EyshiRezaei2023climate Impacts

nature reviews earth & environment https://doi.org/10.
1038/s43017-023-00491-0
Review article Check for updates
Climate change impacts

on crop yields
Ehsan Eyshi Rezaei 1 , Heidi Webber 1,2, Senthold Asseng 3
, Kenneth Boote4, Jean Louis Durand5, Frank Ewert1,6,
Pierre Martre 7 & Dilys Sefakor MacCarthy 8
Abstract Sections
Climate change challenges efforts to maintain and improve crop Introduction
production in many regions. In this Review, we examine yield responses Driving mechanisms of yield
to warmer temperatures, elevated carbon dioxide and changes in water change
availability for globally important staple cereal crops (wheat, maize, Yield response to climate
drivers
millet, sorghum and rice). Elevated CO2 can have a compensatory effect
on crop yield for C3 crops (wheat and rice), but it can be offset by heat Relative yield impacts
and adaptation
and drought. In contrast, elevated CO2 only benefits C4 plants (maize,
Implications for global
millet and sorghum) under drought stress. Under the most severe production
climate change scenario and without adaptation, simulated crop yield
Summary and future
losses range from 7% to 23%. The adverse effects in higher latitudes could perspectives
potentially be offset or reversed by CO2 fertilization and adaptation
options, but lower latitudes, where C4 crops are the primary crops,
benefit less from CO2 fertilization. Irrigation and nutrient management
are likely to be the most effective adaptation options (up to 40% in
wheat yield for higher latitudes compared with baseline) but require
substantial investments and might not be universally applicable,
for example where there are water resource constraints. Establishing
multifactor experiments (including multipurpose cultivar panels),
developing biotic stress modelling routines, merging process-based and
data-driven models, and using integrated impact assessments, are all
essential to better capture and assess yield responses to climate change.
1
Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany. 2Institute of Environmental
Sciences, Brandenburg University of Technology, Cottbus, Germany. 3Department of Life Science Engineering,
Digital Agriculture, HEF World Agricultural Systems Center, Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany.
4
Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. 5Unité de Recherches
Pluridisciplinaire Prairies et Plantes Fourragères (P3F), INRAE, Lusignan, France. 6Institute of Crop Science and
Resource Conservation (INRES), University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany. 7LEPSE, Université Montpellier, INRAE,
Institut Agro Montpellier, Montpellier, France. 8Soil and Irrigation Research Centre, College of Basic and Applied
Sciences, University of Ghana, Kpong, Ghana. e-mail: EhsanEyshi.Rezaei@zalf.de
Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Review article
Introduction through the stomata for both photosynthesis types18. However, this
Barring major shifts in diet towards plant-based diets1, increased cereal phenomenon is observed at leaf level, whereas at canopy level, crop
crop production will be required to meet the future food demands of water use can even increase in C3 crops under elevated CO2, as leaf area
a larger and more affluent world population. Compared with 2010, increases with greater biomass accumulation and under improved
global total food demand is projected to increase by 30–62% by 20502. water status. Some evidence suggests that increasing CO2 concentra-
Meeting this demand is possible through sustainable intensification, tions could adversely affect grain protein concentration by increasing
particularly for world regions currently far below potential production3. non-structural carbohydrates and lowering protein levels19–21.
With cropland expansion posing unacceptable threats to biodiversity
and the environment2,4, increased production must primarily come Water availability
from higher crop yields, with improved cultivars and/or the closing of In rainfed production systems, water availability is determined by the
yield gaps associated with suboptimal crop management5. balance of water supply (precipitation, groundwater use) and water
Climate change is expected to affect yields and will challenge demand (daily evaporative demand over the growing season dura-
efforts to increase yields in many world regions, where higher tem- tion). Water or drought stress can delay seed germination, leading to
peratures will further intensify drought stress and drive faster crop reduced crop densities and less optimal plant stands22. Drought stress
development, as well as increasing crop yield variability and the risk of reduces leaf area production and photosynthesis23 through stomatal
yield failures6,7. Conversely, several regions (such as southern Europe) closure and later damage to the photosynthesis apparatus, reducing
and crops (winter wheat) could experience yield increases owing to Rubisco activity and thylakoid membrane stability24. However, feed-
elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures backs of reduced biomass assimilation to reduced leaf area expansion
extending the growing season in temperate and cold regions8. Altered can reduce rates of soil water use, potentially slowing down further
growth and development processes in response to warmer tempera- drought stress. Beyond effects of stomatal conductance on photosyn-
tures will change water demand and supply, and elevated atmospheric thesis and water use, drought can increase crop temperature as a result
CO2 concentration is a key contributor to crop yield change under of stomatal closure, which accelerates development and intensifies
climate change. leaf senescence rate, resulting in yield penalties25. Finally, drought
The interactions between impacts of elevated temperatures and can increase the partitioning of assimilate to roots26 or increase stem
changes in water availability and CO2 fertilization on crop yield are spe- carbohydrate translocation to grains27, with the ultimate effect of these
cific to the crop, cultivar, production system and region9–11. Attribution stress pathways dependent on drought characteristics28–30.
of yield change to different climate drivers and underlying processes Conversely, crop growth and yield can be reduced by too much
is indispensable to designing, implementing and testing practical water, as expected with more intense rainfall events. Restricted oxygen
and effective regional-specific adaptation strategies12,13. As countries availability under excessive soil water hampers root growth and nutri-
work to meet their Paris Agreement commitments, a comprehensive ent uptake, and leads to stomatal closure. This stomatal closure results
comparison of projected climate impacts across regions and crops in chlorophyll degradation, reduced light interception by canopies for
can inform targeted policies and interventions to build the resilience photosynthesis, and reduced grain number and single-grain weight31,
of global crop production, explicitly highlighting regional disparities consequently decreasing crop yields32. Under excessive water, phenology
in crop yields14. could be substantially delayed as it can slow the leaf appearance rate33.
In this Review, we summarize existing evidence on climate change
impacts on crop yields for staple food cereals at both regional and High temperatures, heat and frost stress
global scales, considering observational and process-based crop model Temperature affects many growth and yield formation processes in
projections. Additionally, we explore the response of crops to tempera- crops. Depending on the process and current ambient temperatures,
ture, elevated CO2, and water availability, drawing on evidence from warmer temperature can lead to increased or decreased yield. One key
experimental results, both individually and in combination with each process strongly influenced by temperature is crop development rate.
other. We discuss the knowledge gaps in process understanding, the Higher temperatures generally act to shorten the growing period by
uncertainties and the limitations in available crop models, and propose accelerating development rates and thereby reducing potential radia-
potential options for addressing each challenge individually. Finally, tion interception by canopies, leading to reductions in potential bio-
we compile evidence about the potential of adaptation options to mass accumulation and yield34. However, warmer temperatures could
offset adverse impacts. extend potential growing season length by altering expected frost dates
such that longer season cultivars or new crops can be grown in some
Driving mechanisms of yield change temperate regions. Increased crop yields have been reported due to
This section provides a brief overview of the primary mechanisms extended growing periods and reduced likelihood of frost damage at
influencing crop yield amid climate change. higher latitudes under climate change35.
Higher temperatures also raise the daily crop water demand as
Elevated carbon dioxide saturation vapour pressure increases, leading to a relatively drier air
Elevated CO2 enhances photosynthesis while inhibiting photores- and more drought stress if soil water supply does not increase36. Higher
piration owing to increased carboxylation activity of the enzyme vapour pressure deficit increases drought stress, but, depending on
Rubisco (Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase)15,16. Such the crop species, it can also do so in the absence of soil water deficit
a response is substantially more pronounced in C3 crops (wheat and or under moderate to mild water deficit. Heat stress, or extreme heat
rice) than in C4 (maize, millet and sorghum), as CO2 is concentrated episodes around anthesis and grain-filling stages, can cause substan-
around Rubisco in C4 species owing to anatomical and biochemical tial yield loss because of reduced grain number due to pollen sterility,
modifications17. Stomatal conductance decreases under elevated CO2, grain abortion, reduced assimilate transport to grains and accelerated
thus enhancing transpiration efficiency and minimizing water loss leaf senescence37.

Review article
In addition, high temperature increases photorespiration38 crop phenological stage62. With these caveats in mind, there are some
(mainly in C3s) and also reduces photosynthesis as a result of impaired lessons to be drawn from the wide body of reporting on crop response to
metabolic functioning and oxidative damage to chloroplasts39. Under drought stress. There are clearly differences in drought response
drought conditions, root growth and function are more susceptible to among crop species. Wheat yield is least affected by drought when
heat than shoots; hence, higher soil temperatures contribute to yield stress intensity is comparable (Fig. 1b), with maize having a much
losses, driven by the restriction of nutrients and water uptake40–42. greater sensitivity to drought stress63. The sample size of available
Increased night-time temperatures can cause decreases in cereal experimental results (cumulative sum of the reported treatments
yields of 4–7% per degree Celsius rise43,44 due to an increase in night across the studies) for millet (n = 75) and aerobic rice (n = 75) was sub-
respiration45, although there is disagreement46. The risk of exposure stantially less than for wheat (n = 583), maize (n = 580) and sorghum
of actively growing plants to late-spring frosts is increased under cli- (n = 170), constraining fair comparison among those crops (Fig. 1b).
mate change, particularly in Asia and Europe47,48, because anthesis is For excess water, there were very few assessments investigating
accelerated and damage to reproductive organs would severely affect millet (pot experiments), but many field experiments for wheat, maize
crop yield49. In addition, diminished snow-cover insulation by warmer and rice yield response to waterlogging (Fig. 1c). Sorghum had the
temperatures would exacerbate the risk of frost damage on crop yield50. greatest sensitivity (−42% compared with control), followed by maize
(−35%), then wheat (−28%) (Fig. 1c). The extent of yield penalties is deter-
Other driving factors mined by the duration of the waterlogging period and the phenological
Elevation in ground-level ozone concentration near pollution sources stage at which it occurs, independent of the study crop64. However,
negatively affects crop growth under climate change51,52. Higher ozone excess water can also lead to yield reductions through indirect effects
levels reduce photosynthesis and stomatal conductance, and acceler- such as nitrogen leaching65, increased pest and disease pressure66,
ate rates of respiration53. Other yield-reducing factors, including pest, and delays in field operations. Hence, these results are conservative.
disease and weed damage, are also influenced by climate change54, Yield response to elevated temperature depends on the ambient
although such ramifications are rarely taken into account in climate range and degree of warming, as well as the crop-specific cardinal
change impact assessments. A substantial increase in pest and disease temperatures67, particularly for critical development phases such
outbreaks, along with a geographical shift, has been observed at both as anthesis68. Sorghum and millet tend to tolerate greater ranges of
the regional and global scales, threatening crop yields55–57. The com- temperature increases compared with C3 crops such as wheat and
plex interactions among crop, climate, nutrients (mainly nitrogen rice (Fig. 1d), explaining their ability to thrive in warmer climates.
and phosphorus)58, pests, disease and weeds make it challenging to Most experiments exploring the effects of heat stress also targeted the
consider those factors in process-based modelling59. anthesis and grain-filling periods69 as the most vulnerable phenological
stages. In these stages, C3 crop yield was reduced by 30%, but such a
Yield response to climate drivers steep reduction was not apparent for C4 crops (−10% compared with
Changes in temperature, water availability and CO2 concentration are control) (Fig. 1e). Maize and wheat yields respond linearly to increases
the principal contributors to changes in yield under climate change. in seasonal mean temperature (Fig. 1e). However, the type of yield
This section summarizes the yield response to these drivers indi- response to warming is regional and cultivar-specific, as the ambient
vidually, then examines the response to their co-occurrence through temperature conditions could be either near or far from the crop’s
experimental evidence. particular temperature optimum70,71.
Individual drivers Co-occurring drivers

