Towards a multiscale crop modelling framework for climate change adaptation assessment (original) (raw)

References

1. Long, S. P., Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D., Nösberger, J. & Ort, D. R. Food for thought: lower-than-expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO2 concentrations. Science 312, 1918–1921 (2006).
   Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
2. Asseng, S. et al. Climate change impact and adaptation for wheat protein. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 155–173 (2019).
   Article Google Scholar
3. Cooper, M., Gho, C., Leafgren, R., Tang, T. & Messina, C. Breeding drought-tolerant maize hybrids for the US corn-belt: discovery to product. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 6191–6204 (2014).
   Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
4. Głowacka, K. et al. Photosystem II Subunit S overexpression increases the efficiency of water use in a field-grown crop. Nat. Commun. 9, 868 (2018).
   Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
5. Kromdijk, J. et al. Improving photosynthesis and crop productivity by accelerating recovery from photoprotection. Science 354, 857–861 (2016).
   Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
6. Hammer, G. L. et al. Crop design for specific adaptation in variable dryland production environments. Crop Pasture Sci. 65, 614–626 (2014).
   Article Google Scholar
7. Zhao, G. et al. The implication of irrigation in climate change impact assessment: a European‐wide study. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4031–4048 (2015).
   Article Google Scholar
8. Lobell, D. B. et al. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science 319, 607–610 (2008).
   Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
9. Chapman, S. C., Hammer, G. L., Butler, D. G. & Cooper, M. Genotype by environment interactions affecting grain sorghum. III. Temporal sequences and spatial patterns in the target population of environments. Aust. J. Agr. Res. 51, 223–234 (2000).
   Article Google Scholar
10. Wang, E. et al. Improving process-based crop models to better capture genotype×environment×management interactions. J. Exp. Bot. 70, 2389–2401 (2019).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
11. Chenu, K. et al. Contribution of crop models to adaptation in wheat. Trends Plant Sci. 22, 472–490 (2017).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
12. Hammer, G., McLean, G., Doherty, A., van Oosterom, E. & Chapman, S. in Sorghum: State of the Art and Future Perspectives Agronomy Monographs Ch. 17 (American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of America, 2016).
13. Hunter, M. C., Smith, R. G., Schipanski, M. E., Atwood, L. W. & Mortensen, D. A. Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. BioScience 67, 386–391 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
14. Jones, J. W. et al. Toward a new generation of agricultural system data, models, and knowledge products: State of agricultural systems science. Agr. Syst. 155, 269–288 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
15. Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Arnold, S., Simelton, E. & Fraser, E. Crops and climate change: progress, trends and challenges in simulating impacts and informing adaptation. J. Exp. Bot. 60, 2775–2789 (2009).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
16. Hernandez-Ochoa, I. M. et al. Adapting irrigated and rainfed wheat to climate change in semi-arid environments: management, breeding options and land use change. Eur. J. Agron. 109, 125915 (2019).
    Article Google Scholar
17. Wu, A., Hammer, G. L., Doherty, A., von Caemmerer, S. & Farquhar, G. D. Quantifying impacts of enhancing photosynthesis on crop yield. Nat. Plants 5, 380–388 (2019).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
18. Yin, X., van der Linden, C. G. & Struik, P. C. Bringing genetics and biochemistry to crop modelling, and vice versa. Eur. J. Agron. 100, 132–140 (2018).
    Article Google Scholar
19. Rötter, R. P., Tao, F., Höhn, J. G. & Palosuo, T. Use of crop simulation modelling to aid ideotype design of future cereal cultivars. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 3463–3476 (2015).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
20. Messina, C. D. et al. On the dynamic determinants of reproductive failure under drought in maize. in silico. Plants 1, diz003 (2019).
    Google Scholar
21. Messina, C. D. et al. Leveraging biological insight and environmental variation to improve phenotypic prediction: integrating crop growth models (CGM) with whole genome prediction (WGP). Eur. J. Agron. 100, 151–162 (2018).
