Abstract
The covariability of temperature (T), precipitation (P) and radiation (R) is an important aspect in understanding the climate influence on crop yields. Here, we analyze county-level corn and soybean yields and observed climate for the period 1983–2012 to understand how growing-season (June, July and August) mean T, P and R influence crop yields jointly and in isolation across the CONterminous United States (CONUS). Results show that nationally averaged corn and soybean yields exhibit large interannual variability of 21% and 22%, of which 35% and 32% can be significantly explained by T and P, respectively. By including R, an additional of 5% in variability can be explained for both crops. Using partial regression analyses, we find that studies that ignore the covariability among T, P, and R can substantially overestimate the sensitivity of crop yields to a single climate factor at the county scale. Further analyses indicate large spatial variation in the relative contributions of different climate variables to the variability of historical corn and soybean yields. The structure of the dominant climate factors did not change substantially over 1983–2012, confirming the robustness of the findings, which have important implications for crop yield prediction and crop model validations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
The impacts of climate change on mean crop yields have been widely recognized at the regional and global scales1,2,3,4,5. Climate affects crop growth and food production via complex pathways. The most direct impacts stem from the dependence of crop growth on precipitation and temperature6,7. These two variables have been recognized as the major climate factors governing crop growth regionally and globally3,8,9,10,11. In addition to temperature and precipitation, radiation can have considerable effects on crop growth12,13,14. Indeed, a response of crop yields to radiation variability can be expected because photosynthesis is primarily driven by solar radiation15. Moreover, solar radiation is an important driver of evapotranspiration especially in energy limited regions16,17, an essential component of the soil water balance that affects crop growth. There is some indication that the amount of solar radiation has increased by nearly 0.05 percent per decade since the late 1970s, which is equivalent to one fourth of the yearly human energy use18. However, the separate effects of changes in radiative fluxes on historical crop yields have not been explicitly quantified using statistical approaches.
Although the combined effects of climate factors (e.g. growing season temperature and precipitation) on crop yields are well documented in empirical studies3,10, our understanding of their isolated effects remains incomplete. Moreover, important climate variables, such as temperature, precipitation and solar radiation, interact with each other and any single variable may explain a certain fraction of the variability of the others (hereafter referred to as climate covariability)19,20, thereby complicating detection of the relationship between any single climate factor and crop yields. A recent modeling study21 pointed out the importance of considering surface solar radiation and its covariation with temperatures in estimating temperature impacts on crop yields, hampering the ability to quantify the relative effects of climate change on crop yields21,22. Most of the previous empirical studies adopt regression analysis without considering the effects of climate covariability, which would therefore dampen the detection of climate effects on crop yield. We hypothesize that, without excluding the effect of the covarability effects, the effect of a single climate factor on crop yields could not be accurately revealed.
Empirical models that rely on past observations of climate and crop yields offer the potential to understand historical relationships between past climate and crop yields23. While many studies have examined the long-term effects of climate change on crop yields, relatively a few studies have focused on the response of crop yields to inter-annual climate variability10. Notably, temporal fluctuation of agricultural productions can cause more devastating impacts on food price, farmers’ income and food security than long-term changes in crop yields24,25,26. Here, we provide a data-driven analysis to advance understanding of the effects of precipitation, temperature, and solar radiation on historical corn and soybean yield variabilities across the U.S. at the county scale. Specifically, we will address the following three scientific questions: (1) to what extent the three climate factors in combination can explain crop yields variability at the county scale over CONUS and what is the contribution of solar radiation? (2) What are the true effects of individual climate factors on the temporal variability of crop yields? Here, we perform paired analyses using different statistical techniques: one including climate covariability similar to previous studies, and the other excluding such effects. By comparing these analyses, we examine the role of climate covariability in explaining crop yield variability; and (3) Which climate variable is a more dominant climate factor in explaining the historical crop yield variations for different counties over CONUS? We focused our analyses primarily on corn and soybean in the CONUS, which account for ca. 41% and 38% of the world’s total production of these two crops, respectively. The county level analyses are expected to complement the aggregated national scale analyses, which may obscure the differences in climate influence on crop yields due to the omission of spatial heterogeneity.
