Claim: U.S. corn yields are increasingly vulnerable to hot, dry weather – Data: corn yield trend positive

While a recent report tells us current droughts in the western USA hardly make the top ten, we have this from Stanford University, a claim about drought related crop insurance claims that doesn’t seem to match data on national yields and trend. While the 2012 drought had an impact, 2013 saw the third highest corn yield on record.

USDA_corn_yield

Data: http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/90C69DEC-38D6-31B4-9953-4C6EB5E82D79?pivot=short_desc

U.S. corn yields are growing more sensitive to heat and drought, according to research by environmental scientist David Lobell. Farmers are faced with difficult tradeoffs in adapting to a changing climate in which unfavorable weather will become more common.

By Laura Seaman (Stanford writer)

Research by David Lobell of Stanford’s Center on Food Security and the Environment indicates corn harvests will be affected by drought conditions, which are occurring more often. 

Corn yields in the central United States have become more sensitive to drought conditions in the past two decades, according to Stanford research. 

The study, which appears in the journal Science, was led by Stanford’s David Lobell, associate professor of environmental Earth system science and associate director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment. “The Corn Belt is phenomenally productive,” Lobell said, referring to the region of Midwestern states where much of the country’s corn is grown. “But in the past two decades we saw very small yield gains in non-irrigated corn under the hottest conditions. This suggests farmers may be pushing the limits of what’s possible under these conditions.”

He predicted that at current levels of temperature sensitivity, crops could lose 15 percent of their yield within 50 years, or as much as 30 percent if crops continue the trend of becoming more sensitive over time.

As Lobell explained, the quest to maximize crop yields has been a driving force behind agricultural research as the world’s population grows and climate change puts pressure on global food production. One big challenge for climate science is whether crops can adapt to climate change by becoming less sensitive to hotter and drier weather.

“The data clearly indicate that drought stress for corn and soy comes partly from low rain, but even more so from hot and dry air. Plants have to trade water to get carbon from the air to grow, and the terms of that trade become much less favorable when it’s hot,” said Lobell, also the lead author for a chapter in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report, which details a consensus view on the current state and fate of the world’s climate.

Rain, temperature, humidity

The United States produces 40 percent of the world’s corn, mostly in Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana. As more than 80 percent of U.S. agricultural land relies on natural rainfall rather than irrigation, corn farmers in these regions depend on precipitation, air temperature and humidity for optimal plant growth.

According to the research, over the last few decades, corn in the United States has been modified with new traits, like more effective roots that better access water and built-in pest resistance to protect against soil insects. These traits allow farmers to plant seeds closer together in a field, and have helped farmers steadily raise yields in typical years.

But in drought conditions, densely planted corn can suffer higher stress and produce lower yields. In contrast, soybeans have not been planted more densely in recent decades and show no signs of increased sensitivity to drought, the report noted.

Drought conditions are expected to become even more challenging as temperatures continue to rise throughout the 21st century, the researchers said.

Lobell said, “Recent yield progress is overall a good news story. But because farm yields are improving fastest in favorable weather, the stakes for having such weather are rising. In other words, the negative impacts of hot and dry weather are rising at the same time that climate change is expected to bring more such weather.”

Extensive data

Lobell’s team examined an unprecedented amount of detailed field data from more than 1 million USDA crop insurance records between 1995 and 2012.

“The idea was pretty simple,” he said. “We determined which conditions really matter for corn and soy yields, and then tracked how farmers were doing at different levels of these conditions over time. But to do that well, you really need a lot of data, and this dataset was a beauty.”

Lobell said he hopes that the research can help inform researchers and policymakers so they can make better decisions.

“I think it’s exciting that data like this now exist to see what’s actually happening in fields. By taking advantage of this data, we can learn a lot fairly quickly,” he said. “Of course, our hope is to improve the situation. But these results challenge the idea that U.S. agriculture will just easily adapt to climate changes because we invest a lot and are really high-tech.”