The photosynthesis rate of C3 crops is more responsive to CO2 con- The frequency of extreme heat and drought co-occurrence72,73 is pro-
centration than that of C4 crops60. At the same time, the amount of jected to increase under climate change by up to a factor of six74, but
available experimental evidence for crop yield response to elevated there is relatively limited experimental evidence of the effects of multi-
atmospheric CO2 concentration is much larger for C3 crops than for C4 ple stresses, such as combined heat and drought and interactions with
crops (Fig. 1a). According to free-air CO2 enrichment experiments (FACE, CO2, on crop yield. The available experimental evidence suggests that
Box 1), elevated CO2 (550–590 ppm) increased wheat and rice yield by the compound effects of heat and drought stress have more adverse
about 17% relative to ambient concentrations (350 ppm) at the time impacts on growth and yield of wheat75, maize76, rice77 and sorghum78
the experiments were conducted. Maize and sorghum yields were not than individual stresses (antagonistic and additive interactions79).
increased by elevated CO2 under irrigation, but were increased under Similarly, the combination of heat and drought leads to synergistic
combined elevated CO2 and drought (Fig. 1a). Yield benefits for maize interactions80 in other species, such as barley81 and tobacco82, resulting
and sorghum can be up to 41% in presence of drought (Fig. 1a) through in more adverse effects from the combined stressors than the sum of
the influence of elevated CO2 on stomatal conductance and water con- the individual stresses. Cereal grain yield (wheat, maize, rice and barley)
servation. There are no published FACE data available for millet, but in can be reduced by 60% under heat and drought stress, whereas drought
confined open-top chamber experiments, millet had a wide range of stress alone led to a reduction of 40% and heat stress alone caused a
yield responses (7–37%) under different magnitudes of CO2 enrichment. reduction of 30%69. However, the yield of both C3 (mainly soybean,
However, comparisons between results from FACE and non-FACE experi- wheat, groundnut, barley, canola and rice) and C4 (mainly maize) crops
ments can be biased; non-FACE platforms could typically implement was affected equally by combined heat and drought stress69.
higher CO2 concentrations because maintaining high levels of CO2 in Many crops exhibit increased stomatal conductance in response
such facilities is substantially less challenging and costly61. to heat stress, which acts to regulate leaf temperature through
Understanding crop response to drought stress is challenging, as transpiration cooling83. However, drought stress restricts stoma-
drought stress will vary in duration, intensity, timing and frequency tal conductance as a mechanism for managing water loss84. As a
(during a growing season) and in how these factors correspond with result of the prevailing drought signal dominating the heat signal

Review article
a CO2-driven yield changes b Drought-driven yield changes

Wheat
Wheat n = 11 OTC n = 65 Maize
Wheat n = 583 Rice
GH n=4
Maize n=6 Millet
Maize
n = 580 Sorghum
CC n = 12
Rice n = 149 0 10 20 30 40 50 30 40 50 60
n = 75 Reduction in water availability (%)
OTC, n = 10 Rice
Millet
n = 37
n=6 Millet
Sorghum
Under drought n = 6 n = 170
Maize/sorghum Sorghum
0 10 20 30 40 50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0

Yield change (%) Yield change (%)
c Waterlogging-driven yield changes d Cardinal temperature range for crucial phenological stages
Field
Wheat Anthesis
Wheat n = 87 Grain filling
Field Maize
Maize n = 178
Pot Rice
n=5
Millet
Millet
Field
n = 15
Sorghum Sorghum
–75 –50 –25 0 10 20 30 40

Yield change (%) Cardinal temperatures (°C)
e Yield versus seasonal mean temperature

20
n = 21
Maize
Yield change by heat stress (%)
Wheat n = 99
0
15
n = 423 y = –0.8273x + 29.082

–25
R2: 0.39
Yield (t ha–1)
10 –50
n = 12
C4 C3
5
y = –0.4316x + 13.823
R2: 0.83
0
15 20 25 30 35
Season mean temperature (°C)
Fig. 1 | Carbon-dioxide-, temperature- and water-availability-driven relative relationship between yield and seasonal mean temperature for maize221
yield changes. a, Yield change under elevated CO2 (550–590 ppm) in free-air and wheat222,223. The inset presents heat stress effects on yield of crops with
CO2 enrichment (FACE) platforms. The inset indicates yield response using C3 and C4 photosynthetic pathways69. n indicates the number of samples
different non-FACE CO2-imposing methods for wheat (CC, controlled climate (cumulative sum of the reported treatments). Triangles or circles indicate the
chambers; GH, greenhouse; OTC, open-top chambers)61,92,211–214. b, Effects of mean, and error bars the 95% prediction band using one-way ANOVA (panels
drought on yield of selected crops in field experiments. The inset illustrates a, b and c) or the minimum and maximum data values within 1.5 times the
the corresponding reduction in water availability for those experiments63. interquartile range (e). C3 (wheat and rice) and C4 (maize, sorghum and millet)
c, Yield change from waterlogging (or flooding) under field conditions (or pot crops exhibit divergent responses to CO2, water availability and temperature
conditions for millet)64,215–218. d, The cardinal temperatures of selected crops, extremes; C3 crops largely benefit from higher CO2 levels, whereas C4 crops
including minimum (blue), optimum (star) and maximum (red) temperatures demonstrate greater resilience to temperature fluctuations and exhibit yield
at anthesis (circle) and grain-filling (triangle) phases67,68,219,220. e, The linear increases in specific conditions of drought coupled with elevated CO2.
(observed for wheat85 and maize86), stomatal closure in leaves is sus- Drought and elevated CO2 also interact, but because of the com-
tained. The resulting elevated leaf temperatures can lead to poten- plex nature of drought stress62,87, which includes varying types, inten-
tially irreversible damage to growth processes such as photosynthesis, sities, durations and timings, generalizing the interactions between
ultimately resulting in higher yield penalties80. CO2 and drought88 on crop yield is challenging. There is evidence that

Review article
Box 1
Methods to study climate change impacts on crop yield

Experimental platforms There are advantages and disadvantages of commonly used
The selection of a suitable experimental platform depends experimental platforms for examining the impact of climate
primarily on the specific research question, crop species, variables on crop growth and development (see figure; GCM,
spatiotemporal scale of the investigation, technical proficiency, general circulation model; CGM, crop growth model; SSP, Shared
flexibility to implement various treatments, and budget constraints. Socioeconomic Pathway).
a Methods capturing crop response to CO2, water and temperatures

Experimental platforms Main advantages Main limitations
Controlling
variables Field-based heat units
• High flexibility • Low light intensity
Water • Cost-effective • High relative humidity
Temperature • Higher potential for • Limited for testing
Temperature-gradient tunnels
Cost of establishment and maintenance
Low
population scanning heat episodes

CO2 • Robust temperature • Reproducibility
E and rainfall control challenge
Rainout shelter AC
n/F
i
Ra
Free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) • Extensive

• Precise control for engineering
temperature, water knowledge
requirement
FA
and CO2
Temperature free-air controlled
CE
• Can be integrated by • High maintenance

/
enhancement (T-FACE)
T-
High
FA
other agronomic and energy cost

CE
management
treatments • Restricted
Closed growth chambers
experimental design
(controlled and field scale) • Reproducibility (for
• Need for electricity
chambers)
access within the
field
Open-top chambers
b Process-based modeling for climate change impact assessments
Soil Future climate (GCMs) Genetics Management Yield statistics

Model
inputs
SSPs Adaptation options Yield trials
CGMs
processes
Modeled
Development; light interception; resource capture; CO2 effects; • Parametrization

water stress; nutrient stress; carbon assimilation; partitioning; • Validation
evapotranspiration; yield formation
Spatial pattern of yield under specific SSP scenario Temporal pattern of yield under SSP scenarios
Baseline
Scenario 1
Model outputs
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Low High
Past Future
Simulated yield

Review article
(continued from previous page)

Process-based models a particular climate change scenario. In these assessments, scenario
Process-based crop models are mathematical equations that data generated by Earth system or coupled ocean–climate models
reflect crop growth and development processes in relation to forced by baseline (representing different levels of warming from
the environment (climate and soil), agronomic management and different concentrations of greenhouse gas forcing237) are used with
genotype234–236. These models can play an important role in assessing spatially explicit driving data (such as daily climate variables) in crop
climate change impacts using two primary approaches. They can models. As attributes of future cultivars and advancements in
be paired with experimental data to examine hypotheses regarding management practices and agro-technologies are not available,
the impact of specific climate variables or their combinations while the climate change effects on yield are often presented as relative
controlling for the influences of local weather, soil and management yield changes. The relative benefits of adaptation strategies (such
practices, thus contributing to process understanding. as irrigation, sowing date, climate-resilient cultivars) on crop yields
In another approach, climate change impact assessments are quantified using crop models by implementing management
frequently make use of process-based crop models to simulate how decisions interacting with future climate scenarios relative to yield
crop growth, yield, water use or other variables change in response to levels in a reference climate12,238,239.
elevated CO2 levels mitigate some drought damage, for example lead- research focusing on the effects of sequential stresses103, which can
ing to a 44% reduction in drought damage to yield88 in C3 crops, such substantially influence crop yield through stress acclimation104 and
as wheat, mainly owing to reduced stomatal water loss89. Nonetheless, stress memory105, has been largely absent in context of climate change
other experimental findings suggest that the mitigation of drought impact assessment. Crop experiments typically test a limited number
damage by elevated CO2 levels is considerably smaller (0–18%) for of cultivars, which probably do not encompass the full range of poten-
the yield of C3 crops such as wheat90 and soybean91. Elevated CO2 also tial responses to multiple climatic stresses. Similarly, phenotypic
partially mitigates drought penalties on maize yield (by 41%)92 and plasticity in response to climate change and crop yield responses to
sorghum yield (15%)93. Rice plants maintain photosynthesis for a longer changes in plant–microbe interactions106 resulting from combined
period under drought stress and elevated CO2 levels, and their photo- climatic stressors are underexplored. Despite their inherent uncer-
synthesis rate recovers more quickly after experiencing drought com- tainties and limitations, crop models remain indispensable tools
pared with ambient CO2 conditions94. The interaction between elevated for assessing the impacts of climate change and devising effective
CO2 levels and mild-to-moderate drought intensity results in improved adaptation strategies.
water-use efficiency by modulating stomatal conductance without
disrupting photosynthesis95. In contrast, sustained drought had a more Relative yield impacts and adaptation
substantial influence on stomatal behaviour than CO2 levels96. Overall, Process-based crop models have been frequently used to simulate the
CO2 has compensatory effects, but they cannot fully offset the negative potential impacts of climate change on crop growth and productivity.
impacts of drought on yield92,97. They also quantify the ability of adaptation strategies to offset the
Three-way interactions of heat, drought and elevated CO2 have adverse effects of climate change on crop yields. This section outlines
primarily been investigated in experiments with wheat98. Elevated CO2 the regional disparities in simulated relative yield impacts and the
levels combined with a 2 °C temperature rise in the warm temperate adaptation potential of different management options, not only focus-
climate of Western Australia increased wheat grain yield and biomass ing on wheat, maize and rice, but also extending the analysis to include
independent of soil water status. However, when temperatures exceed millet and sorghum, key food security crops in Sub-Saharan Africa.
2 °C above the baseline, the cumulative CO2 benefits diminish in combi-
nation with drought99. The combination of heat and drought intensified Yield impacts
the negative impact on yield as well as compromising the mitigating Under mild-to-extreme warming climate scenarios without adaptation
effect of elevated CO2 (ref. 100). Despite the limited evidence available, options, temperature increases are expected to decrease the relative
it seems that crop yield response to multiple stress interactions could yield of all study crops by −6.2% to −18.3% in tropical and temperate
be cultivar-specific85. The interactions between the drivers (CO2, heat regions (Fig. 2). These impacts are stronger in the tropics (+2% to −37%)
and drought) and crop growth processes are not uniform; instead, they than in temperate regions (+4% to −20%) (Fig. 2). For maize, the mean and
are interdependent. For instance, drought can amplify heat damage probability density of yield change is nearly equal between tropical
through stomatal closure101. Alternatively, elevated CO2 can decrease a and temperate regions for various levels of warming, but the same does
crop’s water requirements102. The importance of each driver is influenced not hold for other crops (Fig. 2). In the tropics, impact projections for
by a range of factors such as the environment, crop species, genotype rice and sorghum are more variable than in temperate regions, but the
and agronomic management practices. As such, it poses a challenge to average change was similar. However, the projected impacts for millet
universally determine which driver and process have the most significant show a reverse pattern (Fig. 2).
influence on yield. Experimental efforts need to be individually adapted In general, climate change is expected to affect crop yield more
and integrated with modelling to quantify the contribution of each driver adversely in the tropics than in temperate regions, although the dif-
under a simultaneous change in water status, temperature and CO2 to ference is not statistically significant107. Temperature sensitivity is the
yield across genotypes, environments and management practices. primary driver of increased crop yield penalties in tropical regions.
Several critical processes that must be considered in impact Crops grown in these areas are already near their optimal temperature
assessment studies are currently poorly understood. Experimental thresholds, and so any additional temperature increase exacerbates the

