Towards a multiscale crop modelling framework for climate change adaptation assessment.

Acclimatization Climate Change Crops, Agricultural Models, Biological

Journal

Nature plants

ISSN: 2055-0278

Titre abrégé: Nat Plants

Pays: England

ID NLM: 101651677

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2020

Historique:

received: 08 10 2019

accepted: 24 02 2020

entrez: 17 4 2020

pubmed: 17 4 2020

medline: 5 2 2021

Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Predicting the consequences of manipulating genotype (G) and agronomic management (M) on agricultural ecosystem performances under future environmental (E) conditions remains a challenge. Crop modelling has the potential to enable society to assess the efficacy of G × M technologies to mitigate and adapt crop production systems to climate change. Despite recent achievements, dedicated research to develop and improve modelling capabilities from gene to global scales is needed to provide guidance on designing G × M adaptation strategies with full consideration of their impacts on both crop productivity and ecosystem sustainability under varying climatic conditions. Opportunities to advance the multiscale crop modelling framework include representing crop genetic traits, interfacing crop models with large-scale models, improving the representation of physiological responses to climate change and management practices, closing data gaps and harnessing multisource data to improve model predictability and enable identification of emergent relationships. A fundamental challenge in multiscale prediction is the balance between process details required to assess the intervention and predictability of the system at the scales feasible to measure the impact. An advanced multiscale crop modelling framework will enable a gene-to-farm design of resilient and sustainable crop production systems under a changing climate at regional-to-global scales.

Identifiants

DOI: 10.1038/s41477-020-0625-3 PMID: 32296143

pubmed: 32296143

doi: 10.1038/s41477-020-0625-3

pii: 10.1038/s41477-020-0625-3

doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

Pagination

338-348

Références

Long, S. P., Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D., Nösberger, J. & Ort, D. R. Food for thought: lower-than-expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO

doi: 10.1126/science.1114722 pubmed: 16809532

Asseng, S. et al. Climate change impact and adaptation for wheat protein. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 155–173 (2019).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.14481

Cooper, M., Gho, C., Leafgren, R., Tang, T. & Messina, C. Breeding drought-tolerant maize hybrids for the US corn-belt: discovery to product. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 6191–6204 (2014).

doi: 10.1093/jxb/eru064 pubmed: 24596174

Głowacka, K. et al. Photosystem II Subunit S overexpression increases the efficiency of water use in a field-grown crop. Nat. Commun. 9, 868 (2018).

pubmed: 29511193 pmcid: 5840416 doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-03231-x

Kromdijk, J. et al. Improving photosynthesis and crop productivity by accelerating recovery from photoprotection. Science 354, 857–861 (2016).

doi: 10.1126/science.aai8878 pubmed: 27856901

Hammer, G. L. et al. Crop design for specific adaptation in variable dryland production environments. Crop Pasture Sci. 65, 614–626 (2014).

doi: 10.1071/CP14088

Zhao, G. et al. The implication of irrigation in climate change impact assessment: a European‐wide study. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4031–4048 (2015).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.13008

Lobell, D. B. et al. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science 319, 607–610 (2008).

doi: 10.1126/science.1152339 pubmed: 18239122

Chapman, S. C., Hammer, G. L., Butler, D. G. & Cooper, M. Genotype by environment interactions affecting grain sorghum. III. Temporal sequences and spatial patterns in the target population of environments. Aust. J. Agr. Res. 51, 223–234 (2000).

doi: 10.1071/AR99022

Wang, E. et al. Improving process-based crop models to better capture genotype×environment×management interactions. J. Exp. Bot. 70, 2389–2401 (2019).

doi: 10.1093/jxb/erz092 pubmed: 30921457

Chenu, K. et al. Contribution of crop models to adaptation in wheat. Trends Plant Sci. 22, 472–490 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.02.003 pubmed: 28389147

Hammer, G., McLean, G., Doherty, A., van Oosterom, E. & Chapman, S. in Sorghum: State of the Art and Future Perspectives Agronomy Monographs Ch. 17 (American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of America, 2016).

