14 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 14
- ItemImproving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation(Amsterdam : Elsevier, 2017) Challinor, Andrew J.; Müller, Christoph; Asseng, Senthold; Deva, Chetan; Nicklin, Kathryn Jane; Wallach, Daniel; Vanuytrecht, Eline; Whitfield, Stephen; Ramirez-Villegas, Julian; Koehler, Ann-KristinCrop 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.
- ItemA network-based approach for semi-quantitative knowledge mining and its application to yield variability(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2016) Schauberger, Bernhard; Rolinski, Susanne; Müller, ChristophVariability of crop yields is detrimental for food security. Under climate change its amplitude is likely to increase, thus it is essential to understand the underlying causes and mechanisms. Crop models are the primary tool to project future changes in crop yields under climate change. A systematic overview of drivers and mechanisms of crop yield variability (YV) can thus inform crop model development and facilitate improved understanding of climate change impacts on crop yields. Yet there is a vast body of literature on crop physiology and YV, which makes a prioritization of mechanisms for implementation in models challenging. Therefore this paper takes on a novel approach to systematically mine and organize existing knowledge from the literature. The aim is to identify important mechanisms lacking in models, which can help to set priorities in model improvement. We structure knowledge from the literature in a semi-quantitative network. This network consists of complex interactions between growing conditions, plant physiology and crop yield. We utilize the resulting network structure to assign relative importance to causes of YV and related plant physiological processes. As expected, our findings confirm existing knowledge, in particular on the dominant role of temperature and precipitation, but also highlight other important drivers of YV. More importantly, our method allows for identifying the relevant physiological processes that transmit variability in growing conditions to variability in yield. We can identify explicit targets for the improvement of crop models. The network can additionally guide model development by outlining complex interactions between processes and by easily retrieving quantitative information for each of the 350 interactions. We show the validity of our network method as a structured, consistent and scalable dictionary of literature. The method can easily be applied to many other research fields.
- ItemUnderstanding the weather signal in national crop‐yield variability(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 2017) Frieler, Katja; Schauberger, Bernhard; Arneth, Almut; Balkovič, Juraj; Chryssanthacopoulos, James; Deryng, Delphine; Elliott, Joshua; Folberth, Christian; Khabarov, Nikolay; Müller, Christoph; Olin, Stefan; Smith, Steven J.; Pugh, Thomas A.M.; Schaphoff, Sibyll; Schewe, Jacob; Schmid, Erwin; Warszawski, Lila; Levermann, AndersYear‐to‐year variations in crop yields can have major impacts on the livelihoods of subsistence farmers and may trigger significant global price fluctuations, with severe consequences for people in developing countries. Fluctuations can be induced by weather conditions, management decisions, weeds, diseases, and pests. Although an explicit quantification and deeper understanding of weather‐induced crop‐yield variability is essential for adaptation strategies, so far it has only been addressed by empirical models. Here, we provide conservative estimates of the fraction of reported national yield variabilities that can be attributed to weather by state‐of‐the‐art, process‐based crop model simulations. We find that observed weather variations can explain more than 50% of the variability in wheat yields in Australia, Canada, Spain, Hungary, and Romania. For maize, weather sensitivities exceed 50% in seven countries, including the United States. The explained variance exceeds 50% for rice in Japan and South Korea and for soy in Argentina. Avoiding water stress by simulating yields assuming full irrigation shows that water limitation is a major driver of the observed variations in most of these countries. Identifying the mechanisms leading to crop‐yield fluctuations is not only fundamental for dampening fluctuations, but is also important in the context of the debate on the attribution of loss and damage to climate change. Since process‐based crop models not only account for weather influences on crop yields, but also provide options to represent human‐management measures, they could become essential tools for differentiating these drivers, and for exploring options to reduce future yield fluctuations.
- ItemInvestigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2014) Humpenöder, Florian; Popp, Alexander; Dietrich, Jan Philip; Klein, David; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Bonsch, Markus; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Weindl, Isabelle; Stevanovic, Miodrag; Müller, ChristophThe land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600–700 GtCO2), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO2) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial.
