Climate
Paragraphs

West Africa is highly vulnerable to climate hazards and better quantification and understanding of the impact of climate change on crop yields are urgently needed. Here we provide an assessment of near-term climate change impacts on sorghum yields in West Africa and account for uncertainties both in future climate scenarios and in crop models. Towards this goal, we use simulations of nine bias-corrected CMIP5 climate models and two crop models (SARRA-H and APSIM) to evaluate the robustness of projected crop yield impacts in this area. In broad agreement with the full CMIP5 ensemble, our subset of bias-corrected climate models projects a mean warming of +2.8 °C in the decades of 2031–2060 compared to a baseline of 1961–1990 and a robust change in rainfall in West Africa with less rain in the Western part of the Sahel (Senegal, South-West Mali) and more rain in Central Sahel (Burkina Faso, South-West Niger). Projected rainfall deficits are concentrated in early monsoon season in the Western part of the Sahel while positive rainfall changes are found in late monsoon season all over the Sahel, suggesting a shift in the seasonality of the monsoon. In response to such climate change, but without accounting for direct crop responses to CO2, mean crop yield decreases by about 16–20% and year-to-year variability increases in the Western part of the Sahel, while the eastern domain sees much milder impacts. Such differences in climate and impacts projections between the Western and Eastern parts of the Sahel are highly consistent across the climate and crop models used in this study. We investigate the robustness of impacts for different choices of cultivars, nutrient treatments, and crop responses to CO2. Adverse impacts on mean yield and yield variability are lowest for modern cultivars, as their short and nearly fixed growth cycle appears to be more resilient to the seasonality shift of the monsoon, thus suggesting shorter season varieties could be considered a potential adaptation to ongoing climate changes. Easing nitrogen stress via increasing fertilizer inputs would increase absolute yields, but also make the crops more responsive to climate stresses, thus enhancing the negative impacts of climate change in a relative sense. Finally, CO2 fertilization would significantly offset the negative climate impacts on sorghum yields by about 10%, with drier regions experiencing the largest benefits, though the net impacts of climate change remain negative even after accounting for CO2.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Environmental Research Letters
Authors
David Lobell
Number
10
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

In a recent speech, Stanford professor Rosamond Naylor examined the wide range of challenges contributing to global food insecurity, which Naylor defined as a lack of plentiful, nutritious and affordable food. Naylor's lecture, titled "Feeding the World in the 21st Century," was part of the quarterly Earth Matters series sponsored by Stanford Continuing Studies and the Stanford School of Earth Sciences. Naylor, a professor of Environmental Earth System Science and director of the Center on Food Security and the Environment at Stanford, is also a professor (by courtesy) of Economics, and the William Wrigley Senior Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

"One billion people go to bed day in and day out with chronic hunger," said Naylor. The problem of food insecurity, she explained, goes far beyond food supply. "We produce enough calories, just with cereal crops alone, to feed everyone on the planet," she said. Rather, food insecurity arises from a complex and interactive set of factors including poverty, malnutrition, disease, conflict, poor governance and volatile prices. Food supply depends on limited natural resources including water and energy, and food accessibility depends on government policies about land rights, biofuels, and food subsidies. Often, said Naylor, food policies in one country can impact food security in other parts of the world. Solutions to global hunger must account for this complexity, and for the "evolving" nature of food security.

As an example of this evolution, Naylor pointed to the success of China and India in reducing hunger rates from 70 percent to 15 percent within a single generation. Economic growth was key, as was the "Green Revolution," a series of advances in plant breeding, irrigation and agricultural technology that led to a doubling of global cereal crop production between 1970 and 2010. But Naylor warned that the success of the Green Revolution can lead to complacency about present-day food security challenges. China, for example, sharply reduced hunger as it underwent rapid economic growth, but now faces what Naylor described as a "second food security challenge" of micronutrient deficiency. Anemia, which is caused by a lack of dietary iron and which Naylor said is common in many rural areas of China, can permanently damage children's cognitive development and school performance, and eventually impede a country’s economic growth.

Hunger knows no boundaries

Although hunger is more prevalent in the developing world, food insecurity knows no geographic boundaries, said Naylor. Every country, including wealthy economies like the United States, struggles with problems of food availability, access, and nutrition. "Rather than think of this as 'their problem' that we don't need to deal with, really it's our problem too," Naylor said.

