Articles | Volume 11, issue 1
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-113-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-11-113-2020
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
11 Feb 2020
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 11 Feb 2020
| 11 Feb 2020
A multi-model analysis of teleconnected crop yield variability in a range of cropping systems
Water and Development Research Group, Aalto University, Finland,
Tietotie 1E, 02150 Espoo, Finland
Joseph H. A. Guillaume
Water and Development Research Group, Aalto University, Finland,
Tietotie 1E, 02150 Espoo, Finland
Christoph Müller
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Member of the Leibniz Association, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
Toshichika Iizumi
Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, National Agriculture and
Food Research Organization, 3-1-3 Kannondai, Tsukuba, 305-8604 Japan
Water and Development Research Group, Aalto University, Finland,
Tietotie 1E, 02150 Espoo, Finland
Related authors
No articles found.
Sibyll Schaphoff, David Hötten, Christoph Müller, Dieter Gerten, Sebastian Ostberg, and Werner von Bloh
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 7615–7651, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-7615-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-7615-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Methane is a powerful driver of climate change, yet emissions from wetlands and farming remain uncertain. We improved a global vegetation model that links water, plants and soils to methane production and release. The model now captures waterlogged areas, methane creation and escape, and flood-tolerant plants. It reproduces global wetland patterns and emissions more realistically, helping assess how climate and land-use change may affect future methane release and improve climate projections.
Jannes Breier, Luana Schwarz, Hannah Prawitz, Werner von Bloh, Christoph Müller, Stephen Björn Wirth, Max Bechthold, Dieter Gerten, and Jonathan F. Donges
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 6829–6855, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-6829-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-6829-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new modelling framework that combines simulations of environmental change and human decision-making in an integrated approach. It allows researchers to explore how farming decisions affect land, water, and climate, and how these environmental changes influence future decisions. By connecting people and nature, it helps investigate food security, climate adaptation, and sustainability challenges, and supports the development of more realistic scenarios of future environmental change.
Lily-belle Sweet, Christoph Müller, Jonas Jägermeyr, and Jakob Zscheischler
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 6687–6735, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-6687-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-6687-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
This study presents a method to identify climate drivers of an impact, such as agricultural yield failure, from high-resolution weather data. The approach systematically generates, selects and combines predictors that generalise across different environments. Tested on crop model simulations, the identified drivers are used to create parsimonious models that achieve high predictive performance over long time horizons, offering a more interpretable alternative to black-box models.
Xinrui Liu, Thomas Gasser, Jianmin Ma, Junfeng Liu, Jonas Jägermeyr, Christoph Müller, Christian Folberth, Florian Zabel, Atul K. Jain, Wenfeng Liu, and Heidi Webber
Geosci. Model Dev., 19, 5857–5880, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-5857-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-19-5857-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
This paper presents a crop yield emulator for four major crops (maize, rice, soybean, and wheat). Trained on process-based crop model simulations, it captures yield responses to key drivers: atmospheric CO2, temperature, water availability, and nitrogen use. The emulator closely reproduces the behavior of complex crop models and aligns well with FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization)-reported historical yields. It provides a robust and efficient method for representing agricultural outcomes in climate change impact assessments.
Heindriken Dahlmann, Lauren S. Andersen, Sibyll Schaphoff, Fabian Stenzel, Johanna Braun, Christoph Müller, and Dieter Gerten
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 30, 3185–3201, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-3185-2026, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-3185-2026, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Green water stress can negatively affect agricultural production and is often mitigated through irrigation. In this global modelling study, we investigate where and to what extent the implementation of irrigation helps to compensate for green water stress but at the same time leads to an increase in blue water scarcity. Our findings highlight the need to consider both water stresses together, along with their dynamic interactions, for sustainable water management.
Marie Hemmen, Heidi Webber, Werner von Bloh, Jens Heinke, and Christoph Müller
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1898, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1898, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
In this study we present a lightweight approach to compute crop canopy temperatures in computationally expensive models, which we apply in the global Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed Land model. The evaluation reveals that the developed approach reproduces cooling and heating effects of the canopy for daily maximum temperatures and suggests that replacement of standard 2 m air temperature input by simulated canopy temperatures improves the skill to model high temperature impacts on crop growth.
Susanne Rolinski, Jens Heinke, Stephen B. Wirth, and Christoph Müller
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1529, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1529, 2026
Short summary
Short summary
Livestock rearing in semi-arid steppe regions is traditionally extensive but under pressure both from increasing demand and by climate change. We demonstrate by applying a vegetation model that increasing management intensity by increasing fertilization and animal densities result in increasing livestock productivity but also environmental impacts in a nonlinear way. That allows to find management combinations with low environmental impacts without jeopardizing livestock productivity.
