I found this press release on the UC Davis website interesting, because it discusses something new to me, “winter chill”. I found it interesting. But immediately, I thought of this study on irrigation by Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville.
Irrigation most likely to blame for Central California warming
Given that the UC Davis researchers seem to have only looked at temperature records to establish trends, it looks like they may have missed a significant contributor to the trends – increased humidity due to irrigation. – Anthony
From UC Davis News: Warming Climate Threatens California Fruit and Nut Production
July 21, 2009
|
|
|
Winter chill, a vital climatic trigger for many tree crops, is likely to decrease by more than 50 percent during this century as global climate warms, making California no longer suitable for growing many fruit and nut crops, according to a team of researchers from the University of California, Davis, and the University of Washington.
In some parts of California’s agriculturally rich Central Valley, winter chill has already declined by nearly 30 percent, the researchers found.
“Depending on the pace of winter chill decline, the consequences for California’s fruit and nut industries could be devastating,” said Minghua Zhang, a professor of environmental and resource science at UC Davis.
Also collaborating on the study were Eike Luedeling, a postdoctoral fellow in UC Davis’ Department of Plant Sciences and UC Davis graduate Evan H. Girvetz, who is now a postdoctoral research associate at the University of Washington, Seattle. Their study appears July 22 in the online journal PLoS ONE.
The study is the first to map winter chill projections for all of California, which is home to nearly 3 million acres of fruit and nut trees that require chilling. The combined production value of these crops was $7.8 billion in 2007, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture.
“Our findings suggest that California’s fruit and nut industry will need to develop new tree cultivars with reduced chilling requirements and new management strategies for breaking dormancy in years of insufficient winter chill,” Luedeling said.
About winter chill
Most fruit and nut trees from nontropical locations avoid cold injury in the winter by losing their leaves in the fall and entering a dormant state that lasts through late fall and winter.
In order to break dormancy and resume growth, the trees must receive a certain amount of winter chill, traditionally expressed as the number of winter chilling hours between 32 and 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Each species or cultivar is assumed to have a specific chilling requirement, which needs to be fulfilled every winter.
Insufficient winter chill plays havoc with flowering time, which is particularly critical for trees such as walnuts and pistachios that depend on male and female flowering occurring at the same time to ensure pollination and a normal yield.
Planning for a warmer future
Fruit and nut growers commonly use established mathematical models to select tree varieties whose winter chill requirements match conditions of their local area. However, those mathematical models were calibrated based on past temperature conditions, and establishing chilling requirements may not remain valid in the future, the researchers say. Growers will need to include likely future changes in winter chill in their management decisions.
“Since orchards often remain in production for decades, it is important that growers now consider whether there will be sufficient winter chill in the future to support the same tree varieties throughout their producing lifetime,” Zhang said.
To provide accurate projections of winter chill, the researchers used hourly and daily temperature records from 1950 and 2000, as well as 18 climate scenarios projected for later in the 21st century.
They introduced the concept of “safe winter chill,” the amount of chilling that can be safely expected in 90 percent of all years. They calculated the amount of safe winter chill for each scenario and also quantified the change in area of a safe winter chill for certain crop species.
New findings
The researchers found that in all projected scenarios, the winter chill in California declined substantially over time. Their analysis in the Central Valley, where most of the state’s fruit and nut production is located, found that between 1950 and 2000, winter chill had already declined by up to 30 percent in some regions.
Using data from climate models developed for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (2007), the researchers projected that winter chill will have declined from the 1950 baseline by as much as 60 percent by the middle of this century and by up to 80 percent by the end of the century.
Their findings indicate that by the year 2000, winter chill had already declined to the point that only 4 percent of the Central Valley was still suitable for growing apples, cherries and pears — all of which have high demand for winter chill.
The researchers project that by the end of the 21st century, the Central Valley might no longer be suitable for growing walnuts, pistachios, peaches, apricots, plums and cherries.
“The effects will be felt by growers of many crops, especially those who specialize in producing high-chill species and varieties,” Luedeling said. “We expect almost all tree crops to be affected by these changes, with almonds and pomegranates likely to be impacted the least because they have low winter chill requirements.”
Developing alternatives
The research team noted that growers may be able change some orchard management practices involving planting density, pruning and irrigation to alleviate the decline in winter chill. Another option would be transitioning to different tree species or varieties that do not demand as much winter chill.
