Claim: Future heat waves pose threat to global food supply

But there seems to be no signs of a major slowdown despite heat waves of the past 60 years.

indicator3_2013_ProductionGrain[1]

From the Institute of Physics

Heat waves could significantly reduce crop yields and threaten global food supply if climate change is not tackled and reversed.

This is according to a new study led by researchers at the University of East Anglia and published today, 20 March, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, which has, for the first time, estimated the global effects of extreme temperatures and elevated levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) on the production of maize, wheat and soybean.

Earlier studies have found that climate change is projected to reduce maize yields globally by the end of the century under a “business as usual” scenario for future emissions of greenhouse gases; however, this new study shows that the inclusion of the effects of heat waves, which have not been accounted for in previous modelling calculations, could double the losses of the crop.

Lead author of the study Delphine Deryng, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia, said: “Instances of extreme temperatures, brought about by a large increase in global mean temperature, can be detrimental to crops at any stage of their development, but in particular around anthesis—the flowering period of the plant.

“At this stage, extreme temperatures can lead to reduced pollen sterility and reduced seed set, greatly reducing the crop yield.”

The impacts on wheat and soybean are likely to be less profound, primarily because of the fertilisation effects that elevated levels of CO2 can have on these crops.

In plants, CO2 is central to the process of photosynthesis—the mechanism by which they create food from sunlight, CO2 and water. When there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, the leaves of plants can capture more of it, resulting in an overall increase in the biomass of the plant.

In addition, plants are able to manage their water use much more efficiently in these conditions, resulting in better tolerance to drought episodes. However, it is not clear whether these CO2 fertilisation effects will actually occur in the field owing to interactions with other factors.

If the CO2 fertilisation effects do occur, the researchers found that the yields of wheat and soybean are expected to increase throughout the 21st century under a “business-as-usual” scenario; however, the increases are projected to be significantly offset by the effects of heat waves, as these plants are still vulnerable to the effects of extreme temperatures.

The positive impacts on soybean yield will be offset by 25 per cent and the positive impacts on wheat will be offset by 52 per cent.

The researchers, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (University of East Anglia, Norwich), Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment (London School of Economics and Political Science, London), and Global Environmental and Climate Change Centre (McGill University, Montreal), arrived at their results using the global crop model PEGASUS to simulate crop yield responses to 72 climate change scenarios spanning the 21st century.

The study also identified particular areas where heat waves are expected to have the largest negative effects on crop yields. Some of the largest affected areas are key for crop production, for example the North American corn belt for maize. When the CO2 fertilisation effects are not taken into account, the researchers found a net decrease in yields in all three crops, intensified by extreme heat stress, for the top-five producing countries of each crop.

“Our results show that maize yields are expected to be negatively affected by climate change, while the impacts on wheat and soybean are generally positive, unless CO2 fertilisation effects have been overestimated,” continued Deryng.

“However, extreme heat stress reinforced by ‘business-as-usual’ reduces the beneficial effects considerably in these two crops. Climate mitigation policy would help reduce risks of serious negative impacts on maize worldwide and reduce risks of extreme heat stress that threaten global crop production.”

###

From Thursday 20 March, this paper can be downloaded from http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/3/034011/article

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

72 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
March 20, 2014 6:47 am

I forecast the influence of weather on crop yields for major producing countries for a living. This study is a biased, speculative piece of dung with zero value and an obvious objective………..which is to manipulate numbers based on a flawed theory and apply them subjectively to acquire the intended result……….which probably also includes known funding realities.
It represents the opposite of authentic science.

JP
March 20, 2014 6:55 am

Interesting is that the exact opposite poses a problem for farmers in 2014. The prolonged cold/wet winter, and a projected “cold spring” for much of the grain belt poses a real and not hypothetical problem for farmers.
During the “unprecedented” warming circa 1976-2007 global crop yields hit records. These concerned scientists are chasing problems that do not exist. If I were them I would be more concerned with droughts induced by cooler weather patterns.