Luana Schwarz, Jannes Breier, Hannah Prawitz, Max Bechthold, Werner von Bloh, Sara M. Constantino, Dieter Gerten, Jobst Heitzig, Ronja Hotz, Leander John, Christoph Müller, Johan Rockström, and Jonathan F. Donges
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4079, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4079, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
We present a novel global model that links farmer decisions with ecological processes to explore how agricultural systems co-evolve. Unlike previous tools, it captures feedbacks between society and nature at up-to planetary scale. We find that conservation practices can restore soil health and support stable harvests. Adoption spreads through learning and norms, showing how regeneration at the farm scale can ripple outward, contributing to global sustainability and Earth system resilience.
Marko Kallio, Pihla Seppälä, Lauri Ahopelto, Amy Fallon, Pekka Kinnunen, Matias Heino, and Matti Kummu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3909, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3909, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Droughts which impact precipitation, soil moisture and streamflow are more impactful than droughts affecting any one compartment separately. We perform the first global multi-model assessment of (simultaneously co-occurring) compound droughts. We find that compound droughts have become more widespread and more likely across 1961–2020 except for the boreal environments. The global models, however, have high uncertainty: there is a need for global models targeting droughts specifically.
Edna Johanna Molina Bacca, Miodrag Stevanović, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky, Jonathan Cornelis Doelman, Louise Parsons Chini, Jan Volkholz, Katja Frieler, Christopher Paul Oliver Reyer, George Hurtt, Florian Humpenöder, Kristine Karstens, Jens Heinke, Christoph Müller, Jan Philipp Dietrich, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Elke Stehfest, and Alexander Popp
Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 753–801, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-753-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-753-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Land-use change projections are vital for impact studies. This study compares updated land-use model projections, including CO2 fertilization among other upgrades, from the MAgPIE and IMAGE models under three scenarios, highlighting differences, uncertainty hotspots, and harmonization effects. Key findings include reduced bioenergy crop demand projections and differences in grassland area allocation and sizes, with socioeconomic–climate scenarios' largest effect on variance starting in 2030.
Elena Xoplaki, Florian Ellsäßer, Jens Grieger, Katrin M. Nissen, Joaquim G. Pinto, Markus Augenstein, Ting-Chen Chen, Hendrik Feldmann, Petra Friederichs, Daniel Gliksman, Laura Goulier, Karsten Haustein, Jens Heinke, Lisa Jach, Florian Knutzen, Stefan Kollet, Jürg Luterbacher, Niklas Luther, Susanna Mohr, Christoph Mudersbach, Christoph Müller, Efi Rousi, Felix Simon, Laura Suarez-Gutierrez, Svenja Szemkus, Sara M. Vallejo-Bernal, Odysseas Vlachopoulos, and Frederik Wolf
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 541–564, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-541-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-25-541-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
Europe frequently experiences compound events, with major impacts. We investigate these events’ interactions, characteristics, and changes over time, focusing on socio-economic impacts in Germany and central Europe. Highlighting 2018’s extreme events, this study reveals impacts on water, agriculture, and forests and stresses the need for impact-focused definitions and better future risk quantification to support adaptation planning.
Stephen Björn Wirth, Johanna Braun, Jens Heinke, Sebastian Ostberg, Susanne Rolinski, Sibyll Schaphoff, Fabian Stenzel, Werner von Bloh, Friedhelm Taube, and Christoph Müller
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 7889–7914, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7889-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-7889-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new approach to modelling biological nitrogen fixation (BNF) in the Lund–Potsdam–Jena managed Land dynamic global vegetation model. While in the original approach BNF depended on actual evapotranspiration, the new approach considers soil water content and temperature, vertical root distribution, the nitrogen (N) deficit and carbon (C) costs. The new approach improved simulated BNF compared to the scientific literature and the model ability to project future C and N cycle dynamics.
Felix Jäger, Jonas Schwaab, Yann Quilcaille, Michael Windisch, Jonathan Doelman, Stefan Frank, Mykola Gusti, Petr Havlik, Florian Humpenöder, Andrey Lessa Derci Augustynczik, Christoph Müller, Kanishka Balu Narayan, Ryan Sebastian Padrón, Alexander Popp, Detlef van Vuuren, Michael Wögerer, and Sonia Isabelle Seneviratne
Earth Syst. Dynam., 15, 1055–1071, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1055-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-15-1055-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Climate change mitigation strategies developed with socioeconomic models rely on the widespread (re)planting of trees to limit global warming below 2°. However, most of these models neglect climate-driven shifts in forest damage like fires. By assessing existing mitigation scenarios, we show the exposure of projected forestation areas to fire-promoting weather conditions. Our study highlights the problem of ignoring climate-driven shifts in forest damage and ways to address it.
Stephen Björn Wirth, Arne Poyda, Friedhelm Taube, Britta Tietjen, Christoph Müller, Kirsten Thonicke, Anja Linstädter, Kai Behn, Sibyll Schaphoff, Werner von Bloh, and Susanne Rolinski
Biogeosciences, 21, 381–410, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-381-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-381-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
In dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), the role of functional diversity in forage supply and soil organic carbon storage of grasslands is not explicitly taken into account. We introduced functional diversity into the Lund Potsdam Jena managed Land (LPJmL) DGVM using CSR theory. The new model reproduced well-known trade-offs between plant traits and can be used to quantify the role of functional diversity in climate change mitigation using different functional diversity scenarios.
