2006
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.12.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Potential impacts of climate change on the grain yield of maize for the midlands of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
65
0
2

Year Published

2007
2007
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
10

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 115 publications
(68 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
65
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Even runoff is likely to be further reduced (IPCC, 2007). Muchena and Iglesias, (1995), in Abraha and Savage (2006) through model simulations have concluded that temperature increase of 2 0 C or 4 0 C reduced maize yields which show that crop production is significantly affected by climatic variables. Given this argument, the increasing temperatures may impact water resources in and around Namulonge and also alter crop water balances.…”
Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even runoff is likely to be further reduced (IPCC, 2007). Muchena and Iglesias, (1995), in Abraha and Savage (2006) through model simulations have concluded that temperature increase of 2 0 C or 4 0 C reduced maize yields which show that crop production is significantly affected by climatic variables. Given this argument, the increasing temperatures may impact water resources in and around Namulonge and also alter crop water balances.…”
Section: Conclusion and Recommendationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, higher temperatures may also impact water availability and hence crop production [101,102]. Warmer urban environment also affects temperature-related morbidity of urban dwellers [12,103,104].…”
Section: Evolutionanalysis Of Suhii In Wintermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An implementation of the Priestley-Taylor equation (Priestley & Taylor 1972), based on air temperature and S o inputs, was used to compute the reference evapotranspiration. Of the crop residue, 40% was assumed to remain in the field after harvest for recycling purposes (Abraha & Savage 2006). No irrigation was used as this is not a common practice.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%