Search Results
The GGCMI Phase 2 experiment: Global gridded crop model simulations under uniform changes in CO2, temperature, water, and nitrogen levels (protocol version 1.0)
2020, Franke, James A., Müller, Christoph, Elliott, Joshua, Ruane, Alex C., Jägermeyr, Jonas, Balkovic, Juraj, Ciais, Philippe, Dury, Marie, Falloon, Pete D., Folberth, Christian, François, Louis, Hank, Tobias, Hoffmann, Munir, Izaurralde, R. Cesar, Jacquemin, Ingrid, Jones, Curtis, Khabarov, Nikolay, Koch, Marian, Li, Michelle, Liu, Wenfeng, Olin, Stefan, Phillips, Meridel, Pugh, Thomas A. M., Reddy, Ashwan, Wang, Xuhui, Williams, Karina, Zabel, Florian, Moyer, Elisabeth J.
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.
Crop productivity changes in 1.5 °C and 2 °C worlds under climate sensitivity uncertainty
2018, Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich, Deryng, Delphine, Müller, Christoph, Elliott, Joshua, Saeed, Fahad, Folberth, Christian, Liu, Wenfeng, Wang, Xuhui, Pugh, Thomas A. M., Thiery, Wim, Seneviratne, Sonia I., Rogelj, Joeri
Following the adoption of the Paris Agreement, there has been an increasing interest in quantifying impacts at discrete levels of global mean temperature (GMT) increase such as 1.5 °C and 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. Consequences of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on agricultural productivity have direct and immediate relevance for human societies. Future crop yields will be affected by anthropogenic climate change as well as direct effects of emissions such as CO2 fertilization. At the same time, the climate sensitivity to future emissions is uncertain. Here we investigate the sensitivity of future crop yield projections with a set of global gridded crop models for four major staple crops at 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming above pre-industrial levels, as well as at different CO2 levels determined by similar probabilities to lead to 1.5 °C and 2 °C, using climate forcing data from the Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts project. For the same CO2 forcing, we find consistent negative effects of half a degree warming on productivity in most world regions. Increasing CO2 concentrations consistent with these warming levels have potentially stronger but highly uncertain effects than 0.5 °C warming increments. Half a degree warming will also lead to more extreme low yields, in particular over tropical regions. Our results indicate that GMT change alone is insufficient to determine future impacts on crop productivity.
The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset
2019, Müller, Christoph, Elliott, Joshua, Kelly, David, Arneth, Almut, Balkovic, Juraj, Ciais, Philippe, Deryng, Delphine, Folberth, Christian, Hoek, Steven, Izaurralde, Roberto C., Jones, Curtis D., Khabarov, Nikolay, Lawrence, Peter, Liu, Wenfeng, Olin, Stefan, Pugh, Thomas A. M., Reddy, Ashwan, Rosenzweig, Cynthia, Ruane, Alex C., Sakurai, Gen, Schmid, Erwin, Skalsky, Rastislav, Wang, Xuhui, de Wit, Allard, Yang, Hong
The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 dataset of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) provides an unprecedentedly large dataset of crop model simulations covering the global ice-free land surface. The dataset consists of annual data fields at a spatial resolution of 0.5 arc-degree longitude and latitude. Fourteen crop modeling groups provided output for up to 11 historical input datasets spanning 1901 to 2012, and for up to three different management harmonization levels. Each group submitted data for up to 15 different crops and for up to 14 output variables. All simulations were conducted for purely rainfed and near-perfectly irrigated conditions on all land areas irrespective of whether the crop or irrigation system is currently used there. With the publication of the GGCMI phase 1 dataset we aim to promote further analyses and understanding of crop model performance, potential relationships between productivity and environmental impacts, and insights on how to further improve global gridded crop model frameworks. We describe dataset characteristics and individual model setup narratives. © 2019, The Author(s).
State-of-the-art global models underestimate impacts from climate extremes
2019, Schewe, Jacob, Gosling, Simon N., Reyer, Christopher, Zhao, Fang, Ciais, Philippe, Elliott, Joshua, Francois, Louis, Huber, Veronika, Lotze, Heike K., Seneviratne, Sonia I., van Vliet, Michelle T. H., Vautard, Robert, Wada, Yoshihide, Breuer, Lutz, Büchner, Matthias, Carozza, David A., Chang, Jinfeng, Coll, Marta, Deryng, Delphine, de Wit, Allard, Eddy, Tyler D., Folberth, Christian, Frieler, Katja, Friend, Andrew D., Gerten, Dieter, Gudmundsson, Lukas, Hanasaki, Naota, Ito, Akihiko, Khabarov, Nikolay, Kim, Hyungjun, Lawrence, Peter, Morfopoulos, Catherine, Müller, Christoph, Müller Schmied, Hannes, Orth, René, Ostberg, Sebastian, Pokhrel, Yadu, Pugh, Thomas A. M., Sakurai, Gen, Satoh, Yusuke, Schmid, Erwin, Stacke, Tobias, Steenbeek, Jeroen, Steinkamp, Jörg, Tang, Qiuhong, Tian, Hanqin, Tittensor, Derek P., Volkholz, Jan, Wang, Xuhui, Warszawski, Lila
Global impact models represent process-level understanding of how natural and human systems may be affected by climate change. Their projections are used in integrated assessments of climate change. Here we test, for the first time, systematically across many important systems, how well such impact models capture the impacts of extreme climate conditions. Using the 2003 European heat wave and drought as a historical analogue for comparable events in the future, we find that a majority of models underestimate the extremeness of impacts in important sectors such as agriculture, terrestrial ecosystems, and heat-related human mortality, while impacts on water resources and hydropower are overestimated in some river basins; and the spread across models is often large. This has important implications for economic assessments of climate change impacts that rely on these models. It also means that societal risks from future extreme events may be greater than previously thought.