    Article Google Scholar
22. Cooper, M., Technow, F., Messina, C., Gho, C. & Totir, L. R. Use of crop growth models with whole-genome prediction: application to a maize multienvironment trial. Crop Sci. 56, 2141–2156 (2016).
23. Sinclair, T. R., Soltani, A., Marrou, H., Ghanem, M. & Vadez, V. Geospatial assessment for crop physiological and management improvements with examples using the simple simulation model. Crop Sci. 59, 1–9 (2019).
    Article Google Scholar
24. Chang, T.-G., Chang, S., Song, Q.-F., Perveen, S. & Zhu, X.-G. Systems models, phenomics and genomics: three pillars for developing high-yielding photosynthetically efficient crops. in silico Plants 1, diy003 (2019).
    Article Google Scholar
25. Hammer, G. et al. Models for navigating biological complexity in breeding improved crop plants. Trends Plant Sci. 11, 587–593 (2006).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
26. Minorsky, P. V. Achieving the in silico plant. Systems biology and the future of plant biological research. Plant Physiol. 13, 404–409 (2003).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
27. Hammer, G. L., Sinclair, T. R., Chapman, S. C. & van Oosterom, E. On systems thinking, systems biology, and the in silico plant. Plant Physiol. 134, 909–911 (2004).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
28. Yin, X. & Struik, P. C. Modelling the crop: from system dynamics to systems biology. J. Exp. Bot. 61, 2171–2183 (2010).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
29. Hammer, G. L. et al. Adapting APSIM to model the physiology and genetics of complex adaptive traits in field crops. J. Exp. Bot. 61, 2185–2202 (2010).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
30. de Wit, C. T. & Penning de Vries, F. W. T. Crop growth models without hormones. Neth. J. Agr. Sci. 31, 313–323 (1983).
    Google Scholar
31. Parent, B. & Tardieu, F. Can current crop models be used in the phenotyping era for predicting the genetic variability of yield of plants subjected to drought or high temperature? J. Exp. Bot. 65, 6179–6189 (2014).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
32. Messina, C. D., Jones, J. W., Boote, K. J. & Vallejos, C. E. A gene-based model to simulate soybean development and yield responses to environment Florida agricultural experiment station, journal series no. R-11017. Crop Sci. 46, 456–466 (2006).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
33. Chenu, K. et al. Simulating the yield impacts of organ-level quantitative trait loci associated with drought response in maize: a ‘gene-to-phenotype’ modeling approach. Genetics 183, 1507 (2009).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
34. Reymond, M., Muller, B., Leonardi, A., Charcosset, A. & Tardieu, F. Combining quantitative trait loci analysis and an ecophysiological model to analyze the genetic variability of the responses of maize leaf growth to temperature and water deficit. Plant Physiol. 131, 664 (2003).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
35. Gu, J., Yin, X., Zhang, C., Wang, H. & Struik, P. C. Linking ecophysiological modelling with quantitative genetics to support marker-assisted crop design for improved yields of rice (Oryza sativa) under drought stress. Annal. Bot. 114, 499–511 (2014).
    Article Google Scholar
36. Kadam, N. N., Krishna Jagadish, S., Struik, P. C., der Linden, C. & Yin, X. Incorporating genome-wide association into eco-physiological simulation to identify markers for improving rice yields. J. Exp. Bot. 70, 2575–2586 (2019).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
37. Bhakta, M. S. et al. A predictive model for time-to-flowering in the common bean based on QTL and environmental variables. G3-Genes Genom. Genet. 7, 3901–3912 (2017).
    CAS Google Scholar
38. Marshall-Colon, A. et al. Crops in silico: generating virtual crops using an integrative and multi-scale modeling platform. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 786 (2017).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
39. Zhu, X.-G. et al. Plants in silico: why, why now and what?—an integrative platform for plant systems biology research. Plant Cell Environ. 39, 1049–1057 (2016).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
40. Zhu, X.-G., Wang, Y. U., Ort, D. R. & Long, S. P. _e_-photosynthesis: a comprehensive dynamic mechanistic model of C3 photosynthesis: from light capture to sucrose synthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 36, 1711–1727 (2013).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
41. Kannan, K. et al. Combining gene network, metabolic and leaf-level models shows means to future-proof soybean photosynthesis under rising CO2. in silico. Plants 1, diz008 (2019).
