 concentrations with the widely used Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer crop model, driven by a variety of climate inputs including two GCMs, each in turn downscaled by two RCMs. We find that no climate model output can reproduce yields driven by observed climate unless a bias correction is first applied. Once a bias correction is applied, GCM- and RCM-driven US maize yields are essentially indistinguishable in all scenarios (<10% discrepancy, equivalent to error from observations). Although RCMs correct some GCM biases related to fine-scale geographic features, errors in yield are dominated by broad-scale (100s of kilometers) GCM systematic errors that RCMs cannot compensate for. These results support previous suggestions that the benefits for impacts assessments of dynamically downscaling raw GCM output may not be sufficient to justify its computational demands. Progress on fidelity of yield projections may benefit more from continuing efforts to understand and minimize systematic error in underlying climate projections.

Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison.

Here we present the results from an intercomparison of multiple global gridded crop models (GGCMs) within the framework of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project and the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project. Results indicate strong negative effects of climate change, especially at higher levels of warming and at low latitudes; models that include explicit nitrogen stress project more severe impacts. Across seven GGCMs, five global climate models, and four representative concentration pathways, model agreement on direction of yield changes is found in many major agricultural regions at both low and high latitudes; however, reducing uncertainty in sign of response in mid-latitude regions remains a challenge. Uncertainties related to the representation of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and high temperature effects demonstrated here show that further research is urgently needed to better understand effects of climate change on agricultural production and to devise targeted adaptation strategies.

Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change.

We compare ensembles of water supply and demand projections from 10 global hydrological models and six global gridded crop models. These are produced as part of the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project, with coordination from the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project, and driven by outputs of general circulation models run under representative concentration pathway 8.5 as part of the Fifth Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Models project that direct climate impacts to maize, soybean, wheat, and rice involve losses of 400-1,400 Pcal (8-24% of present-day total) when CO2 fertilization effects are accounted for or 1,400-2,600 Pcal (24-43%) otherwise. Freshwater limitations in some irrigated regions (western United States; China; and West, South, and Central Asia) could necessitate the reversion of 20-60 Mha of cropland from irrigated to rainfed management by end-of-century, and a further loss of 600-2,900 Pcal of food production. In other regions (northern/eastern United States, parts of South America, much of Europe, and South East Asia) surplus water supply could in principle support a net increase in irrigation, although substantial investments in irrigation infrastructure would be required.

A spatial modeling framework to evaluate domestic biofuel-induced potential land use changes and emissions.

We present a novel bottom-up approach to estimate biofuel-induced land-use change (LUC) and resulting CO2 emissions in the U.S. from 2010 to 2022, based on a consistent methodology across four essential components: land availability, land suitability, LUC decision-making, and induced CO2 emissions. Using high-resolution geospatial data and modeling, we construct probabilistic assessments of county-, state-, and national-level LUC and emissions for macroeconomic scenarios. We use the Cropland Data Layer and the Protected Areas Database to characterize availability of land for biofuel crop cultivation, and the CERES-Maize and BioCro biophysical crop growth models to estimate the suitability (yield potential) of available lands for biofuel crops. For LUC decision-making, we use a county-level stochastic partial-equilibrium modeling framework and consider five scenarios involving annual ethanol production scaling to 15, 22, and 29 BG, respectively, in 2022, with corn providing feedstock for the first 15 BG and the remainder coming from one of two dedicated energy crops. Finally, we derive high-resolution above-ground carbon factors from the National Biomass and Carbon Data set to estimate emissions from each LUC pathway. Based on these inputs, we obtain estimates for average total LUC emissions of 6.1, 2.2, 1.0, 2.2, and 2.4 gCO2e/MJ for Corn-15 Billion gallons (BG), Miscanthus × giganteus (MxG)-7 BG, Switchgrass (SG)-7 BG, MxG-14 BG, and SG-14 BG scenarios, respectively.

Simulating US agriculture in a modern Dust Bowl drought.

Drought-induced agricultural loss is one of the most costly impacts of extreme weather1-3, and without mitigation, climate change is likely to increase the severity and frequency of future droughts4,5. The Dust Bowl of the 1930s was the driest and hottest for agriculture in modern US history. Improvements in farming practices have increased productivity, but yields today are still tightly linked to climate variation6 and the impacts of a 1930s-type drought on current and future agricultural systems remain unclear. Simulations of biophysical process and empirical models suggest that Dust-Bowl-type droughts today would have unprecedented consequences, with yield losses ∼50% larger than the severe drought of 2012. Damages at these extremes are highly sensitive to temperature, worsening by ∼25% with each degree centigrade of warming. We find that high temperatures can be more damaging than rainfall deficit, and, without adaptation, warmer mid-century temperatures with even average precipitation could lead to maize losses equivalent to the Dust Bowl drought. Warmer temperatures alongside consecutive droughts could make up to 85% of rain-fed maize at risk of changes that may persist for decades. Understanding the interactions of weather extremes and a changing agricultural system is therefore critical to effectively respond to, and minimize, the impacts of the next extreme drought event.

Evaluating the sensitivity of agricultural model performance to different climate inputs.

Projections of future food production necessarily rely on models, which must themselves be validated through historical assessments comparing modeled to observed yields. Reliable historical validation requires both accurate agricultural models and accurate climate inputs. Problems with either may compromise the validation exercise. Previous studies have compared the effects of different climate inputs on agricultural projections, but either incompletely or without a ground truth of observed yields that would allow distinguishing errors due to climate inputs from those intrinsic to the crop model. This study is a systematic evaluation of the reliability of a widely-used crop model for simulating U.S. maize yields when driven by multiple observational data products. The parallelized Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (pDSSAT) is driven with climate inputs from multiple sources - reanalysis, reanalysis bias-corrected with observed climate, and a control dataset - and compared to observed historical yields. The simulations show that model output is more accurate when driven by any observation-based precipitation product than when driven by un-bias-corrected reanalysis. The simulations also suggest, in contrast to previous studies, that biased precipitation distribution is significant for yields only in arid regions. However, some issues persist for all choices of climate inputs: crop yields appear oversensitive to precipitation fluctuations but undersensitive to floods and heat waves. These results suggest that the most important issue for agricultural projections may be not climate inputs but structural limitations in the crop models themselves.