Lobell and colleagues are also looking at ways crops may perform better under increasingly hot conditions. “But I wouldn’t expect any miracles,” he said. “It will take targeted efforts, and even then gains could be modest. There’s only so much a plant can do when it is hot and dry.”

Laura Seaman is the communications and external relations manager for Stanford’s Center on Food Security and the Environment, a joint program of Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

For more Stanford experts on climate change and other topics, visit Stanford Experts.

-30-

This graph suggests to me that U.S. corn is far more tolerant of drought now than it was in the dustbowl years:

CornYieldTrend_US[1]

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

84 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 3, 2014 10:06 pm

Around 1940 is when applications of man made/synthetic nitrogen caused the start of a strong trend up in corn yields. Here’s an interesting history/time line of the technology and facts going back 200+ years.
https://www.agclassroom.org/gan/timeline/farm_tech.htm
Site specific management of nitrogen for corn using rapidly improving technology is improving efficiency.
http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/live/ec163/build/ec163.pdf
Agree on fringe state yield drag. When the ethanol industry demand for corn put huge upward pressure on prices, those higher prices made it profitable to plant on ground that was unprofitable at $2 corn but profitable at $4. Corn prices at $6 caused millions of additional acres on crummy ground to be brought into production. The lower yields on these additional acres brought down the national average.
Farmers are in the business to make money and they will plant whatever makes them money. They will also pay more money to nurture/manage a $6 corn crop, than a $2 corn crop.
So $6 corn brings out less yielding/marginal ground but at the same time, will result in justification to spend more money to spend more money to maximize those yields.

catweazle666
May 4, 2014 6:36 am

So it’s going to be hotter and dryer, is it?
Good job the CO2 is going up then, right?

Rick
May 4, 2014 7:22 am

Richard, your link is strong on junk science; somewhat short on fact. Did you notice that anyone on that site who expresses an opinion contrary to the accepted point of view is automatically labeled a shill for Monsnto?

May 4, 2014 11:16 am

Most forms on nitrogen fertilizer use anhydrous ammonia.
” Natural gas is used both as a raw material to react with air and supply hydrogen and as a fuel to create the necessary heat and pressure. Manufacturing 1 ton of anhydrous ammonia fertilizer requires approximately 33.5 MCF or 34.4 MMBtu of natural gas”
https://rbnenergy.com/fertile-prospects-for-natural-gas%E2%80%93can-ammonia-soak-up-bakken-gas-surplus
Without the fossil fuel, natural gas, corn yields would be ??? lower.
Here’s a study that showed a10% yield increase when nitrogen rates were increased from 120 lb/acre to 240 lb/acre.
http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/corn_yield_enhancement_through_planting_densities_and_nitrogen_managem
Another little appreciated benefit from a fossil fuel.

Gordon
May 4, 2014 1:18 pm

Cherry picked dates, two years of drought, 31 years data combine with inaccurate regional climate models to be confident yields will drop by 30%. As others have stated did not take into account land use or CO2. This is as bad as medical claim that malaria cases wil rise due to GW. Yields more dependent on seed lines, crop inputs, farming practices and subsidies.

May 5, 2014 12:05 am

Little could be more propitious an omen than to have the IPCC predict a calamity (or climatity) is about to strike your area.