    Google Scholar
42. Chew, Y. H. et al. Multiscale digital Arabidopsis predicts individual organ and whole-organism growth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E4127–E4136 (2014).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
43. Xiao, Y. et al. ePlant for quantitative and predictive plant science research in the big data era—Lay the foundation for the future model guided crop breeding, engineering and agronomy. Quant. Biol. 5, 260–271 (2017).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
44. Earles, J. M. et al. Embracing 3D complexity in leaf carbon–water exchange. Trends Plant Sci. 24, 15–24 (2018).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
45. Hansen, J. W. & Jones, J. W. Scaling-up crop models for climate variability applications. Agr. Syst. 65, 43–72 (2000).
    Article Google Scholar
46. Lawrence, D. M. et al. The Community Land Model version 5: description of new features, benchmarking, and impact of forcing uncertainty. J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy. 11, 4245–4287 (2019).
    Article Google Scholar
47. Peng, B. et al. Improving maize growth processes in the community land model: implementation and evaluation. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 250–251, 64–89 (2018).
    Article Google Scholar
48. Scanlon, B. R. et al. The food–energy–water nexus: transforming science for society. Water Resour. Res. 53, 3550–3556 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
49. Levis, S. et al. Interactive crop management in the Community Earth System Model (CESM1): seasonal influences on land–atmosphere fluxes. J. Climate 25, 4839–4859 (2012).
    Article Google Scholar
50. Osborne, T. et al. JULES-crop: a parametrisation of crops in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 1139–1155 (2015).
    Article Google Scholar
51. Wu, X. et al. ORCHIDEE-CROP (v0), a new process-based agro-land surface model: model description and evaluation over Europe. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 857–873 (2016).
    Article Google Scholar
52. Drewniak, B., Song, J., Prell, J., Kotamarthi, V. R. & Jacob, R. Modeling agriculture in the Community Land Model. Geosci. Model Dev. 6, 495–515 (2013).
    Article Google Scholar
53. Dunbabin, V. M. et al. Modelling root–soil interactions using three–dimensional models of root growth, architecture and function. Plant Soil 372, 93–124 (2013).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
54. Wang, Y. et al. Development of a three-dimensional ray-tracing model of sugarcane canopy photosynthesis and its application in assessing impacts of varied row spacing. BioEnerg. Res. 10, 626–634 (2017).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
55. Vos, J. et al. Functional–structural plant modelling: a new versatile tool in crop science. J. Exp. Bot. 61, 2101–2115 (2009).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
56. Bonan, G. B. et al. Modeling canopy-induced turbulence in the Earth system: a unified parameterization of turbulent exchange within plant canopies and the roughness sublayer (CLM-ml v0). Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 1467–1496 (2018).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
57. Ewert, F. et al. Scale changes and model linking methods for integrated assessment of agri-environmental systems. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 142, 6–17 (2011).
    Article Google Scholar
58. Müller, C. et al. Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 1403–1422 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
59. Elliott, J. et al. The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 261–277 (2015).
    Article Google Scholar
60. Rosenzweig, C. et al. The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): protocols and pilot studies. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 170, 166–182 (2013).
    Article Google Scholar
61. Hoffmann, H. et al. Impact of spatial soil and climate input data aggregation on regional yield simulations. PLoS ONE 11, e0151782 (2016).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
62. Chaney, N. W. et al. Harnessing big data to rethink land heterogeneity in Earth system models. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 3311–3330 (2018).
    Article Google Scholar
63. Webber, H. et al. Climate change impacts on European crop yields: do we need to consider nitrogen limitation? Eur. J. Agron. 71, 123–134 (2015).
    Article Google Scholar
64. Zimmermann, A. et al. Climate change impacts on crop yields, land use and environment in response to crop sowing dates and thermal time requirements. Agr. Syst. 157, 81–92 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
65. Boote, K. J., Jones, J. W., White, J. W., Asseng, S. & Lizaso, J. I. Putting mechanisms into crop production models. Plant Cell Environ. 36, 1658–1672 (2013).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
66. Asseng, S. et al. Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 827–832 (2013).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
67. Bassu, S. et al. How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors? Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2301–2320 (2014).