Hunter, M. C., Smith, R. G., Schipanski, M. E., Atwood, L. W. & Mortensen, D. A. Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. BioScience 67, 386–391 (2017).

doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix010

Jones, J. W. et al. Toward a new generation of agricultural system data, models, and knowledge products: State of agricultural systems science. Agr. Syst. 155, 269–288 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.021

Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Arnold, S., Simelton, E. & Fraser, E. Crops and climate change: progress, trends and challenges in simulating impacts and informing adaptation. J. Exp. Bot. 60, 2775–2789 (2009).

doi: 10.1093/jxb/erp062 pubmed: 19289578

Hernandez-Ochoa, I. M. et al. Adapting irrigated and rainfed wheat to climate change in semi-arid environments: management, breeding options and land use change. Eur. J. Agron. 109, 125915 (2019).

doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2019.125915

Wu, A., Hammer, G. L., Doherty, A., von Caemmerer, S. & Farquhar, G. D. Quantifying impacts of enhancing photosynthesis on crop yield. Nat. Plants 5, 380–388 (2019).

doi: 10.1038/s41477-019-0398-8 pubmed: 30962528

Yin, X., van der Linden, C. G. & Struik, P. C. Bringing genetics and biochemistry to crop modelling, and vice versa. Eur. J. Agron. 100, 132–140 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2018.02.005

Rötter, R. P., Tao, F., Höhn, J. G. & Palosuo, T. Use of crop simulation modelling to aid ideotype design of future cereal cultivars. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 3463–3476 (2015).

doi: 10.1093/jxb/erv098 pubmed: 25795739

Messina, C. D. et al. On the dynamic determinants of reproductive failure under drought in maize. in silico. Plants 1, diz003 (2019).

Messina, C. D. et al. Leveraging biological insight and environmental variation to improve phenotypic prediction: integrating crop growth models (CGM) with whole genome prediction (WGP). Eur. J. Agron. 100, 151–162 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2018.01.007

Cooper, M., Technow, F., Messina, C., Gho, C. & Totir, L. R. Use of crop growth models with whole-genome prediction: application to a maize multienvironment trial. Crop Sci. 56, 2141–2156 (2016).

Sinclair, T. R., Soltani, A., Marrou, H., Ghanem, M. & Vadez, V. Geospatial assessment for crop physiological and management improvements with examples using the simple simulation model. Crop Sci. 59, 1–9 (2019).

doi: 10.2135/cropsci2018.04.0285

Chang, T.-G., Chang, S., Song, Q.-F., Perveen, S. & Zhu, X.-G. Systems models, phenomics and genomics: three pillars for developing high-yielding photosynthetically efficient crops. in silico Plants 1, diy003 (2019).

doi: 10.1093/insilicoplants/diy003

Hammer, G. et al. Models for navigating biological complexity in breeding improved crop plants. Trends Plant Sci. 11, 587–593 (2006).

doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2006.10.006 pubmed: 17092764

Minorsky, P. V. Achieving the in silico plant. Systems biology and the future of plant biological research. Plant Physiol. 13, 404–409 (2003).

doi: 10.1104/pp.900076

Hammer, G. L., Sinclair, T. R., Chapman, S. C. & van Oosterom, E. On systems thinking, systems biology, and the in silico plant. Plant Physiol. 134, 909–911 (2004).

doi: 10.1104/pp.103.034827 pubmed: 15020754

Yin, X. & Struik, P. C. Modelling the crop: from system dynamics to systems biology. J. Exp. Bot. 61, 2171–2183 (2010).

doi: 10.1093/jxb/erp375 pubmed: 20051352

Hammer, G. L. et al. Adapting APSIM to model the physiology and genetics of complex adaptive traits in field crops. J. Exp. Bot. 61, 2185–2202 (2010).

doi: 10.1093/jxb/erq095 pubmed: 20400531

de Wit, C. T. & Penning de Vries, F. W. T. Crop growth models without hormones. Neth. J. Agr. Sci. 31, 313–323 (1983).

Parent, B. & Tardieu, F. Can current crop models be used in the phenotyping era for predicting the genetic variability of yield of plants subjected to drought or high temperature? J. Exp. Bot. 65, 6179–6189 (2014).

pubmed: 24948682 doi: 10.1093/jxb/eru223

Messina, C. D., Jones, J. W., Boote, K. J. & Vallejos, C. E. A gene-based model to simulate soybean development and yield responses to environment Florida agricultural experiment station, journal series no. R-11017. Crop Sci. 46, 456–466 (2006).

doi: 10.2135/cropsci2005.04-0372

Chenu, K. et al. Simulating the yield impacts of organ-level quantitative trait loci associated with drought response in maize: a ‘gene-to-phenotype’ modeling approach. Genetics 183, 1507 (2009).

