Abstract

Abstract. Crop growth in land surface models normally requires high-temporal-resolution climate data (3-hourly or 6-hourly), but such high-temporal-resolution climate data are not provided by many climate model simulations due to expensive storage, which limits modeling choices if there is an interest in a particular climate simulation that only saved monthly outputs. The Community Land Surface Model (CLM) has proposed an alternative approach for utilizing monthly climate outputs as forcing data since version 4.5, and it is called the anomaly forcing CLM. However, such an approach has never been validated for crop yield projections. In our work, we created anomaly forcing datasets for three climate scenarios (1.5 ∘C warming, 2.0 ∘C warming, and RCP4.5) and validated crop yields against the standard CLM forcing with the same climate scenarios using 3-hourly data. We found that the anomaly forcing CLM could not produce crop yields identical to the standard CLM due to the different submonthly variations, crop yields were underestimated by 5 %–8 % across the three scenarios (1.5, 2.0 ∘C, and RCP4.5) for the global average, and 28 %–41 % of cropland showed significantly different yields. However, the anomaly forcing CLM effectively captured the relative changes between scenarios and over time, as well as regional crop yield variations. We recommend that such an approach be used for qualitative analysis of crop yields when only monthly outputs are available. Our approach can be adopted by other land surface models to expand their capabilities for utilizing monthly climate data.

Highlights

  • Increasing numbers of future climate scenarios exhibit large uncertainties for crop yield projections

  • We found that the anomaly forcing Community Land Surface Model (CLM) could not produce crop yields identical to the standard CLM due to the different submonthly variations, crop yields were underestimated by 5 %–8 % across the three scenarios (1.5, 2.0 ◦C, and RCP4.5) for the global average, and 28 %–41 % of cropland showed significantly different yields

  • Given that anomaly forcing has the same monthly mean as the standard CLM forcing, can we use it for crop yield projections?

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Increasing numbers of future climate scenarios exhibit large uncertainties for crop yield projections. Crop yields may increase or decrease depending on which climate projection is used (Lobell et al, 2008; Rosenzweig et al, 2014; Urban et al, 2012). Ensemble future climate projections, such as CMIP5, showed a large range of future climate projections, even for one emission scenario (Knutti and Sedlacek, 2013). A small portion of the CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5) simulations (< 25 %) can be used as the forcing data for crop models, leaving little room for crop modelers to choose a particular climate model projection that is of interest

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call