March 20, 2014 7:10 am

Mike Maguire says:
March 20, 2014 at 6:47 am

I forecast the influence of weather on crop yields for major producing countries for a living. This study is a biased, speculative piece of dung with zero value and an obvious objective …

Would you have time to write up a detailed rebuttal of the original article, complete with references to authoritative sources? Reports similar to this one come out frequently and it would be nice to have all their common defects exposed and detailed in one convenient place.
Anthony would no doubt welcome it as a full post.

catweazle666
March 20, 2014 7:56 am

Ah, more BS from the University of Easy Access.
Yawn.

ddpalmer
Reply to  catweazle666
March 20, 2014 8:19 am

Even if all their assumptions are correct and if the predicted warming occurs. There are already varieties of most crops that are happier with higher temperatures and more varieties can be developed if needed.
The wide number of crop varieties optimized for different conditions is why farmers have to figure out every year what that years expected weather will be, how long the growing season will be and a host of other factors so they can decide which variety of seed to plant.

rogerknights
March 20, 2014 8:21 am

observa says:
March 20, 2014 at 6:40 am
The Institute of Physics you say? [Actually Am. Physical Society.] Got news for those physicists and aint it about time they began asking the hard questions-
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/
Hallelujah! Ring the bells and deck the halls of the AGU
(hat tip Andrew Bolt)

+1

Old'un
March 20, 2014 8:33 am

In the UK press today, The Guardian headline on this work is (typically) ‘Heatwaves could threaten food crops, study warns’, whilst The Times goes with ‘Greenhouse gas rise will boost crop yield’
Always look on the bright side of life – if only the alarmists could!

Coach Springer
March 20, 2014 8:39 am

Too hot, cold, wet, dry … sounds like my visit to farming grandparents in the 50s.

March 20, 2014 8:47 am

Physicists are now in charge of agriculture? Didn’t we try this before and about 30 million people starved to death?
Those dimwits at UEA couldn’t grow a turnip if their lives depended on it. Which thankfully they don’t, because real farmers grow the dimwits’ food for them.
Heck, we have to spoon-feed the dimwits with billions of dollars or else they would shrivel up and die, so pathetic are they.
UEA spokesmorons sound like they know something (they impressively used the word “anthesis”). But in actual fact they are puddingheads.
When the most totally useless members of society are put in charge, only bad things can happen. This is particularly true in farming. If you want food to eat, then keep the Lysenkos as far away from the fields as possible.

Marlo Lewis
March 20, 2014 9:02 am

“According the World Bank’s global crop yield data, US crop yields have increased almost 80% since 1980 . . .” SAMURAI, I agree with the gist of your comment but believe you miscalculate. According to the World Bank, U.S. cereal crop yield was 3,772 kg/ha in 1980 and 5,922 kg/ha in 2012, the last year for which data are available — a 57% increase. The U.S. yield in 2009 was 7,236 kg/ha — 91% above the 1980 yield. Impressive, but it was the high water mark. Yields declined in each of the next three years of record, and the 2012 yield was 18% smaller than the 2009 yield. Most of the reduction in 2012 was due to the worst drought in 50 years. Bad weather is not evidence of climate change but the UEA folks predict a future of bad weather (for maize yields) due to climate change. Maybe it’s time for someone to invite the UEA researchers to a Simon-Ehrlich type bet. If U.S. maize yields are higher in 2024 than in 2014, skeptics win; if maize yields are lower, UEA wins.

jai mitchell
March 20, 2014 10:13 am

State corn yields as a percent of trend yield 2012
http://farmfutures.com/mdfm/Faress1/author/252/2013/2/022013cornyields.pdf

March 20, 2014 10:49 am

“Could”
Asteroid strike “could” eliminate life on earth.
Aliens “could” invade and conquer earth.
“Could” is a very handy word.

March 20, 2014 11:28 am

US crop yields are a lousy tool to judge potential productivity. Crop yield is constrained by what the market will purchase. If the market wants more of some crop, farmers grow more of it, to the limit of what the market will bear.
The corn (maize) market has been pumped up by government ethanol mandates and subsidies, so that now more farmers plant corn now, rather than other crops.
However, there is no shortage of other crops, because the market is always satiated (in this country at least, for the last 60+ years). Farmers today are inventing new crops to tickle the consumer’s fickle fancy, because the consumer has all the broccoli or grapes or tomatoes he or she wants, any day of the year!
The old days of mass starvation due to natural disasters are long gone. Mass starvation due to politics is sadly still with us.