Results
County level crop yield variability over CONUS
The standard deviation (STD) of crop yields over the analysis time period is used to indicate crop yield interannual variability of corn and soybean at the county scale (Fig. 1). High STD values up to 27 Bu/acre in corn yields are found in Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Arizona, east of South Dakota, and North Dakota while the lowest variability is obtained for Nebraska, Western Kansas and much of Western US. Although the STD is high in productive regions, the relative variability as indicated by the coefficient of variance (CV, i.e. STD normalized by the mean) is low in Iowa and Illinois (Supplementary Figure S1). For soybean yields, the highest STD up to 8 Bu/acre is distributed in productive regions such as Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa and Missouri while low STD is found in southeastern US regions. Averaged over the CONUS with the weighting based on crop-harvested area, corn yield variability (standard deviation) is 24.95 Bu/acre/year (or 21% of the average corn yields), while soybean yield variability is 7.2 Bu/acre/year (or 22% of the average soybean yields) (Table 1).
Effects of radiation in explaining crop yield variability
During the past three decades, P exhibited the largest interannual variability over the mid-west and southeastern US (Figure S2). The largest variations of T occurred in the Midwest, especially the upper Midwest region, while Southeastern US experienced the lowest variability of T. Variability of R is high in the Southeastern US but low in the Western US. To what extent have climate variations, especially radiation changes, influenced the historical crop yield variabilities? Figure 2 shows the fraction of corn and soybean yield variability explained by T plus P. In general, climate variability has larger explanatory power over the Southeastern US (>60%) compared to other regions. In major growing regions such as the Missouri, Iowa and Illinois, up to 40% and 30% of the total year-to-year corn and soybean yield variability can be explained by T plus P, respectively. Corn or soybean yield variability in nearly half of the counties cannot be explained by climate variability at the 90% significance level, particularly in the western regions where the variability of crop yields is low. The physical mechanism behind this unexplained variability is an open question since many factors influencing crop growth and development are not explicitly considered in this study. Overall, our results indicate that 35% and 32% of the corn and soybean yield variability can be explained by T plus P (Table 2), respectively, consistent with previous findings2.
Notably, by factoring in R, the regression model explained more variability of both corn and soybean yields across the CONUS (Fig. 2b,d). Much of the enhanced correlation is observed over the highly productive region of US such as the Missouri, Iowa and Illinois. Averaged over the country, 40% and 37% of corn and soybean yield variability, respectively can be explained by combined effects of P, T, and R, an increase of 5% for both crops (Table 2). Overall, our results suggest that R, which was often not considered in previous empirical studies, plays a non-trivial role in influencing crop yield variability.
Importance of climate covariability in explaining crop yield variability
Since the climate factors as well as their impacts on crop yields can co-vary on interannual time scale, understanding the true effects of individual climate factors can help develop more effective adaptation strategies in response to anticipated climate change. Figure 3 shows the sensitivity of corn yield to P, T and R with and without excluding the effects of climate covariability. By comparing these two sets of figures, the effects of climate covariability can be examined as shown in Fig. 3g–i,. In general, P had positive impacts on corn yields over most of the corn growing regions, except for Iowa, western Nebraska, and part of Kansas (Fig. 3a). In contrast, T generally exerted negative impacts on corn yields, especially in Midwest regions (Fig. 3b). Note that many additional factors, such as local water and soil conditions as well as management practices, may complicate the task of quantifying climate influences crop growth and development. For example, the positive and negative correlations between variabilities in corn yield and T in western and eastern Nebraska are likely caused by contrasting water management practices (i.e. irrigation in the west vs. dryland in the east)27,28. By repeating our analysis for those counties with separate estimates of rainfed and irrigated yields for corn and soybean obtained from the USDA (Supplementary Figures S3 and S4), we found that the sensitivity of rainfed yields is larger in magnitude than that of irrigated yields, indicating that irrigation can reduce the dependence of crop yields on precipitation. This also illustrates the difficulty of including all potential factors affecting crop yields using statistical approaches, which have inherent limitations due to the selection of the independent variables for building the regression model. Tile drainage is used in Iowa to remove excess water29, consistent with the negative correlation between P and crop yield over there. In much of the western US, P has a dominant cold season peak so the growing season P should have little direct effect on corn yield, and the negative relationship is likely reflecting coincidental relationships between growing season P and corn yield with other factors such as cold season P, summer soil moisture, and water availability for irrigation.