Review article
a Wheat b Maize
40
n = 73
n = 70
n = 56
20
n = 30
n = 31
n = 19
Yield change (%)
0 n=6
n = 14
n = 16
–20
n = 44
n = 47
n = 22
–40
–60
c Rice d Millet
40
20
n = 15
n = 24
n=4
n = 14
n=6
n = 11
Yield change (%)
n = 12
n = 24
n = 47
n=8
n=6
n = 12
–20
–40
–60
e Sorghum
40
Temperate
20
Tropical
Yield change (%)
0
n=6
n = 12
n = 39
n=6
–20
n = 10
n = 30
–40
–60
<2 <2–4 >4

Mean temperature increase (°C)
Fig. 2 | Projected yield changes under temperature increase scenarios. potential multimodalities. Incorporated boxplots show the interquartile
a, The probability density (violin and boxplot) of yield change relative to range and median value, summarizing the central tendency and spread of
baseline without implementing adaptation practices for wheat in temperate the data. n indicates the number of samples. b, As in a, but for maize224. c, As
(Europe, United States, Andean region and Southern Africa; green) and tropical in a, but for rice224. d, As in a, but for millet118,139,143,144,224–230. e, As in a, but for
(Brazil, Central Africa, Central America, East Africa, Sahel, South Asia, Southeast sorghum118,139,225,226,229,230. Under scenarios of mild-to-extreme warming without
Asia, West Africa and West Asia; brown) regions under three temperature rise adaptation measures, all studied crops experience reduced yields, but with
scenarios (increase of <2 °C, 2–4 °C and >4 °C)224. The violin plot, using kernel pronounced differences between tropical and temperate zones.
density estimation, illustrates the full data distribution including peaks and
negative impact on yields108. An additional factor that has a large role There is a notable imbalance in the crops considered in climate
is the dominance of C4 crops in the tropics109, which receive minimal change impact assessments: wheat dominates (77%; fractions result
benefits from CO2 fertilization compared with C3 crops. from weighting when more than one crop was assessed in a single

Review article
a Wheat
100
Yield change (%)
50
–50
Australia China France Germany India Russia USA

b Maize
100
Yield change (%)
50
–50
Argentina Brazil China France Romania Ukraine USA
c Rice
100
Yield change (%)
50
–50
Bangladesh China India Indonesia
d Millet
100
Yield change (%)
50
–50
India West Africa

e Sorghum
100
Yield change (%)
50
–50
India West Africa
Merged SSP1–2.6 SSP5–8.5 <1 <1–3 3–5 5–8 8–10 10–15 15–20 >20
Thousand ha per 0.5° × 0.5° grid

Review article
Fig. 3 | Projected yield change compared with baseline across main selected regions232. b, As in a, but for maize. c, As in a, but for rice. d, As in a, but
crop-specific growing areas. a, Projected changes in country-level wheat yields for millet, with changes relative to various baselines, and results derived from
under low (SSP1-2.6; green) and high (SSP5-8.5; orange) emission scenarios for merging of region-specific modelling assessments117,144,233. e, As in d, but for
2069–2099 relative to 1983–2013, with results derived from a grid-based model sorghum. Although yield projections for major crop-growing regions vary,
ensemble231. Circles indicate the mean, and error bars indicate minimum and potentially substantial positive impacts are expected for wheat in Australia
maximum data values within 1.5 times the interquartile range. The map depicts and China, contrasting with generally negative projections for maize, especially
the extent of growing areas (rainfed + irrigated) at 0.5° × 0.5° resolution for in the United States, and mixed outcomes for rice, sorghum and millet.
publication), followed by maize (54%), rice (25%) and a minor contribu- and model parametrization) in a crop model ensemble for barley in
tion from sorghum (4%) and millet (0.8%)110. An insufficient number boreal and Mediterranean climate zones124. However, a systematic
of millet impact projections and the absence of model ensembles review across the crops and environments indicates that the input
hinder a robust conclusion for this crop. Most climate change impact uncertainty is the most frequently considered source of uncertainty125.
assessments were carried out in Asia (41%) and Europe (22%)111; only 9% The potential of process-based models is also limited by the lack
and 15% were conducted in South America and Africa, respectively111. of implementation of several crucial processes. For instance, it is com-
Yield impact projections under sustainable development (Shared mon for models to use air temperature rather than canopy tempera-
Socioeconomic Pathway SSP1-2.6) and high-end (SSP5-8.5) emissions ture, which can lead to an over- or underestimation of heat impact on
pathways112 are highly variable in the major crop-growing regions yield126. An additional limitation in crop models arises from the absence
(Fig. 3). Australia (+25% compared with baseline) and China (+25% of specific processes in crop models such as stress acclimation127 and
compared with baseline) are projected to experience the largest posi- stress memory. Furthermore, pest and disease effects128 are generally
tive wheat yield impacts in SSP5-8.5 and SSP1-2.6, respectively. The not considered, which is particularly relevant for low-input systems.
impacts on wheat yield in other regions vary from +8.5% (SSP1-2.6) Finally, there is a reliance on air temperature rather than canopy tem-
to +13.5% (SSP5-8.5) relative to baseline (Fig. 3). As opposed to wheat, perature for simulating crop development, and root–soil interactions
mean projected yield impacts for maize are negative (SSP1-2.6, −0.3% are often oversimplified as a 1D structure, ignoring their 3D nature129.
to −8%; SSP5-8.5, −10% to −35%) for the main growing areas under Most crop models are calibrated based on baseline climate and
climate change, particularly in the United States. Merging the results are used to evaluate yield responses to substantially warmer, drier
of different emission scenarios, crop models and time windows in a or wetter conditions. If the model is not sensitive to dependencies
meta-analysis focusing on the European Union indicated a relatively on temperature, CO2 and soil water conditions, projected responses
similar difference between wheat (+14%) and maize (−6%)113. The dis- could be inaccurate. Moreover, several crop growth and development
tinct yield response of wheat and maize on shifting from a low-emission traits, including yield components, are highly susceptible to interac-
to high-emission scenario can be attributed to the minor impacts of tions between genotype and environment108. Crop model limitations
elevated CO2 on photosynthesis efficiency in maize, a C4 crop, com- in accurately reflecting yield component variations could be related
pared with substantial positive effects for photosynthesis in wheat, to the models’ lack of ability to capture the differences in expression
a C3 crop114. of those traits across diverse environments129. This inability could
Projected impacts on rice yield in China, India, Bangladesh and introduce a high degree of uncertainty in the results of these models
Indonesia range between 0% and 10% for both emission scenarios when they are used to analyse the impact of climate change on yield.
(Fig. 3). The variability in maize, wheat and rice impacts is substan-
tially greater in the high-end emission scenario owing to the rise in Adaptation
extreme weather occurrences, especially temperature effects115,116. Adaptation (changes from the practices in the baseline) is defined as an
Millet (−3%) and sorghum (−11%) yield reduces under climate change activity that alleviates the negative or accentuates the positive impacts
relative to baseline in West Africa, whereas sorghum yield improves of climate change on crop yield and production111. The effectiveness of
by 22% in India (Fig. 3). The marginal projected yield decline could be adaptation strategies varies with latitude and the type of adaptation
overcompensated by up to 13% by the implementation of common option and emission scenario for wheat, maize and rice, explored here
adaptation practices (changes from the business-as-usual scenario) in in 2080 (Fig. 4). Among published studies considering adaptation
West Africa117. Other projections suggest that intensifying millet and strategies, nutrient management (the change in the dosage, type and
sorghum in West Africa would increase yields under climate change, but timing of fertilizer) represents 32% of studies, followed by irrigation
also increase yield sensitivity to further temperature rise118. Analysing (29%), change in cultivar (17%) and sowing dates (17%)111.
the cumulative change in wheat, maize and rice yield under climate Irrigation and nutrient management as individual adaptation
change indicates that Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East and North Africa options and in combination (−5% to +40% compared with baseline
are significantly different (greater yield decline) from other regions107. yield) with other strategies (sowing date, and adapted cultivars) (−18%
to +15%) can offset negative impacts of climate change on a global
Model uncertainties scale (Fig. 4). In practice, however, the growing demand for irriga-
There is great uncertainty in these process-based crop model pro- tion water has become more challenging to address owing to climate
jections, related to model structure119, the consideration of CO2 change, placing a substantial burden on available water resources130.
fertilization110, input datasets including general circulation models120 Irrigation presents additional challenges as it is also linked to soil
and data aggregation across spatial scales121, cultivar differences122 and salinization131, nutrient leaching and the need for substantial infra-
methodologies used to develop modelling routines capturing climate structure investments132. The sustainability and feasibility of promis-
signals on crop growth123. Variation in model structure accounted for ing adaptations, such as irrigation, depend on various factors like the
the majority of yield uncertainty (as opposed to climate downscaling environment133,134.

