Search

Crop models are often used to project future crop yield under climate and global change and typically show a broad range of outcomes. To understand differences in modeled responses, we analyzed modeled crop yield response types using impact response surfaces along four drivers of crop yield: carbon dioxide (C), temperature (T), water (W), and nitrogen (N). Crop yield response types help to understand differences in simulated responses per driver and their combinations rather than aggregated changes in yields as the result of simultaneous changes in various drivers. We find that models' sensitivities to the individual drivers are substantially different and often more different across models than across regions. There is some agreement across models with respect to the spatial patterns of response types but strong differences in the distribution of response types across models and their configurations suggests that models need to undergo further scrutiny. We suggest establishing standards in model evaluation based on emergent functionality not only against historical yield observations but also against dedicated experiments across different drivers to analyze emergent functional patterns of crop models. Plain Language Summary: Crop models are widely used to compute crop yields under future climate change. Yields are determined by many interacting processes. Simulated future crop yields often show a broad uncertainty range. We investigate the sensitivity of nine different crop models to individual model inputs (carbon dioxide, temperature, water, nitrogen) in a very large simulation data set and find that there are substantial differences. We conclude that crop model evaluation needs to include analyses of functional properties to avoid that very diverse model responses to drivers are not tracked if interacting processes cancel out in the historical evaluation period but not in future scenarios, leading to large differences between models. Key Points: Crop models show strong differences in input sensitivitiesStandardized modeling experiments reveal differences in emergent functional relationshipsNew standards in model evaluation are needed [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about food security under climate change motivate efforts to better understand future changes in crop yields. Process-based crop models, which represent plant physiological and soil processes, are necessary tools for this purpose since they allow representing future climate and management conditions not sampled in the historical record and new locations to which cultivation may shift. However, process-based crop models differ in many critical details, and their responses to different interacting factors remain only poorly understood. The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) Phase 2 experiment, an activity of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), is designed to provide a systematic parameter sweep focused on climate change factors and their interaction with overall soil fertility, to allow both evaluating model behavior and emulating model responses in impact assessment tools. In this paper we describe the GGCMI Phase 2 experimental protocol and its simulation data archive. A total of 12 crop models simulate five crops with systematic uniform perturbations of historical climate, varying CO2 , temperature, water supply, and applied nitrogen ("CTWN") for rainfed and irrigated agriculture, and a second set of simulations represents a type of adaptation by allowing the adjustment of growing season length. We present some crop yield results to illustrate general characteristics of the simulations and potential uses of the GGCMI Phase 2 archive. For example, in cases without adaptation, modeled yields show robust decreases to warmer temperatures in almost all regions, with a nonlinear dependence that means yields in warmer baseline locations have greater temperature sensitivity. Inter-model uncertainty is qualitatively similar across all the four input dimensions but is largest in high-latitude regions where crops may be grown in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Concerns about food security under climate change motivate efforts to better understand future changes in crop yields. Process-based crop models, which represent plant physiological and soil processes, are necessary tools for this purpose since they allow representing future climate and management conditions not sampled in the historical record and new locations to which cultivation may shift. However, process-based crop models differ in many critical details, and their responses to different interacting factors remain only poorly understood. The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) Phase II experiment, an activity of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), is designed to provide a systematic parameter sweep focused on climate change factors and their interaction with overall soil fertility, to allow both evaluating model behavior and emulating model responses in impact assessment tools. In this paper we describe the GGCMI Phase II experimental protocol and its simulation data archive. Twelve crop models simulate five crops with systematic uniform perturbations of historical climate, varying CO2, temperature, water supply, and applied nitrogen ("CTWN") for rainfed and irrigated agriculture, and a second set of simulations represents a type of adaptation by allowing the adjustment of growing season length. We present some crop yield results to illustrate general characteristics