Katja Frieler, Jan Volkholz, Stefan Lange, Jacob Schewe, Matthias Mengel, María del Rocío Rivas López, Christian Otto, Christopher P. O. Reyer, Dirk Nikolaus Karger, Johanna T. Malle, Simon Treu, Christoph Menz, Julia L. Blanchard, Cheryl S. Harrison, Colleen M. Petrik, Tyler D. Eddy, Kelly Ortega-Cisneros, Camilla Novaglio, Yannick Rousseau, Reg A. Watson, Charles Stock, Xiao Liu, Ryan Heneghan, Derek Tittensor, Olivier Maury, Matthias Büchner, Thomas Vogt, Tingting Wang, Fubao Sun, Inga J. Sauer, Johannes Koch, Inne Vanderkelen, Jonas Jägermeyr, Christoph Müller, Sam Rabin, Jochen Klar, Iliusi D. Vega del Valle, Gitta Lasslop, Sarah Chadburn, Eleanor Burke, Angela Gallego-Sala, Noah Smith, Jinfeng Chang, Stijn Hantson, Chantelle Burton, Anne Gädeke, Fang Li, Simon N. Gosling, Hannes Müller Schmied, Fred Hattermann, Jida Wang, Fangfang Yao, Thomas Hickler, Rafael Marcé, Don Pierson, Wim Thiery, Daniel Mercado-Bettín, Robert Ladwig, Ana Isabel Ayala-Zamora, Matthew Forrest, and Michel Bechtold
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1–51, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Our paper provides an overview of all observational climate-related and socioeconomic forcing data used as input for the impact model evaluation and impact attribution experiments within the third round of the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project. The experiments are designed to test our understanding of observed changes in natural and human systems and to quantify to what degree these changes have already been induced by climate change.
Weihang Liu, Tao Ye, Christoph Müller, Jonas Jägermeyr, James A. Franke, Haynes Stephens, and Shuo Chen
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 7203–7221, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7203-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-7203-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We develop a machine-learning-based crop model emulator with the inputs and outputs of multiple global gridded crop model ensemble simulations to capture the year-to-year variation of crop yield under future climate change. The emulator can reproduce the year-to-year variation of simulated yield given by the crop models under CO2, temperature, water, and nitrogen perturbations. Developing this emulator can provide a tool to project future climate change impact in a simple way.
Sebastian Ostberg, Christoph Müller, Jens Heinke, and Sibyll Schaphoff
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 3375–3406, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-3375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present a new toolbox for generating input datasets for terrestrial ecosystem models from diverse and partially conflicting data sources. The toolbox documents the sources and processing of data and is designed to make inconsistencies between source datasets transparent so that users can make their own decisions on how to resolve these should they not be content with our default assumptions. As an example, we use the toolbox to create input datasets at two different spatial resolutions.
Jens Heinke, Susanne Rolinski, and Christoph Müller
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 2455–2475, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2455-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-2455-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We develop a livestock module for the global vegetation model LPJmL5.0 to simulate the impact of grazing dairy cattle on carbon and nitrogen cycles in grasslands. A novelty of the approach is that it accounts for the effect of feed quality on feed uptake and feed utilization by animals. The portioning of dietary nitrogen into milk, feces, and urine shows very good agreement with estimates obtained from animal trials.
Chinchu Mohan, Tom Gleeson, James S. Famiglietti, Vili Virkki, Matti Kummu, Miina Porkka, Lan Wang-Erlandsson, Xander Huggins, Dieter Gerten, and Sonja C. Jähnig
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 6247–6262, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-6247-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-6247-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The relationship between environmental flow violations and freshwater biodiversity at a large scale is not well explored. This study intended to carry out an exploratory evaluation of this relationship at a large scale. While our results suggest that streamflow and EF may not be the only determinants of freshwater biodiversity at large scales, they do not preclude the existence of relationships at smaller scales or with more holistic EF methods or with other biodiversity data or metrics.
Kristine Karstens, Benjamin Leon Bodirsky, Jan Philipp Dietrich, Marta Dondini, Jens Heinke, Matthias Kuhnert, Christoph Müller, Susanne Rolinski, Pete Smith, Isabelle Weindl, Hermann Lotze-Campen, and Alexander Popp
Biogeosciences, 19, 5125–5149, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-5125-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-5125-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Soil organic carbon (SOC) has been depleted by anthropogenic land cover change and agricultural management. While SOC models often simulate detailed biochemical processes, the management decisions are still little investigated at the global scale. We estimate that soils have lost around 26 GtC relative to a counterfactual natural state in 1975. Yet, since 1975, SOC has been increasing again by 4 GtC due to a higher productivity, recycling of crop residues and manure, and no-tillage practices.