    Article Google Scholar
68. Fleisher, D. H. et al. A potato model intercomparison across varying climates and productivity levels. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 1258–1281 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
69. Li, T. et al. Uncertainties in predicting rice yield by current crop models under a wide range of climatic conditions. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1328–1341 (2015).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
70. Rosenzweig, C. et al. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3268–3273 (2014).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
71. Martre, P. et al. Multimodel ensembles of wheat growth: many models are better than one. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 911–925 (2015).
    Article Google Scholar
72. Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D. B., Ort, D. R. & Long, S. P. FACE-ing the facts: inconsistencies and interdependence among field, chamber and modeling studies of elevated [CO2] impacts on crop yield and food supply. New Phytol. 179, 5–9 (2008).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
73. Tao, F. et al. Why do crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections? A comprehensive analysis based on eight barley crop models. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 281, 107851 (2020).
    Article Google Scholar
74. Wang, E. et al. The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions. Nat. Plants 3, 17102 (2017).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
75. Wallach, D. et al. Multimodel ensembles improve predictions of crop–environment–management interactions. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5072–5083 (2018).
    Article Google Scholar
76. Rötter, R. P., Carter, T. R., Olesen, J. E. & Porter, J. R. Crop-climate models need an overhaul. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 175–177 (2011).
    Article Google Scholar
77. Manderscheid, R., Erbs, M. & Weigel, H.-J. Interactive effects of free-air CO2 enrichment and drought stress on maize growth. Eur. J. Agr. 52, 11–21 (2014).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
78. Ainsworth, E. A. & Long, S. P. What have we learned from 15 years of free‐air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta‐analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytol. 165, 351–372 (2005).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
79. Kimball, B. A. Lessons from FACE: CO2 effects and interactions with water, nitrogen, and temperature. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 31, 36–43 (2010).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
80. Kimball, B. A. Crop responses to elevated CO2 and interactions with H2O, N, and temperature. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 31, 36–43 (2016).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
81. Bernacchi, C. J., Kimball, B. A., Quarles, D. R., Long, S. P. & Ort, D. R. Decreases in stomatal conductance of soybean under open-air elevation of [CO2] are closely coupled with decreases in ecosystem evapotranspiration. Plant Physiol. 143, 134–144 (2007).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
82. Gray, S. B. et al. Intensifying drought eliminates the expected benefits of elevated carbon dioxide for soybean. Nat. Plants 2, 16132 (2016).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
83. Jin, Z., Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D. B. & Lobell, D. B. Increasing drought and diminishing benefits of elevated carbon dioxide for soybean yields across the US Midwest. Glob. Change Biol. 24, e522–e533 (2018).
    Article Google Scholar
84. Sanz-Sáez, Á. et al. Leaf and canopy scale drivers of genotypic variation in soybean response to elevated carbon dioxide concentration. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3908–3920 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
85. Bishop, K. A., Betzelberger, A. M., Long, S. P. & Ainsworth, E. A. Is there potential to adapt soybean (Glycine max Merr.) to future [CO2]? An analysis of the yield response of 18 genotypes in free-air CO2 enrichment. Plant Cell Environ. 38, 1765–1774 (2015).
    Article PubMed Google Scholar
86. Ainsworth, E. A. & Rogers, A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO2]: mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 30, 258–270 (2007).
    Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
87. Cai, C. et al. Responses of wheat and rice to factorial combinations of ambient and elevated CO2 and temperature in FACE experiments. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 856–874 (2016).
    Article Google Scholar
88. Ruiz-Vera, U. M., Siebers, M. H., Drag, D. W., Ort, D. R. & Bernacchi, C. J. Canopy warming caused photosynthetic acclimation and reduced seed yield in maize grown at ambient and elevated [CO2]. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4237–4249 (2015).
