Search

• Bias correction (BC) methods can better represent the spatial patterns of the climate and derived agricultural impacts. • Uncertainties from BC can be twice as high compared to the uncertainties from the GCM-RCM combinations. • Climate change impacts studies (CCIS) without BC or relying on any single BC approach should be interpreted with great caution. • In CCIS, a BC ensemble is suggested for generating climate projections following a super-ensemble probabilistic assessment. Many open questions and unresolved issues surround the topic of bias correction (BC) in climate change impact studies (CCIS). One question relates to the contribution of downscaling of climate change scenarios on the uncertainties in results obtained using impact models for agriculture. In particular, for large area or regional agricultural impact assessments, the question of bias correction is of high relevance. Relatively few studies exist looking at the quantification of the impacts of BC methods in general circulation model (GCM) and regional climate model (RCM) data on results of such impact studies. Here, we quantify the impact of different BC methods on temperature (T) and precipitation (P) from different CORDEX GCM-RCM combinations, and how the debiased T&P signal may propagate through agricultural impact models. Specifically, we estimate the impact of BC on (i) an empirical P- and fuzzy rule-based algorithm to estimate the crop planting date, and (ii) a mechanistic T&P-based approach to quantify the crop suitability index (CSI) for the main staple crops in West Africa (i.e. groundnut, maize, pearl millet, sorghum). Both approaches serve as a proxy for more complex process-based ecophysiological crop models. Depending on the choice of the BC method, the uncertainties in the assessment of the CSI can be more than twice as high compared to the uncertainties from the GCM-RCM model selection. Comparing the estimated CSI values with observed harvest area, it is found that BC generally improves the performance for models with low hit rates (< 30 –35%), but decreases the performance for models with relatively high hit rates (> 35 %). Such consequences can also be expected for process-based crop models, which are developed to operate on field-scale but are driven by coarser scale RCMs. It is concluded that such agriculturally oriented climate impact models as investigated here should be interpreted with great caution if applied without BC or relying on a single BC approach only. Rather, we suggest to include different BC approaches in the generation of climate projections for CCIS and quantify their uncertainties following a super-ensemble probabilistic assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]