Vili Virkki, Elina Alanärä, Miina Porkka, Lauri Ahopelto, Tom Gleeson, Chinchu Mohan, Lan Wang-Erlandsson, Martina Flörke, Dieter Gerten, Simon N. Gosling, Naota Hanasaki, Hannes Müller Schmied, Niko Wanders, and Matti Kummu
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 3315–3336, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3315-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-3315-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Direct and indirect human actions have altered streamflow across the world since pre-industrial times. Here, we apply a method of environmental flow envelopes (EFEs) that develops the existing global environmental flow assessments by methodological advances and better consideration of uncertainty. By assessing the violations of the EFE, we comprehensively quantify the frequency, severity, and trends of flow alteration during the past decades, illustrating anthropogenic effects on streamflow.
Alexander J. Horton, Nguyen V. K. Triet, Long P. Hoang, Sokchhay Heng, Panha Hok, Sarit Chung, Jorma Koponen, and Matti Kummu
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 967–983, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-967-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-22-967-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
We studied the cumulative impact of future development and climate change scenarios on discharge and floods in the Cambodian Mekong floodplain. We found that hydropower impacts dominate, acting in opposition to climate change impacts to drastically increase dry season flows and reduce wet season flows even when considering the higher RCP8.5 level. The consequent reduction in flood extent and duration may reduce regional flood risk but may also have negative impacts on floodplain productivity.
Vera Porwollik, Susanne Rolinski, Jens Heinke, Werner von Bloh, Sibyll Schaphoff, and Christoph Müller
Biogeosciences, 19, 957–977, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-957-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-957-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
The study assesses impacts of grass cover crop cultivation on cropland during main-crop off-season periods applying the global vegetation model LPJmL (V.5.0-tillage-cc). Compared to simulated bare-soil fallowing practices, cover crops led to increased soil carbon content and reduced nitrogen leaching rates on the majority of global cropland. Yield responses of main crops following cover crops vary with location, duration of altered management, crop type, water regime, and tillage practice.
Tobias Herzfeld, Jens Heinke, Susanne Rolinski, and Christoph Müller
Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 1037–1055, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1037-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1037-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Soil organic carbon sequestration on cropland has been proposed as a climate change mitigation strategy. We simulate different agricultural management practices under climate change scenarios using a global biophysical model. We find that at the global aggregated level, agricultural management practices are not capable of enhancing total carbon storage in the soil, yet for some climate regions, we find that there is potential to enhance the carbon content in cropland soils.
Cited articles
Abram, S. V., Helwig, N. E., Moodie, C. A., DeYoung, C. G., MacDonald III,
A. W., and Waller, N. G.: Bootstrap Enhanced Penalized Regression for
Variable Selection with Neuroimaging Data, Frontiers in neuroscience, 10,
344, 2016.
Anderson, W., Seager, R., Baethgen, W., and Cane, M.: Crop production
variability in North and South America forced by life-cycles of the El Niño Southern Oscillation, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 239, 151–165, 2017.
Anderson, W. B., Seager, R., Baethgen, W., Cane, M., and You, L.: Synchronous
crop failures and climate-forced production variability, Sci. Adv., 5, eaaw1976, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw1976, 2019.
Balkovic, J., Khabarov, N., and Skalsky, R.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop
Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-IIASA maize,
Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403203, 2018a.
Balkovic, J., Khabarov, N., and Skalsky, R.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop
Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-IIASA rice,
Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403199, 2018b.
Balkovic, J., Khabarov, N., and Skalsky, R.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop
Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-IIASA soy,
Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403197, 2018c.
Balkovic, J., Khabarov, N., and Skalsky, R.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop
Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-IIASA wheat,
Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403195, 2018d.
Bondeau, A., Smith, P. C., Zaehle, S., Schaphoff, S., Lucht, W., Cramer, W.,
Gerten, D., Lotze-campen, H., Müller, C., Reichstein, M., and Smith, B.:
Modelling the role of agriculture for the 20th century global terrestrial
carbon balance, Global Change Biol., 13, 679–706,
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01305.x, 2007.
Ceglar, A., Turco, M., Toreti, A., and Doblas-Reyes, F. J.: Linking crop yield anomalies to large-scale atmospheric circulation in Europe, Agr.
Forest Meteorol., 240, 35–45, 2017.
Center for Robust Decision-making on Climate and Energy Policy: Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) Project, available at: http://www.rdcep.org/research-projects/ggcmi, last access: 11 November 2017.
Challinor, A. J., Watson, J., Lobell, D. B., Howden, S. M., Smith, D. R., and
Chhetri, N.: A meta-analysis of crop yield under climate change and adaptation, Nat. Clim.Change, 4, 287–291, 2014.
Coumou, D. and Robinson, A.: Historic and future increase in the global land area affected by monthly heat extremes, Environ. Res. Lett., 8, 034018, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034018, 2013.
Cullen, H. M., Kaplan, A., and Arkin, P. A.: Impact of the North Atlantic
Oscillation on Middle Eastern climate and streamflow, Climatic Change, 55,
315–338, 2002.
Dai, A., Trenberth, K. E., and Karl, T. R.: Global variations in droughts and
wet spells: 1900–1995, Geophys. Res. Lett., 25, 3367–3370, 1998.
Deryng, D. AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1
output data set: PEGASUS maize, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1409550, 2018a.