    Article Google Scholar
89. Sinclair, T. R. & Muchow, R. C. in Advances in Agronomy Vol. 65 (Ed. Sparks, D. L.) 215–265 (Academic Press, 1999).
90. Yin, X. & Struik, P. C. Can increased leaf photosynthesis be converted into higher crop mass production? A simulation study for rice using the crop model GECROS. J. Exp. Bot. 68, 2345–2360 (2017).
    Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
91. Vanuytrecht, E. & Thorburn, P. J. Responses to atmospheric CO2 concentrations in crop simulation models: a review of current simple and semicomplex representations and options for model development. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 1806–1820 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
92. Huntingford, C. et al. Implications of improved representations of plant respiration in a changing climate. Nat. Commun. 8, 1602 (2017).
    Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
93. Yin, X. Improving ecophysiological simulation models to predict the impact of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop productivity. Annal. Bot. 112, 465–475 (2013).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
94. Asseng, S., Kassie, B. T., Labra, M. H., Amador, C. & Calderini, D. F. Simulating the impact of source-sink manipulations in wheat. Field Crop. Res. 202, 47–56 (2017).
    Article Google Scholar
95. Emberson, L. D. et al. Ozone effects on crops and consideration in crop models. Eur. J. Agr. 100, 19–34 (2018).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
96. Ewert, F. & Porter, J. R. Ozone effects on wheat in relation to CO2: modelling short-term and long-term responses of leaf photosynthesis and leaf duration. Glob. Change Biol. 6, 735–750 (2000).
    Article Google Scholar
97. Guarin, J. R., Kassie, B., Mashaheet, A. M., Burkey, K. & Asseng, S. Modeling the effects of tropospheric ozone on wheat growth and yield. Eur. J. Agr. 105, 13–23 (2019).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
98. van Oijen, M., Dreccer, M. F., Firsching, K. H. & Schnieders, B. J. Simple equations for dynamic models of the effects of CO2 and O3 on light-use efficiency and growth of crops. Ecol. Model. 179, 39–60 (2004).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
99. Ainsworth, E. A., Yendrek, C. R., Sitch, S., Collins, W. J. & Emberson, L. D. The effects of tropospheric ozone on net primary productivity and implications for climate change. Annual Rev. Plant Biol. 63, 637–661 (2012).
    Article CAS Google Scholar
100. Tao, F., Feng, Z., Tang, H., Chen, Y. & Kobayashi, K. Effects of climate change, CO2 and O3 on wheat productivity in Eastern China, singly and in combination. Atmos. Environ. 153, 182–193 (2017).
     Article CAS Google Scholar
101. Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F. & Dahe, Q. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).
102. Lesk, C., Rowhani, P. & Ramankutty, N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 529, 84–87 (2016).
     Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
103. Barnabás, B., Jäger, K. & Fehér, A. The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant Cell Environ. 31, 11–38 (2008).
     PubMed Google Scholar
104. Eyshi Rezaei, E., Webber, H., Gaiser, T., Naab, J. & Ewert, F. Heat stress in cereals: mechanisms and modelling. Eur. J. Agr. 64, 98–113 (2015).
     Article Google Scholar
105. Prasad, P. V. V., Bheemanahalli, R. & Jagadish, S. V. K. Field crops and the fear of heat stress—Opportunities, challenges and future directions. Field Crop. Res. 200, 114–121 (2017).
     Article Google Scholar
106. Shi, W. et al. High day- and night-time temperatures affect grain growth dynamics in contrasting rice genotypes. J. Exp. Bot. 68, 5233–5245 (2017).
     Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
107. Peng, S. et al. Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 9971–9975 (2004).
     Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
108. Saini, H. S. & Westgate, M. E. in Advances in Agronomy Vol. 68 (Ed. Sparks, D. L.) 59–96 (Academic Press, 1999).
109. Mazdiyasni, O. & AghaKouchak, A. Substantial increase in concurrent droughts and heatwaves in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 11484–11489 (2015).
     Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
110. Lobell, D. B. et al. The shifting influence of drought and heat stress for crops in northeast Australia. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4115–4127 (2015).