From the partial regression, an increase of 1 K in T can lead to about 10% decrease in corn yields in the productive regions (e.g. Missouri, Iowa and Illinois). Compared to the other regions, the magnitude of corn yield sensitivity to P is larger in the water limited western US. Corn yields are expected to increase by up to 15% with a 10 W/m2 increase of R in some of major corn growing regions such as Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota followed by Nebraska and California. Without excluding the effects of climate interactions, it was reported that corn and soybean yields in CONUS may decrease by 17% in response to a 1 K increase in growing season temperature9, which is much larger than the results obtained in this study. Indeed, comparing the results with and without excluding the compounding effects of climate interactions (Fig. 3d–f), similar response of corn yield to each climate factor is found in terms of the change direction. However, the response magnitude is much larger if the compounding effects from climate interactions are included (Fig. 3g–i).
As for soybean (Fig. 4), similar pattern of yield response to each climate factor is found. Increases of P is found to drive up soybean yields, with a magnitude comparable to corn. Soybean yields in Kansas, Tennessee and several states in the southeastern US are most sensitive to changes in T, with a 10% decrease in response to a 1 K increase in T. In Wisconsin and Illinois, soybean yields are more sensitive to R than in other regions. Importantly, the magnitude is also much larger if the effects of climate covariability are included. Overall, our results suggest that previous studies using linear regression without excluding the effects of climate covariability would overestimate the effects of single climate factor on crop yields with varying magnitude over different regions. Moreover, the crop growing counties with detected relations between climate and crop yield at the 90% confidence level would be much weaker after the effects of climate covariability is excluded. The lesser sensitivity or less significant relationship after excluding climate covariability indicates the importance of climate covariability in explaining crop yield variability. This finding is also in general consistent with the study by AghaKouchak et al.30 who showed that drought analyses based on seasonal mean precipitation substantially underestimate the risk of the 2014 California drought due to the omission of the compounding effects with temperature.
Dominant climate factor(s) influencing historical crop yield variability
Although many studies emphasized the importance of different climate factors, understanding of the regional differences in controls of crop yields is rather limited. Hence, a key question arises as to which climate factor is relatively more important in explaining historical crop yield variability in different counties over US? Our analyses show large spatial variation in the relative importance of different climate variables to the variability of corn and soybean yields across CONUS, as shown in Fig. 5. For corn yields, T alone was able to explain the variability in the Central Great Plains, while in the Northern Great Plains and eastern U.S., P alone accounted for most of the variability (Fig. 5a). Overall, T alone is the dominant climate factor for 20% of US corn growing counties that contributed 30% to the total US corn production (Fig. 5b). P alone also dominated corn yield variability in 20% of US corn growing counties, but they are mainly located in the Southeastern US, contributing only 17% of total corn production. The substantial spatial variation in the dominant climate factors clearly demonstrate that climate impacts are local/regional and should be addressed by considering local environmental settings. R alone only dominated corn yield variability in 5% of US corn growing counties, with a minor contribution of 2% to US total production. However, R together with T and P (i.e. R&P, R&T, and R&P&T) has affected corn yields in 14% of corn growing counties (or 12% of US total corn production).
For soybean, most of the counties, where P alone is the most important factor, are located in North Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas, while T alone is most important in Arkansas, North Carolina and Nebraska (Fig. 5c). P alone was most important in 24% of soybean growing counties (20% of total US soybean production), while T alone was most important in 14% of the counties that contribute to a 17% of the US total soybean production (Fig. 5d). R alone was the most important factor for 6% of soybean growing counties, which produced 7% of the total US soybean production. A combination of R together with T and P, affected soybean yields in 11% of soybean growing counties (or 10% of US total soybean production). Overall, the counties where corn and soybean yield variability could be significantly explained at a 90% confidence level are located in the major corn and soybean production regions that account for 68% and 59% of the US total corn and soybean production, respectively.
How robust are the derived climate-crop yield relationships? By repeating the analyses using a 20-year window, we examined the evolutions of the dominant climate factors influencing corn and soybean yield variability (Fig. 6). For corn, T prevailed for being most important factor for both the number of counties and the share of total US production most of the time. For soybean, T was also the most influential factor in terms of the share of production while P dominated in more counties except for a period around 1995. Overall, the relative importance of the three climate factors and their combinations in influencing crop yields did not change substantially over 1983–2012, indicating the robustness of the revealed relationships.