Deryng, D. AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1
output data set: PEGASUS soy, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1409548, 2018b.
Deryng, D. AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1
output data set: PEGASUS wheat, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1409546, 2018c.
Deryng, D., Sacks, W. J., Barford, C. C., and Ramankutty, N.: Simulating the
effects of climate and agricultural management practices on global crop yield, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 25, GB2006, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GB003765, 2011.
Deryng, D., Conway, D., Ramankutty, N., Price, J., and Warren, R.: Global crop yield response to extreme heat stress under multiple climate change
futures, Environ. Res. Lett., 9, 034011, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034011, 2014.
de Wit, A. J. and Van Diepen, C. A.: Crop growth modelling and crop yield
forecasting using satellite-derived meteorological inputs, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf., 10, 414–425, 2008.
Elliott, J.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: pAPSIM maize, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403189, 2018a.
Elliott, J.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: pAPSIM soy, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403185, 2018b.
Elliott, J.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: pAPSIM wheat, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403183, 2018c.
Elliott, J.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: pDSSAT maize, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403181, 2018d.
Elliott, J.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: pDSSAT rice, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403177, 2018e.
Elliott, J.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: pDSSAT soy, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403173, 2018f.
Elliott, J.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: pDSSAT wheat, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403171, 2018g.
Elliott, J., Kelly, D., Chryssanthacopoulos, J., Glotter, M., Jhunjhnuwala,
K., Best, N., Wilde, M., and Foster, I.: The parallel system for integrating
impact models and sectors (pSIMS), Environ. Model. Softw., 62, 509–516,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2014.04.008, 2014.
Elliott, J., Müller, C., Deryng, D., Chryssanthacopoulos, J., Boote, K. J., Büchner, M., Foster, I., Glotter, M., Heinke, J., Iizumi, T., Izaurralde, R. C., Mueller, N. D., Ray, D. K., Rosenzweig, C., Ruane, A. C.,
and Sheffield, J.: The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison: Data and
modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0), Geosci. Model Dev., 8, 261–277,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-261-2015, 2015.
Florida State University: ENSO Index According to JMA SSTA, available at: https://www.coaps.fsu.edu/jma, last access: August 2018.
Folberth, C.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: GEPIC maize, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408577, 2018a.
Folberth, C.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: GEPIC rice, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408575, 2018b.
Folberth, C.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: GEPIC soy, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408573, 2018c.
Folberth, C.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: GEPIC wheat, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408571, 2018d.
Folberth, C., Gaiser, T., Abbaspour, K. C., Schulin, R., and Yang, H.:
Regionalization of a large-scale crop growth model for sub-Saharan Africa:
Model setup, evaluation, and estimation of maize yields, Agr. Ecosyst. Environ., 151, 21–33, 2012.
Folberth, C., Elliott, J., Müller, C., Balkovic, J., Chryssanthacopoulos, J., Izaurralde, R., Jones, C., Khabarov, N., Liu, W., Reddy, A., Schmid, E., Skalský, R., Yang, H., Arneth, A., Ciais, P., Deryng, D., Lawrence, P., Olin, S., Pugh, T., Ruane, A., and Wang, X.: Parameterization-induced uncertainties and impacts of crop management harmonization in a global gridded crop model ensemble, PLoS ONE, 14, e0221862, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0221862, 2019.
Hameed, S. N., Jin, D., and Thilakan, V.: A model for super El Niños,
Nat. Commun., 9, 2528, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04803-7, 2018.
Hayashi, K., Llorca, L., Rustini, S., Setyanto, P., and Zaini, Z.: Reducing
vulnerability of rainfed agriculture through seasonal climate predictions: A
case study on the rainfed rice production in Southeast Asia, Agr. Syst., 162, 66–76, 2018.
Heinke, J., Müller, C., Lannerstad, M., Gerten, D., and Lucht, W.: Freshwater resources under success and failure of the Paris climate agreement, Earth Syst. Dynam., 10, 205–217, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-205-2019, 2019.
Heino, M.: Crops and oscillations analysis scripts, available at: https://github.com/matheino/crops_and_oscillations, last access: 19 September 2019.
Heino, M., Puma, M. J., Ward, P. J., Gerten, D., Heck, V., Siebert, S., and
Kummu, M.: Two-thirds of global cropland area impacted by climate oscillations, Nat. Commun., 9, 1257, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-02071-5, 2018.
Hoek, S. and de Wit, A.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: CGMS-WOFOST maize, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408537, 2018a.
Hoek, S. and de Wit, A.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: CGMS-WOFOST rice, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408529, 2018b.
Hoek, S. and de Wit, A.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: CGMS-WOFOST soy, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408521, 2018c.
Hoek, S. and de Wit, A.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: CGMS-WOFOST wheat, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408517, 2018d.
Hurrell, J. W.: Decadal trends in the North Atlantic Oscillation: regional
temperatures and precipitation, Science-AAAS-Weekly Paper Edition, 269,
676–678, 1995.