     Article Google Scholar
111. Liu, B. et al. Testing the responses of four wheat crop models to heat stress at anthesis and grain filling. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1890–1903 (2016).
     Article Google Scholar
112. Barlow, K. M., Christy, B. P., O’Leary, G. J., Riffkin, P. A. & Nuttall, J. G. Simulating the impact of extreme heat and frost events on wheat crop production: a review. Field Crop. Res. 171, 109–119 (2015).
     Article Google Scholar
113. Siebert, S., Webber, H., Zhao, G. & Ewert, F. Heat stress is overestimated in climate impact studies for irrigated agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 054023 (2017).
     Article Google Scholar
114. Webber, H. et al. Diverging importance of drought stress for maize and winter wheat in Europe. Nat. Commun. 9, 4249 (2018).
     Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
115. Siebert, S., Ewert, F., Rezaei, E. E., Kage, H. & Graβ, R. Impact of heat stress on crop yield—on the importance of considering canopy temperature. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 044012 (2014).
     Article Google Scholar
116. Webber, H. et al. Physical robustness of canopy temperature models for crop heat stress simulation across environments and production conditions. Field Crop. Res. 216, 75–88 (2018).
     Article Google Scholar
117. Rosenzweig, C., Tubiello, F. N., Goldberg, R., Mills, E. & Bloomfield, J. Increased crop damage in the US from excess precipitation under climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 12, 197–202 (2002).
     Article Google Scholar
118. Ebrahimi-Mollabashi, E. et al. Enhancing APSIM to simulate excessive moisture effects on root growth. Field Crop. Res. 236, 58–67 (2019).
     Article Google Scholar
119. Li, Y., Guan, K., Schnitkey, G. D., DeLucia, E. & Peng, B. Excessive rainfall leads to maize yield loss of a comparable magnitude to extreme drought in the United States. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2325–2337 (2019).
     Article Google Scholar
120. Constantin, J. et al. Management and spatial resolution effects on yield and water balance at regional scale in crop models. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 275, 184–195 (2019).
     Article Google Scholar
121. Brilli, L. et al. Review and analysis of strengths and weaknesses of agro-ecosystem models for simulating C and N fluxes. Sci. Total Environ. 598, 445–470 (2017).
     Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
122. Luo, Y. et al. Toward more realistic projections of soil carbon dynamics by Earth system models. Global Biogeochem. Cy. 30, 40–56 (2015).
     Article CAS Google Scholar
123. Koven, C. D. et al. The effect of vertically resolved soil biogeochemistry and alternate soil C and N models on C dynamics of CLM4. Biogeosciences 10, 7109–7131 (2013).
     Article CAS Google Scholar
124. Tang, J. Y., Riley, W. J., Koven, C. D. & Subin, Z. M. CLM4-BeTR, a generic biogeochemical transport and reaction module for CLM4: model development, evaluation, and application. Geosci. Model Dev. 6, 127–140 (2013).
     Article CAS Google Scholar
125. Niu, S. et al. Global patterns and substrate-based mechanisms of the terrestrial nitrogen cycle. Ecol. Lett. 19, 697–709 (2016).
     Article PubMed Google Scholar
126. Rötter, R. P. et al. Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: a comparison of nine crop models. Field Crop. Res. 133, 23–36 (2012).
     Article Google Scholar
127. Palosuo, T. et al. Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of Europe: a comparison of eight crop growth models. Eur. J. Agr. 35, 103–114 (2011).
     Article Google Scholar
128. Ehrhardt, F. et al. Assessing uncertainties in crop and pasture ensemble model simulations of productivity and N2O emissions. Glob. Change Biol. 24, e603–e616 (2018).
     Article Google Scholar
129. Basso, B. et al. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen feedbacks on crop yields under climate change. Agricultural & Environmental Letters 3, 180026 (2018).
     Article CAS Google Scholar
130. Basso, B., Hyndman, D. W., Kendall, A. D., Grace, P. R. & Robertson, G. P. Can impacts of climate change and agricultural adaptation strategies be accurately quantified if crop models are annually re-initialized? PLoS ONE 10, e0127333 (2015).