Review article
a Wheat Fig. 4 | Mean relative yield change in response to climate change under
40 n = 71 various adaptation practices. a, Change in wheat yields by latitude under
various adaptation practices in 2080 relative to 1960–1990. Yields are derived
from multiple simulations by crop models across varied projected future
20 windows and emission scenarios relative to the baselines107. The lines in
each panel indicate the best regression fit of data extracted from individual
Yield change (%)
assessments, aggregated to the country level as the centroid of each country107.

0
n indicates number of countries. b, As in a, but for maize. c, As in a, but for
rice. Irrigation and nutrient management are particularly effective adaptation
strategies, potentially more so than altering sowing dates and using adapted
cultivars, in mitigating the negative impacts of climate change on wheat, maize
–20
and rice yields by 2080, albeit with latitudinal and crop variations.
–40
–50 0 50
change adaptation has not been extensively examined in impact assess-
b Maize ments, as relevant cultivar panel data for crop model calibration is often
40 n = 76 unavailable. Other robust yet less-examined adaptation practices, such
as the diversification138 of cropping systems, can also considerably
enhance yield resilience to climate change.
20 Wheat yield exhibits the best potential for adaptation options as a
temperate C3 cereal across latitudes. Maize and rice yield would not be
Yield change (%)
fully compensated for by adaptation strategies in the tropics (Fig. 4). In

0 light of the limited number of large-scale adaptation studies available
for sorghum (five countries139–142) and millet (four countries143,144) and
difference in projected future windows, a fair comparison with other
–20
crops (>60 countries) is not possible. Additional research is greatly
needed to perform a comprehensive comparison of the efficacy of
adaptation strategies among different crops. The few available results
–40
indicate that irrigation, change in sowing dates and changes of cultivars
–50 0 50
might reverse the climate change impacts on yield and could also assist
c Rice pest management145. Yet adaptation practices suffer from implemen-
40 n = 69 tation difficulties146 and serious concerns related to available water
resources147, sociocultural barriers148, environmental consequences149
and sustainability150. It is therefore challenging to generalize which
20 adaptation strategy can provide the most promising outcome glob-
ally. Instead, implementation of regional and crop-specific strategies
Yield change (%)
would be likely to be more effective. Targeted implementation can

0 be done by integrating crop with socioeconomic models that incor-
porate multiscale trade-offs among a variety of socioeconomic and
environmental variables.
–20
Implications for global production

In high-latitude regions, expected warmer temperatures and CO2 ferti-
–40
lization could have positive impacts on yield, which could, in turn, have
–50 0 50 a positive impact on production151. However, intensifying of weather
Latitude
extremes in those areas would lead to increased yield variability and
Dynamic irrigation Dynamic irrigation with nutrient fluctuating global market conditions, causing uncertainty for main
Sowing date and new cultivars management producers, inflating prices and restricting exports to food-insecure
Sowing date with new cultivars
and irrigation regions, particularly in the case of synchronous shocks152. Climate
extremes affected many crop exporters in 2007–2008, exacerbating
the structural causes of world food prices153 and even triggering price
Other adaptation practices, such as earlier sowing dates, have explosions154 and political instability155 in some regions.
also shown notable potential to cope with heat in the case of Australian Crop production in lower latitudes might suffer severely from
wheat135. Additionally, new cultivars have demonstrated robust poten- climate change156, particularly for C4 crops such as maize, which are
tial to alleviate the adverse effects of climate change on crop yields in less positively affected by CO2 increase. The projected increase in
China136. Similarly, the long-term breeding advancements in Western cropping frequency (number of production seasons per year) at higher
Europe under optimal management have enhanced the adaptability latitudes would only partially offset greater decline in lower latitudes
of modern wheat cultivars to low-rainfall conditions under low-input (such as Brazil and Sub-Saharan African countries), leading to a global
management regimes137. The effect of changing cultivars on climate production decline (−4.2 ± 2.5% in a high-emissions scenario, SSP5-8.5)

Review article
by 2050157. In a high-emissions scenario (RCP8.5), without implementa- be overcome, including data deficiencies, limited process understand-
tion of adaptation strategies, production of four major crops (wheat, ing and implementation into crop models, and the need for improved
maize, rice and soybean) at the global scale was projected to reduce integrated assessment tools.
by approximately 2%158. This production is far below the production Availability and quality of large-scale and high-resolution climate,
increment required to meet food demand for the growing population crop, soil and management data are regionally variable. Data limitation
with changing diets159, affirming the necessity of swift and effective in Africa contributes to a large degree of uncertainty for climate impact
adaptations160. studies175,176 — Asia and Africa are covered by only 12% of available climate
Crop production is not solely driven by yield, but also by the extent stations, despite consisting of close to half the land mass of the Earth177
of harvested area, changes in consumption pattern161 and food waste162. and having substantial diversity in management practices178. Moreover,
Therefore, quantifying the effects of climate change on production is uncertainty in soil data is larger than the climate signal in yield projec-
more complex than merely analysing yield responses157, as both crop tions under low-input cropping systems179. The lack of high-resolution
production and yield would be affected by climate change through cultivar-specific and agronomic management data is a challenge in
distinct mechanisms163. Shifts in harvested area in response to climate large-scale yield projections that are forced using aggregated inputs180.
change are generally gradual owing to socioeconomic constraints164, Aggregation eliminates spatiotemporal heterogeneity of simulations
rapid changes in policies165 (such as the use of chemicals in Europe) and within the simulation units and creates bias121. Uncertainties in simulated
subsidies166 (such as durum wheat insurance in Italy). A 5.6-million-km2 impact stem from data quality and other uncertainties propagating
expansion in suitable growing areas is projected under climate change through integrated climate assessment into economic models181. High
by 2100, in high latitudes (primarily in Canada, China and Russia)167. spatiotemporal resolution of crop phenology182, leaf area expansion183,
However, the intensification opportunities for most of the current crop water status184 and nutrient status185 is needed, and should be widely
croplands will be severely restricted by 2050156. accessible through large-scale sensing technologies and integrated into
Most impact assessments have assumed no change in the geograph- crop models through data assimilation186.
ical distribution of cropping areas, which seems to be a strong over New experiments that span from the organ to the canopy scales
simplification of reality168. A historical global-scale analysis (1973–2012) in both controlled environments and field settings are needed to
showed that crop immigration to more temperature-favourable areas understand yield responses to multiple stressors. Newly established
(including crop substitution) and irrigation expansion alleviated the high-throughput phenotyping platforms, such as PhenoSphere187,
damaging impacts of rising temperatures (both for mean and heat have been constructed to manipulate temperature, water and CO2
episodes) on wheat, maize and rice, aiding yield and crop production164. levels for a broad array of cultivars, providing sub-daily monitoring
Such a strategy might not be feasible or sustainable in the future169. measures for the growth and development of both aboveground and
More than a 5% expansion in irrigated areas would be needed at lower belowground organs, and can deliver a means for tackling these gaps
latitudes by 2050 to counterbalance climate-driven crop produc- in understanding. Furthermore, increased investment in fusing mod-
tion loss at global scale157. This expansion would be challenging, as elling approaches and experimentation188–191 can provide a way to
those areas are already suffering from droughts170 and from lack of disentangle and quantify yield responses to individual yield-driven vari-
resources to invest in irrigation infrastructure171. In regions with suf- ables. Integrating crop models with data-driven algorithms, including
ficient irrigation water resources in the current climate, there is still a machine learning, can offer hybrid modelling solutions that effectively
risk of progressive soil salinization, as increased water demand due to capture interactions between multiple stress factors that affect crop
climate change could mandate the use of more brackish water to meet growth processes189.
the growing need172. In addition, the availability of land for a further Given a rising potential for pest and disease damage under cli-
shift is limited, and the negative consequences of such a shift, such as mate change and the limited ability of crop models to account for
losing biodiversity, water quality and soil carbon storage, would be biotic stresses, the call to integrate these effects into crop models is
severe and inevitable7,173,174. increasing192. Advances in integration have focused on modelling the
life cycle of biotic stressors in conjunction with crop phenology, rather
Summary and future perspectives than general routines that use empirical functions that reduce yield
Climate change impacts on yield vary between the crop, region and (through decreased photosynthesis or leaf area) at a fixed rate adjusted
adaptation strategies. Compared with other crops, wheat demon- by temperature or soil moisture193. This approach enables more accu-
strates the best prospects for positive responses to climate change, rate representation of the coincidence between pest activity and sensi-
largely through CO2 fertilization and adaptation strategies. Maize, tive growth stages of crops as well as improved modelling of resource
sorghum and millet are only positively affected by elevated CO2 when competition. It can be conceptualized in a two-way feedback system
crops are exposed to mild-to-moderate drought and tend to be less that interconnects insect pests and crops driven by temperature, water
negatively affected by heat stress than wheat and rice. Unfortunately, status and atmospheric CO2 concentration194.
there is no single universally feasible solution to fully mitigate the nega- Models often overlook the interactions of multiple stressors
tive impacts of climate change on yield. However, a combination of (simultaneously or in a row) on crop growth, thereby providing an
region-specific adaptation practices could offset yield loss, or even implausible yield response to climate change189. Indeed, model struc-
reverse it, particularly for crops grown in temperate regions. Irriga- ture contributes significantly more to projected yield uncertainty than
tion and nutrient management are the most promising adaptation climate projections and model parameterization124. Yield projection
options, but negative climate impacts in tropical regions would not uncertainties could be better addressed by design and implementation
be fully offset by any adaptation option. Moreover, extreme weather of combined model and experimental studies for crops and cultivars
events represent considerable threats to future food security at the grown in low-input systems195 and under multiple stresses189 that reflect
global scale. To better predict and mitigate climate change impacts on the yield response to a simultaneous change in climate variables196. The
crops, the shortcomings in climate change impact assessments must CO2 compensatory potential in impact assessments warrants further

