Crop models are essential tools for assessing the threat of climate change to local and global food production 1 . Present models used to predict wheat grain yield are highly uncertain when simulating how crops respond to temperature 2 . Here we systematically tested 30 di erent wheat crop models of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project against field experiments in which growing season mean temperatures ranged from 15 • C to 32 • C, including experiments with artificial heating. Many models simulated yields well, but were less accurate at higher temperatures. The model ensemble median was consistently more accurate in simulating the crop temperature response than any single model, regardless of the input information used. Extrapolating the model ensemble temperature response indicates that warming is already slowing yield gains at a majority of wheat-growing locations. Global wheat production is estimated to fall by 6% for each • C of further temperature increase and become more variable over space and time.Understanding how different climate factors interact and impact food production 3 is essential when reaching decisions on how to adapt to the effects of climate change. To implement such strategies the contribution of various climate variables on crop yields need to be separated and quantified. For instance, a change in temperature will require a different adaptation strategy than a change in rainfall 4 . Temperature changes alone are reported to have potentially large negative impacts on crop production 5 , and hotspots-locations where plants suffer from high temperature stress-have been identified across the globe 6,7 . Crop simulation models are useful tools in climate impact studies as they deal with multiple climate factors and how they interact with various crop growth and yield formation processes that are sensitive to climate. These models have been applied in many studies, including the assessment of temperature impacts on crop production 1,8 . However, none of the crop models have been tested systematically against experiments at different temperatures in field conditions. Although many glasshouse and controlled-environment temperature experiments have been described, they are often not suitable for model testing as the heating of root systems in pots 9 and effects on micro-climate differ greatly from field conditions 10 . Detailed information on field experiments with a wide range of sowing dates and infrared heating recently became available for wheat 11,12 . Such experiments are well suited for testing the ability of crop models to quantify temperature responses under field conditions. Testing the temperature responses of crop models is particularly important for assessing the impact of climate change on wheat production, because the largest uncertainty in simulated impacts on yield arises from increasing temperatures 2 .In a 'Hot Serial Cereal' (HSC) well-irrigated and fertilized experiment with a single cultivar, the observed days after sowing (DAS) to maturity declined...

Projections of climate change impacts on crop yields are inherently uncertain(1). Uncertainty is often quantified when projecting future greenhouse gas emissions and their influence on climate(2). However, multi-model uncertainty analysis of crop responses to climate change is rare because systematic and objective comparisons among process-based crop simulation models(1,3) are difficult(4). Here we present the largest standardized model intercomparison for climate change impacts so far. We found that individual crop models are able to simulate measured wheat grain yields accurately under a range of environments, particularly if the input information is sufficient. However, simulated climate change impacts vary across models owing to differences in model structures and parameter values. A greater proportion of the uncertainty in climate change impact projections was due to variations among crop models than to variations among downscaled general circulation models. Uncertainties in simulated impacts increased with CO2 concentrations and associated warming. These impact uncertainties can be reduced by improving temperature and CO2 relationships in models and better quantified through use of multi-model ensembles. Less uncertainty in describing how climate change may affect agricultural productivity will aid adaptation strategy development and policymaking

Crop models of crop growth are increasingly used to quantify the impact of global changes due to climate or crop management. Therefore, accuracy of simulation results is a major concern. Studies with ensembles of crop models can give valuable information about model accuracy and uncertainty, but such studies are difficult to organize and have only recently begun. We report on the largest ensemble study to date, of 27 wheat models tested in four contrasting locations for their accuracy in simulating multiple crop growth and yield variables. The relative error averaged over models was 24-38% for the different end-ofseason variables including grain yield (GY) and grain protein concentration (GPC). There was little relation between error of a model for GY or GPC and error for in-season variables.Thus, most models did not arrive at accurate simulations of GY and GPC by accurately simulating preceding growth dynamics. Ensemble simulations, taking either the mean (emean) or median (e-median) of simulated values, gave better estimates than any individual model when all variables were considered. Compared to individual models, e-median ranked first in simulating measured GY and third in GPC. The error of e-mean and e-median declined with an increasing number of ensemble members, with little decrease beyond 10 Accepted ArticleThis article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. models. We conclude that multimodel ensembles can be used to create new estimators with improved accuracy and consistency in simulating growth dynamics. We argue that these results are applicable to other crop species, and hypothesize that they apply more generally to ecological system models.

This is a repository copy of Similar estimates of temperature impacts on global wheat yield by three independent methods.

Nendel 38 | Jørgen Eivind Olesen 37 | Taru Palosuo 44 | John R. Porter 42,45,46 | Eckart Priesack 39 | Dominique Ripoche 47 | Mikhail A. Semenov 48 | Claudio Stöckle 17 | Pierre Stratonovitch 48 | Thilo Streck 33 | Iwan Supit 49 | Fulu Tao 50,44 | Marijn Van der Velde 51 | Daniel Wallach 52 | Enli Wang 53 | Heidi Webber 30,38 AbstractWheat grain protein concentration is an important determinant of wheat quality for human nutrition that is often overlooked in efforts to improve crop production. We tested and applied a 32-multi-model ensemble to simulate global wheat yield and quality in a changing climate. Potential benefits of elevated atmospheric CO 2 concentration by 2050 on global wheat grain and protein yield are likely to be negated by impacts from rising temperature and changes in rainfall, but with considerable 156 |

No abstract

The response of wheat crops to elevated CO 2 (eCO 2) was measured and modelled with the Australian Grains Free‐Air CO 2 Enrichment experiment, located at Horsham, Australia. Treatments included CO 2 by water, N and temperature. The location represents a semi‐arid environment with a seasonal VPD of around 0.5 kPa. Over 3 years, the observed mean biomass at anthesis and grain yield ranged from 4200 to 10 200 kg ha−1 and 1600 to 3900 kg ha−1, respectively, over various sowing times and irrigation regimes. The mean observed response to daytime eCO 2 (from 365 to 550 μmol mol−1 CO 2) was relatively consistent for biomass at stem elongation and at anthesis and LAI at anthesis and grain yield with 21%, 23%, 21% and 26%, respectively. Seasonal water use was decreased from 320 to 301 mm (P = 0.10) by eCO 2, increasing water use efficiency for biomass and yield, 36% and 31%, respectively. The performance of six models (APSIM‐Wheat, APSIM‐Nwheat, CAT‐Wheat, CROPSYST, OLEARY‐CONNOR and SALUS) in simulating crop responses to eCO 2 was similar and within or close to the experimental error for accumulated biomass, yield and water use response, despite some variations in early growth and LAI. The primary mechanism of biomass accumulation via radiation use efficiency (RUE) or transpiration efficiency (TE) was not critical to define the overall response to eCO 2. However, under irrigation, the effect of late sowing on response to eCO 2 to biomass accumulation at DC65 was substantial in the observed data (~40%), but the simulated response was smaller, ranging from 17% to 28%. Simulated response from all six models under no water or nitrogen stress showed similar response to eCO 2 under irrigation, but the differences compared to the dryland treatment were small. Further experimental work on the interactive effects of eCO 2, water and temperature is required to resolve these model discrepancies.

No abstract