     Article PubMed PubMed Central CAS Google Scholar
131. Kollas, C. et al. Crop rotation modelling—a European model intercomparison. Eur. J. Agr. 70, 98–111 (2015).
     Article Google Scholar
132. McDermid, S., Mearns, L. & Ruane, A. Representing agriculture in Earth system models: approaches and priorities for development. J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy. 9, 2230–2265 (2017).
     Article CAS Google Scholar
133. Deutsch, C. A. et al. Increase in crop losses to insect pests in a warming climate. Science 361, 916–919 (2018).
     Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
134. Savary, S. et al. Crop health and its global impacts on the components of food security. Food Secur. 9, 311–327 (2017).
     Article Google Scholar
135. Porter, J. H., Parry, M. L. & Carter, T. R. The potential effects of climatic change on agricultural insect pests. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 57, 221–240 (1991).
     Article Google Scholar
136. Donatelli, M. et al. Modelling the impacts of pests and diseases on agricultural systems. Agr. Syst. 155, 213–224 (2017).
     Article CAS Google Scholar
137. Lammoglia, S.-K. et al. Modelling pesticides leaching in cropping systems: effect of uncertainties in climate, agricultural practices, soil and pesticide properties. Environ. Modell. Softw. 109, 342–352 (2018).
     Article Google Scholar
138. Wang, R. et al. A review of pesticide fate and transport simulation at watershed level using SWAT: current status and research concerns. Sci. Total Environ. 669, 512–526 (2019).
     Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
139. Ruane, A. C. et al. An AgMIP framework for improved agricultural representation in IAMs. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 125003 (2017).
     Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
140. Rötter, R. P. et al. Linking modelling and experimentation to better capture crop impacts of agroclimatic extremes—a review. Field Crop. Res. 221, 142–156 (2018).
     Article Google Scholar
141. Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U. S. crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15594–15598 (2009).
     Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
142. Grunwald, S., Thompson, J. & Boettinger, J. Digital soil mapping and modeling at continental scales: finding solutions for global issues. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75, 1201–1213 (2011).
     Article Google Scholar
143. Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids1km—global soil information based on automated mapping. PLoS ONE 9, e105992 (2014).
     Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
144. Chaney, N. W. et al. POLARIS soil properties: 30-meter probabilistic maps of soil properties over the contiguous United States. Water Resour. Res. 55, 2916–2938 (2019).
     Article Google Scholar
145. Han, E., Ines, A. V. M. & Koo, J. Development of a 10-km resolution global soil profile dataset for crop modeling applications. Environ. Modell. Softw. 119, 70–83 (2019).
     Article Google Scholar
146. Coucheney, E. et al. Key functional soil types explain data aggregation effects on simulated yield, soil carbon, drainage and nitrogen leaching at a regional scale. Geoderma 318, 167–181 (2018).
     Article CAS Google Scholar
147. Pongratz, J. et al. Models meet data: challenges and opportunities in implementing land management in Earth system models. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1470–1487 (2018).
     Article Google Scholar
148. Gbegbelegbe, S. et al. Baseline simulation for global wheat production with CIMMYT mega-environment specific cultivars. Field Crop. Res. 202, 122–135 (2017).
     Article Google Scholar
149. Woodard, J. D. et al. The power of agricultural data. Science 362, 410–411 (2018).
     Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
150. Minet, J. et al. Crowdsourcing for agricultural applications: a review of uses and opportunities for a farmsourcing approach. Comput. Electron. Agr. 142, 126–138 (2017).
     Article Google Scholar
151. van Bussel, L. G. J., Ewert, F. & Leffelaar, P. A. Effects of data aggregation on simulations of crop phenology. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 142, 75–84 (2011).
     Article Google Scholar
152. Boryan, C., Yang, Z., Mueller, R. & Craig, M. Monitoring US agriculture: the US department of agriculture, national agricultural statistics service, cropland data layer program. Geocarto Int. 26, 341–358 (2011).