Review article
investigation, as FACE experiments (Box 1) used for model calibration 11. Wang, X. et al. Effects of elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality in five wheat cultivars.
J. Agron. Crop Sci. 208, 733–745 (2022).
can underestimate the yield enhancement by about 30% owing to rapid 12. Lobell, D. B. Climate change adaptation in crop production: beware of illusions.
fluctuation of CO2 concentration (10-fold greater than in nature) during Glob. Food Sec. 3, 72–76 (2014).
the growing season197. Previous studies based on FACE have suggested 13. Webber, H., Gaiser, T. & Ewert, F. What role can crop models play in supporting
climate change adaptation decisions to enhance food security in Sub-Saharan Africa?
that crop models overestimate CO2 impacts on yield, but this has been Agric. Syst. 127, 161–177 (2014).
challenged198. Further encouraging the use of targeted model ensembles 14. Salm, L., Nisbett, N., Cramer, L., Gillespie, S. & Thornton, P. How climate change interacts
also deserve attention to minimize structural model uncertainty199. with inequity to affect nutrition. WIREs Clim Change https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.696
(2021).
Model ensembles outperform individual models in projected 15. Xu, Z., Jiang, Y. & Zhou, G. Response and adaptation of photosynthesis, respiration, and
yield response to climate change122,200,201. The organization of model antioxidant systems to elevated CO2 with environmental stress in plants. Front. Plant Sci.
ensembles is complex and time-consuming, making the selection of an 6, 701 (2015).
16. Dusenge, M. E., Duarte, A. G. & Way, D. A. Plant carbon metabolism and climate change:
appropriate combination crucial. The outcomes of the AgMIP-wheat elevated CO2 and temperature impacts on photosynthesis, photorespiration and
activity, a leading crop modelling intercomparison, showed that respiration. New Phytol. 221, 32–49 (2019).
17. Wang, D. et al. Effects of elevated CO2 on the tolerance of photosynthesis to acute heat
increasing the number of models in an ensemble significantly improved
stress in C3, C4, and CAM species. Am. J. Bot. 95, 165–176 (2008).
the model ensemble’s accuracy up to 10 models, but showed only 18. Wang, M. et al. Effects of different elevated CO2 concentrations on chlorophyll contents,
marginal improvement beyond that199. Lessons learned from the cli- gas exchange, water use efficiency, and PSII activity on C3 and C4 cereal crops in
a closed artificial ecosystem. Photosynth. Res. 126, 351–362 (2015).
mate modelling community indicated the need for a systematic model
19. Ainsworth, E. A. et al. A meta-analysis of elevated [CO2] effects on soybean (Glycine max)
selection protocol along with calibration protocols202 to ensure equal physiology, growth and yield. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 695–709 (2002).
weighting of models with different structures, rather than merely pool- 20. Högy, P. et al. Effects of elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality of wheat: results from
a 3-year free-air CO2 enrichment experiment. Plant Biol. 11, 60–69 (2009).
ing as many models as possible in a random manner. Using probabilistic
21. Du, Y., Lu, R. & Xia, J. Impacts of global environmental change drivers on non‐
data-driven approaches such as machine learning may significantly structural carbohydrates in terrestrial plants. Funct. Ecol. 34, 1525–1536 (2020).
improve the parametrization performance by addressing spatiotem- 22. Kumar, A. et al. Yield and yield-attributing traits of rice (Oryza sativa L.) under lowland
drought and suitability of early vigor as a selection criterion. Field Crops Res. 114, 99–107
poral heterogeneity in cultivars and management inputs for large-scale
(2009).
assessments203–205. 23. Boyer, J. S. Leaf enlargement and metabolic rates in corn, soybean, and sunflower at
There is also a critical need to integrate biophysical yield assess- various leaf water potentials. Plant Physiol. 46, 233–235 (1970).
24. Farooq, M., Wahid, A., Kobayashi, N., Fujita, D. & Basra, S. M. A. Plant drought stress:
ments with economics and environmental models in order to consider effects, mechanisms and management. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 29, 185–212 (2009).
multiscale trade-offs with a range of socioeconomic and environmental 25. Purushothaman, R. et al. Association of mid-reproductive stage canopy temperature
variables, such as nitrogen losses, soil organic matter change, nutri- depression with the molecular markers and grain yields of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.)
germplasm under terminal drought. Field Crops Res. 174, 1–11 (2015).
tional quality and yield suitability181,206–208. Integrated assessments 26. Xu, W. et al. Drought stress condition increases root to shoot ratio via alteration of
would also assist in quantifying the socioeconomic consequences carbohydrate partitioning and enzymatic activity in rice seedlings. Acta Physiol. Plant.
and feasibility of adaptation options across various regions. Results https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-014-1760-0 (2015).
27. Liu, E. K., Mei, X. R., Yan, C. R., Gong, D. Z. & Zhang, Y. Q. Effects of water stress on
highlight the importance of enhancing interdisciplinary research to photosynthetic characteristics, dry matter translocation and WUE in two winter wheat
address uncertainties in econometric damage forecasts, pinpoint genotypes. Agric. Water Manag. 167, 75–85 (2016).
key socioeconomic impacts and emphasize the necessity of a struc- 28. Swann, A. L. S., Hoffman, F. M., Koven, C. D. & Randerson, J. T. Plant responses to
increasing CO2 reduce estimates of climate impacts on drought severity. Proc. Natl Acad.
tured model intercomparison concerning economic consequences Sci. USA 113, 10019–10024 (2016).
of climate change on cropping systems for future research209. On-farm 29. Bourgault, M. et al. Early vigour in wheat: could it lead to more severe terminal drought
management data collection, complemented by large-scale observa- stress under elevated atmospheric CO2 and semi-arid conditions? Glob. Change Biol. 26,
4079–4093 (2020).
tion networks, can support our understanding of yield response to 30. Chenu, K. et al. Simulating the yield impacts of organ-level quantitative trait loci
extreme events, particularly under suboptimal management210. This associated with drought response in maize: a ‘gene-to-phenotype’ modeling approach.
is vital to project how climate risk, not only average climate, will affect Genetics 183, 1507–1523 (2009).
31. San Celedonio, R. P., de, Abeledo, L. G. & Miralles, D. J. Physiological traits associated
future crop yield210. with reductions in grain number in wheat and barley under waterlogging. Plant Soil 429,
469–481 (2018).
Published online: xx xx xxxx 32. Pan, J., Sharif, R., Xu, X. & Chen, X. Mechanisms of waterlogging tolerance in plants:
research progress and prospects. Front. Plant Sci. 11, 627331 (2020).
References 33. Liu, K. et al. Genetic factors increasing barley grain yields under soil waterlogging.
1. Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets Food Energy Sec. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.238 (2020).
from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019). 34. Fatima, Z. et al. The fingerprints of climate warming on cereal crops phenology and
2. van Dijk, M., Morley, T., Rau, M. L. & Saghai, Y. A meta-analysis of projected global food adaptation options. Sci. Rep. 10, 18013 (2020).
demand and population at risk of hunger for the period 2010–2050. Nat. Food 2, 494–501 35. Mohammadi, S., Rydgren, K., Bakkestuen, V. & Gillespie, M. A. K. Impacts of recent
(2021). climate change on crop yield can depend on local conditions in climatically diverse
3. Mueller, N. D. et al. Closing yield gaps through nutrient and water management. Nature regions of Norway. Sci. Rep. 13, 3633 (2023).
490, 254–257 (2012). 36. Lobell, D. B. et al. The critical role of extreme heat for maize production in the United
4. Erb, K.-H. et al. Exploring the biophysical option space for feeding the world without States. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 497–501 (2013).
deforestation. Nat. Commun. 7, 11382 (2016). 37. Eyshi Rezaei, E., Webber, H., Gaiser, T., Naab, J. & Ewert, F. Heat stress in cereals:
5. van Ittersum, M. K. et al. Yield gap analysis with local to global relevance — a review. mechanisms and modelling. Eur. J. Agron. 64, 98–113 (2015).
Field Crops Res. 143, 4–17 (2013). 38. Walker, B. J., VanLoocke, A., Bernacchi, C. J. & Ort, D. R. The costs of photorespiration
6. Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W. & Costa-Roberts, J. Climate trends and global crop production to food production now and in the future. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 67, 107–129 (2016).
since 1980. Science 333, 616–620 (2011). 39. Farooq, M., Bramley, H., Palta, J. A. & Siddique, K. H. Heat stress in wheat during
7. Foley, J. A. et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011). reproductive and grain-filling phases. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 30, 491–507 (2011).
8. Webber, H. et al. Diverging importance of drought stress for maize and winter wheat in 40. Heckathorn, S. A., Giri, A., Mishra, S. & Bista, D. in Climate Change and Plant Abiotic Stress
Europe. Nat. Commun. 9, 4249 (2018). Tolerance (eds Tuteja, N. & Gill, S. S.) 109–136 (Wiley, 2013).
9. Asseng, S. et al. Climate change impact and adaptation for wheat protein. Glob. Change 41. Giri, A., Heckathorn, S., Mishra, S. & Krause, C. Heat stress decreases levels of nutrient-
Biol. 25, 155–173 (2019). uptake and -assimilation proteins in tomato roots. Plants https://doi.org/10.3390/
10. Tausz-Posch, S., Norton, R. M., Seneweera, S., Fitzgerald, G. J. & Tausz, M. Will plants6010006 (2017).
intra-specific differences in transpiration efficiency in wheat be maintained in a high CO2 42. Kuroyanagi, T. & Paulsen, G. M. Mediation of high-temperature injury by roots and shoots
world? A FACE study. Physiol. Plant. 148, 232–245 (2013). during reproductive growth of wheat. Plant Cell Environ. 11, 517–523 (1988).