pubmed: 19786622 pmcid: 2787435 doi: 10.1534/genetics.109.105429

Reymond, M., Muller, B., Leonardi, A., Charcosset, A. & Tardieu, F. Combining quantitative trait loci analysis and an ecophysiological model to analyze the genetic variability of the responses of maize leaf growth to temperature and water deficit. Plant Physiol. 131, 664 (2003).

pubmed: 12586890 pmcid: 166842 doi: 10.1104/pp.013839

Gu, J., Yin, X., Zhang, C., Wang, H. & Struik, P. C. Linking ecophysiological modelling with quantitative genetics to support marker-assisted crop design for improved yields of rice (Oryza sativa) under drought stress. Annal. Bot. 114, 499–511 (2014).

doi: 10.1093/aob/mcu127

Kadam, N. N., Krishna Jagadish, S., Struik, P. C., der Linden, C. & Yin, X. Incorporating genome-wide association into eco-physiological simulation to identify markers for improving rice yields. J. Exp. Bot. 70, 2575–2586 (2019).

pubmed: 30882149 pmcid: 6487590 doi: 10.1093/jxb/erz120

Bhakta, M. S. et al. A predictive model for time-to-flowering in the common bean based on QTL and environmental variables. G3-Genes Genom. Genet. 7, 3901–3912 (2017).

Marshall-Colon, A. et al. Crops in silico: generating virtual crops using an integrative and multi-scale modeling platform. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 786 (2017).

pubmed: 28555150 pmcid: 5430029 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00786

Zhu, X.-G. et al. Plants in silico: why, why now and what?—an integrative platform for plant systems biology research. Plant Cell Environ. 39, 1049–1057 (2016).

pubmed: 26523481 doi: 10.1111/pce.12673

Zhu, X.-G., Wang, Y. U., Ort, D. R. & Long, S. P. e-photosynthesis: a comprehensive dynamic mechanistic model of C3 photosynthesis: from light capture to sucrose synthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 36, 1711–1727 (2013).

doi: 10.1111/pce.12025 pubmed: 23072293

Kannan, K. et al. Combining gene network, metabolic and leaf-level models shows means to future-proof soybean photosynthesis under rising CO

Chew, Y. H. et al. Multiscale digital Arabidopsis predicts individual organ and whole-organism growth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E4127–E4136 (2014).

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1410238111 pubmed: 25197087 pmcid: 4191812

Xiao, Y. et al. ePlant for quantitative and predictive plant science research in the big data era—Lay the foundation for the future model guided crop breeding, engineering and agronomy. Quant. Biol. 5, 260–271 (2017).

doi: 10.1007/s40484-017-0110-9

Earles, J. M. et al. Embracing 3D complexity in leaf carbon–water exchange. Trends Plant Sci. 24, 15–24 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2018.09.005 pubmed: 30309727

Hansen, J. W. & Jones, J. W. Scaling-up crop models for climate variability applications. Agr. Syst. 65, 43–72 (2000).

doi: 10.1016/S0308-521X(00)00025-1

Lawrence, D. M. et al. The Community Land Model version 5: description of new features, benchmarking, and impact of forcing uncertainty. J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy. 11, 4245–4287 (2019).

doi: 10.1029/2018MS001583

Peng, B. et al. Improving maize growth processes in the community land model: implementation and evaluation. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 250–251, 64–89 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.11.012

Scanlon, B. R. et al. The food–energy–water nexus: transforming science for society. Water Resour. Res. 53, 3550–3556 (2017).

doi: 10.1002/2017WR020889

Levis, S. et al. Interactive crop management in the Community Earth System Model (CESM1): seasonal influences on land–atmosphere fluxes. J. Climate 25, 4839–4859 (2012).

doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00446.1

Osborne, T. et al. JULES-crop: a parametrisation of crops in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 1139–1155 (2015).

doi: 10.5194/gmd-8-1139-2015

Wu, X. et al. ORCHIDEE-CROP (v0), a new process-based agro-land surface model: model description and evaluation over Europe. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 857–873 (2016).

doi: 10.5194/gmd-9-857-2016

Drewniak, B., Song, J., Prell, J., Kotamarthi, V. R. & Jacob, R. Modeling agriculture in the Community Land Model. Geosci. Model Dev. 6, 495–515 (2013).

doi: 10.5194/gmd-6-495-2013

Dunbabin, V. M. et al. Modelling root–soil interactions using three–dimensional models of root growth, architecture and function. Plant Soil 372, 93–124 (2013).