- ItemImplications of climate mitigation for future agricultural production(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2015) Müller, Christoph; Elliott, Joshua; Chryssanthacopoulos, James; Deryng, Delphine; Folberth, Christian; Pugh, Thomas A.M.; Schmid, ErwinClimate change is projected to negatively impact biophysical agricultural productivity in much of the world. Actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate future climate changes, are thus of central importance for agricultural production. Climate impacts are, however, not unidirectional; some crops in some regions (primarily higher latitudes) are projected to benefit, particularly if increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is assumed to strongly increase crop productivity at large spatial and temporal scales. Climate mitigation measures that are implemented by reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations lead to reductions both in the strength of climate change and in the benefits of carbon dioxide fertilization. Consequently, analysis of the effects of climate mitigation on agricultural productivity must address not only regions for which mitigation is likely to reduce or even reverse climate damages. There are also regions that are likely to see increased crop yields due to climate change, which may lose these added potentials under mitigation action. Comparing data from the most comprehensive archive of crop yield projections publicly available, we find that climate mitigation leads to overall benefits from avoided damages at the global scale and especially in many regions that are already at risk of food insecurity today. Ignoring controversial carbon dioxide fertilization effects on crop productivity, we find that for the median projection aggressive mitigation could eliminate ~81% of the negative impacts of climate change on biophysical agricultural productivity globally by the end of the century. In this case, the benefits of mitigation typically extend well into temperate regions, but vary by crop and underlying climate model projections. Should large benefits to crop yields from carbon dioxide fertilization be realized, the effects of mitigation become much more mixed, though still positive globally and beneficial in many food insecure countries.
- ItemRobust relationship between yields and nitrogen inputs indicates three ways to reduce nitrogen pollution(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2014) Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Müller, ChristophHistoric increases in agricultural production came at the expense of substantial environmental burden through nitrogen pollution. Lassaletta et al (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 105011) examine the historic relationship of crop yields and nitrogen fertilizer inputs globally and find a simple and robust relationship of declining nitrogen use efficiency with increasing nitrogen inputs. This general relationship helps to understand the dilemma between increased agricultural production and nitrogen pollution and allows identifying pathways towards more sustainable agricultural production and necessary associated policies.
- ItemLivestock in a changing climate: Production system transitions as an adaptation strategy for agriculture(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2015) Weindl, Isabelle; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Popp, Alexander; Müller, Christoph; Havlík, Petr; Herrero, Mario; Schmitz, Christoph; Rolinski, SusanneLivestock farming is the world's largest land use sector and utilizes around 60% of the global biomass harvest. Over the coming decades, climate change will affect the natural resource base of livestock production, especially the productivity of rangeland and feed crops. Based on a comprehensive impact modeling chain, we assess implications of different climate projections for agricultural production costs and land use change and explore the effectiveness of livestock system transitions as an adaptation strategy. Simulated climate impacts on crop yields and rangeland productivity generate adaptation costs amounting to 3% of total agricultural production costs in 2045 (i.e. 145 billion US$). Shifts in livestock production towards mixed crop-livestock systems represent a resource- and cost-efficient adaptation option, reducing agricultural adaptation costs to 0.3% of total production costs and simultaneously abating deforestation by about 76 million ha globally. The relatively positive climate impacts on grass yields compared with crop yields favor grazing systems inter alia in South Asia and North America. Incomplete transitions in production systems already have a strong adaptive and cost reducing effect: a 50% shift to mixed systems lowers agricultural adaptation costs to 0.8%. General responses of production costs to system transitions are robust across different global climate and crop models as well as regarding assumptions on CO2 fertilization, but simulated values show a large variation. In the face of these uncertainties, public policy support for transforming livestock production systems provides an important lever to improve agricultural resource management and lower adaptation costs, possibly even contributing to emission reduction.
- ItemAn AgMIP framework for improved agricultural representation in integrated assessment models(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2017) Ruane, Alex C.; Rosenzweig, Cynthia; Asseng, Senthold; Boote, Kenneth J.; Elliott, Joshua; Ewert, Frank; Jones, James W.; Martre, Pierre; McDermid, Sonali P.; Müller, Christoph; Snyder, Abigail; Thorburn, Peter J.Integrated assessment models (IAMs) hold great potential to assess how future agricultural systems will be shaped by socioeconomic development, technological innovation, and changing climate conditions. By coupling with climate and crop model emulators, IAMs have the potential to resolve important agricultural feedback loops and identify unintended consequences of socioeconomic development for agricultural systems. Here we propose a framework to develop robust representation of agricultural system responses within IAMs, linking downstream applications with model development and the coordinated evaluation of key climate responses from local to global scales. We survey the strengths and weaknesses of protocol-based assessments linked to the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), each utilizing multiple sites and models to evaluate crop response to core climate changes including shifts in carbon dioxide concentration, temperature, and water availability, with some studies further exploring how climate responses are affected by nitrogen levels and adaptation in farm systems. Site-based studies with carefully calibrated models encompass the largest number of activities; however they are limited in their ability to capture the full range of global agricultural system diversity. Representative site networks provide more targeted response information than broadly-sampled networks, with limitations stemming from difficulties in covering the diversity of farming systems. Global gridded crop models provide comprehensive coverage, although with large challenges for calibration and quality control of inputs. Diversity in climate responses underscores that crop model emulators must distinguish between regions and farming system while recognizing model uncertainty. Finally, to bridge the gap between bottom-up and top-down approaches we recommend the deployment of a hybrid climate response system employing a representative network of sites to bias-correct comprehensive gridded simulations, opening the door to accelerated development and a broad range of applications.