Discussions
There are two general approaches to explore the relationships between climate change and crop yields: numerical crop modelling31 and statistical modelling23. Due to limited availability of detailed and complete spatially resolved datasets on crop types, rotations, climate, land surface and managements as well as incomplete representation of the underlying biogeochemical processes, large spreads often exist among different crop models4,32. In this study, we adopt a statistical approach to explore the observed relations between climate and crop yields. However, statistical approach also has inherent limitations due to the selection of the independent variables for regression model and covariability between various factors.
In addition to temperature and precipitation, we considered the effects of radiation that was often omitted in previous studies. We also recognize other important climate factors such as vapor pressure deficits33, atmospheric CO2 concentration34, and diurnal temperature range35. Additionally, climate variability ranges from different scales such as intra-seasonal, inter-seasonal and inter-annual. Besides the seasonal totals, intra-seasonal climate variability can have considerable effects on crop productivity36. Furthermore, extreme events such as droughts, floods, heat waves may affect crop growth and productivity significantly37,38 and disproportionately39,40. Use of growing season mean climate as an explanatory variable, which is common in statistical approaches2,3,9,23,33,41, was adopted in this study, although such an approach has been criticized in that other aspects of sub-seasonal variations, such as long dry spells or heat waves, can be critical to crop growth. In addition to climate variability, crop yields can also be influenced by management practices such as conservation tillage42, multiple cropping43, Soil Mulching44, irrigation45 and fertilization46. Previous studies illustrated the complexity of the processes and factors influencing crop yields and highlighted the challenge of attributing crop yields changes to a subset of factors23. While this study addresses the covariability between climate variables and their impacts on crop yields, covariability between climate and non-climate factors could have some impacts on the results.
Without explicitly considering all of the aforementioned factors and processes, the growing season T, P, and R could only significantly explain the interannual variability in corn and soybean yields in half of the counties at a confidence level of 90%. Ray et al.33 showed that one third of crop yield variability can be explained by growing season mean temperature and precipitation. Lobell and Field2 found that around 30% of corn and soybean can be explained by growing season mean temperature and precipitation. Our estimates that mean growing-season climatic conditions explain ~40% and ~37% of viabilities of corn and soybean yield, respectively, is consistent with their estimates and many other relevant studies2,3,10. The unexplained fraction of the variability could be attributed by many other factors that are not considered as discussed above, due partially to the intrinsic limitation of statistical approaches and available data for such analyses. Aggregation of gridded climate data into the county scale add further uncertainties, as the size of most counties in the Southeast US is small compared to a 0.125 degree grid cell.
Compared to climate events induced by a single climate factor (e.g. precipitation deficits), the events with concurrent and compound extremes such as low precipitation coupled with high temperatures could be more severe and pronounced as demonstrated in the 2003 European drought47, 2010 Russian drought48 and the 2014 California drought30,49. A number of studies suggest that the chance of concurrent droughts and heat waves has increased in a warming climate and are projected to continue increasing in the near future50,51,52. Despite these findings, little attention has been paid to the effects of climate covariance (including concurrent extreme droughts and heat waves) on crop yields. Without excluding the effects of climate covariability, the detection of true effects of a single climate factor would be dampened. Here, we performed paired analyses using statistical approaches: one that does not exclude climate covariability similar to previous studies, and the other excludes climate covariability. By comparing the results, we investigated the effects of climate covaraibility. Furthermore, the dominant climate factors (P, T, R, or the combination of the three) are presented at the county level across the U.S. and such a pattern is found to be robust during the past 30 years. The robust pattern of dominant climate factors governing crop yield is unique in that it is obtained after excluding the effects of climate covariance, therefore is valuable for identifying effective crop management practices with the aim of alleviating negative climate change impacts on food production. The derived sensitivity of crop yields to each separate climate factor is valuable for evaluating the robustness of crop models in simulating responses of crop growth to a changing climate. This type of information is sought increasingly for adaptive measures at the national, regional and global level to ensure greater resilience in food security in a warming climate with greater likelihood of extreme climate/weather conditions that affect directly these climate variables.