Trevor
May 5, 2014 7:53 am

“Lobell and colleagues are also looking at ways crops may perform better under increasingly hot conditions. ‘But I wouldn’t expect any miracles,’ he said. ‘It will take targeted efforts, and even then gains could be modest. There’s only so much a plant can do when it is hot and dry.'”
Lobell and his colleagues are morons. All you have to do is plant the corn EARLIER. If the “pause” ends, and temperatures begin increasing again, then spring temperatures will increase more than summer temperatures and winter temperatures more than spring temperatures. That means you can plant corn earlier, and it will be done with any development the heat could adversely affect long before the heat became a problem. After the ears and kernels are filled, drought and excessive heat is actually GOOD for corn. At that point, the entire plant could DIE, and it would not affect yield; in fact, it would be great for farmers if their corn plants died at that point, because at that point the crop is “made”, and the only thing left is for it to dry down enough to harvest mechanically. Death of the plant would speed the dry-down process by disabling uptake of water, and the heat and drought would speed evaporation of the water already in the kernels. Of course, speeding the dry-down would not really increase yield either. However, in cold years, some corn in more northerly growing areas (i.e., Minnesota) is lost because it never does dry down enough for harvest, but rots in the field. That would be a much less common occurence if global warming were to resume.
As someone well-educated in agricultural sciences, I have never understood why anyone would think that global warming is a danger to the world’s food supply. There are three things crops need more than anything else: heat, CO2, and water. All three of these things will increase under anthropogenic global warming. The relationship between CO2 and yields has no diminishing returns, at least not at any level ever used in experiments (and some experimenters using enclosed greenhouses have increased CO2 to several times anything seen in the open). Heat can be said to have a diminishing return, in the respect that, above 92F, the corn does not develop any faster than it does at exactly 92F, but it doesn’t die at 92F, nor even slow down development, but maintains the same development rate as at the optimal 92F. More heat means more evaporation, means more precipitation. And while the evaporation part might decrease moisture avaialable to the plants, the precipitation part will more than make up for it. You see, most of the evaporation will take place over the oceans, where the vast majority of the water is, while precipitation will be more uniformly spread across the earth’s surface, for a net increase in moisture over land areas.
So if all three of the most important factors in crop yields are increasing, how can yields do anything but increase? But not only will yields increase in more traditional farming areas, but new areas, presently too cold for farming, will become suitable. Vast areas of Canada and Siberia will be warm enough to grow corn, wheat, soybeans, and other crops. If I thought the global warming “pause” was going to end any time soon, I’d invest every penny I had in real estate in the Canadian tundra.
But think about this. Right now, and for the last 30+ years, rice growers in Texas and South Louisiana have been harvesting their crops TWICE each year. They discovered that, if you harvest early enough (which you can if temperatures are warm enough), then the seed head will REGROW, and you can harvest it again a couple months later. The yield on the second cutting isn’t nearly as high as on the first cutting, but it’s all lagniappe, as they say in South Louisiana, because it’s pretty much a free bonus. Now, imagine that temperatures in Arkansas (where about half of the US rice crop is grown) increased to the same level as current temperatures in South Texas and South Louisiana (it would only take 2-3 degrees F). Then Arkansas rice growers could do that too. And not just that, but since Arkansas is about the northern limit of rice production, it could be done pretty much everywhere rice is grown in the US. And Texas and Louisiana farmers, whose temperatures would also increase, would get more yield on that second cutting. I don’t have any way of knowing exactly how much the total rice production in the US would go up, but I suspect that the “second harvest” effect alone would increase overall yields by between 20 and 30%. That’s not including the primary effect of the heat on per-cutting yields, nor the yield-increasing effect of more CO2 (more rainfall would not affect yields, since rice is 100% irrigated).
Now imagine that Chinese rice farmers could do that.
Regards,
Trevor

A. Scott
May 6, 2014 12:21 am

Mike Maguire: “if you assume CAGW is going to happen, then you can “speculate” that the last 2 decades in the Cornbelt, which represent the best growing conditions since corn has been grown in that region, “might” change to less favorable……….this is all they are doing.”
Excellent point … and if you assume CAGW is going to happen they must acknowledge the trend already underway … that IF warm temps do affect yields in current farm belts – there are huge amounts of land farther North … and in to Canada … where temps would become highly favorable.
There is also the inconvenient fact that there is plenty of high yielding corn grown in AZ – where summer temps are often in the 110+ deg F range. It should be easy for farmers to simply use seed developed for these higher temp areas.
The whole paper is pretty much worthless.

Verified by MonsterInsights