of the simulations and potential uses of the GGCMI Phase II archive. For example, modeled yields show robust decreases to warmer temperatures in almost all regions, with a nonlinear dependence that indicates yields in warmer baseline locations have greater temperature sensitivity. Inter-model uncertainty is qualitatively similar across all the four input dimensions, but is largest in high-latitude regions where crops may be grown in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global gridded crop models (GGCMs) combine agronomic or plant growth models with gridded spatial input data to estimate spatially explicit crop yields and agricultural externalities at the global scale. Differences in GGCM outputs arise from the use of different biophysical models, setups, and input data. GGCM ensembles are frequently employed to bracket uncertainties in impact studies without investigating the causes of divergence in outputs. This study explores differences in maize yield estimates from five GGCMs based on the public domain field-scale model Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) that participate in the AgMIP Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison initiative. Albeit using the same crop model, the GGCMs differ in model version, input data, management assumptions, parameterization, and selection of subroutines affecting crop yield estimates via cultivar distributions, soil attributes, and hydrology among others. The analyses reveal inter-annual yield variability and absolute yield levels in the EPIC-based GGCMs to be highly sensitive to soil parameterization and crop management. All GGCMs show an intermediate performance in reproducing reported yields with a higher skill if a static soil profile is assumed or sufficient plant nutrients are supplied. An in-depth comparison of setup domains for two EPIC-based GGCMs shows that GGCM performance and plant stress responses depend substantially on soil parameters and soil process parameterization, i.e. hydrology and nutrient turnover, indicating that these often neglected domains deserve more scrutiny. For agricultural impact assessments, employing a GGCM ensemble with its widely varying assumptions in setups appears the best solution for coping with uncertainties from lack of comprehensive global data on crop management, cultivar distributions and coefficients for agro-environmental processes. However, the underlying assumptions require systematic specifications to cover representative agricultural systems and environmental conditions. Furthermore, the interlinkage of parameter sensitivity from various domains such as soil parameters, nutrient turnover coefficients, and cultivar specifications highlights that global sensitivity analyses and calibration need to be performed in an integrated manner to avoid bias resulting from disregarded core model domains. Finally, relating evaluations of the EPIC-based GGCMs to a wider ensemble based on individual core models shows that structural differences outweigh in general differences in configurations of GGCMs based on the same model, and that the ensemble mean gains higher skill from the inclusion of structurally different GGCMs. Although the members of the wider ensemble herein do not consider crop-soil-management interactions, their sensitivity to nutrient supply indicates that findings for the EPIC-based sub-ensemble will likely become relevant for other GGCMs with the progressing inclusion of such processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural production must increase to feed a growing and wealthier population, as well as to satisfy increasing demands for biomaterials and biomass-based energy. At the same time, deforestation and land-use change need to be minimized in order to preserve biodiversity and maintain carbon stores in vegetation and soils. Consequently, agricultural land use needs to be intensified in order to increase food production per unit area of land. Here we use simulations of AgMIP’s Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 to assess implications of input-driven intensification (water, nutrients) on crop yield and yield stability, which is an important aspect in food security. We find region- and crop-specific responses for the simulated period 1980–2009 with broadly increasing yield variability under additional nitrogen inputs and stabilizing yields under additional water inputs (irrigation), reflecting current patterns of water and nutrient limitation. The different models of the GGCMI ensemble show similar response patterns, but model differences warrant further research on management assumptions, such as variety selection and soil management, and inputs as well as on model implementation of different soil and plant processes, such as on heat stress, and parameters. Higher variability in crop productivity under higher fertilizer input will require adequate buffer mechanisms in trade and distribution/storage networks to avoid food price volatility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Global gridded crop models (GGCMs) combine field-scale agronomic models or sets of plant growth algorithms with gridded spatial input data to estimate spatially explicit crop yields and agricultural externalities at the global scale. Differences in GGCM outputs arise from the use of different bio-physical models, setups, and input data. While algorithms have been in the focus of recent GGCM comparisons, this study investigates differences in maize and wheat yield estimates from five GGCMs based on the public domain field-scale model Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) that participate in the AgMIP Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) project. Albeit using the same crop model, the GGCMs differ in model version, input data, management assumptions, parameterization, geographic distribution of cultivars, and selection of subroutines e.g. for the estimation of potential evapotranspiration or soil erosion. The analyses reveal long-term trends and inter-annual yield variability in the EPIC-based GGCMs to be highly sensitive to soil parameterization and crop management. Absolute yield levels as well depend not only on nutrient supply but also on the parameterization and distribution of crop cultivars. All GGCMs show an intermediate performance in reproducing reported absolute yield levels or inter-annual dynamics. Our findings suggest that studies focusing on the evaluation of differences in bio-physical routines may require further harmonization of input data and management assumptions in order to eliminate background noise resulting from differences in model setups. For agricultural impact assessments, employing a GGCM ensemble with its widely varying assumptions in setups appears the best solution for bracketing such uncertainties as long as comprehensive global datasets taking into account regional differences in crop management, cultivar distributions and coefficients for parameterizing agro-environmental processes are lacking. Finally, we recommend improvements in the documentation of setups and input data of GGCMs in order to allow for sound interpretability, comparability and reproducibility of published results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interdependencies among land use systems resemble a complex network connected through demand-supply relationships. Disruption of this network may catalyse systemic risks affecting food, energy, water and environmental security ( FEWES) worldwide. We describe the conceptual development, expansion and practical application of a stochastic version of the Global Biosphere Management Model ( GLOBIOM), used to assess competition for land use between agriculture, bioenergy and forestry at regional and global scales. In the stochastic version of the model, systemic risks of various kinds are explicitly covered and can be analysed and mitigated in all their interactions. While traditional deterministic scenario analysis produces sets of scenario-dependent outcomes, stochastic GLOBIOM explicitly derives robust outcomes that leave the systems better-off, independently of which scenario applies. Stochastic GLOBIOM is formulated as a stochastic optimisation model that is critical for evaluating portfolios of robust interdependent decisions: ex-ante strategic decisions (production allocation, storage capacities) and ex-post adaptive (demand, trading, storage control) decisions. As an example, the model is applied to the question of optimal storage facilities, as buffers for production shortfalls, to meet regional and global FEWES requirements when extreme events occur. Expected shortfalls and storage capacities have a close relationship with Value-at-Risk (VaR) and Conditional Value-at-Risk ( CVaR) risk measures. A Value of Stochastic Solutions is calculated to illustrate the benefits of the stochastic over the deterministic model approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop yields at the global scale, but there so far is no general framework on how to assess model performance. We here evaluate the simulation results of 14 global gridded crop modeling groups that have contributed historic crop yield simulations for maize, wheat, rice and soybean to the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). Simulation results are compared to reference data at global, national and grid cell scales and we evaluate model performance with respect to time series correlation, spatial correlation and mean bias. We find that GGCMs show mixed skill in reproducing time-series correlations or spatial patterns at the different spatial scales. Generally, maize, wheat and soybean simulations of many GGCMs are capable of reproducing larger parts of observed temporal variability (time series correlation coefficients (r) of up to 0.888 for maize, 0.673 for wheat and 0.643 for soybean at the global scale) but rice yield variability cannot be well reproduced by most models. Yield variability can be well reproduced for most major producer countries by many GGCMS and for all countries by at least some. A comparison with gridded yield data and a statistical analysis of the effects of weather variability on yield variability shows that the ensemble of GGCMs can explain more of the yield variability than an ensemble of regression models for maize and soybean, but not for wheat and rice. We identify future research needs in global gridded crop modeling and for all individual crop modeling groups. In the absence of a purely observation-based benchmark for model evaluation, we propose that the best performing crop model per crop and region establishes the benchmark for all others, and modelers are encouraged to investigate how crop model performance can be increased. We make our evaluation system accessible to all crop modelers so that also other modeling groups can test their model performance against the reference data and the GGCMI benchmark. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change projections raise concerns about future food security and needs for adaptation. While a variety of studies quantify and analyze climate change impacts at the level of crop yields, it has been recognized that changes in yield variability may have even more important effects on food security. In addition, large-scale analysis is typically based on different scenarios rather than providing aid to determine decisions that are robust across these scenarios. We develop a stochastic version of a global recursive dynamic partial equilibrium model integrating the agricultural, bio-energy and forestry sectors in order to examine food security under crop yield variability. The results indicate that food security requires overproduction to meet minimum food supply constraints. This does not only lead to higher prices, but also to larger cropped areas associated with an increase in GHG emissions and pressure on biodiversity, as more natural areas are converted to agriculture. Trade liberalization and enhanced irrigation are both found to be promising adaptation channels for food supply stabilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The continuing depletion of nutrients from agricultural soils in Sub-Saharan African is accompanied by a lack of substantial progress in crop yield improvement. In this paper we investigate yield gaps for corn under two scenarios: a micro-dosing scenario with marginal increases in nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) of 10 kg ha−1 and a larger yet still conservative scenario with proposed N and P applications of 80 and 20 kg ha−1 respectively. The yield gaps are calculated from a database of historical FAO crop fertilizer trials at 1358 locations for Sub-Saharan Africa and South America. Our approach allows connecting experimental field scale data with continental policy recommendations. Two critical findings emerged from the analysis. The first is the degree to which P limits increases in corn yields. For example, under a micro-dosing scenario, in Africa, the addition of small amounts of N alone resulted in mean yield increases of 8% while the addition of only P increased mean yields by 26%, with implications for designing better balanced fertilizer distribution schemes. The second finding was the relatively large amount of yield increase possible for a small, yet affordable amount of fertilizer application. Using African and South American fertilizer prices we show that the level of investment needed to achieve these results is considerably less than 1% of Agricultural GDP for both a micro-dosing scenario and for the scenario involving higher yet still conservative fertilizer application rates. In the latter scenario realistic mean yield increases ranged between 28 to 85% in South America and 71 to 190% in Africa (mean plus one standard deviation). External investment in this low technology solution has the potential to kick start development and could complement other interventions such as better crop varieties and improved economic instruments to support farmers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aggregation of simulated gridded crop yields to national or regional scale requires information on temporal and spatial patterns of crop-specific harvested areas. This analysis estimates the uncertainty of simulated gridded yield time series related to the aggregation with four different harvested area data sets. We compare aggregated yield time series from the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison project for four crop types from 14 models at global, national, and regional scale to determine aggregation-driven differences in mean yields and temporal patterns as measures of uncertainty. The quantity and spatial patterns of harvested areas differ for individual crops among the four data sets applied for the aggregation. Also simulated spatial yield patterns differ among the 14 models. These differences in harvested areas and simulated yield patterns lead to differences in aggregated productivity estimates, both in mean yield and in the temporal dynamics. Among the four investigated crops, wheat yield (17% relative difference) is most affected by the uncertainty introduced by the aggregation at the global scale. The correlation of temporal patterns of global aggregated yield time series can be as low as for soybean (r = 0.28). For the majority of countries, mean relative differences of nationally aggregated yields account for 10% or less. The spatial and temporal difference can be substantial higher for individual countries. Of the top-10 crop producers, aggregated national multi-annual mean relative difference of yields can be up to 67% (maize, South Africa), 43% (wheat, Pakistan), 51% (rice, Japan), and 427% (soybean, Bolivia). Correlations of differently aggregated yield time series can be as low as r = 0.56 (maize, India), r = 0.05 (wheat, Russia), r = 0.13 (rice, Vietnam), and r = −0.01 (soybean, Uruguay). The aggregation to sub-national scale in comparison to country scale shows that spatial uncertainties can cancel out in countries with large harvested areas per crop type. We conclude that the aggregation uncertainty can be substantial for crop productivity and production estimations in the context of food security, impact assessment, and model evaluation exercises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] Evaluation of a field-scale crop model for reliable application at large scales. [•] European crop model validation using reported regional yields of four major crops. [•] Methodological improvements for sowing density and fertilizer application. [•] Crop yield sensitivity analysis of nutrient and irrigation management strategies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]