Conclusions
Understanding the historical relationship between climate variability and crop yield variability helps in gaining greater knowledge for enhancing resilience of our agricultural production systems to climate variability and change. In this study, we examined the isolated effects of temperature, precipitation and solar radiation on the county-level corn and soybean yield variability over US for the period of 1983–2012.
Our results show that temperature and precipitation combined can explain up to 32% and 35% of the year-to-year US corn and soybean yield variability, respectively. By including the solar radiation, approximately 5% more variability can be explained for these two crops. Overall, T alone is the major factor for 20% of corn growing counties, which contribute to 30% of the total US corn production. Compared to T, the number of counties affected significantly by P alone is the same, but they contribute less to the total US productions (17%), as most of them are distributed primarily over Southeastern US. For soybean, P alone affects the variability of yield over 24% of US soybean growing counties that contribute 20% total US production. These counties are located mainly in North Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas. T alone affects 14% of soybean growing regions or 17% of total US soybean production in counties located in Arkansas, North Carolina and part of Nebraska. Notably, although R alone is important for only 5% and 6% of the corn and soybean growing counties, respectively, but this effect increase to 9% and 11% under the combined effects of R, T and P, and they contribute to 10% and 17% of total US corn and soybean productions, respectively. This suggests that a relatively smaller region and number of counties in U.S. are solar energy limited an affected by R, as compared with the impact of T and P. A more detailed examination of time evolution of these relations revealed that they are relatively stable for the entire period of this study, indicating the robustness of the revealed patterns of the dominant climate factor(s) affecting crop yields. Moreover, we found that the magnitude of climate impacts on crop yields was much larger when the compounding effects among multiple climate factors was included, suggesting that previous studies that used linear regression between single climate factors and crop yields without excluding their covariance would most likely overestimate the effects of climate on crop yields.
Many studies, employing different methods, have linked climate to yields, and each has their own set of strengths and weaknesses. Complementing earlier studies that examined the empirical relations between climate and crop yield, this study provide new insights by including the effects of radiation, demonstrating the importance of climate covariability and identifying where and which climate variability has been relatively important in explaining historical crop yield variability for each county over US. If climate variability is projected to increase in the same regions where climate variability historically affected most of the crop yield variability, some strategies for stabilizing crop production in light of such variability should be developed to ensure stable future crop production and preventing future food price spikes. Hence, the county level maps developed in this study can serve as a guide (e.g. crop yields variability due to climate conditions) for agricultural policy-decisions and management practices to build greater adaptive resilience in coping with climate variability and change and their impacts on these crops. Further, the statistical models developed in this study may be used to project future yield variability together with future climate projections, and for cross-comparison the results from numerical crop models.
Materials and Methods
Crop yield census and observed climate data
The county-level yearly crop yields for corn and soybean from 1983–2012, along with harvest area, were obtained from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agriculture Statistics Survey’s Quick Stats database (http://www.nass.usda.gov/Quick_Stats). We calculated county-scale crop production by multiplying crop yield with harvest area. Climate data were obtained from the phase 2 of the multi-institutional North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS) project53, which includes precipitation, air temperature and solar radiation at 0.125 grid resolutions across the conterminous U.S. The NLDAS precipitation data used observations from Climate Prediction Center (CPC) gauge data with topographical adjustment, hourly Doppler Stage II radar precipitation data, and North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) precipitation data. The temperature and radiation are derived from the analysis fields of the NARR. The temperature was adjusted to account for the vertical difference between the NARR and NLDAS fields of terrain height. The radiation is bias-corrected against Surface Radiation Budget (SRB) dataset. The NLDAS meteorological forcing data has been widely validated and used in land surface modeling studies over the CONUS. The use of NLDAS gridded temperature, precipitation and radiation time series helps ensure the consistency of the sources of the three climate variable, as the density of weather stations recording all three climate variables are relatively non-uniform over the CONUS.
