Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
environmental science
Projected climate impacts to South African maize and wheat production in 2055: A comparison of empirical and mechanistic modeling approaches
Global Change Biology, Volume 19, No. 12, Year 2013
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
Crop model-specific biases are a key uncertainty affecting our understanding of climate change impacts to agriculture. There is increasing research focus on intermodel variation, but comparisons between mechanistic (MMs) and empirical models (EMs) are rare despite both being used widely in this field. We combined MMs and EMs to project future (2055) changes in the potential distribution (suitability) and productivity of maize and spring wheat in South Africa under 18 downscaled climate scenarios (9 models run under 2 emissions scenarios). EMs projected larger yield losses or smaller gains than MMs. The EMs' median-projected maize and wheat yield changes were -3.6% and 6.2%, respectively, compared to 6.5% and 15.2% for the MM. The EM projected a 10% reduction in the potential maize growing area, where the MM projected a 9% gain. Both models showed increases in the potential spring wheat production region (EM = 48%, MM = 20%), but these results were more equivocal because both models (particularly the EM) substantially overestimated the extent of current suitability. The substantial water-use efficiency gains simulated by the MMs under elevated CO2 accounted for much of the EM-MM difference, but EMs may have more accurately represented crop temperature sensitivities. Our results align with earlier studies showing that EMs may show larger climate change losses than MMs. Crop forecasting efforts should expand to include EM-MM comparisons to provide a fuller picture of crop-climate response uncertainties. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Authors & Co-Authors
Estes, Lyndon Despard
United States, Princeton
Princeton School of Public and International Affairs
United States, Princeton
Princeton University
Beukes, Hein B.
South Africa, Pretoria
Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria
Bradley, Bethany A.
United States, Amherst
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Debats, Stephanie R.
United States, Princeton
Princeton University
Oppenheimer, Michael G.
United States, Princeton
Princeton School of Public and International Affairs
United States, Princeton
Princeton University
Ruane, Alex C.
United States, New York
Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Schulze, Roland E.
South Africa, Durban
University of Kwazulu-natal
Tadross, Mark Alexander
South Africa, Cape Town
University of Cape Town
Statistics
Citations: 75
Authors: 8
Affiliations: 7
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1111/gcb.12325
ISSN:
13541013
e-ISSN:
13652486
Research Areas
Environmental
Study Locations
South Africa