2 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
- 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.
- ItemDiverging importance of drought stress for maize and winter wheat in Europe([London] : Nature Publishing Group UK, 2018) Webber, Heidi; Ewert, Frank; Olesen, Jørgen E.; Müller, Christoph; Fronzek, Stefan; Ruane, Alex C.; Bourgault, Maryse; Martre, Pierre; Ababaei, Behnam; Bindi, Marco; Ferrise, Roberto; Finger, Robert; Fodor, Nándor; Gabaldón-Leal, Clara; Gaiser, Thomas; Jabloun, Mohamed; Kersebaum, Kurt-Christian; Lizaso, Jon I.; Lorite, Ignacio J.; Manceau, Loic; Moriondo, Marco; Nendel, Claas; Rodríguez, Alfredo; Ruiz-Ramos, Margarita; Semenov, Mikhail A.; Siebert, Stefan; Stella, Tommaso; Stratonovitch, Pierre; Trombi, Giacomo; Wallach, DanielUnderstanding the drivers of yield levels under climate change is required to support adaptation planning and respond to changing production risks. This study uses an ensemble of crop models applied on a spatial grid to quantify the contributions of various climatic drivers to past yield variability in grain maize and winter wheat of European cropping systems (1984–2009) and drivers of climate change impacts to 2050. Results reveal that for the current genotypes and mix of irrigated and rainfed production, climate change would lead to yield losses for grain maize and gains for winter wheat. Across Europe, on average heat stress does not increase for either crop in rainfed systems, while drought stress intensifies for maize only. In low-yielding years, drought stress persists as the main driver of losses for both crops, with elevated CO2 offering no yield benefit in these years.