Methodology
The annual growing season (June, July and August)9 mean surface air temperature (T), precipitation (P) and solar radiation (R) was calculated at each 1/8th degree grid cell and then aggregated to the county level for 1983–2012 period. The linear trend of time series of crop yields from the least squares method were first removed to screen out non-weather effects such as technological improvements2. Next, a multiple linear regression of de-trended crop yields onto de-trended growing season mean T, P, and R time series is developed. It should be noted that the assumption of the linear relations may not hold under all conditions due to the nonlinear response of crop growth to climate11,54. By comparing the portion of crop yield variabilitys explained by the two regression models, the added value of radiation can be quantified for answering our first scientific question.
Without excluding the effects of climate covariability, the true effects of changes in a single climate factor would be dampened. Here, we performed paired analyses using statistical approaches: one including climate covariability (with simple regression technique) similar to previous studies, and the other excluding climate covariability. In order to exclude the effects of climate covariability (the second scientific question), the partial least squares regression approach55 were adopted. This method has been widely used in detecting the hydro-climate variations56,57 and can isolate the effects of a single climate factor by removing statistically the effects of other controlling factors. For example, if the purpose is to understand the response of crops yields to T (target climate variable), the influence of P and R (controlling climate factors) should be removed first. Specifically, crop yield variability that can be explained by the controlling variable (i.e. P and R) are first removed by calculating residuals (r1) of regressing crop yields against the P and R. Next, the residuals (r2) of regressing the target variable (T) against the controlling variables (i.e. P and R) are computed. Finally, the linear regression of r1 and r2 calculated. The sensitivity of crop yield to the target variable is computed as the slope of the partial regression. By examining the difference between the sensitivities with and without the climate covaribility effects, the role of climate covariability in explaining crop yield variability can be explored. The statistical significance of the regressions was calculated according to the two-tailed Student’s t-test. The significance of constructed relations between climate factors and crop yield was examined for each corn and soybean growing county at a confidence level of 90%. We provided this information in a spatial map marking the dominant climate factors governing the historical crop yield variability across the US. Here, dominant climate factors indicate those with significant relations with crop yields at the 90% confidence level. For example, T means only T has significant relations with crop yields while T&P means both T and P have significant relations with crop yields at the 90% statistical confidence level. Furthermore, we repeated these procedures using a moving time window of 20 years to examine the evolution of the revealed relationships. We acknowledge the importance of other climate factors not examined here to avoid significant complexity in our analyses. However, the same analysis framework can be used by including other variables of interest and importance for other specific regions.
Additional Information
How to cite this article: Leng, G. et al. The Role of Climate Covariability on Crop Yields in the Conterminous United States. Sci. Rep. 6, 33160; doi: 10.1038/srep33160 (2016).
References
Asseng, S. et al. Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 143–147 (2015).
Lobell, D. B. & Field, C. B. Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 2, 014002 (2007).
Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W. & Costa-Roberts, J. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333, 616–620 (2011).
Rosenzweig, C. et al. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3268–3273 (2014).
Wheeler, T. & von Braun, J. Climate change impacts on global food security. Science 341, 508–513 (2013).
Rosenzweig, C. & Parry, M. L. Potential impact of climate change on world food supply. Nature 367, 133–138 (1994).
Schmidhuber, J. & Tubiello, F. N. Global food security under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 19703–19708 (2007).
Deryng, D., Sacks, W., Barford, C. & Ramankutty, N. Simulating the effects of climate and agricultural management practices on global crop yield.Global Biogeochem. Cy . 25, GB2006 (2011).
Lobell, D. B. & Asner, G. P. Climate and management contributions to recent trends in US agricultural yields. Science 299, 1032–1032 (2003).
Ray, D. K., Gerber, J. S., MacDonald, G. K. & West, P. C. Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nat. Commun. 6, 5989 (2015).
Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to US crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15594–15598 (2009).
De Wit, A. d., Boogaard, H. & Van Diepen, C. Spatial resolution of precipitation and radiation: the effect on regional crop yield forecasts. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 135, 156–168 (2005).
Muchow, R., Sinclair, T. & Bennett, J. M. Temperature and solar radiation effects on potential maize yield across locations. Agron. J . 82, 338–343 (1990).
Trnka, M. et al. Effect of estimated daily global solar radiation data on the results of crop growth models. Sensors 7, 2330–2362 (2007).
Mercado, L. M. et al. Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink. Nature 458, 1014–1017 (2009).
Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T. & Kiehl, J. Earth’s global energy budget. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc . 90, 311–323 (2009).