- ItemClimate change impacts on agriculture in 2050 under a range of plausible socioeconomic and emissions scenarios(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2015) Wiebe, Keith; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Sands, Ronald; Tabeau, Andrzej; van der Mensbrugghe, Dominique; Biewald, Anne; Bodirsky, Benjamin; Islam, Shahnila; Kavallari, Aikaterini; Mason-D'Croz, Daniel; Müller, Christoph; Popp, Alexander; Robertson, Richard; Robinson, Sherman; van Meijl, Hans; Willenbockel, DirkPrevious studies have combined climate, crop and economic models to examine the impact of climate change on agricultural production and food security, but results have varied widely due to differences in models, scenarios and input data. Recent work has examined (and narrowed) these differences through systematic model intercomparison using a high-emissions pathway to highlight the differences. This paper extends that analysis to explore a range of plausible socioeconomic scenarios and emission pathways. Results from multiple climate and economic models are combined to examine the global and regional impacts of climate change on agricultural yields, area, production, consumption, prices and trade for coarse grains, rice, wheat, oilseeds and sugar crops to 2050. We find that climate impacts on global average yields, area, production and consumption are similar across shared socioeconomic pathways (SSP 1, 2 and 3, as we implement them based on population, income and productivity drivers), except when changes in trade policies are included. Impacts on trade and prices are higher for SSP 3 than SSP 2, and higher for SSP 2 than for SSP 1. Climate impacts for all variables are similar across low to moderate emissions pathways (RCP 4.5 and RCP 6.0), but increase for a higher emissions pathway (RCP 8.5). It is important to note that these global averages may hide regional variations. Projected reductions in agricultural yields due to climate change by 2050 are larger for some crops than those estimated for the past half century, but smaller than projected increases to 2050 due to rising demand and intrinsic productivity growth. Results illustrate the sensitivity of climate change impacts to differences in socioeconomic and emissions pathways. Yield impacts increase at high emissions levels and vary with changes in population, income and technology, but are reduced in all cases by endogenous changes in prices and other variables.
- ItemLarge-scale bioenergy production: How to resolve sustainability trade-offs?(Bristol : IOP Publishing, 2018) Humpenöder, Florian; Popp, Alexander; Bodirsky, Benjamin Leon; Weindl, Isabelle; Biewald, Anne; Lotze-Campen, Hermann; Dietrich, Jan Philipp; Klein, David; Kreidenweis, Ulrich; Müller, Christoph; Rolinski, Susanne; Stevanovic, MiodragLarge-scale 2nd generation bioenergy deployment is a key element of 1.5 °C and 2 °C transformation pathways. However, large-scale bioenergy production might have negative sustainability implications and thus may conflict with the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) agenda. Here, we carry out a multi-criteria sustainability assessment of large-scale bioenergy crop production throughout the 21st century (300 EJ in 2100) using a global land-use model. Our analysis indicates that large-scale bioenergy production without complementary measures results in negative effects on the following sustainability indicators: deforestation, CO2 emissions from land-use change, nitrogen losses, unsustainable water withdrawals and food prices. One of our main findings is that single-sector environmental protection measures next to large-scale bioenergy production are prone to involve trade-offs among these sustainability indicators—at least in the absence of more efficient land or water resource use. For instance, if bioenergy production is accompanied by forest protection, deforestation and associated emissions (SDGs 13 and 15) decline substantially whereas food prices (SDG 2) increase. However, our study also shows that this trade-off strongly depends on the development of future food demand. In contrast to environmental protection measures, we find that agricultural intensification lowers some side-effects of bioenergy production substantially (SDGs 13 and 15) without generating new trade-offs—at least among the sustainability indicators considered here. Moreover, our results indicate that a combination of forest and water protection schemes, improved fertilization efficiency, and agricultural intensification would reduce the side-effects of bioenergy production most comprehensively. However, although our study includes more sustainability indicators than previous studies on bioenergy side-effects, our study represents only a small subset of all indicators relevant for the SDG agenda. Based on this, we argue that the development of policies for regulating externalities of large-scale bioenergy production should rely on broad sustainability assessments to discover potential trade-offs with the SDG agenda before implementation.