Via Eurekalert. This doesn’t jibe with what I know about corn crops in America, but maybe they aren’t taking advantage of the enhanced seeds like what is produced by DeKalb and other USA seed companies. 40C and higher I might agree with, but we have massive corn crops that do well at 30-40C in the USA. Based on the “blind date” comment, it seems the researchers are really pleased with the “perilous” result indicated in the headline. Maybe one of our farming friends can shed some light on the subject. This essay is going to be in the new fandangled free Nature journal, Nature Climate Change, for which I applied for a free subscription, and since I’ve heard nothing, I assume that my application was not successful. -Anthony
Untapped crop data from Africa predicts corn peril if temperatures rise

A hidden trove of historical crop yield data from Africa shows that corn – long believed to tolerate hot temperatures – is a likely victim of global warming.
Stanford agricultural scientist David Lobell and researchers at the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) report in the inaugural issue of Nature Climate Change next week that a clear negative effect of warming on maize – or corn – production was evident in experimental crop trial data conducted in Africa by the organization and its partners from 1999 to 2007.
Led by Lobell, the researchers combined data from 20,000 trials in sub-Saharan Africa with weather data recorded at stations scattered across the region. They found that a temperature rise of a single degree Celsius would cause yield losses for 65 percent of the present maize-growing region in Africa – provided the crops received the optimal amount of rainfall. Under drought conditions, the entire maize-growing region would suffer yield losses, with more than 75 percent of areas predicted to decline by at least 20 percent for 1 degree Celsius of warming.
“The pronounced effect of heat on maize was surprising because we assumed maize to be among the more heat-tolerant crops,” said Marianne Banziger, co-author of the study and deputy director general for research at CIMMYT.
“Essentially, the longer a maize crop is exposed to temperatures above 30 C, or 86 F, the more the yield declines,” she said. “The effect is even larger if drought and heat come together, which is expected to happen more frequently with climate change in Africa, Asia or Central America, and will pose an added challenge to meeting the increasing demand for staple crops on our planet.”
Similar sources of information elsewhere in the developing world could improve crop forecasting for other vast regions where data has been lacking, according to Lobell, who is lead author of the paper describing the study.
“Projections of climate change impacts on food production have been hampered by not knowing exactly how crops fair when it gets hot,” Lobell said. “This study helps to clear that issue up, at least for one important crop.”
While the crop trials have been run for many years throughout Africa, to identify promising varieties for release to farmers, nobody had previously examined the weather at the trial sites and studied the effect of weather on the yields, said Lobell, who is an assistant professor of environmental Earth system science.
“These trials were organized for completely different purposes than studying the effect of climate change on the crops,” he said. “They had a much shorter term goal, which was to get the overall best-performing strains into the hands of farmers growing maize under a broad range of conditions.”
The data recorded at the yield testing sites did not include weather information. Instead, the researchers used data gathered from weather stations all over sub-Saharan Africa. Although the stations were operated by different organizations, all data collection was organized by the World Meteorological Organization, so the methods used were consistent.
Lobell then took the available weather data and interpolated between recording stations to infer what the weather would have been like at the test sites. By merging the weather and crop data, the researchers could examine climate impacts.
“It was like sending two friends on a blind date – we weren’t sure how it would go, but they really hit it off,” Lobell said.
Previously, most research on climate change impacts on agriculture has had to rely on crop data from studies in the temperate regions of North America and Europe, which has been a problem.
“When you take a model that has been developed with data from one kind of environment, such as a temperate climate, and apply it to the rest of the world, there are lots of things that can go wrong” Lobell said, noting that much of the developing world lies in tropical or subtropical climates.
But he said many of the larger countries in the developing world, such as India, China and Brazil, which encompass a wide range of climates, are running yield testing programs that could be a source of comparable data. Private agribusiness companies are also increasingly doing crop testing in the tropics.
“We’re hoping that with this clear demonstration of the value of this kind of data for assessing climate impacts on crops that others will either share or take a closer look themselves at their data for various crops,” Lobell said.
“I think we may just be scratching the surface of what can be achieved by combining existing knowledge and data from the climate and agriculture communities. Hopefully this will help catalyze some more effort in this area.”
Lobell is a Center Fellow at the Program on Food Security and the Environment, a joint program of Stanford’s Woods Institute for the Environment and Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is desperately eking out a paper from failed science. Years of crop testing at over a large area with no weather monitoring at the sites!! What the f!
This article makes me sick. I know the Economist takes some knocks on this website, but they can have really good information at times on articles like this. They recently had an extensive article on yields for crops (wheat specifically).
Practices make the biggest differences. There is a reason this test was done in Africa where practices are poor at best. If they did this in the US the results would be different. It would be easy to correlate temperature to yield in the US, but they want it to look bad.
http://media.economist.com/images/images-magazine/2011/02/26/sr/20110226_src049.gif
http://www.economist.com/node/18200618?story_id=18200618
If the photo in the article is representative, the corn field shown is suffering from drought. Powder dry soil, stunted corn plants with dry bottom leaves – drought. If these are genuinely corn test plots, they will have accompanying data on LOCAL rainfall. Where is the data?
There is nothing wrong with research on how crops grow and how crops have high and low yield or none. What is wrong here is their research is to find how to grow crops when conditions are brought about by an unproven theory, and in view of that and the actual conditions on earth to be studied it seems like a waste of money and time until the theory is proven.
However if you intend to have government take over the world food supply and manage its production and distribution rather than through the productive free enterprise system then there has to be a reason to justify the change so why not tie it to the one big cause for world socialism and redistribution of wealth, that being global warming, climate change with mans misuse of CO2 as the culprit.
Testing of hybrid seed corn by is done on a voluntary basis on productive farms usually privately owned and are marked with signs saying so, at least in the US. The entire growing season is monitored and tests are made on the conditions at the site and recorded. Besides testing, the results if good are an advertisement to buy. Farmers are provided with incentives to grow strips of the test crop and to buy, and that is the free enterprise system where the money flows primarily through the private sector where the incentive is to produce rather than through government where the incentive seem to be to promote a theory.
This free enterprise system has done well for improving crop production, distribution and sales and well for the tax payer. No airplane could be sold, for commercial use, before man could build one and before it was proven to fly as advertised. A theory should not be sold as truth before proven, nor should research in other areas be justified by a not proven theory and government should not promote the sale of a theory. Especially one justified with deception, biased against argument, and wanted by politicians for legislation and regulation.
It would seem important for the study to control for water (too little or too much, timing of application), fertilizer (if any), insecticides and a whole host of co-correlated variables. The statement that a “hidden trove of historical crop yield data… shows that corn….is a likely victim of global warming” is a bold one.
While “jive” is much more amusing, I believe that “jibe” is the more correct word. 😉
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]
Anthony,
You mean jibe. Jive is nonsense. Jibe is when things are in accord.
[Fixed, thanx. ~dbs]
From TerryS on March 14, 2011 at 10:21 am
Not exactly. They’re saying of the “present maize-growing region in Africa” that an increase of 1°C (or 1K) will drop yields in 65% of that area “provided the crops received the optimal amount of rainfall.” If drought conditions then all of the area will have reduced yields, with more than 75% of the area having yield losses of at least 20%. For some reason they want to add that “1°C” note for drought conditions as well. So what are the yield losses for what percentage of the area for drought conditions without the temperature increase?
Here is worldwide data for corn over last 20 years. Worldwide, trendwise, everything is going up — yield and production in spite of “global warming”. See page 50 of 54.
http://www.fas.usda.gov/grain/circular/2011/01-11/grainfull01-11.pdf
For those who don’t know, CIMMYT is one of the biggest of the CGIAR centers (along with IRRI) and they have just had their commission for climate change meeting (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/11/new-commission-confronts-threats-to-food-security-from-climate-change/), so this is a quick plug to make sure they don’t get left out of the research funding.
The problem is still that Africa’s yields have not increased in the last 20 years, despite yields increasing everywhere else in the world. For all CIMMYT, IRRI, CIP etc. have done, there has been no improvement in African agriculture and to use field trial results from this period (20,000 trials is a long time) suggests to me that they have run a big data dredge to try and shift the focus away from their lack of impact.
For those questioning the poor data, these trials would have been run before global warming was the issue and so before there temperature records were deemed critical. And remember, these are in Africa where the infrastructure for such trials is hardly ideal – on the whole, I would take this study with a very large pinch of salt , but let’s not let that spoil a good global warming scare story eh?
Isn’t this data available for many countries around the world?
For example, in the U.S.
Step 1. Gather weather data by U.S. county for the past 50 years.
Step 2. Gather crop yield data by U.S. county for the past 50 years.
Step 3. Regress yield on weather data.
This test must have been done a thousand times. Why is Africa different?
What’s the natural variation in growing season temperature from year to year? It must be greater than 1 or 2 degrees and we don’t see 50% variation in crop yield. I grew up on the midwest and yields don’t vary that much unless there is drought.
As Billy Joel said when he left the stage at Shea Stadium for the last time, ‘Don’t take any Sh!t from anybody!” (By the way, his new release is incredible on blu ray.)
Des Moines, Iowa average temperature is 86 F in July and 84 F in Aug (TWC). Corn must be “knee high by the 4th of July” for a good crop so I think we grow corn at or above what he says destruction starts.
This is total and complete CRAP. I have raised corn all my life. We require an active temperature in excess of 60 degrees F. When the summer is not warm enough (like last summer) it impacts how the corn develops. Heat is not a problem. We grew a 200 bushel/per acre crop a few years ago and had many days that were 100+. The biggest factor in corn growth is water and humidity. Without those two factors, your sunk. Here in western Colorado we have low humidity, but with enough water the corn generates its own humidity. These “scientists” need to come actually work with farmers. Anyone who grows corn here in the USA would tell them that farmers pray for heat. Rain if you are a dryland farmer. But without heat, nothing grows. Took forever for our tomatoes to ripen last year too. Warming isn’t a problem…cooling is.
This has got to be one of the silliest studies I’ve ever read about. If you want to know how corn reacts to hot temperatures, just ask a farmer. He’ll know. You don’t need to do no stinking study or extrapolate any temperatures. The guy that’s been out in his field every day for the last 40 years can give you a better answer than any study.
And, I’m sure that if corn is “long believed to tolerate hot temperatures”, then it’s probably true. It’s not like humanity has little experience with growing corn.
For starters, you can’t just look at “optimal rainfall” for ANY crop. You have to look at how much of the optimal rainfall occured at critical points in plant development and what weather immediately followed. An inch of rain at just the right time followed by a week of dense cloud produces a very different result that an inch of rain followed by clear skies and bright sunshine. I’ve seen bumper crops from a variety of crop types produced in years when rainfall was near to drought conditions. What little fell did so at just the right time and was followed by just the right sunshine conditions. “Optimal rainfall” is meaningless unless it is correlated over the growing season with seeding time and scores of other factors.
But I suspect that the big one they missed is wind. Corn grows fast, and it sucks up an enormous amount of CO2. Take an air sample in the middle of a corn field on a windless day and you’ll get a reading of zero, the corn sucked it all up and until the wind blows some more in, it stops growing. Just a smidge of a breeze to keep the local air turbulent and cycling CO2 laiden air back into proximity of the corn can make a huge difference to yields.
One degree? That’s probably a measure of the number of degrees they research team had between them?
Stanford is famous as an Ag school. /sarc alert.
The sillycon valley mostly grows silicon wafers. Great with milk and cookies.
The IPCC also came out with a similar statement in 2001 pointing out that poorer countries would be impacted most and that common crops were close to their temperature limit which would reduce yields but this appears to be an economic issue not an unusual climate issue. The ultimate solution would be to develop a perennial for common crops.
Oddly, common crops found in regions like Africa are likely to already be drought and temperature resistant so you really have to question this study.
Scientists Sow Ancient Seeds to Survive Global Warming
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwilLGvk5uM&w=480&h=390%5D
Pioneer
Optimum® AQUAmax™ hybrids for water-limited environments
http://www.pioneer.com/home/site/us/products/corn/seed-traits-technologies-corn/optimum-aquamax-hybrids/
“Drought stress has been an ongoing challenge to high corn yields in many corn-producing areas of North America, and Pioneer has been a leader in conducting drought corn research for more than 50 years.”
“Currently using dedicated drought research sites – located in Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Texas, California and North Carolina, – Pioneer research has more than doubled the number of bushels/inch of water over the past three decades.”
We are told the modern man originated from Africa, I wonder why he left, shortage of food perhaps.
I can only speak from what I saw in Nigeria over many years but obviously Lobell never tried his stuff there. Well over 30 and it grows like a weed! Check any street vendor BBQ-ing the stuff!
Rob Potter says:
March 14, 2011 at 11:30 am
“The problem is still that Africa’s yields have not increased in the last 20 years, despite yields increasing everywhere else in the world.”
Interesting comment Rob. I would hazard a guess that the yields were larger before Mugabe changed “Land Management”!
Supposedly, temperatures in the tropics will be less affected by global warming than other regions. Isn’t the rise supposed to mostly affect the poles?
Why all the fuss about maize which is a “New World” species? Millet crops better all over Africa as do many of the “Old World” species, they just don’t get the limelight and the research money.These reports are written more for the benefit of the writers than for the health and well-being of the hungry instead of looking at what does grow and yield well under local conditions.As one person commented a while back,maize is not a favorite crop in Scotland !
Mention of the potato in Ireland reminds me of the number of deaths caused by the issue of dried maize to the starving who had never seen the stuff before,had no means of grinding it and fed it to their children with disastrous results. If food crops are needed ,send out some farmers to access the situation,not a bunch of hippies in white coats.
Kiboko Kenya Agricultural Research Institute, elevation 1,000 mts. at 2*3’S & 37*8’E is off the Nairobi road heading to the Mombasa coast. The Masai tribe’s pastoral territory is to the west , Kyulu Hills conservation area to the south and agro/pastoral Kamba’s tribes homeland are to the north & east of the Institute’s land.
This is red sandy loam territory and the Kibuko River plain waterlogs during the rainy season. There is a limited amount of volcanic soil and likewise some volcanic rock pans. Marginal agricultural land , like this semi-arid region of Acacia trees, is constrained by many problems .
The Institutes land used to be relegated for wild game hunting. The Tse Tse fly prevalence in that zone of Kenya merited a TseTse study habitat site be established ( at 2*15’S & 27*45’E ). My Swahili is pretty rusty after more than 40 years, but I remember vehicle stops on the main road (going from Mombasa toward Nairobi) by mosquito net helmeted inspectors trying to keep TseTse flys from hitching out of the area.
Ecofraud is the expenditure more resources to save less resources. Ethanol is a prime example. We worry about corn only to burn it in the bonfire of ethanol’s perverse energy exchange: $1.45 of energy to produce $1 of ethanol energy.