doi: 10.1007/s11104-013-1769-y

Wang, Y. et al. Development of a three-dimensional ray-tracing model of sugarcane canopy photosynthesis and its application in assessing impacts of varied row spacing. BioEnerg. Res. 10, 626–634 (2017).

doi: 10.1007/s12155-017-9823-x

Vos, J. et al. Functional–structural plant modelling: a new versatile tool in crop science. J. Exp. Bot. 61, 2101–2115 (2009).

doi: 10.1093/jxb/erp345 pubmed: 19995824

Bonan, G. B. et al. Modeling canopy-induced turbulence in the Earth system: a unified parameterization of turbulent exchange within plant canopies and the roughness sublayer (CLM-ml v0). Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 1467–1496 (2018).

doi: 10.5194/gmd-11-1467-2018

Ewert, F. et al. Scale changes and model linking methods for integrated assessment of agri-environmental systems. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 142, 6–17 (2011).

doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.016

Müller, C. et al. Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 1403–1422 (2017).

doi: 10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017

Elliott, J. et al. The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 261–277 (2015).

doi: 10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015

Rosenzweig, C. et al. The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): protocols and pilot studies. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 170, 166–182 (2013).

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.09.011

Hoffmann, H. et al. Impact of spatial soil and climate input data aggregation on regional yield simulations. PLoS ONE 11, e0151782 (2016).

pubmed: 27055028 pmcid: 4824533 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151782

Chaney, N. W. et al. Harnessing big data to rethink land heterogeneity in Earth system models. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 3311–3330 (2018).

doi: 10.5194/hess-22-3311-2018

Webber, H. et al. Climate change impacts on European crop yields: do we need to consider nitrogen limitation? Eur. J. Agron. 71, 123–134 (2015).

doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2015.09.002

Zimmermann, A. et al. Climate change impacts on crop yields, land use and environment in response to crop sowing dates and thermal time requirements. Agr. Syst. 157, 81–92 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.07.007

Boote, K. J., Jones, J. W., White, J. W., Asseng, S. & Lizaso, J. I. Putting mechanisms into crop production models. Plant Cell Environ. 36, 1658–1672 (2013).

doi: 10.1111/pce.12119 pubmed: 23600481

Asseng, S. et al. Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 827–832 (2013).

doi: 10.1038/nclimate1916

Bassu, S. et al. How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors? Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2301–2320 (2014).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.12520

Fleisher, D. H. et al. A potato model intercomparison across varying climates and productivity levels. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 1258–1281 (2017).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.13411

Li, T. et al. Uncertainties in predicting rice yield by current crop models under a wide range of climatic conditions. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1328–1341 (2015).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.12758

Rosenzweig, C. et al. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3268–3273 (2014).

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1222463110 pubmed: 24344314

Martre, P. et al. Multimodel ensembles of wheat growth: many models are better than one. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 911–925 (2015).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.12768

Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D. B., Ort, D. R. & Long, S. P. FACE-ing the facts: inconsistencies and interdependence among field, chamber and modeling studies of elevated [CO

doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02500.x pubmed: 18482226

Tao, F. et al. Why do crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections? A comprehensive analysis based on eight barley crop models. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 281, 107851 (2020).

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.107851

Wang, E. et al. The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions. Nat. Plants 3, 17102 (2017).

doi: 10.1038/nplants.2017.102 pubmed: 28714956

Wallach, D. et al. Multimodel ensembles improve predictions of crop–environment–management interactions. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5072–5083 (2018).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.14411

Rötter, R. P., Carter, T. R., Olesen, J. E. & Porter, J. R. Crop-climate models need an overhaul. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 175–177 (2011).

doi: 10.1038/nclimate1152

Manderscheid, R., Erbs, M. & Weigel, H.-J. Interactive effects of free-air CO

doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2011.12.007

Ainsworth, E. A. & Long, S. P. What have we learned from 15 years of free‐air CO

doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01224.x pubmed: 15720649

Kimball, B. A. Lessons from FACE: CO

doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2016.03.006

Kimball, B. A. Crop responses to elevated CO

doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2016.03.006 pubmed: 27043481

Bernacchi, C. J., Kimball, B. A., Quarles, D. R., Long, S. P. & Ort, D. R. Decreases in stomatal conductance of soybean under open-air elevation of [CO

pubmed: 17114275 pmcid: 1761983 doi: 10.1104/pp.106.089557

Gray, S. B. et al. Intensifying drought eliminates the expected benefits of elevated carbon dioxide for soybean. Nat. Plants 2, 16132 (2016).

