Skip to main content
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ
  • Submit
  • About
    • Editorial Board
    • PNAS Staff
    • FAQ
    • Rights and Permissions
    • Site Map
  • Contact
  • Journal Club
  • Subscribe
    • Subscription Rates
    • Subscriptions FAQ
    • Open Access
    • Recommend PNAS to Your Librarian

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Home
Home

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Features
    • Colloquia
    • Collected Articles
    • PNAS Classics
    • Archive
  • Front Matter
  • News
    • For the Press
    • Highlights from Latest Articles
    • PNAS in the News
  • Podcasts
  • Authors
    • Information for Authors
    • Purpose and Scope
    • Editorial and Journal Policies
    • Submission Procedures
    • For Reviewers
    • Author FAQ

New Research In

Physical Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Applied Mathematics
  • Applied Physical Sciences
  • Astronomy
  • Computer Sciences
  • Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences
  • Engineering
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Mathematics
  • Statistics

Social Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Anthropology
  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Economic Sciences
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Political Sciences
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Social Sciences

Biological Sciences

Featured Portals

  • Sustainability Science

Articles by Topic

  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Anthropology
  • Applied Biological Sciences
  • Biochemistry
  • Biophysics and Computational Biology
  • Cell Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology
  • Environmental Sciences
  • Evolution
  • Genetics
  • Immunology and Inflammation
  • Medical Sciences
  • Microbiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Pharmacology
  • Physiology
  • Plant Biology
  • Population Biology
  • Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
  • Sustainability Science
  • Systems Biology
Biological Sciences

Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison

Cynthia Rosenzweig, Joshua Elliott, Delphine Deryng, Alex C. Ruane, Christoph Müller, Almut Arneth, Kenneth J. Boote, Christian Folberth, Michael Glotter, Nikolay Khabarov, Kathleen Neumann, Franziska Piontek, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Erwin Schmid, Elke Stehfest, Hong Yang, and James W. Jones
PNAS March 4, 2014 111 (9) 3268-3273; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222463110
Cynthia Rosenzweig
aNational Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025;bColumbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, New York, NY 10025;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: cynthia.rosenzweig@nasa.gov
Joshua Elliott
bColumbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, New York, NY 10025;cUniversity of Chicago Computation Institute, Chicago, IL 60637;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Delphine Deryng
dTyndall Centre and School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alex C. Ruane
aNational Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY 10025;bColumbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, New York, NY 10025;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christoph Müller
ePotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14473 Potsdam, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Almut Arneth
fInstitute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Atmospheric Environmental Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 82467 Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kenneth J. Boote
gAgricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christian Folberth
hEAWAG – Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael Glotter
iDepartment of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nikolay Khabarov
jEcosystems Services and Management Program (ESM), International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg A-2361, Austria;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kathleen Neumann
kPlanbureau voor de Leefomgeving (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency), 3720 AH, Bilthoven, The Netherlands;lWageningen University, 6700 AK, Wageningen, The Netherlands; and
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Franziska Piontek
ePotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, 14473 Potsdam, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Thomas A. M. Pugh
fInstitute of Meteorology and Climate Research, Atmospheric Environmental Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, 82467 Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erwin Schmid
mUniversity of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, 1180 Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Elke Stehfest
kPlanbureau voor de Leefomgeving (Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency), 3720 AH, Bilthoven, The Netherlands;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Hong Yang
hEAWAG – Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology 8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
James W. Jones
gAgricultural and Biological Engineering Department, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611;
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  1. Edited by Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany, and approved June 4, 2013 (received for review January 31, 2013)

This article has a Correction. Please see:

  • Correction to Supporting Information for Rosenzweig et al., Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison
  • Article
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & SI

Figures

  • Fig. 1.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 1.

    Mean relative yield change (%) from reference period (1980–2010) compared to local mean temperature change (°C) in 20 top food-producing regions for each crop and latitudinal band. Results shown for the 7 GGCMs (6 for rice) for all GCM combinations of RCP8.5 compared to results from IPCC AR4 (represented as orange dots and quadratic fit; 36). Quadratic least-squares fits are used to estimate the general response for the GGCMs with explicit nitrogen stress (EPIC, GEPIC, pDSSAT, and PEGASUS; red line) and for those without (GAEZ-IMAGE, LPJ-GUESS, and LPJmL; green line). The 15–85% range of all models for each ¼°C band is represented in gray. Limits of local temperature changes reflect differences in projected warming in current areas of cultivation.

  • Fig. 2.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 2.

    Average reference period (1980–2010) GGCM maize yield (A–F, H), rescaled to a common global average to make the spatial patterns more apparent, and historical yield M3 observation set (G) (39). Note that because some models are calibrated and others are not and because some models simulate potential rather than actual yields, it is not advisable to compare the absolute yields in the ensemble with observations.

  • Fig. 3.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 3.