     Article Google Scholar
153. Xie, Y., Lark, T. J., Brown, J. F. & Gibbs, H. K. Mapping irrigated cropland extent across the conterminous United States at 30 m resolution using a semi-automatic training approach on Google Earth Engine. ISPRS J. Photogramm. 155, 136–149 (2019).
     Article Google Scholar
154. Azzari, G. et al. Satellite mapping of tillage practices in the North Central US region from 2005 to 2016. Remote Sens. Environ. 221, 417–429 (2019).
     Article Google Scholar
155. Seifert, C. A., Azzari, G. & Lobell, D. B. Satellite detection of cover crops and their effects on crop yield in the Midwestern United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064033 (2018).
     Article Google Scholar
156. Urban, D., Guan, K. & Jain, M. Estimating sowing dates from satellite data over the U. S. Midwest: a comparison of multiple sensors and metrics. Remote Sens. Environ. 211, 400–412 (2018).
     Article Google Scholar
157. Lobell, D. B., Sibley, A. & Ortiz-Monasterio, J. I. Extreme heat effects on wheat senescence in India. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 186–189 (2012).
     Article Google Scholar
158. Sakamoto, T. et al. A two-step filtering approach for detecting maize and soybean phenology with time-series MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 2146–2159 (2010).
     Article Google Scholar
159. Baldocchi, D. et al. FLUXNET: A new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem–scale aarbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. B. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 82, 2415–2434 (2001).
     Article Google Scholar
160. Kimball, B. A. et al. Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: an inter-comparison among 29 maize models. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 271, 264–284 (2019).
     Article Google Scholar
161. Boote, K. J., Prasad, V., Allen, L. H. Jr, Singh, P. & Jones, J. W. Modeling sensitivity of grain yield to elevated temperature in the DSSAT crop models for peanut, soybean, dry bean, chickpea, sorghum, and millet. Eur. J. Agr. 100, 99–109 (2017).
     Article Google Scholar
162. Lobell, D. B. et al. Greater sensitivity to drought accompanies maize yield increase in the U. S. Midwest. Science 344, 516–519 (2014).
     Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
163. Lobell, D. B. & Asseng, S. Comparing estimates of climate change impacts from process-based and statistical crop models. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 015001 (2017).
     Article CAS Google Scholar
164. Roberts, M. J., Braun, N. O., Sinclair, T. R., Lobell, D. B. & Schlenker, W. Comparing and combining process-based crop models and statistical models with some implications for climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 095010 (2017).
     Article Google Scholar
165. Guan, K. et al. The shared and unique values of optical, fluorescence, thermal and microwave satellite data for estimating large-scale crop yields. Remote Sens. Environ. 199, 333–349 (2017).
     Article Google Scholar
166. Luo, Y., Guan, K. & Peng, J. STAIR: a generic and fully-automated method to fuse multiple sources of optical satellite data to generate a high-resolution, daily and cloud-/gap-free surface reflectance product. Remote Sens. Environ. 214, 87–99 (2018).
     Article Google Scholar
167. Viña, A., Gitelson, A. A., Nguy-Robertson, A. L. & Peng, Y. Comparison of different vegetation indices for the remote assessment of green leaf area index of crops. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3468–3478 (2011).
     Article Google Scholar
168. Anderson, M. et al. Mapping daily evapotranspiration at field to continental scales using geostationary and polar orbiting satellite imagery. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sc. 15, 223–239 (2011).
     Article Google Scholar
169. Cai, Y. et al. Integrating satellite and climate data to predict wheat yield in Australia using machine learning approaches. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 274, 144–159 (2019).
     Article Google Scholar
170. Huang, J. et al. Assimilation of remote sensing into crop growth models: current status and perspectives. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 276–277, 107609 (2019).
     Article Google Scholar
171. Asseng, S. et al. Model-driven multidisciplinary global research to meet future needs: the case for “improving radiation use efficiency to increase yield”. Crop Sci. 59, 843–849 (2019).
     Article Google Scholar
172. Vermeulen, S. et al. Climate change, agriculture and food security: a global partnership to link research and action for low-income agricultural producers and consumers. Curr. Opin. Env. Sust. 4, 128–133 (2012).
     Article Google Scholar

Download references