March 20, 2014 11:31 am

“Would you have time to write up a detailed rebuttal of the original article, complete with references to authoritative sources? Reports similar to this one come out frequently and it would be nice to have all their common defects exposed and detailed in one convenient place”
Alan,
Thanks for the request. I just finished an article for the local paper that only addresses recent colder Winters and natural causes vs the opposite(and morphing to include snow/cold) prediction from one side a decade ago based on climate models and flawed science.
I’ve written numerous articles for the local paper and a few others in the past. If I can find the time, I will gladly put something together but it would not be right away.
Posters responding to this article have done an outstanding job at rebutting this, along with some good links/references.
I know that references are treated as Gospel but each side can find plenty of them to back up their position. Perfect example is this study. The trick is to be able to pick out “the chaff from the wheat” so to speak by using expertise gained from having a lengthy period of making actual observations in the real world vs speculation or model predictions.
However, people are going to believe whatever matches up with their belief system. Authentic scientists looking objectively don’t fit into that category but then………..their mind set will lead them to the truth independently. Anthony makes this the center of the universe for gathering information on the truth as most of us see it and probably would see it otherwise………just not with the tremendous amount of scientific ammo he shares.
An article for this site would be preaching to the choir. An article for the local paper, reaches a crowd with those that strongly oppose, agree with and hopefully some on the fence and those that are questioning why the world around them is not doing what they were told it would since the 1990’s…………..and why is it these people keeping insisting the same thing.
I’m the chess coach at 4 schools and we have teams from each school in the Scholastic Chess of Indiana Championships this Saturday and am getting them ready for the competition on Saturday, so this will probably be my last post until next week.

richard
March 20, 2014 11:34 am

not sure heat will ever be a problem but waste certainly is ,
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/01/10/up_to_half_of_worlds_food_goes_to_waste_report_says.html
“In India, for instance, as much as 40 per cent of all the fruits, vegetables and food grains never make it to the market. The country wastes more grain each year than Australia produces, and more fruits and vegetables than the U.K. consumes”

March 20, 2014 11:36 am

And again I must note, corn (maize) is a tropical plant. Anthropological research has found that corn (maize) has been grown (by farmers) for thousands of years in the Amazon on the Equator.
It don’t get any hotter than that. Corn likes it hot. Warmer is Better for corn.

Box of Rocks
March 20, 2014 11:40 am

Marlo Lewis says:
March 20, 2014 at 9:02 am
***
The issue is not bushels/acre. The real issue will be total acres of a particular crop be corn, wheat, milo or barley.
Yields will always increase (to a point), how much marginal land that will be used is the question.

March 20, 2014 11:42 am

PS — if you want to know what the next hot farm commodity will be, don’t watch the Weather Channel, watch the Food Channel.

March 20, 2014 12:02 pm

Thomas Malthus: wrong since 1798*.
Paul R. Ehrlich: still wrong.
Delphine Deryng: making the same, wrong predictions.
The sad thing is, this idiot gets paid to be wrong.
* In his defense, at least Malthus wasn’t an utterly loonie fascist like the modern crop of wrong-headed idiots:

In some conversations with labouring men, during the late scarcities, I confess that I was to the last degree disheartened, at observing their inveterate prejudices on the subject of grain; and I felt very strongly the almost absolute incompatibility of a government really free with such a degree of ignorance. The delusions are of such a nature, that, if acted upon, they must at all events be repressed by force; and it is extremely difficult to give such a power to the government as will be sufficient at all times for this purpose, without the risk of its being employed improperly, and endangering the liberty of the subject.

Chuck Nolan
March 20, 2014 1:31 pm

“Heat waves could significantly reduce crop yields and threaten global food supply if climate change is not tackled and reversed.”
———————————-
So if we tackle and reverse climate change then heat waves can’t significantly reduce crop yields and threaten global food supply?
Wonder what the new and improved heat waves will do, instead?
cn

Box of Rocks
March 20, 2014 3:11 pm

Originally, an acre was understood as a selion of land sized at forty perches (660 ft or 1 furlong) long and four perches (66 ft wide);[22] this may have also been understood as an approximation of the amount of land a yoke of oxen could plough in one day. – Wikipedia
Now instead of talking about land tillage in sq ft per day – we talk about acres per hour. In flat corn country – Nebraska, the Dakotas corn can be seeded in 36 row planters at 30″ spacing. Not only are we pushing the envelope on ag machinery, farmers are pushing the boundries when it comes to seeding rates. In 15 years some seeding rates have gone from 25,000 seeds/acre in 1995 to over 30,000 seeds/acre.
The real question is what is the limit?

Verified by MonsterInsights