2016
DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2995
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Regional disparities in the beneficial effects of rising CO2 concentrations on crop water productivity

Abstract: Table 1: • CC w/o CO 2 affects global average crop yield and CWP negatively, with larger decreases simulated for rice and soybean;• CC w/ CO 2 has a strong positive effect on yield and CWP, especially in the case of wheat. Positive effects on CWP of rice, soybean and maize are also large: global average CWP increases by a median 9.7, 18.2 and 13%, respectively.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

6
155
3
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

2
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 230 publications
(165 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
6
155
3
1
Order By: Relevance
“…15). Attainable yields of maize, a C4 crop, are not expected to be affected by increased [CO 2 ], although actual yields of all crops may be substantially enhanced in areas where water stress is limiting growth2527. Simulations from the ISI-MIP ensemble show enhancements of wheat and rice yield due to CO 2 fertilization ranging from 4 to 80% (Supplementary Table 3), illustrating the huge uncertainty in projections of CO 2 fertilization, however, direct comparison is complicated by the differing assumptions on nutrient availability and climate adaptation between the models (see Supplementary Note 3 and Supplementary Figs 16 and 17).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…15). Attainable yields of maize, a C4 crop, are not expected to be affected by increased [CO 2 ], although actual yields of all crops may be substantially enhanced in areas where water stress is limiting growth2527. Simulations from the ISI-MIP ensemble show enhancements of wheat and rice yield due to CO 2 fertilization ranging from 4 to 80% (Supplementary Table 3), illustrating the huge uncertainty in projections of CO 2 fertilization, however, direct comparison is complicated by the differing assumptions on nutrient availability and climate adaptation between the models (see Supplementary Note 3 and Supplementary Figs 16 and 17).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Significant increases of crop yield due to elevated levels of CO 2 have been reported in experiments for different crops (Kimball, 1983; Kimball et al, 2002) and most of the recent modeling studies simulate the effect of elevated CO 2 (Deryng et al, 2016). However, there is an ongoing debate about the extent of impacts of CO 2 fertilization on crop yields in observations and models (Long et al, 2006; Ainsworth et al, 2008), especially in Africa where few field observations are unavailable to validate and further improve the models.…”
Section: The Impact On Crop Yield and Potential For Adaptationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We decided on the high spatial resolution of 30 arcsec (approx. 1 km 2 at the Equator), since the demand for high-resolution global data is increasing in different applications (Deryng et al, 2016;Jägermeyr et al, 2015;Liu et al, 2007;Mauser et al, 2015;Rosenzweig et al, 2014) and the pixel size of approximately 1 km 2 is already close to the size of large fields (depending on the region) or an agglomeration of smaller irrigated fields. For Africa and Asia, the field size of 1 km 2 might be too large (Fritz et al, 2015), but usually, irrigated fields can be much bigger in size, since irrigation is often applied by large-scale farms.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%