Hurrell, J. W., Kushnir, Y., Ottersen, G., and Visbeck, M.: An overview of
the North Atlantic oscillation, The North Atlantic Oscillation: climatic
significance and environmental impact, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C., USA, 1–35, 2003.
Iizumi, T. and Ramankutty, N.: Changes in yield variability of major crops
for 1981–2010 explained by climate change, Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 034003, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034003, 2016.
Iizumi, T., Luo, J., Challinor, A. J., Sakurai, G., Yokozawa, M., Sakuma, H., Brown, M. E., and Yamagata, T.: Impacts of El Niño Southern Oscillation on the global yields of major crops, Nat. Commun., 5, 3712, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4712, 2014.
Iizumi, T., Kotoku, M., Kim, W., West, P. C., Gerber, J. S., and Brown, M. E.: Uncertainties of potentials and recent changes in global yields of major
crops resulting from census-and satellite-based yield datasets at multiple
resolutions, PloS One, 13, e0203809, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0203809, 2018a.
Iizumi, T., Shin, Y., Kim, W., Kim, M., and Choi, J.: Global crop yield
forecasting using seasonal climate information from a multi-model ensemble,
Clim. Serv., 11, 13–23, 2018b.
Izaurralde, R. C., Williams, J. R., Mcgill, W. B., Rosenberg, N. J., and Jakas, M. Q.: Simulating soil C dynamics with EPIC: Model description and
testing against long-term data, Ecol. Model., 192, 362–384, 2006.
Izaurralde, R. C., McGill, W. B., and Williams, J. R.: Development and
application of the EPIC model for carbon cycle, greenhouse gas mitigation,
and biofuel studies, in: Managing agricultural greenhouse gases, Elsevier,
USA, 293–308, 2012.
Jägermeyr, J., Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S., Heinke, J., Lucht, W., and
Rockström, J.: Integrated crop water management might sustainably halve
the global food gap, Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 025002, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/2/025002, 2016.
Jägermeyr, J., Pastor, A., Biemans, H., and Gerten, D.: Reconciling irrigated food production with environmental flows for Sustainable Development Goals implementation, Nat. Commun., 8, 15900, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15900, 2017.
Jones, J. W., Hoogenboom, G., Porter, C. H., Boote, K. J., Batchelor, W. D.,
Hunt, L. A., Wilkens, P. W., Singh, U., Gijsman, A. J., and Ritchie, J. T.:
The DSSAT cropping system model, Eur. J. Agron., 18, 235–265, 2003.
Keating, B. A., Carberry, P. S., Hammer, G. L., Probert, M. E., Robertson, M. J., Holzworth, D., Huth, N. I., Hargreaves, J. N., Meinke, H., and Hochman, Z.: An overview of APSIM, a model designed for farming systems simulation, Eur. J. Agron., 18, 267–288, 2003.
Kim, M. and McCarl, B. A.: The agricultural value of information on the North Atlantic Oscillation: yield and economic effects, Climatic Change, 71, 117–139, 2005.
Kummu, M., Ward, P. J., de Moel, H., and Varis, O.: Is physical water scarcity a new phenomenon? Global assessment of water shortage over the last
two millennia, Environ. Res. Lett., 5, 034006, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034006, 2010.
Kummu, M., Guillaume, J., De Moel, H., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Veldkamp, T., and Ward, P. J.: The world's road to water
scarcity: shortage and stress in the 20th century and pathways towards
sustainability, Scient. Rep., 6, 38495, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38495, 2016.
Lindeskog, M., Arneth, A., Bondeau, A., Waha, K., Seaquist, J., Olin, S., and Smith, B.: Implications of accounting for land use in simulations of ecosystem carbon cycling in Africa, Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 385–407, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-385-2013, 2013.
Liu, J., Williams, J. R., Zehnder, A. J., and Yang, H.: GEPIC – modelling
wheat yield and crop water productivity with high resolution on a global scale, Agr. Syst., 94, 478–493, 2007.
Liu, W., and Yang, H.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: PEPIC maize, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403211, 2018a.
Liu, W., and Yang, H.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: PEPIC rice, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403209, 2018b.
Liu, W., and Yang, H.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: PEPIC soy, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403207, 2018c.
Liu, W., and Yang, H.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: PEPIC wheat, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403205, 2018d.
Liu, W., Yang, H., Folberth, C., Wang, X., Luo, Q., and Schulin, R.: Global
investigation of impacts of PET methods on simulating crop-water relations for maize, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 221, 164–175, 2016.
Ludescher, J., Gozolchiani, A., Bogachev, M. I., Bunde, A., Havlin, S., and
Schellnhuber, H. J.: Very early warning of next El Niño, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 2064–2066, 2014.
Luo, J., Behera, S., Masumoto, Y., Sakuma, H., and Yamagata, T.: Successful
prediction of the consecutive IOD in 2006 and 2007, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35,
L14S02, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032793, 2008.
