No abstract

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 |

Wheat production will be impacted by increasing concentration of atmospheric CO 2

No abstract

No abstract

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