Review article
43. Lyman, N. B., Jagadish, K. S. V., Nalley, L. L., Dixon, B. L. & Siebenmorgen, T. Neglecting 77. Da Costa, M. V. J. et al. Combined drought and heat stress in rice: responses,
rice milling yield and quality underestimates economic losses from high-temperature phenotyping and strategies to improve tolerance. Rice Sci. 28, 233–242 (2021).
stress. PLoS ONE 8, e72157 (2013). 78. Pradhan, A., Aher, L., Hegde, V., Jangid, K. K. & Rane, J. Cooler canopy leverages sorghum
44. García, G. A., Dreccer, M. F., Miralles, D. J. & Serrago, R. A. High night temperatures adaptation to drought and heat stress. Sci. Rep. 12, 4603 (2022).
during grain number determination reduce wheat and barley grain yield: a field study. 79. Côté, I. M., Darling, E. S. & Brown, C. J. Interactions among ecosystem stressors and
Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4153–4164 (2015). their importance in conservation. Proc. Biol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2592
45. Sadok, W. & Jagadish, S. V. K. The hidden costs of nighttime warming on yields. (2016).
Trends Plant Sci. 25, 644–651 (2020). 80. Zandalinas, S. I. & Mittler, R. Plant responses to multifactorial stress combination.
46. Peraudeau, S. et al. Increase in night temperature in rice enhances respiration rate New Phytol. 234, 1161–1167 (2022).
without significant impact on biomass accumulation. Field Crops Res. 171, 67–78 (2015). 81. Savin, R. & Nicolas, M. E. Effects of short periods of drought and high temperature on
47. Lamichhane, J. R. Rising risks of late-spring frosts in a changing climate. Nat. Clim. grain growth and starch accumulation of two malting barley cultivars. Funct. Plant Biol
Change 11, 554–555 (2021). 23, 201 (1996).
48. Zohner, C. M. et al. Late-spring frost risk between 1959 and 2017 decreased in North 82. Rizhsky, L., Liang, H. & Mittler, R. The combined effect of drought stress and heat shock
America but increased in Europe and Asia. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 12192–12200 on gene expression in tobacco. Plant Physiol. 130, 1143–1151 (2002).
(2020). 83. Sadok, W., Lopez, J. R. & Smith, K. P. Transpiration increases under high-temperature
49. Muleke, A. et al. Earlier crop flowering caused by global warming alleviated by irrigation. stress: potential mechanisms, trade-offs and prospects for crop resilience in a warming
Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 44032 (2022). world. Plant Cell Environ. 44, 2102–2116 (2021).
50. Zhu, P. et al. The critical benefits of snowpack insulation and snowmelt for winter wheat 84. Li, Y., Li, H., Li, Y. & Zhang, S. Improving water-use efficiency by decreasing stomatal
productivity. Nat. Clim. Change 12, 485–490 (2022). conductance and transpiration rate to maintain higher ear photosynthetic rate in
51. Zanis, P. et al. Climate change penalty and benefit on surface ozone: a global perspective drought-resistant wheat. Crop J. 5, 231–239 (2017).
based on CMIP6 Earth system models. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 24014 (2022). 85. Abdelhakim, L. O. A. et al. The effect of individual and combined drought and heat stress
52. Mills, G. et al. Closing the global ozone yield gap: quantification and cobenefits for under elevated CO2 on physiological responses in spring wheat genotypes. Plant Physiol.
multistress tolerance. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4869–4893 (2018). Biochem. 162, 301–314 (2021).
53. Ainsworth, E. A. Understanding and improving global crop response to ozone pollution. 86. Hussain, H. A. et al. Interactive effects of drought and heat stresses on morpho-
Plant J. 90, 886–897 (2017). physiological attributes, yield, nutrient uptake and oxidative status in maize hybrids.
54. Bebber, D. P., Ramotowski, M. A. T. & Gurr, S. J. Crop pests and pathogens move Sci. Rep. 9, 3890 (2019).
polewards in a warming world. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 985–988 (2013). 87. Tardieu, F. Any trait or trait-related allele can confer drought tolerance: just design the
55. Delgado-Baquerizo, M. et al. The proportion of soil-borne pathogens increases with right drought scenario. J. Exp. Bot. 63, 25–31 (2012).
warming at the global scale. Nat. Clim. Change 10, 550–554 (2020). 88. Kimball, B. A. Crop responses to elevated CO2 and interactions with H2O, N, and
56. Early, R. et al. Global threats from invasive alien species in the twenty-first century temperature. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 31, 36–43 (2016).
and national response capacities. Nat. Commun. 7, 12485 (2016). 89. Wall, G. W. Elevated atmospheric CO2 alleviates drought stress in wheat. Agric. Ecosyst.
57. Wang, C. et al. Occurrence of crop pests and diseases has largely increased in China Environ. 87, 261–271 (2001).
since 1970. Nat. Food 3, 57–65 (2022). 90. O’Leary, G. J. et al. Response of wheat growth, grain yield and water use to elevated
58. Pang, J., Ryan, M. H., Lambers, H. & Siddique, K. H. Phosphorus acquisition and utilisation CO2 under a free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiment and modelling in a semi-arid
in crop legumes under global change. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 45, 248–254 (2018). environment. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 2670–2686 (2015).
59. Donatelli, M. et al. Modelling the impacts of pests and diseases on agricultural systems. 91. Gray, S. B. et al. Intensifying drought eliminates the expected benefits of elevated carbon
Agric. Syst. 155, 213–224 (2017). dioxide for soybean. Nat. Plants 2, 16132 (2016).
60. AbdElgawad, H., Hassan, Y. M., Alotaibi, M. O., Mohammed, A. E. & Saleh, A. M. C3 and 92. Manderscheid, R., Erbs, M. & Weigel, H.-J. Interactive effects of free-air CO2 enrichment
C4 plant systems respond differently to the concurrent challenges of mercuric oxide and drought stress on maize growth. Eur. J. Agron. 52, 11–21 (2014).
nanoparticles and future climate CO2. Sci. Total Environ. 749, 142356 (2020). 93. Ottman, M. J. et al. Elevated CO2 increases sorghum biomass under drought conditions.
61. Wang, L., Feng, Z. & Schjoerring, J. K. Effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 on physiology New Phytol. 150, 261–273 (2001).
and yield of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): a meta-analytic test of current hypotheses. 94. Widodo, W., Vu, J. C., Boote, K. J., Baker, J. T. & Allen, L. H. Elevated growth CO2 delays
Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 178, 57–63 (2013). drought stress and accelerates recovery of rice leaf photosynthesis. Environ. Exp. Bot.
62. Tardieu, F., Simonneau, T. & Muller, B. The physiological basis of drought tolerance in 49, 259–272 (2003).
crop plants: a scenario-dependent probabilistic approach. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 69, 95. Zhang, J., Jiang, H., Song, X., Jin, J. & Zhang, X. The responses of plant leaf CO2/H2O
733–759 (2018). exchange and water use efficiency to drought: a meta-analysis. Sustainability 10, 551
63. Daryanto, S., Wang, L. & Jacinthe, P.-A. Global synthesis of drought effects on cereal, (2018).
legume, tuber and root crops production: a review. Agric. Water Manag. 179, 18–33 (2017). 96. Li, S., Li, X., Wei, Z. & Liu, F. ABA-mediated modulation of elevated CO2 on stomatal
64. Tian, L.-X. et al. How does the waterlogging regime affect crop yield? A global response to drought. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 56, 174–180 (2020).
meta-analysis. Front. Plant Sci. 12, 634898 (2021). 97. Ewert, F. et al. Effects of elevated CO2 and drought on wheat: testing crop simulation
65. Men, S. et al. Effects of supplemental nitrogen application on physiological models for different experimental and climatic conditions. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 93,
characteristics, dry matter and nitrogen accumulation of winter rapeseed 249–266 (2002).
(Brassica napus L.) under waterlogging stress. Sci. Rep. 10, 10201 (2020). 98. Abdelhakim, L. O. A., Zhou, R. & Ottosen, C.-O. Physiological responses of plants
66. Wang, N., Wang, L. & Chen, H. Waterlogging tolerance of the invasive plant Aegilops to combined drought and heat under elevated CO2. Agronomy 12, 2526 (2022).
tauschii translates to increased competitiveness compared to Triticum aestivum. 99. Dias de Oliveira, E. et al. Can elevated CO2 combined with high temperature ameliorate
Acta Physiol. Plant. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11738-021-03230-4 (2021). the effect of terminal drought in wheat. Funct. Plant Biol. 40, 160–171 (2013).
67. Porter, J. R. & Gawith, M. Temperatures and the growth and development of wheat: 100. Broughton, K. J. et al. Warming alters the positive impact of elevated CO2 concentration
a review. Eur. J. Agron. 10, 23–36 (1999). on cotton growth and physiology during soil water deficit. Funct. Plant Biol. 44, 267–278
68. Sánchez, B., Rasmussen, A. & Porter, J. R. Temperatures and the growth and development (2017).
of maize and rice: a review. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 408–417 (2014). 101. Siebert, S., Ewert, F., Eyshi Rezaei, E., Kage, H. & Graß, R. Impact of heat stress on crop
69. Cohen, I., Zandalinas, S. I., Huck, C., Fritschi, F. B. & Mittler, R. Meta-analysis of drought yield — on the importance of considering canopy temperature. Environ. Res. Lett. 9,
and heat stress combination impact on crop yield and yield components. Physiol. Plant. 44012 (2014).
171, 66–76 (2021). 102. Cao, Q., Li, G. & Liu, F. Elevated CO2 enhanced water use efficiency of wheat to
70. Zhang, T. et al. Climate change may outpace current wheat breeding yield improvements progressive drought stress but not on maize. Front. Plant Sci. 13, 953712 (2022).
in North America. Nat. Commun. 13, 5591 (2022). 103. Anwar, K., Joshi, R., Dhankher, O. P., Singla-Pareek, S. L. & Pareek, A. Elucidating the
71. Di, H., Fang, S., Liang, H., Wang, E. & Wu, D. Contrasting yield responses of winter and response of crop plants towards individual, combined and sequentially occurring abiotic
spring wheat to temperature rise in China. Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 124038 (2020). stresses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22116119 (2021).
72. Zscheischler, J. et al. Future climate risk from compound events. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 104. Zandalinas, S. I., Mittler, R., Balfagón, D., Arbona, V. & Gómez-Cadenas, A. Plant
469–477 (2018). adaptations to the combination of drought and high temperatures. Physiol. Plant. 162,
73. Lesk, C. et al. Compound heat and moisture extreme impacts on global crop yields under 2–12 (2018).
climate change. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 3, 872–889 (2022). 105. Jacques, C., Salon, C., Barnard, R. L., Vernoud, V. & Prudent, M. Drought stress memory
74. Heino, M. et al. Increased probability of hot and dry weather extremes during the at the plant cycle level: a review. Plants https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10091873 (2021).
growing season threatens global crop yields. Sci. Rep. 13, 3583 (2023). 106. Sharma, B., Singh, B. N., Dwivedi, P. & Rajawat, M. V. S. Interference of climate change on
75. Qaseem, M. F., Qureshi, R. & Shaheen, H. Effects of pre-anthesis drought, heat and their plant–microbe interaction: present and future prospects. Front. Agron. https://doi.org/
combination on the growth, yield and physiology of diverse wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) 10.3389/fagro.2021.725804 (2022).
genotypes varying in sensitivity to heat and drought stress. Sci. Rep. 9, 6955 (2019). 107. Aggarwal, P., Vyas, S., Thornton, P. & Campbell, B. M. How much does climate change add
76. Bheemanahalli, R., Vennam, R. R., Ramamoorthy, P. & Reddy, K. R. Effects of post-flowering to the challenge of feeding the planet this century? Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 43001 (2019).
heat and drought stresses on physiology, yield, and quality in maize (Zea mays L.). 108. Xiong, W. et al. Increased ranking change in wheat breeding under climate change.
Plant Stress 6, 100106 (2022). Nat. Plants 7, 1207–1212 (2021).

