Improving crop modeling to better simulate maize yield variability under different irrigation managements

Abstract Efforts to understand and quantify how a changing climate can impact agriculture often rely on bias-corrected and downscaled climate information, making it important to quantify potential biases of this approach. Previous studies typically focus their uncertainty analyses on climatic variables and are silent on how these uncertainties propagate into human systems through their subsequent incorporation into econometric models. Here, we use a multi-model ensemble of statistically downscaled and bias-corrected climate models, as well as the corresponding CMIP5 parent models, to analyze uncertainty surrounding annual maize yield variability in the United States. We find that the CMIP5 models considerably overestimate historical yield variability while the bias-corrected and downscaled versions underestimate the largest historically observed yield shocks. We also find large differences in projected yields and other decision-relevant metrics throughout this century, leaving stakeholders with modeling choices that require navigating trade-offs in resolution, historical accuracy, and projection confidence.

Abstract How maize yield responds to precipitation variability in space and time over broader scales is largely unknown compared with the well-understood temperature response, even though precipitation change is more erratic with greater spatial heterogeneity. Here, we develop a method to quantify the spatially explicit precipitation response of maize yield using statistical data and crop models in the contiguous United States. We find the precipitation responses are highly heterogeneous with inverted-U (40.3%) being the leading response type, followed by unresponsive (30.39 %), and linear increase (28.6%). The optimal precipitation threshold derived from inverted-U response exhibits considerable spatial variations, which is higher under wetter, hotter, and well-drainage conditions but lower under drier and poor-drainage conditions. Irrigation alters precipitation response by making yield either unresponsive to precipitation or having lower optimal thresholds than rainfed conditions. We further find that the observed precipitation responses of maize yield are misrepresented in crop models, with a too high percentage of increase type (59.0% versus 29.6%) and an overestimation in optimal precipitation threshold by ~90 mm. These two factors explain about 30% and 85% of the inter-model yield overestimation biases under extreme rainfall conditions. Our study highlights the large spatial heterogeneity and the key role of human management in the precipitation responses of maize yield, which need to be better characterized in crop modeling and food security assessment under climate change.

Abstract. JULES-crop is a parametrisation of crops in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES). We investigate the sources of the interannual variability in the modelled maize yield, using global runs driven by reanalysis data, with a view to understanding the impact of various approximations in the driving data and initialisation. The standard forcing dataset for JULES consists of a combination of meteorological variables describing precipitation, radiation, temperature, pressure, specific humidity and wind, at subdaily time resolution. We find that the main characteristics of the modelled yield can be reproduced with a subset of these variables and using daily forcing, with internal disaggregation to the model timestep. This has implications in particular for the use of the model with seasonal forcing data, which may not have been provided at subdaily resolution for all required driving variables. We also investigate the effect on annual yield of initialising the model with climatology on the sowing date. This approximation has the potential to considerably simplify the use of the model with seasonal forecasts, since obtaining observations or reanalysis output for all the initialisation variables required by JULES for the start date of the seasonal forecast would present significant practical challenges.

Abstract. Crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop yields at the global scale, but so far there is no general framework on how to assess model performance. Here we evaluate the simulation results of 14 global gridded crop modeling groups that have contributed historic crop yield simulations for maize, wheat, rice and soybean to the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). Simulation results are compared to reference data at global, national and grid cell scales and we evaluate model performance with respect to time series correlation, spatial correlation and mean bias. We find that global gridded crop models (GGCMs) show mixed skill in reproducing time series correlations or spatial patterns at the different spatial scales. Generally, maize, wheat and soybean simulations of many GGCMs are capable of reproducing larger parts of observed temporal variability (time series correlation coefficients (r) of up to 0.888 for maize, 0.673 for wheat and 0.643 for soybean at the global scale) but rice yield variability cannot be well reproduced by most models. Yield variability can be well reproduced for most major producing countries by many GGCMs and for all countries by at least some. A comparison with gridded yield data and a statistical analysis of the effects of weather variability on yield variability shows that the ensemble of GGCMs can explain more of the yield variability than an ensemble of regression models for maize and soybean, but not for wheat and rice. We identify future research needs in global gridded crop modeling and for all individual crop modeling groups. In the absence of a purely observation-based benchmark for model evaluation, we propose that the best performing crop model per crop and region establishes the benchmark for all others, and modelers are encouraged to investigate how crop model performance can be increased. We make our evaluation system accessible to all crop modelers so that other modeling groups can also test their model performance against the reference data and the GGCMI benchmark.