doi: 10.1038/nplants.2016.132 pubmed: 27595230

Jin, Z., Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D. B. & Lobell, D. B. Increasing drought and diminishing benefits of elevated carbon dioxide for soybean yields across the US Midwest. Glob. Change Biol. 24, e522–e533 (2018).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.13946

Sanz-Sáez, Á. et al. Leaf and canopy scale drivers of genotypic variation in soybean response to elevated carbon dioxide concentration. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3908–3920 (2017).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.13678

Bishop, K. A., Betzelberger, A. M., Long, S. P. & Ainsworth, E. A. Is there potential to adapt soybean (Glycine max Merr.) to future [CO

doi: 10.1111/pce.12443 pubmed: 25211487

Ainsworth, E. A. & Rogers, A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO

doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01641.x pubmed: 17263773

Cai, C. et al. Responses of wheat and rice to factorial combinations of ambient and elevated CO

doi: 10.1111/gcb.13065

Ruiz-Vera, U. M., Siebers, M. H., Drag, D. W., Ort, D. R. & Bernacchi, C. J. Canopy warming caused photosynthetic acclimation and reduced seed yield in maize grown at ambient and elevated [CO

doi: 10.1111/gcb.13013

Sinclair, T. R. & Muchow, R. C. in Advances in Agronomy Vol. 65 (Ed. Sparks, D. L.) 215–265 (Academic Press, 1999).

Yin, X. & Struik, P. C. Can increased leaf photosynthesis be converted into higher crop mass production? A simulation study for rice using the crop model GECROS. J. Exp. Bot. 68, 2345–2360 (2017).

pubmed: 28379522 pmcid: 5447886 doi: 10.1093/jxb/erx085

Vanuytrecht, E. & Thorburn, P. J. Responses to atmospheric CO

doi: 10.1111/gcb.13600

Huntingford, C. et al. Implications of improved representations of plant respiration in a changing climate. Nat. Commun. 8, 1602 (2017).

pubmed: 29150610 pmcid: 5693865 doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01774-z

Yin, X. Improving ecophysiological simulation models to predict the impact of elevated atmospheric CO

doi: 10.1093/aob/mct016

Asseng, S., Kassie, B. T., Labra, M. H., Amador, C. & Calderini, D. F. Simulating the impact of source-sink manipulations in wheat. Field Crop. Res. 202, 47–56 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.04.031

Emberson, L. D. et al. Ozone effects on crops and consideration in crop models. Eur. J. Agr. 100, 19–34 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2018.06.002

Ewert, F. & Porter, J. R. Ozone effects on wheat in relation to CO

doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00351.x

Guarin, J. R., Kassie, B., Mashaheet, A. M., Burkey, K. & Asseng, S. Modeling the effects of tropospheric ozone on wheat growth and yield. Eur. J. Agr. 105, 13–23 (2019).

doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2019.02.004

van Oijen, M., Dreccer, M. F., Firsching, K. H. & Schnieders, B. J. Simple equations for dynamic models of the effects of CO

doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2004.05.002

Ainsworth, E. A., Yendrek, C. R., Sitch, S., Collins, W. J. & Emberson, L. D. The effects of tropospheric ozone on net primary productivity and implications for climate change. Annual Rev. Plant Biol. 63, 637–661 (2012).

doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042110-103829

Tao, F., Feng, Z., Tang, H., Chen, Y. & Kobayashi, K. Effects of climate change, CO

doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2017.01.032

Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F. & Dahe, Q. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

Lesk, C., Rowhani, P. & Ramankutty, N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 529, 84–87 (2016).

doi: 10.1038/nature16467 pubmed: 26738594

Barnabás, B., Jäger, K. & Fehér, A. The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant Cell Environ. 31, 11–38 (2008).

pubmed: 17971069

Eyshi Rezaei, E., Webber, H., Gaiser, T., Naab, J. & Ewert, F. Heat stress in cereals: mechanisms and modelling. Eur. J. Agr. 64, 98–113 (2015).

doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2014.10.003

Prasad, P. V. V., Bheemanahalli, R. & Jagadish, S. V. K. Field crops and the fear of heat stress—Opportunities, challenges and future directions. Field Crop. Res. 200, 114–121 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.09.024

Shi, W. et al. High day- and night-time temperatures affect grain growth dynamics in contrasting rice genotypes. J. Exp. Bot. 68, 5233–5245 (2017).

pubmed: 29106621 pmcid: 5853565 doi: 10.1093/jxb/erx344

Peng, S. et al. Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 9971–9975 (2004).

doi: 10.1073/pnas.0403720101 pubmed: 15226500 pmcid: 454199

Saini, H. S. & Westgate, M. E. in Advances in Agronomy Vol. 68 (Ed. Sparks, D. L.) 59–96 (Academic Press, 1999).

Mazdiyasni, O. & AghaKouchak, A. Substantial increase in concurrent droughts and heatwaves in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 11484–11489 (2015).

doi: 10.1073/pnas.1422945112 pubmed: 26324927 pmcid: 4577202

Lobell, D. B. et al. The shifting influence of drought and heat stress for crops in northeast Australia. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4115–4127 (2015).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.13022

Liu, B. et al. Testing the responses of four wheat crop models to heat stress at anthesis and grain filling. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1890–1903 (2016).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.13212

Barlow, K. M., Christy, B. P., O’Leary, G. J., Riffkin, P. A. & Nuttall, J. G. Simulating the impact of extreme heat and frost events on wheat crop production: a review. Field Crop. Res. 171, 109–119 (2015).

doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2014.11.010

Siebert, S., Webber, H., Zhao, G. & Ewert, F. Heat stress is overestimated in climate impact studies for irrigated agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 054023 (2017).

doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa702f

Webber, H. et al. Diverging importance of drought stress for maize and winter wheat in Europe. Nat. Commun. 9, 4249 (2018).

pubmed: 30315168 pmcid: 6185965 doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-06525-2

Siebert, S., Ewert, F., Rezaei, E. E., Kage, H. & Graβ, R. Impact of heat stress on crop yield—on the importance of considering canopy temperature. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 044012 (2014).

doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/9/4/044012

Webber, H. et al. Physical robustness of canopy temperature models for crop heat stress simulation across environments and production conditions. Field Crop. Res. 216, 75–88 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.11.005

Rosenzweig, C., Tubiello, F. N., Goldberg, R., Mills, E. & Bloomfield, J. Increased crop damage in the US from excess precipitation under climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 12, 197–202 (2002).

doi: 10.1016/S0959-3780(02)00008-0

Ebrahimi-Mollabashi, E. et al. Enhancing APSIM to simulate excessive moisture effects on root growth. Field Crop. Res. 236, 58–67 (2019).

doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2019.03.014

Li, Y., Guan, K., Schnitkey, G. D., DeLucia, E. & Peng, B. Excessive rainfall leads to maize yield loss of a comparable magnitude to extreme drought in the United States. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2325–2337 (2019).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.14628

Constantin, J. et al. Management and spatial resolution effects on yield and water balance at regional scale in crop models. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 275, 184–195 (2019).

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.05.013

Brilli, L. et al. Review and analysis of strengths and weaknesses of agro-ecosystem models for simulating C and N fluxes. Sci. Total Environ. 598, 445–470 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.208 pubmed: 28454025

Luo, Y. et al. Toward more realistic projections of soil carbon dynamics by Earth system models. Global Biogeochem. Cy. 30, 40–56 (2015).

doi: 10.1002/2015GB005239

Koven, C. D. et al. The effect of vertically resolved soil biogeochemistry and alternate soil C and N models on C dynamics of CLM4. Biogeosciences 10, 7109–7131 (2013).

doi: 10.5194/bg-10-7109-2013

Tang, J. Y., Riley, W. J., Koven, C. D. & Subin, Z. M. CLM4-BeTR, a generic biogeochemical transport and reaction module for CLM4: model development, evaluation, and application. Geosci. Model Dev. 6, 127–140 (2013).

doi: 10.5194/gmd-6-127-2013

Niu, S. et al. Global patterns and substrate-based mechanisms of the terrestrial nitrogen cycle. Ecol. Lett. 19, 697–709 (2016).

doi: 10.1111/ele.12591 pubmed: 26932540

Rötter, R. P. et al. Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: a comparison of nine crop models. Field Crop. Res. 133, 23–36 (2012).

doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2012.03.016

Palosuo, T. et al. Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of Europe: a comparison of eight crop growth models. Eur. J. Agr. 35, 103–114 (2011).

doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2011.05.001

Ehrhardt, F. et al. Assessing uncertainties in crop and pasture ensemble model simulations of productivity and N

doi: 10.1111/gcb.13965

Basso, B. et al. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen feedbacks on crop yields under climate change. Agricultural & Environmental Letters 3, 180026 (2018).

doi: 10.2134/ael2018.05.0026

Basso, B., Hyndman, D. W., Kendall, A. D., Grace, P. R. & Robertson, G. P. Can impacts of climate change and agricultural adaptation strategies be accurately quantified if crop models are annually re-initialized? PLoS ONE 10, e0127333 (2015).

pubmed: 26043188 pmcid: 4456366 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127333

Kollas, C. et al. Crop rotation modelling—a European model intercomparison. Eur. J. Agr. 70, 98–111 (2015).

doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2015.06.007

McDermid, S., Mearns, L. & Ruane, A. Representing agriculture in Earth system models: approaches and priorities for development. J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy. 9, 2230–2265 (2017).

doi: 10.1002/2016MS000749

Deutsch, C. A. et al. Increase in crop losses to insect pests in a warming climate. Science 361, 916–919 (2018).

doi: 10.1126/science.aat3466 pubmed: 30166490

Savary, S. et al. Crop health and its global impacts on the components of food security. Food Secur. 9, 311–327 (2017).

doi: 10.1007/s12571-017-0659-1

Porter, J. H., Parry, M. L. & Carter, T. R. The potential effects of climatic change on agricultural insect pests. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 57, 221–240 (1991).

doi: 10.1016/0168-1923(91)90088-8

Donatelli, M. et al. Modelling the impacts of pests and diseases on agricultural systems. Agr. Syst. 155, 213–224 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2017.01.019

Lammoglia, S.-K. et al. Modelling pesticides leaching in cropping systems: effect of uncertainties in climate, agricultural practices, soil and pesticide properties. Environ. Modell. Softw. 109, 342–352 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.08.007

Wang, R. et al. A review of pesticide fate and transport simulation at watershed level using SWAT: current status and research concerns. Sci. Total Environ. 669, 512–526 (2019).

doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.141 pubmed: 30884273

Ruane, A. C. et al. An AgMIP framework for improved agricultural representation in IAMs. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 125003 (2017).

pubmed: 30881482 pmcid: 6417889 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa8da6

Rötter, R. P. et al. Linking modelling and experimentation to better capture crop impacts of agroclimatic extremes—a review. Field Crop. Res. 221, 142–156 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2018.02.023

Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U. S. crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15594–15598 (2009).

doi: 10.1073/pnas.0906865106 pubmed: 19717432 pmcid: 2747166

Grunwald, S., Thompson, J. & Boettinger, J. Digital soil mapping and modeling at continental scales: finding solutions for global issues. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75, 1201–1213 (2011).

doi: 10.2136/sssaj2011.0025

Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids1km—global soil information based on automated mapping. PLoS ONE 9, e105992 (2014).

pubmed: 25171179 pmcid: 4149475 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0105992

Chaney, N. W. et al. POLARIS soil properties: 30-meter probabilistic maps of soil properties over the contiguous United States. Water Resour. Res. 55, 2916–2938 (2019).

doi: 10.1029/2018WR022797

Han, E., Ines, A. V. M. & Koo, J. Development of a 10-km resolution global soil profile dataset for crop modeling applications. Environ. Modell. Softw. 119, 70–83 (2019).

doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2019.05.012

Coucheney, E. et al. Key functional soil types explain data aggregation effects on simulated yield, soil carbon, drainage and nitrogen leaching at a regional scale. Geoderma 318, 167–181 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.11.025

Pongratz, J. et al. Models meet data: challenges and opportunities in implementing land management in Earth system models. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1470–1487 (2018).

doi: 10.1111/gcb.13988

Gbegbelegbe, S. et al. Baseline simulation for global wheat production with CIMMYT mega-environment specific cultivars. Field Crop. Res. 202, 122–135 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2016.06.010

Woodard, J. D. et al. The power of agricultural data. Science 362, 410–411 (2018).

doi: 10.1126/science.aav5002 pubmed: 30361365

Minet, J. et al. Crowdsourcing for agricultural applications: a review of uses and opportunities for a farmsourcing approach. Comput. Electron. Agr. 142, 126–138 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.compag.2017.08.026

van Bussel, L. G. J., Ewert, F. & Leffelaar, P. A. Effects of data aggregation on simulations of crop phenology. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 142, 75–84 (2011).

doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2010.03.019

Boryan, C., Yang, Z., Mueller, R. & Craig, M. Monitoring US agriculture: the US department of agriculture, national agricultural statistics service, cropland data layer program. Geocarto Int. 26, 341–358 (2011).

doi: 10.1080/10106049.2011.562309

Xie, Y., Lark, T. J., Brown, J. F. & Gibbs, H. K. Mapping irrigated cropland extent across the conterminous United States at 30 m resolution using a semi-automatic training approach on Google Earth Engine. ISPRS J. Photogramm. 155, 136–149 (2019).

doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2019.07.005

Azzari, G. et al. Satellite mapping of tillage practices in the North Central US region from 2005 to 2016. Remote Sens. Environ. 221, 417–429 (2019).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2018.11.010

Seifert, C. A., Azzari, G. & Lobell, D. B. Satellite detection of cover crops and their effects on crop yield in the Midwestern United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064033 (2018).

doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aac4c8

Urban, D., Guan, K. & Jain, M. Estimating sowing dates from satellite data over the U. S. Midwest: a comparison of multiple sensors and metrics. Remote Sens. Environ. 211, 400–412 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2018.03.039

Lobell, D. B., Sibley, A. & Ortiz-Monasterio, J. I. Extreme heat effects on wheat senescence in India. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 186–189 (2012).

doi: 10.1038/nclimate1356

Sakamoto, T. et al. A two-step filtering approach for detecting maize and soybean phenology with time-series MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 2146–2159 (2010).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2010.04.019

Baldocchi, D. et al. FLUXNET: A new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem–scale aarbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. B. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 82, 2415–2434 (2001).

doi: 10.1175/1520-0477(2001)082<2415:FANTTS>2.3.CO;2

Kimball, B. A. et al. Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: an inter-comparison among 29 maize models. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 271, 264–284 (2019).

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.02.037

Boote, K. J., Prasad, V., Allen, L. H. Jr, Singh, P. & Jones, J. W. Modeling sensitivity of grain yield to elevated temperature in the DSSAT crop models for peanut, soybean, dry bean, chickpea, sorghum, and millet. Eur. J. Agr. 100, 99–109 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.eja.2017.09.002

Lobell, D. B. et al. Greater sensitivity to drought accompanies maize yield increase in the U. S. Midwest. Science 344, 516–519 (2014).

pubmed: 24786079 doi: 10.1126/science.1251423

Lobell, D. B. & Asseng, S. Comparing estimates of climate change impacts from process-based and statistical crop models. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 015001 (2017).

doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa518a

Roberts, M. J., Braun, N. O., Sinclair, T. R., Lobell, D. B. & Schlenker, W. Comparing and combining process-based crop models and statistical models with some implications for climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 095010 (2017).

doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa7f33

Guan, K. et al. The shared and unique values of optical, fluorescence, thermal and microwave satellite data for estimating large-scale crop yields. Remote Sens. Environ. 199, 333–349 (2017).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2017.06.043

Luo, Y., Guan, K. & Peng, J. STAIR: a generic and fully-automated method to fuse multiple sources of optical satellite data to generate a high-resolution, daily and cloud-/gap-free surface reflectance product. Remote Sens. Environ. 214, 87–99 (2018).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2018.04.042

Viña, A., Gitelson, A. A., Nguy-Robertson, A. L. & Peng, Y. Comparison of different vegetation indices for the remote assessment of green leaf area index of crops. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3468–3478 (2011).

doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2011.08.010

Anderson, M. et al. Mapping daily evapotranspiration at field to continental scales using geostationary and polar orbiting satellite imagery. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sc. 15, 223–239 (2011).

doi: 10.5194/hess-15-223-2011

Cai, Y. et al. Integrating satellite and climate data to predict wheat yield in Australia using machine learning approaches. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 274, 144–159 (2019).

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.03.010

Huang, J. et al. Assimilation of remote sensing into crop growth models: current status and perspectives. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 276–277, 107609 (2019).

doi: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2019.06.008

Asseng, S. et al. Model-driven multidisciplinary global research to meet future needs: the case for “improving radiation use efficiency to increase yield”. Crop Sci. 59, 843–849 (2019).

doi: 10.2135/cropsci2018.09.0562

Vermeulen, S. et al. Climate change, agriculture and food security: a global partnership to link research and action for low-income agricultural producers and consumers. Curr. Opin. Env. Sust. 4, 128–133 (2012).

doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2011.12.004