Review article
109. Still, C. J., Berry, J. A., Collatz, G. J. & DeFries, R. S. Global distribution of C3 and 143. Liu, T. et al. A case study of climate-smart management in foxtail millet (Setaria italica)
C4 vegetation: carbon cycle implications. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 17, 6-1–6-14 production under future climate change in Lishu county of Jilin, China. Agric. Forest
(2003). Meteorol. 292–293, 108131 (2020).
110. White, J. W., Hoogenboom, G., Kimball, B. A. & Wall, G. W. Methodologies for simulating 144. Singh, P. et al. An assessment of yield gains under climate change due to genetic
impacts of climate change on crop production. Field Crops Res. 124, 357–368 (2011). modification of pearl millet. Sci. Total Environ. 601–602, 1226–1237 (2017).
111. Hasegawa, T. et al. A global dataset for the projected impacts of climate change on four 145. Murrell, E. G. Can agricultural practices that mitigate or improve crop resilience
major crops. Sci. Data 9, 58 (2022). to climate change also manage crop pests? Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 23, 81–88 (2017).
112. Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and 146. Levidow, L. et al. Improving water-efficient irrigation: prospects and difficulties of
greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 innovative practices. Agric. Water Manag. 146, 84–94 (2014).
(2017). 147. Elliott, J. et al. Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on
113. Knox, J., Daccache, A., Hess, T. & Haro, D. Meta-analysis of climate impacts and agricultural production under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3239–3244
uncertainty on crop yields in Europe. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 113004 (2016). (2014).
114. Hamilton, E. W., Heckathorn, S. A., Joshi, P., Wang, D. & Barua, D. Interactive effects of 148. Nielsen, J. Ø. & Reenberg, A. Cultural barriers to climate change adaptation: a case study
elevated CO2 and growth temperature on the tolerance of photosynthesis to acute heat from northern Burkina Faso. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 142–152 (2010).
stress in C3 and C4 species. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 50, 1375–1387 (2008). 149. Zhang, X. et al. Quantifying nutrient budgets for sustainable nutrient management.
115. Liu, W. et al. Future climate change significantly alters interannual wheat yield variability Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles https://doi.org/10.1029/2018GB006060 (2020).
over half of harvested areas. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 94045 (2021). 150. Chartzoulakis, K. & Bertaki, M. Sustainable water management in agriculture under
116. Ostberg, S., Schewe, J., Childers, K. & Frieler, K. Changes in crop yields and their climate change. Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 4, 88–98 (2015).
variability at different levels of global warming. Earth Syst. Dynam. 9, 479–496 (2018). 151. Rosenzweig, C. et al. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in
117. Carr, T. W. et al. Climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for crops in West a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3268–3273
Africa: a systematic review. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 53001 (2022). (2014).
118. Faye, B. et al. Impacts of 1.5 versus 2.0 °C on cereal yields in the West African Sudan 152. Tigchelaar, M., Battisti, D. S., Naylor, R. L. & Ray, D. K. Future warming increases
Savanna. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 34014 (2018). probability of globally synchronized maize production shocks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
119. Wallach, D., Mearns, L. O., Ruane, A. C., Rötter, R. P. & Asseng, S. Lessons from climate 115, 6644–6649 (2018).
modeling on the design and use of ensembles for crop modeling. Clim. Change 139, 153. Braun, Jvon The food crisis isn’t over. Nature 456, 701 (2008).
551–564 (2016). 154. Headey, D. & Fan, S. Anatomy of a crisis: the causes and consequences of surging food
120. Vesely, F. M., Paleari, L., Movedi, E., Bellocchi, G. & Confalonieri, R. Quantifying prices. Agric. Econ. 39, 375–391 (2008).
uncertainty due to stochastic weather generators in climate change impact studies. 155. Johnstone, S. & Mazo, J. Global warming and the Arab Spring. Survival 53, 11–17 (2011).
Sci. Rep. 9, 9258 (2019). 156. Pugh, T. A. M. et al. Climate analogues suggest limited potential for intensification of
121. Hoffmann, H. et al. Impact of spatial soil and climate input data aggregation on regional production on current croplands under climate change. Nat. Commun. 7, 12608 (2016).
yield simulations. PLoS ONE 11, e0151782 (2016). 157. Zhu, P. et al. Warming reduces global agricultural production by decreasing cropping
122. Bassu, S. et al. How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate frequency and yields. Nat. Clim. Change https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01492-5
change factors. Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2301–2320 (2014). (2022).
123. Challinor, A. J. et al. Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate 158. Müller, C. et al. Implications of climate mitigation for future agricultural production.
change adaptation. Agric. Syst. 159, 296–306 (2018). Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 125004 (2015).
124. Tao, F. et al. Contribution of crop model structure, parameters and climate projections 159. Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J. & Befort, B. L. Global food demand and the sustainable
to uncertainty in climate change impact assessments. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1291–1307 intensification of agriculture. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 20260–20264 (2011).
(2018). 160. Hasegawa, T. et al. Extreme climate events increase risk of global food insecurity and
125. Chapagain, R. et al. Decomposing crop model uncertainty: a systematic review. adaptation needs. Nat. Food 2, 587–595 (2021).
Field Crops Res. 279, 108448 (2022). 161. Wheeler, T. & Braun, Jvon Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 341,
126. Siebert, S., Webber, H., Zhao, G. & Ewert, F. Heat stress is overestimated in climate impact 508–513 (2013).
studies for irrigated agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 54023 (2017). 162. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M. & Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains:
127. Fang, L. et al. Neglecting acclimation of photosynthesis under drought can cause quantification and potential for change to 2050. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 365,
significant errors in predicting leaf photosynthesis in wheat. Glob. Change Biol. 29, 3065–3081 (2010).
505–521 (2023). 163. Iizumi, T. & Ramankutty, N. How do weather and climate influence cropping area and
128. Kropff, M. J., Teng, P. S. & Rabbinge, R. The challenge of linking pest and crop models. intensity. Glob. Food Sec. 4, 46–50 (2015).
Agric. Syst. 49, 413–434 (1995). 164. Sloat, L. L. et al. Climate adaptation by crop migration. Nat. Commun. 11, 1243 (2020).
129. Stöckle, C. O. & Kemanian, A. R. Can crop models identify critical gaps in genetics, 165. Möhring, N. et al. Pathways for advancing pesticide policies. Nat. Food 1, 535–540
environment, and management interactions? Front. Plant Sci. 11, 737 (2020). (2020).
130. Wada, Y. et al. Multimodel projections and uncertainties of irrigation water demand 166. Santeramo, F. G., Russo, I. & Lamonaca, E. Italian subsidised crop insurance: what the
under climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 4626–4632 (2013). role of policy changes. Q Open https://doi.org/10.1093/qopen/qoac031 (2022).
131. Aragüés, R. et al. Soil salinization as a threat to the sustainability of deficit irrigation 167. Zabel, F., Putzenlechner, B. & Mauser, W. Global agricultural land resources — a high
under present and expected climate change scenarios. Irrig. Sci. 33, 67–79 (2015). resolution suitability evaluation and its perspectives until 2100 under climate change
132. Wang, J. et al. Forty years of irrigation development and reform in China. Aust. J. Agric. conditions. PLoS ONE 9, e107522 (2014).
Resour. Econ. 64, 126–149 (2020). 168. Ray, D. K. et al. Climate change has likely already affected global food production.
133. Moriondo, M. et al. Impact and adaptation opportunities for European agriculture in PLoS ONE 14, e0217148 (2019).
response to climatic change and variability. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 15, 169. Laurance, W. F., Sayer, J. & Cassman, K. G. Agricultural expansion and its impacts
657–679 (2010). on tropical nature. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 107–116 (2014).
134. Tanaka, A. et al. Adaptation pathways of global wheat production: Importance of 170. Wang, D. et al. Amplifying meteorological droughts across middle- and low-latitude
strategic adaptation to climate change. Sci. Rep. 5, 14312 (2015). Northern Hemisphere. Front. Earth Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.914232
135. Giller, K. E. & Ewert, F. Australian wheat beats the heat. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 189–190 (2022).
(2019). 171. You, L. et al. What is the irrigation potential for Africa? A combined biophysical and
136. Ewert, F. Opportunities in climate change? Nat. Clim. Change 2, 153–154 (2012). socioeconomic approach. Food Policy 36, 770–782 (2011).
137. Voss-Fels, K. P. et al. Breeding improves wheat productivity under contrasting 172. Rosa, L. Adapting agriculture to climate change via sustainable irrigation: biophysical
agrochemical input levels. Nat. Plants 5, 706–714 (2019). potentials and feedbacks. Environ. Res. Lett. 17, 63008 (2022).
138. Reckling, M. et al. Diversification improves the performance of cereals in European 173. West, P. C. et al. Leverage points for improving global food security and the environment.
cropping systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-00850-z Science 345, 325–328 (2014).
(2022). 174. Johnson, J. A., Runge, C. F., Senauer, B., Foley, J. & Polasky, S. Global agriculture and
139. Mohammed, A. & Misganaw, A. Modeling future climate change impacts on sorghum carbon trade-offs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 12342–12347 (2014).
(Sorghum bicolor) production with best management options in Amhara Region, 175. Dinku, T. in Extreme Hydrology and Climate Variability (eds Melesse, A. M. et al.) 71–80
Ethiopia. CABI Agric. Biosci. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43170-022-00092-9 (2022). (Elsevier, 2019).
140. Kothari, K. et al. Potential benefits of genotype-based adaptation strategies for grain 176. Waha, K., Huth, N., Carberry, P. & Wang, E. How model and input uncertainty impact
sorghum production in the Texas High Plains under climate change. Eur. J. Agron. 117, maize yield simulations in West Africa. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 24017 (2015).
126037 (2020). 177. Becker, A. et al. A description of the global land-surface precipitation data products
141. Carbone, G. J. et al. Response of soybean and sorghum to varying spatial scales of of the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre with sample applications including
climate change scenarios in the southeastern United States. Clim. Change 60, 73–98 centennial (trend) analysis from 1901–present. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 5, 71–99 (2013).
(2003). 178. Freduah, B. et al. Sensitivity of maize yield in smallholder systems to climate scenarios
142. Akinseye, F. M. et al. Improving sorghum productivity under changing climatic in semi-arid regions of West Africa: accounting for variability in farm management
conditions: a modelling approach. Field Crops Res. 246, 107685 (2020). practices. Agronomy 9, 639 (2019).