Wang, K. & Dickinson, R. E. A review of global terrestrial evapotranspiration: Observation, modeling, climatology, and climatic variability. Rev. Geophys. 50, RG2005 (2012).
Willson, R. C. & Mordvinov, A. V. Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21–23. Geophys. Res. Lett. 30, 1199 (2003).
Diffenbaugh, N. S. & Ashfaq, M. Intensification of hot extremes in the United States. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L15701 (2010).
Trenberth, K. E. & Shea, D. J. Relationships between precipitation and surface temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32, L14703 (2005).
Lobell, D. B. & Ortiz-Monasterio, J. I. Impacts of day versus night temperatures on spring wheat yields. Agron. J . 99, 469–477 (2007).
Chen, C., Baethgen, W. E. & Robertson, A. Contributions of individual variation in temperature, solar radiation and precipitation to crop yield in the North China Plain, 1961–2003. Clim. Change 116, 767–788 (2013).
Lobell, D. B. & Burke, M. B. On the use of statistical models to predict crop yield responses to climate change. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 150, 1443–1452 (2010).
Godfray, H. C. J. et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327, 812–818 (2010).
Hertel, T. W., Burke, M. B. & Lobell, D. B. The poverty implications of climate-induced crop yield changes by 2030. Global Environ. Chang . 20, 577–585 (2010).
Iizumi, T. et al. Prediction of seasonal climate-induced variations in global food production. Nat. Clim. change 3, 904–908 (2013).
Leng, G., Huang, M., Tang, Q., Gao, H. & Leung, L. R. Modeling the effects of groundwater-fed irrigation on terrestrial hydrology over the conterminous United States. J. Hydrometeorol. 15, 957–972 (2014).
Leng, G. et al. Modeling the effects of irrigation on land surface fluxes and states over the conterminous United States: Sensitivity to input data and model parameters. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 9789–9803 (2013).
Schilling, K. E. & Libra, R. D. Increased baseflow in Iowa over the second half of the 20th century. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 39, 851–860 (2003).
AghaKouchak, A., Cheng, L., Mazdiyasni, O. & Farahmand, A. Global warming and changes in risk of concurrent climate extremes: Insights from the 2014 California drought. Geophys. Res. Lett . 41, 8847–8852 (2014).
Edmonds, J. A. & Rosenberg, N. J. Climate change impacts for the Conterminous USA: an integrated assessment summary. Clim. Change 69, 151–162 (2005).
Asseng, S. et al. Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat. Clim.Change 3, 827–832 (2013).
Ray, J. D., Gesch, R. W., Sinclair, T. R. & Allen, L. H. The effect of vapor pressure deficit on maize transpiration response to a drying soil. Plant Soil 239, 113–121 (2002).
Sakurai, G., Iizumi, T., Nishimori, M. & Yokozawa, M. How much has the increase in atmospheric CO2 directly affected past soybean production? Sci. Rep. 4, 4978 (2014).
Lobell, D. B. Changes in diurnal temperature range and national cereal yields. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 145, 229–238 (2007).
Guan, K., Sultan, B., Biasutti, M., Baron, C. & Lobell, D. B. What aspects of future rainfall changes matter for crop yields in West Africa? Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 8001–8010 (2015).
Lobell, D. B. et al. Greater sensitivity to drought accompanies maize yield increase in the US Midwest. Science 344, 516–519 (2014).
Rosenzweig, C., Tubiello, F. N., Goldberg, R., Mills, E. & Bloomfield, J. Increased crop damage in the US from excess precipitation under climate change. Global Environ. Chang 12, 197–202 (2002).
Lesk, C., Rowhani, P. & Ramankutty, N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 529, 84–87 (2016).
Semenov, M. A. & Shewry, P. R. Modelling predicts that heat stress, not drought, will increase vulnerability of wheat in Europe. Sci. Rep . 1, 66 (2011).
You, L., Rosegrant, M. W., Wood, S. & Sun, D. Impact of growing season temperature on wheat productivity in China. Agr. Forest Meteorol . 149, 1009–1014 (2009).
Karlen, D. L., Kovar, J. L., Cambardella, C. A. & Colvin, T. S. Thirty-year tillage effects on crop yield and soil fertility indicators. Soil Till. Res. 130, 24–41 (2013).