She pointed out that one in five children in the United States is chronically hungry, and 50 million Americans receive government food assistance. Many more millions go to soup kitchens every night, she added. "We are in a precarious position with our own food security, with big implications for public health and educational attainment," Naylor said. A major paradox of the United States' food security challenge is that hunger increasingly coexists with obesity. For the poorest Americans, cheap food offers abundant calories but low nutritional value. To improve the health and food security of millions of Americans, "linking policy in a way that can enhance the incomes of the poorest is really important, and it's the hard part,” she said.” It's not easy to fix the inequality issue."

Success stories

When asked whether there were any "easy" decisions that the global community can agree to, Naylor responded, "What we need to do for a lot of these issues is pretty clear, but how we get after it is not always agreed upon." She added, "But I think we've seen quite a few success stories," including the growing research on climate resilient crops, new scientific tools such as plant genetics, improved modeling techniques for water and irrigation systems, and better knowledge about how to use fertilizer more efficiently. She also said that the growing body of agriculture-focused climate research was encouraging, and that Stanford is a leader on this front.

Naylor is the editor and co-author of The Evolving Sphere of Food Security, a new book from Oxford University Press. The book features a team of 19 faculty authors from 5 Stanford schools including Earth science, economics, law, engineering, medicine, political science, international relations, and biology. The all-Stanford lineup was intentional, Naylor said, because the university is committed to interdisciplinary research that addresses complex global issues like food security, and because "agriculture is incredibly dominated by policy, and Stanford has a long history of dealing with some of these policy elements. This is the glue that enables us to answer really challenging questions." 

 

Hero Image
img 0529
All News button
1
Paragraphs

Abstract: A rapidly growing body of research examines whether human conflict can be affected by climatic changes. Drawing from archaeology, criminology, economics, geography, history, political science, and psychology, we assemble and analyze the 60 most rigorous quantitative studies and document, for the first time, a striking convergence of results. We find strong causal evidence linking climatic events to human conflict across a range of spatial and temporal scales and across all major regions of the world. The magnitude of climate’s influence is substantial: for each one standard deviation (1σ) change in climate toward warmer temperatures or more extreme rainfall, median estimates indicate that the frequency of interpersonal violence rises 4% and the frequency of intergroup conflict rises 14%. Because locations throughout the inhabited world are expected to warm 2σ to 4σ by 2050, amplified rates of human conflict could represent a large and critical impact of anthropogenic climate change.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Science
Authors
Marshall Burke
Number
6151
Paragraphs

Abstract: Are violent conflict and socio-political stability associated with changes in climatological variables? We examine 50 rigorous quantitative studies on this question and find consistent support for a causal association between climatological changes and various conflict outcomes, at spatial scales ranging from individual buildings to the entire globe and at temporal scales ranging from an anomalous hour to an anomalous millennium. Multiple mechanisms that could explain this association have been proposed and are sometimes supported by findings, but the literature is currently unable to decisively exclude any proposed pathway. Several mechanisms likely contribute to the outcomes that we observe.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Climatic Change
Authors
Marshall Burke
Paragraphs

In many discussions of climate change impacts in agriculture, the large magnitudes of expected impacts toward the end of the century are used to emphasize that most of the risks are to future generations. However, this perspective misses the important fact that demand growth for food is expected to be much slower after 2050 than before it, and that the next two decades represent the bulk of growth before 2050. Thus, impacts of smaller magnitude in the near-term can be as or more consequential for food prices or food security as larger magnitude impacts in the future. Here we estimate the risks that climate trends over the next 10 or 20 years could have large impacts on global yields of wheat and maize, with a focus on scenarios that would cut the expected rates of yield gains in half. We find that because of global warming, the chance of climate trends over a 20 year period causing a 10% yield loss has increased from a less than 1 in 200 chance arising from internal climate variability alone, to a 1 in 10 chance for maize and 1 in 20 chance for wheat. Estimated risks for maize are higher because of a greater geographic concentration than wheat, as well as a slightly more negative aggregate temperature sensitivity. Global warming has also greatly increased the chance of climate trends large enough to halve yield trends over a 10 year period, with a roughly 1 in 4 chance for maize and 1 in 6 chance for wheat. Estimated risks are slightly larger when using climate projections from a large ensemble of a single climate model that more fully explores internal climate variability, than a multi-model ensemble that more fully explores model uncertainty. Although scenarios of climate impacts large enough to halve yield growth rates are still fairly unlikely, they may warrant consideration by institutions potentially affected by associated changes in international food prices.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Environmental Research Letters
Authors
David Lobell
Number
7
Authors
News Type
News
Date
Paragraphs

FSE director Roz Naylor and faculty affiliate Eric Lambin contributed to a new paper on climate engineering (geoengineering) in Nature Climate Change. Geoengineering has emerged as a potential climate change mitigation strategy, with proponents suggesting that injecting sulphate aerosols into the atmosphere - in order to disperse sunlight and decrease the temperature of the lower atmosphere - could limit global warming. 