There are also agricultural chemicals that can be used to partially make up for the lack of sufficient chilling in many crops, such as cherries. A better understanding of the physiological and genetic basis of plant dormancy, which is still relatively poorly understood, might point to additional strategies to manage tree dormancy, which will help growers cope with the agro-climatic challenges that lie ahead, the researchers suggested.
Funding for this study was provided by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and The Nature Conservancy.
About UC Davis
For 100 years, UC Davis has engaged in teaching, research and public service that matter to California and transform the world. Located close to the state capital, UC Davis has 31,000 students, an annual research budget that exceeds $500 million, a comprehensive health system and 13 specialized research centers. The university offers interdisciplinary graduate study and more than 100 undergraduate majors in four colleges — Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Biological Sciences, Engineering, and Letters and Science — and advanced degrees from six professional schools — Education, Law, Management, Medicine, Veterinary Medicine and the Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing.
Media contact(s):
• Minghua Zhang, Land, Air and Water Resources, (530) 752-4953, mhzhang@ucdavis.edu
• Eike Luedeling, Plant Sciences, (530) 574-3794, eluedeling@ucdavis.edu
• Pat Bailey, UC Davis News Service, (530) 752-9843, pjbailey@ucdavis.edu

And THIS is called science?
Cold Snap Threatens California Citrus Crop
Seems there was plenty of “winter chill” last winter.
Here we have another example of people attempting to influence policy (in this case influence crop selection policy of farmers) by using models that have proved incorrect year after year.
There has never been a climate model produced that has accurately predicted temperatures that far in advance. Every single one has proved wrong. Why are these people insistent on using the output of these models so far ahead as if they represent any relation to reality?
The authors of that “study” need to be taken by the hand to a computer, navigated to NOAA’s NCDC site and show that continental US temperatures have been declining at a rate of 8 degrees per century over the past 10 years. That is using the government’s own data collected using a network that is biased warm due to siting issues of the recording stations. If that kind of cooling keeps up another 10 years, their problem is certainly going to be “winter chill” but not of the sort they imagine.
In the long run reality always win over computermodels!
Especially due to the fact that computers can’t help if the programmers aren’t up to the standard ‘we’ had in early 70’s when I myself studied for and became Systemprogrammer….
Especially when the computers can’t help the old known fact that the output data can’t be better than the input….
Farmers who act on the recommendations of the IPCC and The Nature Conservancy are few and foolish. UC Davis is well-respected, but they are doing their best to shoot themselves in the foot.
The only nuts in California are the idiots who are repealing the protection for Agricultural land (Williamson Act?). So they can be swooped up by developers or sold to foreign interests.
UC Davis would do well to read up on the incessant winds from the period mid 1860’s to mid 1890’s. They portend the same cooling now as they did then.
Coming back to back, are these two items related?
We should regard the regional projections of the chosen climate models as “sufficiently uncertain”
In support of your Irrigation hypothesis it is worth noticing the origin of the data:
“We obtained records of hourly temperatures
for all 205 (active and inactive) stations of the California Irrigation
Management Information System [CIMIS; 29].”
For as long as there have been farmers, there has been complaints about the weather.
“The researchers found that in all projected scenarios,” “IPCC”
No need to worry then.
Just who or what are the nuts.
Hmmm…have you seen the multi-state press release from the Union of Concerned Scientists???
July 28, 2009
Unchecked Global Warming Would Mean More Heat Waves, More Flooding, and Reduced Crop Yields in [INSERT STATE NAME HERE], New Report Finds
Congress Considering Legislation that Could Help [Insert State Name Here] and the Rest of the Nation Avoid Worst Effects
CHICAGO (July 28, 2009) — If the United States does not significantly curb heat-trapping emissions, global warming will seriously harm [Insert State Name Here] climate and economy, according to a new peer-reviewed report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The report also found that a combination of clean energy policies—such as those currently under consideration by the U.S. Senate—would help blunt the extent and severity of global warming in [Insert State Name Here] and nationally….
For Missouri, Press #1
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/missouri-climate-change-report-0264.html
For Indiana, Press#2:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-indiana-0265.html
For Minnesota, Press #3
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/climate-change-in-minnesota-0266.html
For Ohio, Press #4
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/midwest-impacts-missouri-0263.html
So the farmers grow other crops if the predictions eventuate. Might relieve some boredom and add to skills. It’s a bit precious to state production $ now as if they will all be lost in the future. Why, the next lot of crop selection might be much more valuable and profitable. Always look on the bright side.