Evapotranspiration simulations in ISIMIP2a—Evaluation of spatio-temporal characteristics with a comprehensive ensemble of independent datasets
2018, Wartenburger, Richard, Seneviratne, Sonia I, Hirschi, Martin, Chang, Jinfeng, Ciais, Philippe, Deryng, Delphine, Elliott, Joshua, Folberth, Christian, Gosling, Simon N, Gudmundsson, Lukas, Henrot, Alexandra-Jane, Hickler, Thomas, Ito, Akihiko, Khabarov, Nikolay, Kim, Hyungjun, Leng, Guoyong, Liu, Junguo, Liu, Xingcai, Masaki, Yoshimitsu, Morfopoulos, Catherine, Müller, Christoph, Müller Schmied, Hannes, Nishina, Kazuya, Orth, Rene, Pokhrel, Yadu, Pugh, Thomas A M, Satoh, Yusuke, Schaphoff, Sibyll, Schmid, Erwin, Sheffield, Justin, Stacke, Tobias, Steinkamp, Joerg, Tang, Qiuhong, Thiery, Wim, Wada, Yoshihide, Wang, Xuhui, Weedon, Graham P, Yang, Hong, Zhou, Tian
Actual land evapotranspiration (ET) is a key component of the global hydrological cycle and an essential variable determining the evolution of hydrological extreme events under different climate change scenarios. However, recently available ET products show persistent uncertainties that are impeding a precise attribution of human-induced climate change. Here, we aim at comparing a range of independent global monthly land ET estimates with historical model simulations from the global water, agriculture, and biomes sectors participating in the second phase of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP2a). Among the independent estimates, we use the EartH2Observe Tier-1 dataset (E2O), two commonly used reanalyses, a pre-compiled ensemble product (LandFlux-EVAL), and an updated collection of recently published datasets that algorithmically derive ET from observations or observations-based estimates (diagnostic datasets). A cluster analysis is applied in order to identify spatio-temporal differences among all datasets and to thus identify factors that dominate overall uncertainties. The clustering is controlled by several factors including the model choice, the meteorological forcing used to drive the assessed models, the data category (models participating in the different sectors of ISIMIP2a, E2O models, diagnostic estimates, reanalysis-based estimates or composite products), the ET scheme, and the number of soil layers in the models. By using these factors to explain spatial and spatio-temporal variabilities in ET, we find that the model choice mostly dominates (24%–40% of variance explained), except for spatio-temporal patterns of total ET, where the forcing explains the largest fraction of the variance (29%). The most dominant clusters of datasets are further compared with individual diagnostic and reanalysis-based estimates to assess their representation of selected heat waves and droughts in the Great Plains, Central Europe and western Russia. Although most of the ET estimates capture these extreme events, the generally large spread among the entire ensemble indicates substantial uncertainties.
Global irrigation contribution to wheat and maize yield
2021, Wang, Xuhui, Müller, Christoph, Elliot, Joshua, Mueller, Nathaniel D., Ciais, Philippe, Jägermeyr, Jonas, Gerber, James, Dumas, Patrice, Wang, Chenzhi, Yang, Hui, Li, Laurent, Deryng, Delphine, Folberth, Christian, Liu, Wenfeng, Makowski, David, Olin, Stefan, Pugh, Thomas A. M., Reddy, Ashwan, Schmid, Erwin, Jeong, Sujong, Zhou, Feng, Piao, Shilong
Irrigation is the largest sector of human water use and an important option for increasing crop production and reducing drought impacts. However, the potential for irrigation to contribute to global crop yields remains uncertain. Here, we quantify this contribution for wheat and maize at global scale by developing a Bayesian framework integrating empirical estimates and gridded global crop models on new maps of the relative difference between attainable rainfed and irrigated yield (ΔY). At global scale, ΔY is 34 ± 9% for wheat and 22 ± 13% for maize, with large spatial differences driven more by patterns of precipitation than that of evaporative demand. Comparing irrigation demands with renewable water supply, we find 30–47% of contemporary rainfed agriculture of wheat and maize cannot achieve yield gap closure utilizing current river discharge, unless more water diversion projects are set in place, putting into question the potential of irrigation to mitigate climate change impacts.
Parameterization-induced uncertainties and impacts of crop management harmonization in a global gridded crop model ensemble
2019, Folberth, Christian, Elliott, Joshua, Müller, Christoph, Balkovič, Juraj, Chryssanthacopoulos, James, Izaurralde, Roberto C., Jones, Curtis D., Khabarov, Nikolay, Liu, Wenfeng, Reddy, Ashwan, Schmid, Erwin, Skalský, Rastislav, Yang, Hong, Arneth, Almut, Ciais, Philippe, Deryng, Delphine, Lawrence, Peter J., Olin, Stefan, Pugh, Thomas A.M., Ruane, Alex C., Wang, Xuhui
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.