Search Results
Impact of extreme weather conditions on European crop production in 2018
Extreme weather increases the risk of large-scale crop failure. The mechanisms involved are complex and intertwined, hence undermining the identification of simple adaptation levers to help improve the resilience of agricultural production. Based on more than 82 000 yield data reported at the regional level in 17 European countries, we assess how climate affected the yields of nine crop species. Using machine learning models, we analyzed historical yield data since 1901 and then focus on 2018, which has experienced a multiplicity and a diversity of atypical extreme climatic conditions. Machine learning models explain up to 65% of historical yield anomalies. We find that both extremes in temperature and precipitation are associated with negative yield anomalies, but with varying impacts in different parts of Europe. In 2018, Northern and Eastern Europe experienced multiple and simultaneous crop failures - among the highest observed in recent decades. These yield losses were associated with extremely low rainfalls in combination with high temperatures between March and August 2018. However, the higher than usual yields recorded in Southern Europe - caused by favourable spring rainfall conditions - nearly offset the large decrease in Northern European crop production. Our results outline the importance of considering single and compound climate extremes to analyse the causes of yield losses in Europe. We found no clear upward or downward trend in the frequency of extreme yield losses for any of the considered crops between 1990 and 2018. This article is part of the theme issue 'Impacts of the 2018 severe drought and heatwave in Europe: from site to continental scale'. © 2020 The Authors.
Robustly forecasting maize yields in Tanzania based on climatic predictors
Seasonal yield forecasts are important to support agricultural development programs and can contribute to improved food security in developing countries. Despite their importance, no operational forecasting system on sub-national level is yet in place in Tanzania. We develop a statistical maize yield forecast based on regional yield statistics in Tanzania and climatic predictors, covering the period 2009–2019. We forecast both yield anomalies and absolute yields at the sub-national scale about 6 weeks before the harvest. The forecasted yield anomalies (absolute yields) have a median Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient of 0.72 (0.79) in the out-of-sample cross validation, which corresponds to a median root mean squared error of 0.13 t/ha for absolute yields. In addition, we perform an out-of-sample variable selection and produce completely independent yield forecasts for the harvest year 2019. Our study is potentially applicable to other countries with short time series of yield data and inaccessible or low quality weather data due to the usage of only global climate data and a strict and transparent assessment of the forecasting skill.
Global irrigation contribution to wheat and maize yield
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.
Mapping the yields of lignocellulosic bioenergy crops from observations at the global scale
Most scenarios from integrated assessment models (IAMs) that project greenhouse gas emissions include the use of bioenergy as a means to reduce CO2 emissions or even to achieve negative emissions (together with CCS carbon capture and storage). The potential amount of CO2 that can be removed from the atmosphere depends, among others, on the yields of bioenergy crops, the land available to grow these crops and the efficiency with which CO2 produced by combustion is captured. While bioenergy crop yields can be simulated by models, estimates of the spatial distribution of bioenergy yields under current technology based on a large number of observations are currently lacking. In this study, a random-forest (RF) algorithm is used to upscale a bioenergy yield dataset of 3963 observations covering Miscanthus, switchgrass, eucalypt, poplar and willow using climatic and soil conditions as explanatory variables. The results are global yield maps of five important lignocellulosic bioenergy crops under current technology, climate and atmospheric CO2 conditions at a 0:5 0:5 spatial resolution. We also provide a combined "best bioenergy crop" yield map by selecting one of the five crop types with the highest yield in each of the grid cells, eucalypt and Miscanthus in most cases. The global median yield of the best crop is 16.3 tDMha1 yr1 (DM dry matter). High yields mainly occur in the Amazon region and southeastern Asia. We further compare our empirically derived maps with yield maps used in three IAMs and find that the median yields in our maps are 50% higher than those in the IAM maps. Our estimates of gridded bioenergy crop yields can be used to provide bioenergy yields for IAMs, to evaluate land surface models or to identify the most suitable lands for future bioenergy crop plantations. The 0:5 0:5 global maps for yields of different bioenergy crops and the best crop and for the best crop composition generated from this study can be download from https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3274254 (Li, 2019). © 2019 Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.