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

No abstract

The FLUXNET2015 dataset provides ecosystem-scale data on CO 2 , water, and energy exchange between the biosphere and the atmosphere, and other meteorological and biological measurements, from 212 sites around the globe (over 1500 site-years, up to and including year 2014). These sites, independently managed and operated, voluntarily contributed their data to create global datasets. Data were quality controlled and processed using uniform methods, to improve consistency and intercomparability across sites. The dataset is already being used in a number of applications, including ecophysiology studies, remote sensing studies, and development of ecosystem and Earth system models. FLUXNET2015 includes derived-data products, such as gap-filled time series, ecosystem respiration and photosynthetic uptake estimates, estimation of uncertainties, and metadata about the measurements, presented for the first time in this paper. In addition, 206 of these sites are for the first time distributed under a Creative Commons (CC-BY 4.0) license. This paper details this enhanced dataset and the processing methods, now made available as open-source codes, making the dataset more accessible, transparent, and reproducible.

No abstract

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.

Terrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP) varies greatly over time and space. A better understanding of this variability is necessary for more accurate predictions of the future climate-carbon cycle feedback. Recent studies have suggested that variability in GPP is driven by a broad range of biotic and abiotic factors operating mainly through changes in vegetation phenology and physiological processes. However, it is still unclear how plant phenology and physiology can be integrated to explain the spatiotemporal variability of terrestrial GPP. Based on analyses of eddy-covariance and satellite-derived data, we decomposed annual terrestrial GPP into the length of the CO 2 uptake period (CUP) and the seasonal maximal capacity of CO 2 uptake (GPP max ). The product of CUP and GPP max explained >90% of the temporal GPP variability in most areas of North America during 2000-2010 and the spatial GPP variation among globally distributed eddy flux tower sites. It also explained GPP response to the European heatwave in 2003 (r 2 = 0.90) and GPP recovery after a fire disturbance in South Dakota (r 2 = 0.88). Additional analysis of the eddy-covariance flux data shows that the interbiome variation in annual GPP is better explained by that in GPP max than CUP. These findings indicate that terrestrial GPP is jointly controlled by ecosystem-level plant phenology and photosynthetic capacity, and greater understanding of GPP max and CUP responses to environmental and biological variations will, thus, improve predictions of GPP over time and space. ecosystem carbon uptake | growing season length | photosynthetic capacity | spatiotemporal variability | climate extreme L arge variability exists among estimates of terrestrial carbon sequestration, resulting in substantial uncertainty in modeled dynamics of atmospheric CO 2 concentration and predicted future climate change (1). The variability in carbon sequestration is partially caused by variation in terrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP) (2), which is the cumulative rate over time of gross plant Significance Terrestrial gross primary productivity (GPP), the total photosynthetic CO 2 fixation at ecosystem level, fuels all life on land. However, its spatiotemporal variability is poorly understood, because GPP is determined by many processes related to plant phenology and physiological activities. In this study, we find that plant phenological and physiological properties can be integrated in a robust index-the product of the length of CO 2 uptake period and the seasonal maximal photosynthesis-to explain the GPP variability over space and time in response to climate extremes and during recovery after disturbance.