Review article
179. Folberth, C. et al. Uncertainty in soil data can outweigh climate impact signals in global 212. Ainsworth, E. A. & Long, S. P. What have we learned from 15 years of free-air CO2
crop yield simulations. Nat. Commun. 7, 11872 (2016). enrichment (FACE)? A meta-analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy
180. Ojeda, J. J. et al. Implications of data aggregation method on crop model outputs — the properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytol. 165, 351–371 (2005).
case of irrigated potato systems in Tasmania, Australia. Eur. J. Agron. 126, 126276 (2021). 213. Li, P. et al. Photosynthesis and yield response to elevated CO2, C4 plant foxtail millet
181. Nelson, G. C. et al. Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to behaves similarly to C3 species. Plant Sci. 285, 239–247 (2019).
biophysical shocks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3274–3279 (2014). 214. Markelz, R. J. C., Strellner, R. S. & Leakey, A. D. B. Impairment of C4 photosynthesis by
182. Zhao, W., Qu, Y., Zhang, L. & Li, K. Spatial-aware SAR-optical time-series deep integration drought is exacerbated by limiting nitrogen and ameliorated by elevated [CO2] in maize.
for crop phenology tracking. Remote Sens. Environ. 276, 113046 (2022). J. Exp. Bot. 62, 3235–3246 (2011).
183. Chen, Y., Zhang, Z. & Tao, F. Improving regional winter wheat yield estimation through 215. Matsuura, A., An, P., Murata, K. & Inanaga, S. Effect of pre- and post-heading
assimilation of phenology and leaf area index from remote sensing data. Eur. J. Agron. waterlogging on growth and grain yield of four millets. Plant Prod. Sci. 19, 348–359
101, 163–173 (2018). (2016).
184. Zhou, H. et al. Improving soil moisture estimation via assimilation of remote sensing 216. Orchard, P. W. & Jessop, R. S. The response of sorghum and sunflower to short-term
product into the DSSAT crop model and its effect on agricultural drought monitoring. waterlogging. Plant Soil 81, 119–132 (1984).
Remote Sens. 14, 3187 (2022). 217. Pardales, J. R., Kono, Y. & Yamauchi, A. Response of the different root system components
185. Cheng, Z. et al. Preliminary study of soil available nutrient simulation using a modified of sorghum to incidence of waterlogging. Environ. Exp. Bot. 31, 107–115 (1991).
WOFOST model and time-series remote sensing observations. Remote Sens. 10, 64 218. Zhang, R. D. et al. Changes in photosynthesis, chloroplast ultrastructure, and antioxidant
(2018). metabolism in leaves of sorghum under waterlogging stress. Photosynthesis 57,
186. Jin, X. et al. A review of data assimilation of remote sensing and crop models. 1076–1083 (2019).
Eur. J. Agron. 92, 141–152 (2018). 219. Singh, V. et al. Genotypic differences in effects of short episodes of high-temperature
187. Arend, D. et al. From data to knowledge — big data needs stewardship, a plant stress during reproductive development in sorghum. Crop Sci. 56, 1561–1572 (2016).
phenomics perspective. Plant J. 111, 335–347 (2022). 220. Prasad, P., Djanaguiraman, M., Stewart, Z. P. & Ciampitti, I. A. in Agroclimatology (eds
188. Benes, B. et al. Multiscale computational models can guide experimentation and Hatfield, J. L. et al.) 201–241 (American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of
targeted measurements for crop improvement. Plant J. 103, 21–31 (2020). America, and Soil Science Society of America, 2020).
189. Webber, H., Rezaei, E. E., Ryo, M. & Ewert, F. Framework to guide modeling single and 221. Hou, P. et al. Quantifying maize grain yield losses caused by climate change based
multiple abiotic stresses in arable crops. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 340, 108179 (2022). on extensive field data across China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 174, 105811 (2021).
190. Onogi, A. Integration of crop growth models and genomic prediction. Methods Mol. Biol. 222. Ottman, M. J., Kimball, B. A., White, J. W. & Wall, G. W. Wheat growth response to
2467, 359–396 (2022). increased temperature from varied planting dates and supplemental infrared heating.
191. Los Campos, G., de, Pérez-Rodríguez, P., Bogard, M., Gouache, D. & Crossa, J. Agron. J. 104, 7–16 (2012).
A data-driven simulation platform to predict cultivars’ performances under uncertain 223. Kimball, B. A., White, J. W., Wall, G. W., Ottman, M. J. & Martre, P. Wheat response to a
weather conditions. Nat. Commun. 11, 4876 (2020). wide range of temperatures, as determined from the Hot Serial Cereal (HSC) experiment.
192. Rasche, L. & Taylor, R. A. J. EPIC‐GILSYM: modelling crop–pest insect interactions and Open Data J. Agric. Res. 4, 16–21 (2018).
management with a novel coupled crop–insect model. J. Appl. Ecol. https://doi.org/ 224. Challinor, A. J. et al. A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation.
10.1111/1365-2664.13426 (2019). Nat. Clim. Change 4, 287–291 (2014).
193. Bondad, J., Harrison, M. T., Whish, J., Sprague, S. & Barry, K. Integrated crop-disease 225. Srivastava, A., Naresh Kumar, S. & Aggarwal, P. K. Assessment on vulnerability of
models: new frontiers in systems thinking. Farming Syst. 1, 100004 (2023). sorghum to climate change in India. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 138, 160–169 (2010).
194. Tonnang, H. E., Sokame, B. M., Abdel-Rahman, E. M. & Dubois, T. Measuring and 226. Getachew, F., Bayabil, H. K., Hoogenboom, G., Teshome, F. T. & Zewdu, E. Irrigation and
modelling crop yield losses due to invasive insect pests under climate change. shifting planting date as climate change adaptation strategies for sorghum. Agric. Water
Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 50, 100873 (2022). Manag. 255, 106988 (2021).
195. Falconnier, G. N. et al. Modelling climate change impacts on maize yields under low 227. Eyshi Rezaei, E., Gaiser, T., Siebert, S. & Ewert, F. Adaptation of crop production to
nitrogen input conditions in sub-Saharan Africa. Glob. Change Biol. 26, 5942–5964 climate change by crop substitution. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 20, 1155–1174
(2020). (2015).
196. Wang, X. et al. Emergent constraint on crop yield response to warmer temperature 228. Ullah, A. et al. Assessing climate change impacts on pearl millet under arid and
from field experiments. Nat. Sustain. 3, 908–916 (2020). semi-arid environments using CSM-CERES-Millet model. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 26,
197. Allen, L. H. et al. Fluctuations of CO2 in free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) depress plant 6745–6757 (2019).
photosynthesis, growth, and yield. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 284, 107899 (2020). 229. Faye, A. et al. Millet and sorghum yield simulations under climate change scenarios
198. Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D. B., Ort, D. R. & Long, S. P. FACE-ing the facts: in Senegal. Reg. Environ. Change https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-022-01940-0 (2022).
inconsistencies and interdependence among field, chamber and modeling studies 230. Sultan, B. et al. Assessing climate change impacts on sorghum and millet yields
of elevated CO2 impacts on crop yield and food supply. New Phytol. 179, 5–9 (2008). in the Sudanian and Sahelian savannas of West Africa. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 14040
199. Martre, P. et al. Multimodel ensembles of wheat growth: many models are better than (2013).
one. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 911–925, (2015). 231. Jägermeyr, J. et al. Climate impacts on global agriculture emerge earlier in new
200. Asseng, S. et al. Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production. Nat. Clim. Change generation of climate and crop models. Nat. Food 2, 873–885 (2021).
5, 143–147 (2015). 232. Portmann, F. T., Siebert, S. & Döll, P. MIRCA2000 — global monthly irrigated and
201. Zhao, C. et al. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four rainfed crop areas around the year 2000: a new high-resolution data set for agricultural
independent estimates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9326–9331 (2017). and hydrological modeling. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles https://doi.org/10.1029/
202. Knutti, R. The end of model democracy? Clim. Change 102, 395–404 (2010). 2008GB003435 (2010).
203. Shahhosseini, M., Martinez-Feria, R. A., Hu, G. & Archontoulis, S. V. Maize yield and 233. Chadalavada, K. et al. Simulating potential impacts of future climate change on
nitrate loss prediction with machine learning algorithms. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 124026 post-rainy season sorghum yields in India. Sustainability 14, 334 (2022).
(2019). 234. Asseng, S., Zhu, Y., Basso, B., Wilson, T. & Cammarano, D. Simulation modeling:
204. Feng, P., Wang, B., Liu, D. L., Waters, C. & Yu, Q. Incorporating machine learning with applications in cropping systems. In Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems,
biophysical model can improve the evaluation of climate extremes impacts on wheat 102–112 (Elsevier, 2014).
yield in south-eastern Australia. Agric. Forest Meteorol. 275, 100–113 (2019). 235. Hammer, G., Messina, C., Wu, A. & Cooper, M. Biological reality and parsimony
205. Leng, G. Keeping global warming within 1.5 °C reduces future risk of yield loss in the in crop models — why we need both in crop improvement! in silico Plants
United States: a probabilistic modeling approach. Sci. Total Environ. 644, 52–59 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1093/insilicoplants/diz010 (2019).
206. Ewert, F. et al. Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production 236. Wang, E. et al. Improving process-based crop models to better capture
from climate change. Environ. Model. Softw. 72, 287–303 (2015). genotype×environment×management interactions. J. Exp. Bot. 70, 2389–2401 (2019).
207. Ruane, A. C. & McDermid, S. P. Selection of a representative subset of global climate 237. Wehner, M. et al. Changes in extremely hot days under stabilized 1.5 and 2.0 °C global
models that captures the profile of regional changes for integrated climate impacts warming scenarios as simulated by the HAPPI multi-model ensemble. Earth Syst. Dynam.
assessment. Earth Persp. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40322-017-0036-4 (2017). 9, 299–311 (2018).
208. Ciscar, J.-C., Rising, J., Kopp, R. E. & Feyen, L. Assessing future climate change impacts 238. Corbeels, M., Berre, D., Rusinamhodzi, L. & Lopez-Ridaura, S. Can we use crop modelling
in the EU and the USA: insights and lessons from two continental-scale projects. for identifying climate change adaptation options? Agric. Forest Meteorol. 256–257,
Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 84010 (2019). 46–52 (2018).
209. Piontek, F. et al. Integrated perspective on translating biophysical to economic impacts 239. Webber, H., Hoffmann, M. & Rezaei, E. E. in Agroclimatology (eds Hatfield, J. L. et al.)
of climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 563–572 (2021). 519–546 (American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil
210. Lacoste, M. et al. On-farm experimentation to transform global agriculture. Nat. Food 3, Science Society of America, 2020).
11–18 (2022).
211. Hu, S., Wang, Y. & Yang, L. Response of rice yield traits to elevated atmospheric Acknowledgements
CO2 concentration and its interaction with cultivar, nitrogen application rate and We acknowledge the support of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement
temperature: a meta-analysis of 20 years FACE studies. Sci. Total Environ. 764, Project AgMIP. E.E.R. acknowledges support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
142797 (2021). (DFG, German Research Foundation, project no. 520102751). F.E. acknowledges support by

Review article
the DFG under Germany’s Excellence Strategy — EXC 2070–390732324. P.M. acknowledges Additional information
support by the EU Project Horizon 2020 (grant no. 727247). J.-L.D. and P.M. acknowledge Peer review information Nature Reviews Earth & Environment thanks Matthew Harrison and
support by the Agriculture and Forestry in the Face of Climate Change: Adaptation and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Mitigation (CLIMAE) Meta-Program and the AgroEcoSystem Division of the French National
Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment (INRAE). Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.
Author contributions
H.W. conceived the idea and outlined the structure. E.E.R. researched data for the article, Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this
prepared the visualizations and wrote the article. All authors contributed substantially article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author
to the discussion of the content, and reviewed and/or edited the manuscript. self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the
terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests. © Springer Nature Limited 2023

EyshiRezaei2023climate Impacts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EyshiRezaei2023climate Impacts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

EyshiRezaei2023climate Impacts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

nature reviews earth & environment https://doi.org/10.

Review article Check for updates

Climate change impacts

Climate change challenges efforts to maintain and improve crop Introduction

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Individual drivers Co-occurring drivers

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

a CO2-driven yield changes b Drought-driven yield changes

0 10 20 30 40 50 –40 –30 –20 –10 0

–75 –50 –25 0 10 20 30 40

e Yield versus seasonal mean temperature

n = 423 y = –0.8273x + 29.082

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Methods to study climate change impacts on crop yield

a Methods capturing crop response to CO2, water and temperatures

population scanning heat episodes

Free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) • Extensive

• Can be integrated by • High maintenance

other agronomic and energy cost

b Process-based modeling for climate change impact assessments

Soil Future climate (GCMs) Genetics Management Yield statistics

SSPs Adaptation options Yield trials

Development; light interception; resource capture; CO2 effects; • Parametrization

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

(continued from previous page)

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

<2 <2–4 >4

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Australia China France Germany India Russia USA

Argentina Brazil China France Romania Ukraine USA

Bangladesh China India Indonesia

India West Africa

India West Africa

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

assessments, aggregated to the country level as the centroid of each country107.

fully compensated for by adaptation strategies in the tropics (Fig. 4). In

would be likely to be more effective. Targeted implementation can

Implications for global production

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

Nature Reviews Earth & Environment

You might also like