Seifert, C. A. & Lobell, D. B. Response of double cropping suitability to climate change in the United States. Environ.Res. Lett. 10, 024002 (2015).
Qin, W., Hu, C. & Oenema, O. Soil mulching significantly enhances yields and water and nitrogen use efficiencies of maize and wheat: a meta-analysis. Sci. Rep . 5, 16210 (2015).
Postel, S. Pillar of sand: can the irrigation miracle last? (Norton, New York, 1999).
Stewart, W., Dibb, D., Johnston, A. & Smyth, T. The contribution of commercial fertilizer nutrients to food production. Agron. J . 97, 1–6 (2005).
Fink, A. H. et al. The 2003 European summer heatwaves and drought–synoptic diagnosis and impacts. Weather 59, 209–216 (2004).
Trenberth, K. E. & Fasullo, J. T. Climate extremes and climate change: The Russian heat wave and other climate extremes of 2010. J. Geophys. Res . 117, D17103 (2012).
Shukla, S., Safeeq, M., AghaKouchak, A., Guan, K. & Funk, C. Temperature impacts on the water year 2014 drought in California. Geophys. Res. Lett . 42, 4384–4393 (2015).
Hao, Z., AghaKouchak, A. & Phillips, T. J. Changes in concurrent monthly precipitation and temperature extremes. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 034014 (2013).
Leonard, M. et al. A compound event framework for understanding extreme impacts. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 5, 113–128 (2014).
Mazdiyasni, O. & AghaKouchak, A. Substantial increase in concurrent droughts and heatwaves in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112, 11484–11489 (2015).
Xia, Y. et al. Continental‐scale water and energy flux analysis and validation for the North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 (NLDAS‐2): 1. Intercomparison and application of model products. J. Geophys. Res. 117, D03109 (2012).
Lobell, D. B., Bänziger, M., Magorokosho, C. & Vivek, B. Nonlinear heat effects on African maize as evidenced by historical yield trials. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 42–45 (2011).
Geladi, P. & Kowalski, B. R. Partial least-squares regression: a tutorial. Anal. Chim. Acta 185, 1–17 (1986).
Smoliak, B. V., Wallace, J. M., Stoelinga, M. T. & Mitchell, T. P. Application of partial least squares regression to the diagnosis of year - to - year variations in Pacific Northwest snowpack and Atlantic hurricanes. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L03801 (2010).
Tobias, R. D. An introduction to partial least squares regression. http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/sas/library/pls.pdf (16/12/2003).
The NCAR Command Language (Version 6.1.2) [Software]. Boulder, Colorado: UCAR/NCAR/CISL/VETS. http://dx.doi.org/10.5065/D6WD3XH5 (2013).
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out with support from the Integrated Assessment Research program through the Regional Integrated Assessment Modeling project sponsored by the Biological and Environmental Research Division of Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy. The work is also partially funded by the DOE Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center and NASA (NNH12AU03I and NNH13ZDA001N), and a Laboratory Directed Research and Development Project by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). PNNL is operated by Battelle Memorial Institute for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-76RLO1830.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
G.L., X.Z. and M.H. designed the study. G.L. conducted the analysis. G.L., X.Z., M.H., G.R.A. and L.R.L. interpreted the results and wrote the paper.
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing financial interests.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license, users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
About this article
Cite this article
Leng, G., Zhang, X., Huang, M. et al. The Role of Climate Covariability on Crop Yields in the Conterminous United States. Sci Rep 6, 33160 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33160
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep33160
This article is cited by
-
Can extreme climatic and bioclimatic indices reproduce soy and maize yields in Latin America? Part 1: an observational and modeling perspective
Environmental Earth Sciences (2024)
-
“Let them eat cake”: drought, peasant uprisings, and demand for institutional change in the French Revolution
Journal of Economic Growth (2024)
-
A generalized procedure for joint monitoring and probabilistic quantification of extreme climate events at regional level
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment (2023)
-
The interacting effects of irrigation, sowing date and nitrogen on water status, protein and yield in pea (Pisum sativum L.)
Scientific Reports (2022)
-
The adaptation mechanism based on an integrated vulnerability assessment of potato production to climate change in Inner Mongolia, China
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (2022)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.