How climate scenarios alter future predictions of field-scale water and nitrogen dynamics and crop yields.

Climate change scenarios are widely used for exploring future changes in environmental systems. However, many aspects of the uncertainties associated with the use of climate change scenarios in environmental systems modeling have not yet been studied sufficiently. We explore how the way that baseline scenarios are defined and general circulation model (GCM) outputs are used affects climate change impact assessments of agricultural systems. Our study builds on a previously validated agricultural systems model, the Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM), coupled with the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT), which models a tiled-drained field in central Illinois of the United States and uses nine GCM outputs to investigate the effects. Our model simulations demonstrated the following three results. Firstly, the evaluation of climate change impacts presented a significant difference between the types of baseline used. The baseline scenario should be defined using the bias-corrected retrospective GCM outputs. Secondly, once GCM outputs are bias-corrected, the selective use of GCM outputs did not add significant value over using all available GCM outputs to provide more plausible future descriptions of agricultural systems' responses. Notably, however, selective use may have impacts comparable to carbon dioxide (CO2) emission scenarios in the field-scale agricultural climate change impact assessments. Thirdly, raw GCM outputs should be avoided for the predictions of field-scale agricultural systems' responses to climate change. Our findings can help provide a clearer picture of how GCM outputs should be used in agricultural systems modeling and might enable us to have more plausible descriptions of how future agricultural systems might unfold.

Uncertainty in hydrological analysis of climate change: multi-parameter vs. multi-GCM ensemble predictions.

The quantification of uncertainty in the ensemble-based predictions of climate change and the corresponding hydrological impact is necessary for the development of robust climate adaptation plans. Although the equifinality of hydrological modeling has been discussed for a long time, its influence on the hydrological analysis of climate change has not been studied enough to provide a definite idea about the relative contributions of uncertainty contained in both multiple general circulation models (GCMs) and multi-parameter ensembles to hydrological projections. This study demonstrated that the impact of multi-GCM ensemble uncertainty on direct runoff projections for headwater watersheds could be an order of magnitude larger than that of multi-parameter ensemble uncertainty. The finding suggests that the selection of appropriate GCMs should be much more emphasized than that of a parameter set among behavioral ones. When projecting soil moisture and groundwater, on the other hand, the hydrological modeling equifinality was more influential than the multi-GCM ensemble uncertainty. Overall, the uncertainty of GCM projections was dominant for relatively rapid hydrological components while the uncertainty of hydrological model parameterization was more significant for slow components. In addition, uncertainty in hydrological projections was much more closely associated with uncertainty in the ensemble projections of precipitation than temperature, indicating a need to pay closer attention to precipitation data for improved modeling reliability. Uncertainty in hydrological component ensemble projections showed unique responses to uncertainty in the precipitation and temperature ensembles.