Martens, B., Miralles, D. G., Lievens, H., van der Schalie, R., de Jeu, R. A. M., Fernández-Prieto, D., Beck, H. E., Dorigo, W. A., and Verhoest, N. E. C.: GLEAM v3: satellite-based land evaporation and root-zone soil moisture, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1903–1925, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1903-2017, 2017.
Müller, C.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI)
phase 1 output data set: LPJmL maize, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403073, 2018a.
Müller, C.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI)
phase 1 output data set: LPJmL rice, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403060, 2018b.
Müller, C.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI)
phase 1 output data set: LPJmL soy, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403054, 2018c.
Müller, C.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI)
phase 1 output data set: LPJmL wheat, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1403013, 2018d.
Müller, C., Elliott, J., Chryssanthacopoulos, J., Arneth, A., Balkovic, J., Ciais, P., Deryng, D., Folberth, C., Glotter, M., Hoek, S., Iizumi, T.,
Izaurralde, R. C., Jones, C., Khabarov, N., Lawrence, P., Liu, W., Olin, S.,
Pugh, T. A. M., Ray, D. K., Reddy, A., Rosenzweig, C., Ruane, A. C., Sakurai, G., Schmid, E., Skalsky, R., Song, C. X., Wang, X., De Wit, A., and Yang, H.: Global gridded crop model evaluation: Benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications, Geosci. Model Dev., 10, 1403–1422, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-1403-2017, 2017.
Müller, C., Elliott, J., Pugh, T. A. M., Ruane, A. C., Ciais, P., Balkovic, J., Deryng, D., Folberth, C., Cesar Izaurralde, R., Jones, C. D.,
Khabarov, N., Lawrence, P., Liu, W., Reddy, A. D., Schmid, E., and Wang, X.:
Global patterns of crop yield stability under additional nutrient and water
inputs, PLoS ONE, 13, e0198748, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198748, 2018.
Müller, C., Elliott, J., Kelly, D., Arneth, A., Balkovic, J., Ciais, P.,
Deryng, D., Folberth, C., Hoek, S., and Izaurralde, R. C.: The Global Gridded
Crop Model Intercomparison phase 1 simulation dataset, Scient. Data, 6, 50, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-019-0023-8, 2019.
National Center for Atmospheric Research: Hurrell North Atlantic Oscillation Index (PC-based), available at: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/hurrell-north-atlantic-oscillation-nao-index-pc-based, last access: August 2018.
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory: Dipole Mode Index (DMI), available at: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/DMI/, last access: August 2018.
NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory: Niño 3.4 SST Index, available at: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/gcos_wgsp/Timeseries/Nino34/, last access August 2019.
Nobre, G. G., Hunink, J. E., Baruth, B., Aerts, J. C., and Ward, P. J.:
Translating large-scale climate variability into crop production forecast in
Europe, Scient. Rep., 9, 1277, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38091-4, 2019.
Okada, M., Iizumi, T., Sakamoto, T., Kotoku, M., Sakurai, G., Hijioka, Y., and Nishimori, M.: Varying benefits of irrigation expansion for crop production under a changing climate and competitive water use among crops,
Earth's Future, 6, 1207–1220, 2018.
Philippon, N., Rouault, M., Richard, Y., and Favre, A.: The influence of ENSO
on winter rainfall in South Africa, Int. J. Climatol., 32, 2333–2347, 2012.
Portmann, F. T., Siebert, S., and Döll, P.: MIRCA2000 – Global monthly
irrigated and rainfed crop areas around the year 2000: A new high-resolution
data set for agricultural and hydrological modeling, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 24, GB1011, https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003435, 2010.
Pugh, T. A. M., Olin, S., and Arneth, A.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model
Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: LPJ-GUESS maize, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408647, 2018a.
Pugh, T. A. M., Olin, S., and Arneth, A.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model
Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: LPJ-GUESS rice, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408639, 2018b.
Pugh, T. A. M., Olin, S., and Arneth, A.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model
Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: LPJ-GUESS soy, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408629, 2018c.
Pugh, T. A. M., Olin, S., and Arneth, A.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model
Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: LPJ-GUESS wheat, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408623, 2018d.
Ray, D. K., Gerber, J. S., MacDonald, G. K., and West, P. C.: Climate
variation explains a third of global crop yield variability, Nat. Commun., 6, 5989, https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6989, 2015.
Reddy, A., Jones, C. D., and Izaurralde, R. C.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop
Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-TAMU maize,
Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1409013, 2018a.
Reddy, A., Jones, C. D., and Izaurralde, R. C.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop
Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: EPIC-TAMU wheat,
Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1409009, 2018b.
Rosenzweig, C., Elliott, J., Deryng, D., Ruane, A. C., Müller, C., Arneth, A., Boote, K. J., Folberth, C., Glotter, M., Khabarov, N., Neumann,
K., Piontek, F., Pugh, T. A. M., Schmid, E., Stehfest, E., Yang, H., and
Jones, J. W.: Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison, P. Natl. Acad.
Sci. USA, 111, 3268–3273, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222463110, 2014.
Ruane, A. C., Goldberg, R., and Chryssanthacopoulos, J.: Climate forcing
datasets for agricultural modeling: Merged products for gap-filling and
historical climate series estimation, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 200, 233–248,
2015.
