Physical robustness of canopy temperature models for crop heat stress simulation across environments and production conditions

Webber, Heidi; Kimball, Bruce A.; Ewert, Frank; Asseng, Senthold; Rezaei, Ehsan Eyshi; Pinter, P. J.; Hatfield, Jerry L.; Reynolds, M.P.; Ababaei, Behnam; Bindi, Marco; Doltra, Jordi; Ferrise, Roberto; Kage, Henning; Kassie, Belay T.; Kersebaum, Kurt Christian; Luig, Adam; Olesen, Jørgen E.; Semenov, Mikhail A.; Stratonovitch, Pierre; Ratjen, Arne M.; LaMorte, R. L.; Leavitt, Steven W.; Hunsaker, Douglas J.; Wall, Gerard W.; Martre, Pierre

doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2017.11.005

Cited by 40 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 90 publications

(104 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relatively low warming levels of the HAPPI scenarios (0.6 and 1.1°C above 1980–2010 global mean temperature) but high increases in [CO 2 ] suggest that CO 2 fertilization effects also dominate here (Kimball, ; O'Leary et al, ), but could be less, if nitrogen is limiting growth. However, the impacts here could be slightly overoptimistic with estimates of heat stress, as most of crop models do not account for well‐established canopy warming under elevated CO 2 (Kimball et al, ; Webber et al, ). Also, Schleussner et al () have shown that CO 2 uncertainties at 1.5 and 2.0°C, which is not considered here, are comparable to the effect of 0.5°C warming increments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global wheat production with 1.5 and 2.0°C above pre‐industrial warming

Liu

Martre

Ewert

et al. 2019

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efforts to limit global warming to below 2°C in relation to the pre‐industrial level are under way, in accordance with the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, most impact research on agriculture to date has focused on impacts of warming >2°C on mean crop yields, and many previous studies did not focus sufficiently on extreme events and yield interannual variability. Here, with the latest climate scenarios from the Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts (HAPPI) project, we evaluated the impacts of the 2015 Paris Agreement range of global warming (1.5 and 2.0°C warming above the pre‐industrial period) on global wheat production and local yield variability. A multi‐crop and multi‐climate model ensemble over a global network of sites developed by the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) for Wheat was used to represent major rainfed and irrigated wheat cropping systems. Results show that projected global wheat production will change by −2.3% to 7.0% under the 1.5°C scenario and −2.4% to 10.5% under the 2.0°C scenario, compared to a baseline of 1980–2010, when considering changes in local temperature, rainfall, and global atmospheric CO2 concentration, but no changes in management or wheat cultivars. The projected impact on wheat production varies spatially; a larger increase is projected for temperate high rainfall regions than for moderate hot low rainfall and irrigated regions. Grain yields in warmer regions are more likely to be reduced than in cooler regions. Despite mostly positive impacts on global average grain yields, the frequency of extremely low yields (bottom 5 percentile of baseline distribution) and yield inter‐annual variability will increase under both warming scenarios for some of the hot growing locations, including locations from the second largest global wheat producer—India, which supplies more than 14% of global wheat. The projected global impact of warming <2°C on wheat production is therefore not evenly distributed and will affect regional food security across the globe as well as food prices and trade.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global wheat production with 1.5 and 2.0°C above pre‐industrial warming

Liu

Martre

Ewert

et al. 2019

Global Change Biology

Self Cite

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SQ and S2 models do not include effects of [CO 2 ] on transpiration, though they are applied only to wheat. Seven models include algorithms to estimate crop canopy temperature (FA, L5, HE, SS, SQ, S2, and CR) allowing the interaction of high temperature, drought stress, and [CO 2 ] 22 . Key details and references of the model’s treatment of heat and drought stress are given in Supplementary Tables 5 and 6 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…High temperatures drive non-linear increases in vapor pressure deficit (VPD), raising evaporative demand and concurrently depleting subsequent water supply 21 . Nevertheless, questions remain about which crop level processes dominate these responses, as potentially confounding effects of higher temperature accelerating development and damaging reproductive organs were not explicitly controlled for, both of which are expected to be larger under drought stress conditions due to canopy heating 22 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diverging importance of drought stress for maize and winter wheat in Europe

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding 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.

show abstract

“…Crop growth models often use air temperature in growth and phenology functions (Neukam et al, 2016), and these would need to be re-written using leaf/canopy temperatures. Furthermore, in a comprehensive multi-model study testing crop model skill at simulating canopy temperature, Webber et al (2018) show that the best performing models were able to explain only 30%-40% of variance in the difference between leaf and air temperatures (Webber et al, 2018).…”

Section: Modeling Leaf Temperaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced Leaf Cooling Is a Pathway to Heat Tolerance in Common Bean

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Common bean is the most consumed legume in the world and an important source of protein in Latin America, Eastern, and Southern Africa. It is grown in a variety of environments with mean air temperatures of between 14°C and 35°C and is more sensitive to high temperatures than other legumes. As global heating continues, breeding for heat tolerance in common bean is an urgent priority. Transpirational cooling has been shown to be an important mechanism for heat avoidance in many crops, and leaf cooling traits have been used to breed for both drought and heat tolerance. As yet, little is known about the magnitude of leaf cooling in common bean, nor whether this trait is functionally linked to heat tolerance. Accordingly, we explore the extent and genotypic variation of transpirational cooling in common bean. Our results show that leaf cooling is an important heat avoidance mechanism in common bean. On average, leaf temperatures are 5°C cooler than air temperatures, and can range from between 13°C cooler and 2°C warmer. We show that the magnitude of leaf cooling keeps leaf temperatures within a photosynthetically functional range. Heat tolerant genotypes cool more than heat sensitive genotypes and the magnitude of this difference increases at elevated temperatures. Furthermore, we find that differences in leaf cooling are largest at the top of the canopy where determinate bush beans are most sensitive to the impact of high temperatures during the flowering period. Our results suggest that heat tolerant genotypes cool more than heat sensitive genotypes as a result of higher stomatal conductance and enhanced transpirational cooling. We demonstrate that it is possible to accurately simulate the temperature of the leaf by genotype using only air temperature and relative humidity. Our work suggests that greater leaf cooling is a pathway to heat tolerance. Bean breeders can use the difference between air and leaf temperature to screen for genotypes with enhanced capacity for heat avoidance. Once evaluated for a particular target population of environments, breeders can use our model for modeling leaf temperatures by genotype to assess the value of selecting for cooler beans.

show abstract

Physical robustness of canopy temperature models for crop heat stress simulation across environments and production conditions

Cited by 40 publications

References 90 publications

Global wheat production with 1.5 and 2.0°C above pre‐industrial warming

Global wheat production with 1.5 and 2.0°C above pre‐industrial warming

Diverging importance of drought stress for maize and winter wheat in Europe

Enhanced Leaf Cooling Is a Pathway to Heat Tolerance in Common Bean

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About