The paper cautions that the governance of geoengineering is likely to be insurmountable in cases when the technology might prove useful, whereas the technology's effectiveness may be limited in places where there is more political willingness to implement geoengineering. Further, the major potential risks of geoengineering, and the uncertainties involved, suggest that a better approach to climate mitigation is immediate global action to address the root causes of climate change.

Both authors contributed to the paper as members of the science advisory board of the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics. Roz Naylor and Eric Lambin are professors in Environmental Earth System Science at Stanford Unviersity. Naylor is also senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Woods Institute for the Environment, and Lambin is a senior fellow at the Woods Institute.

Hero Image
fluffy clouds
All News button
1
Paragraphs

Stratospheric injection of sulphate aerosols has been advocated as an emergency geoengineering measure to tackle dangerous climate change, or as a stop-gap until atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are reduced. But it may not prove to be the game-changer that some imagine.

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Nature Climate Change
Authors
Eric Lambin
Rosamond L. Naylor
Paragraphs

• Adaptation should be defined strictly as actions that reduce climate change impacts.

• Many studies that claim to show adaptation benefits do not satisfy this definition.
• Three main causes of “adaptation illusions” are discussed.

A primary goal of studying climate change adaptation is to estimate the net impacts of climate change. Many potential changes in agricultural management and technology, including shifts in crop phenology and improved drought and heat tolerance, would help to improve crop productivity but do not necessarily represent true adaptations. Here the importance of retaining a strict definition of adaptation – as an action that reduces negative or enhances positive impacts of climate change – is discussed, as are common ways in which studies misinterpret the adaptation benefits of various changes. These “adaptation illusions” arise from a combination of faulty logic, model errors, and management assumptions that ignore the tendency for farmers to maximize profits for a given technology. More consistent treatment of adaptation is needed to better inform synthetic assessments of climate change impacts, and to more easily identify innovations in agriculture that are truly more effective in future climates than in current or past ones. Of course, some of the best innovations in agriculture in coming decades may have no adaptation benefits, and that makes them no less worthy of attention.

 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Global Food Security
Authors
David Lobell
Paragraphs

Projecting the impacts of climate change on agriculture requires knowing or assuming how farmers will adapt. But empirical estimates of the effectiveness of this private adaptation are scarce and the sensitivity of impact assessments to adaptation assumptions is not well understood. Here we assess the potential effectiveness of private farmer adaptation in Europe by jointly estimating both short-run and long-run response functions using time-series and cross-sectional variation in subnational yield and profit data. The difference between the impacts of climate change projected using the short-run (limited adaptation) and long-run (substantial adaptation) response curves can be interpreted as the private adaptation potential. We find high adaptation potential for maize to future warming but large negative effects and only limited adaptation potential for wheat and barley. Overall, agricultural profits could increase slightly under climate change if farmers adapt but could decrease in many areas if there is no adaptation. Decomposing the variance in 2040 projected yields and farm profits using an ensemble of 13 climate model-runs, we find that the rate at which farmers will adapt to rising temperatures is an important source of uncertainty. 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Nature Climate Change
Authors
Fran Moore
David Lobell
Paragraphs

A key question for climate change adaptation is whether existing cropping systems can become less sensitive to climate variations. We use a field-level dataset on maize and soybean yields in the central United States for 1995 through 2012 to examine changes in drought sensitivity. Although yields have increased in absolute value under all levels of stress for both crops, the sensitivity of maize yields to drought stress associated with high vapor pressure deficits has increased. The greater sensitivity has occurred despite cultivar improvements and increased CO2, and reflects the agronomic trend toward higher sowing densities. The results suggest that agronomic changes tend to translate improved drought tolerance of plants to higher average yields, but not to decreasing drought sensitivity of yields at the field scale. 

The full text of the articleabstract, and reprint are available via Science. 

All Publications button
1
Publication Type
Journal Articles
Publication Date
Journal Publisher
Science
Authors
David Lobell
Wolfram Schlenker
Subscribe to Climate