Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Adaptation of crop production to climate change by crop substitution

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Research on the impact of climate change on agricultural production has mainly focused on the effect of climate and its variability on individual crops, while the potential for adapting to climate change through crop substitution has received less attention. This is surprising because the proportions of individual crops in the total crop area have changed considerably over periods of time much shorter than those typically investigated in climate change studies. The flexibility of farmers to adapt to changing socioeconomic and environmental conditions by changing crop type may therefore also represent an alternative option to adapt to climate change. The objective of this case study was to investigate the potential of crop substitution as an adaptation strategy to climate change. We compared biomass yield and water use efficiency (WUE) of maize (Zea mays L) and pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L.) grown in the semi-arid northeast of Iran for fodder production under present and potential future climatic conditions. Climate change projections for the baseline period 1970–2005 and two future time periods (2011–2030 and 2080–2099) from two emission scenarios (A2 and B1) and four general circulation models were downscaled to daily time steps using the Long Ashton Research Station-Weather Generator (LARS-WG5). Above-ground biomass was simulated for seven research sites with the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT 4.5) model which was calibrated and tested with independent experimental data from different field experiments in the region. The analysis of observations across all study locations showed an inverse relationship between temperature and biomass yield for both pearl millet and maize. Biomass yield was most sensitive to the duration of the phenological phase from floral initiation to end of leaf growth. For this phase we also found the highest negative correlation between mean temperature and biomass yield, which was more pronounced for pearl millet than for maize. This relationship was well reproduced by the crop model, justifying its use for the assessment. Due to the higher sensitivity of pearl millet to temperature increase, simulations suggest that the maximum benefit of crop substitution for biomass yield and WUE is to be gained for present-day conditions and would decline under future warming. The simulated increase in biomass yield due to substitution of maize by pearl millet was nevertheless larger than the yield decrease from potential climate change. Therefore, substituting maize by pearl millet should be considered as a measure for increasing fodder production in the investigated region. Differences in yields of crops that may substitute for each other because of similar use have been shown for other regions under current and potential future climatic conditions as well, so that we suggest that our findings are of general importance for climate change research. More research is required to quantify the effects for other crop combinations, regions, and interactions with other adaptation measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aghaalikhani M, Ahmadi ME, Modarres Sanavy AM (2008) Forage yield and quality of pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum) as influenced by plant density and nitrogen rate. Pajouhesh Sazandegi 77:19–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Asseng S, Foster I, Turner NC (2011) The impact of temperature variability on wheat yields. Glob Change Biol 17:997–1012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asseng S, Ewert F, Rosenzweig C, Jones JW, Hatfield JL, Ruane AC, Boote KJ, Thorburn PJ, Rötter RP, Cammarano D, Brisson N, Basso B, Martre P, Aggarwal PK, Angulo C, Bertuzzi P, Biernath C, Challinor AJ, Doltra J, Gayler S, Goldberg R, Grant R, Heng L, Hooker J, Hunt LA, Ingwersen J, Lzaurralde RC, Kersebaum KC, Müller C, Naresh Kumar S, Nendel C, O’Leary G, Olesen JE, Osborne TM, Palosuo T, Priesack E, Ripoche D, Semenov MA, Shcherbak I, Steduto P, Stöckle C, Stratonovitch P, Streck T, Supit I, Tao F, Travasso M, Waha K, Wallach D, White JW, Williams JR, Wolf J (2013) Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat Clim Chang 3:827–832

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brands S, Herrera S, San-Martín D, Gutiérrez JM (2011) Validation of the ENSEMBLES global climate models over southwestern Europe using probability density functions, from a downscaling perspective. Clim Res 48:145–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brauman KA, Siebert S, Foley JA (2013) Improvements in crop water productivity increase water sustainability and food security—a global analysis. Environ Res Lett 8:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brisson N, Ruget F, Gate P, Lorgeou J, Nicoullaud B, Tayot X, Plenet D, Jeuffroy M-H, Bouthier A, Ripoche D (2002) STICS: a generic model for simulating crops and their water and nitrogen balances. II. Model validation for wheat and maize. Agronomie 22:69–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassidy ES, West PC, Gerber JS, Foley JA (2013) Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environ Res Lett 8:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donner SD, Skirving WJ, Little CM, Oppenheimer M, Hoegh-Guldberg O (2005) Global assessment of coral bleaching and required rates of adaptation under climate change. Global Change Biol 11:2251–2265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsgaard L, Børgesen CD, Olesen JE, Siebert S, Ewert F, Peltonen-Sainio P, Rötter R, Skjelvåg A (2012) Shifts in comparative advantages for maize, oat and wheat cropping under climate change in Europe. Food Addit Contam 29:1514–1526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewert F (2012) Adaptation: opportunities in climate change? Nat Clim Chang 2:153–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewert F, Rounsevell M, Reginster I, Metzger M, Leemans R (2005) Future scenarios of European agricultural land use: I. Estimating changes in crop productivity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 107:101–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2013) FAO statistical databases. http://faostat.fao.org. Accessed 18/10/2013

  • Forouzmand MA, Ghorbani GR, Alikhani M (2005) Influence of hybrid and maturity on the nutritional value of corn silage for lactating dairy cows 1: Intake, milk production and component yield. Pak J Nutr 4:435–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldani M, Moghddam PR, Mahallati MN, Kafi M (2010) Radiation use efficiency of maize (Zea may L.) hybrids with different growth types in response to density. Iranian Field Crops Res 7:595–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Gourdji SM, Sibley AM, Lobell D (2013) Global crop exposure to critical high temperatures in the reproductive period: historical trends and future projections. Environ Res Lett 8:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo R, Lin Z, Mo X, Yang C (2010) Responses of crop yield and water use efficiency to climate change in the North China Plain. Agric Water Manage 97:1185–1194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt L, Pararajasingham S, Jones J, Hoogenboom G, Imamura D, Ogoshi R (1993) GENCALC: software to facilitate the use of crop models for analyzing field experiments. Agron J 85:1090–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iglesias A, Minguez M (1997) Modelling crop-climate interactions in Spain: Vulnerability and adaptation of different agricultural systems to climate change. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 1:273–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: the scientific basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 219–237

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Iran’s Agricultural Ministry (2012) Annually statistics of agricultural production. http://www.maj.ir. Accessed 10/04/2012

  • Jackson CR, Meister R, Prudhomme C (2011) Modelling the effects of climate change and its uncertainty on UK Chalk groundwater resources from an ensemble of global climate model projections. J Hydrol 399:12–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones JW, Hoogenboom G, Porter C, Boote K, Batchelor W, Hunt L, Wilkens P, Singh U, Gijsman A, Ritchie J (2003) The DSSAT cropping system model. Eur J Agron 18:235–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones PG, Thornton PK (2003) The potential impacts of climate change on maize production in Africa and Latin America in 2055. Global Environ Change 13:51–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kamkar B, Koocheki A, Mahallati MN, Moghaddam PR (2005) Evaluation of radiation use efficiency and its relationship with dry matter accumulation in three millet species. Iranian Field Crops Res 2:196–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapetanaki G, Rosenzweig C (1997) Impact of climate change on maize yield in central and northern Greece: A simulation study with CERES-Maize. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 1:251–271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kar G, Kumar A, Martha M (2007) Water use efficiency and crop coefficients of dry season oilseed crops. Agric Water Manage 87:73–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalesro S, Aghaalikhani M, Modares sanavi AM (2011) Effect of nitrogen application on forage quality and quantity of maize, pearl millet and sorghum. Iranian Field Crops Res 8:930–938

    Google Scholar 

  • Koocheki A, Nassiri M, Jamali JB, Marashi H (2006) Evaluation of the effects of climate change on growth characteristics and yield of rainfed wheat in Iran. Agric Sci 20:83–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurukulasuriya P, Mendelsohn R (2007) Crop selection: adapting to climage change in Africa World Bank Working Paper 4307

  • Lashkari A, Alizadeh A, Rezaei EE, Bannayan M (2012) Mitigation of climate change impacts on maize productivity in northeast of Iran: a simulation study. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 17:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinsky I, Skov F, Svenning J-C, Rahbek C (2007) Potential impacts of climate change on the distributions and diversity patterns of European mammals. Biodivers Conserv 16:3803–3816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu S, Mo X, Lin Z, Xu Y, Ji J, Wen G, Richey J (2010) Crop yield responses to climate change in the Huang-Huai-Hai Plain of China. Agric Water Manage 97:1195–1209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobell DB, Field CB (2007) Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming. Environ Res Lett 2:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobell DB, Burke MB, Tebaldi C, Mastrandrea MD, Falcon WP, Naylor RL (2008) Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science 319:607–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lobell DB, Sibley A, Ortiz-Monasterio JI (2012) Extreme heat effects on wheat senescence in India. Nat Clim Chang 2:186–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mall R, Lal M, Bhatia V, Rathore L, Singh R (2004) Mitigating climate change impact on soybean productivity in India: a simulation study. Agric Forest Meteorol 121:113–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMaster GS, White JW, Hunt L, Jamieson P, Dhillon S, Ortiz-Monasterio J (2008) Simulating the influence of vernalization, photoperiod and optimum temperature on wheat developmental rates. Ann Bot 102:561–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell I, Johns T, Gregory J, Tett S (1995) Climate response to increasing levels of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. Nature 376:501–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muir J, Stokes S, Prostko E (2001) The Effect of Dairy Compost on Summer Annual Grasses Grown as Alternative Silages. Prof Anim Sci 17:90–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Nabati J, Mogadam PR (2011) Effects of irrigation intervals on yield and morphological charastrictcs of pearl millet, sorghum and maize. Iranian Crop Sci 1:179–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Olesen JE, Bindi M (2002) Consequences of climate change for European agricultural productivity, land use and policy. Eur J Agron 16:239–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ong C, Monteith J (1985) Response of pearl millet to light and temperature. Field Crops Res 11:141–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panahi M (2004) Effect of irrigation regimes on the yield and water use efficiency of forage millet. Soil Water Science 18:63–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Livermore M, Fischer G (2004) Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ Change 14:53–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pearson CJ, Bucknell D, Laughlin GP (2008) Modelling crop productivity and variability for policy and impacts of climate change in eastern Canada. Environ Model Softw 23:1345–1355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poshtdar A, Siadat SA, Mashhadi AA, Mossavi SA, Hamdi H (2012) Comparison between application of PGPR bacteria and chemical fertilizers on quality and total silage yield of Maize under different organic seed bed. Int J Agric Crop Sci 4:713–717

    Google Scholar 

  • Prudhomme C, Wilby R, Crooks S, Kay A, Reynard N (2010) Scenario-neutral approach to climate change impact studies: application to flood risk. J Hydrol 390:198–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragab R, Prudhomme C (2002) climate change and water resources management in arid and semi-arid regions: prospective and challenges for the 21st century. Biosys Engng 81:3–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahimzadeh F, Asgari A, Fattahi E (2009) Variability of extreme temperature and precipitation in Iran during recent decades. Int J Climatol 29:329–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reidsma P, Ewert F, Lansink AO, Leemans R (2010) Adaptation to climate change and climate variability in European agriculture: The importance of farm level responses. Eur J Agron 32:91–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rostamza M, Chaichi MR, Jahansooz MR, Rahimian Mashhadi H, Sharifi HR (2011a) Effects of water stress and nitrogen fertilizer on multi-cut forage pearl millet yield, nitrogen, and water use efficiency. Comm Soil Sci Plant Anal 42:2427–2440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rostamza M, Chaichi MR, Jahansooz MR, Alimadadi A (2011b) Forage quality, water use and nitrogen utilization efficiencies of pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L.) grown under different soil moisture and nitrogen levels. Agric Water Manage 98:1607–1614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semenov MA (2009) Impacts of climate change on wheat in England and Wales. J R Soc Interface 6:343–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semenov MA, Barrow EM (1997) Use of a stochastic weather generator in the development of climate change scenarios. Climatic change 35:397–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semenov MA, Brooks RJ (1999) Spatial interpolation of the LARS-WG stochastic weather generator in Great Britain. Clim Res 11:137–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semenov MA, Stratonovitch P (2010) Use of multi-model ensembles from global climate models for assessment of climate change impacts. Clim Res 41:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo SN, Mendelsohn R (2008) An analysis of crop choice: Adapting to climate change in South American farms. Ecol Econ 67:109–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siebert S, Ewert F (2012) Spatio-temporal patterns of phenological development in Germany in relation to temperature and day length. Agric Forest Meteorol 152:44–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh B, Singh D (1995) Agronomic and physiological responses of sorghum, maize and pearl millet to irrigation. Field Crops Res 42:57–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slafer G, Rawson H (1995) Base and optimum temperatures vary with genotype and stage of development in wheat. Plant Cell Environ 18:671–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soler CMT, Maman N, Zhang X, Mason SC, Hoogenboom G (2008) Determining optimum planting dates for pearl millet for two contrasting environments using a modelling approach. J Agric Sci 146:445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suehrcke H (2000) On the relationship between duration of sunshine and solar radiation on the earth’s surface: Ångström’s equation revisited. Sol Energy 68:417–425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tahmasebi R, Kaveh F, Tavassoly AG, Abedi MJ (2005) Relationship across climatically, soil properties and water requirement of SC704 forage corn in arid and semi-arid zones. Agric Sci Res 11:117–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira EI, Fischer G, van Velthuizen H, Walter C, Ewert F (2013) Global hot-spots of heat stress on agricultural crops due to climate change. Agric Forest Meteorol 170:206–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tubiello FN, Donatelli M, Rosenzweig C, Stockle CO (2000) Effects of climate change and elevated CO2 on cropping systems: model predictions at two Italian locations. Eur J Agron 13:179–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldkamp A, Lambin EF (2001) Predicting land-use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viglizzo E, Roberto Z, Lértora F, Gay EL, Bernardos J (1997) Climate and land-use change in field-crop ecosystems of Argentina. Agric Ecosyst Environ 66:61–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang Y, Watanabe M, Zhang X, Hao X, Zhang J (2006) Estimation of groundwater use by crop production simulated by DSSAT‐wheat and DSSAT‐maize models in the piedmont region of the North China Plain. Hydrol Process 20:2787–2802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Žalud Z, Dubrovský M (2002) Modelling climate change impacts on maize growth and development in the Czech Republic. Theor Appl Clim 72:85–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Eyshi Rezaei.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Fig. S1

(DOC 711 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Eyshi Rezaei, E., Gaiser, T., Siebert, S. et al. Adaptation of crop production to climate change by crop substitution. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 20, 1155–1174 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9528-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9528-1

Keywords

Navigation