    Median yield changes (%) for RCP8.5 (2070–2099 in comparison to 1980–2010 baseline) with CO2 effects over all five GCMs x seven GGCMs (6 GGCMs for rice) for rainfed maize (35 ensemble members), wheat (35 ensemble members), rice (30 ensemble members), and soy (35 ensemble members). Hatching indicates areas where more than 70% of the ensemble members agree on the directionality of the impact factor. Gray areas indicate historical areas with little to no yield capacity. The bottom 8 panels show the corresponding yield change patterns over all five GCMs x four GGCMs with nitrogen stress (20 ensemble members from EPIC, GEPIC, pDSSAT, and PEGASUS; except for rice which has 15) (Left); and 3 GGCMs without nitrogen stress (15 ensemble members from GAEZ-IMAGE, LPJ-GUESS, and LPJmL).

  • Fig. 4.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 4.

    Relative change (%) in RCP8.5 decadal mean production for each GGCM (based on current agricultural lands and irrigation distribution) from ensemble median for all GCM combinations with (solid) and without (dashed) CO2 effects for maize, wheat, rice, and soy; bars show range of all GCM combinations with CO2 effects. GEPIC, GAEZ-IMAGE, and LPJ-GUESS only contributed one GCM without CO2 effects.

  • Fig. 5.
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Fig. 5.

    Absolute deviation of decadal average production changes from ensemble median yield changes (as fraction of 1980–2010 reference period mean production) for all GCM × GGCM combinations in RCP2.6 (dark blue), RCP4.5 (light blue), RCP6.0 (orange), and RCP8.5 (red) for maize, wheat, rice, and soy with (Upper) and without (Lower) CO2 effects. Simulations in A with CO2 effects included five GCMs and seven GGCMs (35 members), whereas GAEZ-IMAGE, GEPIC, and LPJ-GUESS ran only a single GCM without CO2 effects, resulting in 23 members in B.

Data supplements

  • Supporting Information

    Files in this Data Supplement:

    • Download Appendix (PDF)
PreviousNext
Back to top
Article Alerts
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on PNAS.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison
(Your Name) has sent you a message from PNAS
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the PNAS web site.
Citation Tools
Global multi-model crop-climate impact assessment
Cynthia Rosenzweig, Joshua Elliott, Delphine Deryng, Alex C. Ruane, Christoph Müller, Almut Arneth, Kenneth J. Boote, Christian Folberth, Michael Glotter, Nikolay Khabarov, Kathleen Neumann, Franziska Piontek, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Erwin Schmid, Elke Stehfest, Hong Yang, James W. Jones
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Mar 2014, 111 (9) 3268-3273; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1222463110

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
Global multi-model crop-climate impact assessment
Cynthia Rosenzweig, Joshua Elliott, Delphine Deryng, Alex C. Ruane, Christoph Müller, Almut Arneth, Kenneth J. Boote, Christian Folberth, Michael Glotter, Nikolay Khabarov, Kathleen Neumann, Franziska Piontek, Thomas A. M. Pugh, Erwin Schmid, Elke Stehfest, Hong Yang, James W. Jones
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Mar 2014, 111 (9) 3268-3273; DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1222463110
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 116 (49)
Current Issue

Submit

Sign up for Article Alerts

Article Classifications

  • Biological Sciences
  • Agricultural Sciences
  • Social Sciences
  • Sustainability Science

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • 1. Global Gridded Crop Models
    • 2. Comparison with Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report Results
    • 3. GGCM Structural Differences
    • 4. Current and Future Yield Simulations
    • 5. Discussion and Conclusions
    • Materials and Methods
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & SI
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

You May Also be Interested in

Modulating the body's networks could become mainstream therapy for many health issues. Image credit: The Feinstein Institutes for Medicine Research.
Core Concept: The rise of bioelectric medicine sparks interest among researchers, patients, and industry
Modulating the body's networks could become mainstream therapy for many health issues.
Image credit: The Feinstein Institutes for Medicine Research.
Adaptations in heart structure and function likely enabled endurance and survival in preindustrial humans. Image courtesy of Pixabay/Skeeze.
Human heart evolved for endurance
Adaptations in heart structure and function likely enabled endurance and survival in preindustrial humans.
Image courtesy of Pixabay/Skeeze.
Viscoelastic carrier fluids enhance retention of fire retardants on wildfire-prone vegetation. Image courtesy of Jesse D. Acosta.
Viscoelastic fluids and wildfire prevention
Viscoelastic carrier fluids enhance retention of fire retardants on wildfire-prone vegetation.
Image courtesy of Jesse D. Acosta.
Water requirements may make desert bird declines more likely in a warming climate. Image courtesy of Sean Peterson (photographer).
Climate change and desert bird collapse
Water requirements may make desert bird declines more likely in a warming climate.
Image courtesy of Sean Peterson (photographer).
QnAs with NAS member and plant biologist Sheng Yang He. Image courtesy of Sheng Yang He.
Featured QnAs
QnAs with NAS member and plant biologist Sheng Yang He
Image courtesy of Sheng Yang He.

Similar Articles

Site Logo
Powered by HighWire
  • Submit Manuscript
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • RSS Feeds
  • Email Alerts

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Archive

PNAS Portals

  • Classics
  • Front Matter
  • Teaching Resources
  • Anthropology
  • Chemistry
  • Physics
  • Sustainability Science

Information

  • Authors
  • Editorial Board
  • Reviewers
  • Press
  • Site Map
  • PNAS Updates

Feedback    Privacy/Legal

Copyright © 2019 National Academy of Sciences. Online ISSN 1091-6490