Delusional like most if not all forms of prophecy
“To provide accurate projections of winter chill, the researchers used hourly and daily temperature records from 1950 and 2000, as well as 18 climate scenarios projected for later in the 21st century.”
I’m almost embarrased to ask this, but having learned that everything, no matter how unbelievable or outlandish, is possible, especially in this realm, is that a typo in the above statement, and should it really say “…from 1950 up to 2000”? They surely didn’t use just two year’s worth of data for this study?
JimB
There is an english phrase which describes these authors well and which they have put in there title.
A bunch of fruits and nutcases
Didn’t CA already decide the Central Valley and it’s entire crop are no longer important? Didn’t they cut off the flow of irrigation to the entire central valley to save the tiny Delta Smelt? I think the solution here is to paint all the barns and silos in the central valley white! 🙂
OT, perhaps, but this Canadian radio interview with respected Environmentalist
Lawrence Soloman is, IMHO, unmissable! It’s nearly an hour long but its the clearest explanation I’ve ever heard about the background to the superstition of AGW and the dangers to the Envirnment posed by anti-carbon activities.
http://probeinternational.org/media/ideas-deniers.mp3
And from the latest fish before people report.
Turning off the water to save the smelt and starving the people.
Mr. Howitt estimates lost farm revenue in the San Joaquin Valley could top $2-billion this year and will suck as many as 80,000 jobs out of its already-battered economy.
“This is one of the classic, really difficult trade-offs we are faced with in hard times: environmental values versus human suffering,” he says.
“The rest of California should care about this because what’s happening in Fresno is a forerunner of the essential environmental and economic debate that we’re going to have because our environmental rules were set up before people were confronted with the real effects of an economic downturn.”
The bottom line, Mr. Howitt says, is that “we are going to have to make fundamental choices. … It’s fish versus jobs and communities.”
snip
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/how-green-was-my-valley-californias-drought/article1230646/
And at what point will researchers realize that as long as they continue to stop at 2000, they will have NO credibility?…we’re half way through 2009 already…almost a full decade of data that they chose to ignore. And yes, I got the double-play of “cherry picking” 🙂
Pamela, glad to see you here. Hadn’t seen you post in awhile, and you’re one of the regulars that I enjoy reading. Hope all is well.
JimB
Just now broadcast on the BBC’s lunchtime news:
Explaining how the Met Office have been wrong about the last three summers a spokesman said ” it is much easier to predict 50 years ahead than to predict a few months ahead”. I would like to nominate this as a quote for the week.
Those who live by the IPCC forecasts will “die” by the IPCC forecasts.
There is trouble for those who actually believe and base actions according to AGW forecasts — whether it is planting olive trees in England or trying to kayak to the North Pole. Meanwhile, we are not changing seed-corn maturity dates to a longer growing season; although it would nicely increase our yields if we could count on a longer growing season.
“Winter chill”, is a real phenomenon. I live in Ontario Canada, where there are lots of plants called trilliums. Our main variety of these plants, grandiflorum, can only survive if we have very cold winters, which is why they thrive here.
Not to be cynical (well, okay maybe a little bit) here, but shouldn’t one early paragraph read:
““Depending on the pace of winter chill decline, the consequences for California’s fruit and nut industries could be devastating,” said Minghua Zhang, a professor of environmental and resource science at UC Davis {WHO RECOGNIZES THE VALUE OF FEAR MONGERING IN ATTRACTING GRANT MONEY AND DOESN’T RECOGNIZE THAT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES, NOTABLY IN CALIFORNIA, ARE NOT STATIC THROUGH TIME, BUT CHANGE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MARKET DEMANDS/OPPORTUNITIES AND CLIMATE.}
Take a look at all the acreage in the Sierra Foothills that has been used for harvesting walnuts and now grapes and olives (and likely other ‘crops’ by the earlier Native Americans–never mind the ‘harvesting’ of gold from the same areas). Sorry, Professor, but this ain’t the end of the world here. And from here in Sacramento, there’s been PLENTY of chill in winters of late–notably resulting in some serious citrus losses locally.
Anthony, I’ll understand if you ‘snip’ my comments. This stuff just irks me. Sorry if that came across as character assassination of the good Professor.
If they base this on IPCC projections, it is more likely that all the trees will freeze.
“found that between 1950 and 2000, winter chill had already declined by up to 30 percent in some regions.”
So has fruit and nut production decreased by some corresponding amount?
“Each species or cultivar is assumed to have a specific chilling requirement”
You know what they say about assumptions.