Saji, N. H., Goswami, B. N., Vinayachandran, P. N., and Yamagata, T.: A
dipole mode in the tropical Indian Ocean, Nature, 401, 360–363, 1999.
Saji, N. H. and Yamagata, T.: Possible impacts of Indian Ocean dipole mode
events on global climate, Clim. Res., 25, 151–169, 2003.
Scaife, A. A., Arribas, A., Blockley, E., Brookshaw, A., Clark, R. T., Dunstone, N., Eade, R., Fereday, D., Folland, C. K., and Gordon, M.: Skillful
long-range prediction of European and North American winters, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 41, 2514–2519, 2014.
Schauberger, B., Rolinski, S., and Müller, C.: A network-based approach
for semi-quantitative knowledge mining and its application to yield
variability, Environ. Res. Lett., 11, 123001, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/123001, 2016.
Schmid, E. AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1
output data set: EPIC-Boku maize, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1404767, 2018a.
Schmid, E. AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1
output data set: EPIC-Boku rice, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1404765, 2018b.
Schmid, E. AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1
output data set: EPIC-Boku soy, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1404763, 2018c.
Schmid, E. AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1
output data set: EPIC-Boku wheat, Zenodo, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1404761, 2018d.
Sheffield, J., Goteti, G., and Wood, E. F.: Development of a 50-year
high-resolution global dataset of meteorological forcings for land surface
modeling, J. Climate, 19, 3088–3111, 2006.
Smith, B., Prentice, I. C., and Sykes, M. T.: Representation of vegetation
dynamics in the modelling of terrestrial ecosystems: comparing two contrasting approaches within European climate space, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 10, 621–637, 2001.
Stuecker, M. F., Timmermann, A., Jin, F., Chikamoto, Y., Zhang, W., Wittenberg, A. T., Widiasih, E., and Zhao, S.: Revisiting ENSO/Indian Ocean
dipole phase relationships, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 2481–2492, 2017.
Trenberth, K. E.: The definition of el nino, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 78,
2771–2777, 1997.
Ummenhofer, C. C., England, M. H., McIntosh, P. C., Meyers, G. A., Pook, M.
J., Risbey, J. S., Gupta, A. S., and Taschetto, A. S.: What causes southeast
Australia's worst droughts?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04706,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036801, 2009.
Waha, K., Van Bussel, L., Müller, C., and Bondeau, A.: Climate-driven
simulation of global crop sowing dates, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 21, 247–259,
2012.
Wang, G. and You, L.: Delayed impact of the North Atlantic Oscillation on
biosphere productivity in Asia, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L12210,
https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL019766, 2004.
Wang, X. and Ciais, P.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: ORCHIDEE-crop maize, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408199, 2018a.
Wang, X. and Ciais, P.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: ORCHIDEE-crop rice, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408195, 2018b.
Wang, X. and Ciais, P.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: ORCHIDEE-crop soy, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408193, 2018c.
Wang, X. and Ciais, P.: AgMIP's Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) phase 1 output data set: ORCHIDEE-crop wheat, Zenodo,
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1408191, 2018d.
Ward, P. J., Jongman, B., Kummu, M., Dettinger, M. D., Weiland, F. C. S., and
Winsemius, H. C.: Strong influence of El Niño Southern Oscillation on
flood risk around the world, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111, 15659–15664, 2014.
Williams, J. R.: The EPIC model, in: Computer Models of Watershed Hydrology,
edited by: Singh, V. P., Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO, 1995.
Wu, X., Vuichard, N., Ciais, P., Viovy, N., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Wang, X., Magliulo, V., Wattenbach, M., Vitale, L., Di Tommasi, P., Moors, E. J., Jans, W., Elbers, J., Ceschia, E., Tallec, T., Bernhofer, C., Grünwald, T., Moureaux, C., Manise, T., Ligne, A., Cellier, P., Loubet, B., Larmanou, E., and Ripoche, D.: ORCHIDEE-CROP (v0), a new process-based agro-land surface model: model description and evaluation over Europe, Geosci. Model Dev., 9, 857–873, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-857-2016, 2016.
Yuan, C. and Yamagata, T.: Impacts of IOD, ENSO and ENSO Modoki on the Australian winter wheat yields in recent decades, Scient. Rep., 5, 17252,
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17252, 2015.
Zhang, W., Wang, Y., Jin, F., Stuecker, M. F., and Turner, A. G.: Impact of
different El Niño types on the El Niño/IOD relationship, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 8570–8576, 2015.
Short summary
In this study, we analyse the impacts of three major climate oscillations on global crop production. Our results show that maize, rice, soybean, and wheat yields are influenced by climate oscillations to a wide extent and in several important crop-producing regions. We observe larger impacts if crops are rainfed or fully fertilized, while irrigation tends to mitigate the impacts. These results can potentially help to increase the resilience of the global food system to climate-related shocks.
In this study, we analyse the impacts of three major climate oscillations on global crop...
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint