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.
The story is rather corny, if you ask me.
This guy can’t grow corn in his interpolated paper greenhouse.
Send him a box of Crayola Crayons and a label from a can of Green Giant Corn.
Did they really plant that corn in the soil shown in the photo?
Wow – what optimists!
No wonder that they were disappointed with the yield.
Funny I never noticed any problem with Ohio corn in the 35years I lived there– getsw up to nearly 95-100F during July-August when the corn is taller than a pro basketballer….
Someone just needs to find the data used and one would find it tells a completely different story than the abstract and the pro-AGW spin put on it.
This is the inaugural issue of “Nature – Climate Change”. Of course it is going to show we are all going to starve to death/burn to death from increased CO2 level (which benefits both C3 broad-leaf plants and C4 grasses and corn especially in drought conditions). It is “Nature” which drank the kool-aid long ago and refuses to go back to real science pursuits again.
I can guarantee you the actual data supports the supposition that higher temperatures results in more corn yield (including the actual data provided by Prof. Lobell in this study).
My experiances with growing corn are it likes the heat (its often up to 37 degrees here) so long as theres adequate moisture – the key to getting a good harvest is to ensure good and even germination – was that a factor accounted for in their study? Wind pollination and plant spacing is important, if there not pollinated by hand (which typically gives better results).
From NOAA Climate Prediction Center:
A corn growing degree day (GDD) is an index used to express crop maturity. The index is computed by subtracting a base temperature of 50°F from the average of the maximum and minimum temperatures for the day. Minimum temperatures less than 50°F are set to 50, and maximum temperatures greater than 86°F are set to 86. These substitutions indicate that no appreciable growth is detected with temperatures lower than 50 or greater than 86.
This is the commonly accepted calculation in the ag industry used to calculate maturity. This is the ideal temperature range. Prolonged high temps cause plant wilting and stress the plant without enough moisture in the air or soil. Plant transpiration reduced if night time temps not cooling below low 80s affecting yield, maybe as high as 20% yield reduction from maximun yield potenial this year in missouri and ohio river valleys.
Hybrids do exist that are drought and heat tolerant but are not preferred for planting because there yield potential is marginally less. Bottom line, this is a non issue since it is easily adaptable.
what about reading the letter. it’s linked up there and much more even-handed than the ridiculing comments indicate.
Corn, like all other species, has selectable traits.
We can make a high temp corn or a low temp corn (within limits) if it becomes an issue. But it just isn’t an issue.
So, to me, the basic problem is when they say “We assumed it was a high temperature crop” (or something close). You can stop Right There.
WHICH cultivar? WHAT temperature range? Exactly? Under which water regimin?
It’s all just trash talk. There is a Hope (IIRC) strain of corn that makes a Tap Root suited for droughts. I’ve got corns with harvest times from 45 days to 120 days. Some grow 3 feet tall, some 16 feet. Exactly WHICH corn are they talking about? Don’t know? They you know nothing.
http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/plantsci/rowcrops/a834w.htm
points out:
Got that? you need water and radiation to know what yields to expect. Were all these controlled for in their tests?
Oh, so corn is a temperate crop really… So anyone with heat and drought stress might do better with tepary beans or with soya or with a dozen other crops. Yes, corn grows well in heat, but there are other crops that grow even better….
So, did they control for length of season? Was the length of season of the seed chosen matched to the place? Did they try simply swapping from a 120 day corn to a 90 day corn?
Another “got that?” moment. Corn is optimal between 50 and 86 F. We are using a measuring stick with specific well known preferences. Yeah, it will grow hotter, but it loves 86 F. So any real surprise that above that it’s less happy? (even if only a little). Nope. BUT also note that Degree Days thing. When it’s hotter, you get more degree days and more yield.
At this point I like to point out that Phoenix has a GREAT crop yield. You need to allow for heat depression of growth over about 120 F, BUT that comes with longer warm ‘ends’ in spring and fall. In exchange for a small reduction of cool crops in summer (so plant tomatoes already 😉 you gain growing season on 2 ends as both spring and fall add time and degree days. The limit case is that you lose summer growth but gain Fall, Spring, and Winter growing seasons. The whole “hot summer so not farming” argument is just so broken….
Look at Phoenix and then tell me what you loose.
They grow many ‘table vegetables’ for all of the USA. Their major “issue” is that Mexico where it is hotter grow even more in winter and it’s hard to compete with them…
OK, so you MUST be over 50 F to have any hope at all. And you get more GDDays in the south than in the north. So if we DID heat up such that ALL OF THE SOUTH was hotter than PHOENIX, we would gain more growth up north than we lost down south…. Hmmm…. why am I not feeling particularly worried…. Oh, yeah, there is nore DIRT up north than down south as the continents get wider as you go north….
Think about it…
As we are finding in Florida, cold is far more deadly … CO2 just makes crops grow, why do you think there are greenhouses.
Did these “climate scientists” have a control to study how temperatures effect corn growth under controlled conditions? How about how soil conditions and water effect corn growth with varying soil and water conditions?
I know its a rhetorical question and that the answer is, “no”, and that is really all you need to know about this study.
Also, why did they choose to study a region with a history of people being unable to feed themselves? Could it be the best place to get a predetermined conclusion?
The corn farmers are correct in the above comments. Some 40 years ago our company had farms ranging from the Rio Grande to Idaho. The crops were corn and alfalfa used in cattle feeding. One other important variable, in my opinion, has not been mentioned.
Animals increase in size as they increase their distance from the Equator. Full grown horses transported from the Panhandle of Texas put on another 200 pounds in Montana. Steers were driven from Texas to Montana in the old days to fatten before going to market. I suspect they preformed similarly. Cattle full grown in South Texas gained weight in the Panhandle, and cattle raised in Wyoming did not do as well there.
Grain production was similar. The yields increased as one went from Southern Texas to the northern tier of States. I believe it was due to longer periods of daylight which enabled the grain to produce more.
W. A. McQuiddy
Okay, a couple of issues here.
1. “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.”
So what they are revealing here, is that the study is a comparison between apples and oranges. Different strains that perform well in some conditions, but poorly in others? Let’s just add an infinite amount of complexity and uncertainty to the problem, but still reach the conclusion that climate change will starve the world!
2. “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.”
You might be able to do this with Temp and humidity across the domain of study, but precipitation is on a much smaller scale.
In southern Africa the most critical adverse factor for maize production is el Nino. This generally brings drought conditions to this part of the world and high maize yields and drought do not go together. The second major factor is the need for good rains in early January when the main crop is tasseling. I have listened to farmers complaints all of my life (they are just a tad prone to it) but I don’t recall ever hearing one say that it is too hot. What might be interpreted as a yield drop caused by a one degree rise in temperature, might be more certainly attributed to poor January rainfall.
It seems like a lot of people want to either: a) question the legitimacy of the study because Americans can grow corn at this temperature, b) suggest Africans should grow something besides corn , or c) begin using more resilient U.S. seeds.
Instead of questioning why the Africans aren’t able to farm the way Americans can or suggest they do something else – why don’t we ask why they should have to do anything different than what they were doing in the first place? They are not the ones that created the temperature change in the first place so isn’t it both unjust and patronizing to tell them how they should have to adapt to a problem they didn’t create?
Our carbon-intensive lifestyles are having a negative effect on theirs. Swallow that simple truth.
JD,
I agree that Africans are not the ones that created temperature change. But you think too small: there is no evidence that anyone on earth created temperature change. The planet is still emerging from the LIA. Natural variability is sufficient to explain the entire rise, without invoking an extraneous variable such as the minor trace gas CO2.
And when you say “our carbon-intensive lifestyles,” you exhibit scientific illiteracy. CO2 has one carbon atom and two oxygen atoms. Saying “our oxygen-intensive lifestyles” would be twice as accurate, no?
…No. We’re talking about carbon dioxide, a tiny trace gas. All the wild-eyed arm waving over the demonization of a harmless and beneficial trace gas is based on the covetous greed of politicians, and their useful idiots, to tax the air we breathe. Science has nothing to do with it.
Any time you see someone babbling about “carbon” when referring to CO2 you are seeing a scientific illiterate. The really scary thing is that these know-nothings can vote.
Smokey,
Thanks – Not only did you expose my scientific illiteracy but you exemplified your scientific expertise by describing CO2 as a “tiny” gas, to be sure I didn’t confuse it with all of the “large” gases.
If you’re right about recent changes being a result solely of natural variabilities – then why did the Republicans in the House Energy and Commerce Committee reject all three amendments to the “Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011” that would have publicly rejected the scientific basis of climate change?
It’s because even Republicans know that the evidence supports anthropogenic climate change – they just don’t support regulating greenhouse gases.
You know what natural variations are for CO2 concentration in the atmosphere? Between 180 and 300ppm. You know what they are now? We both know it’s a very unnatural 390 ppm.
You speak with such cockiness – show some humility. I agree that NOBODY should be saying the evidence is conclusive – only that the evidence strongly suggests our CO2-intensive lifestyles is altering the climate for us and future generations. As a democratic society, we have chosen to use public money to fund scientists who conduct research to safeguard us from future harm. I trust them, not you or this site.
JD,
Sorry about the lack of humility, but I get very irritated when someone has their hand in my pocket, feeling around for my wallet. The demonization of “carbon” is being promoted for money and political power, not on the basis of the scientific method.
And IANAR, nor do I speak for or apologize for Republicans. I also don’t dispute the fact that the rise in CO2 is due to human emissions. But I draw the line at the follow-up assumption, that the rise in CO2 will lead to runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. There is no scientific evidence for that assumption, none at all.
I will change my mind if you can provide any testable, real world evidence showing any global harm due to the rise in CO2. As a matter of fact, there is no such empirical evidence.
Therefore, since there is no evidence of global damage due to the rise in a tiny trace gas that has demonstrably increased agricultural profuction, the only reasonable conclusion is that CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. More CO2 is better.
If you agree, then there is nothing to worry about. If you disagree, you need to convincingly show the global damage that CO2 has caused. It’s as simple as that.