1 Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture in Eastern Canada: a summary of some results of recent research __________________________________________________________

1

Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture in Eastern Canada:

a summary of some results of recent research __________________________________________________________

Presented by:

Andy Bootsma, Agro-climatologistEastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre (ECORC)

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Ottawa, Ontario

Presented at: Workshop on “Climate Change and Agriculture in the Great Lakes Region: The Potential Impacts and What We Can Do”. Kellogg Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA, March 22, 2002.

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

2

Research projects on impacts of climate change (supported in part by Gov’t of Canada Climate Change Action Fund)

_________________________________________________________________________

3 projects (AAFC scientists + collaborators):

• Impacts on agricultural production in Atlantic region (Bootsma et al.)

• Crop yields and yield variability for selected regions in Canada using EPIC (De Jong et al.)

• Risk of winter injury in eastern Canada (Bélanger et al.)

3

Impacts on agriculture in Atlantic region

• Crop Heat Units – corn and soybeans

• ‘Effective’ growing degree-days – barley (GDD > 5C adjusted for start/stop dates, daylength)

• Water deficits (PE – P)

4

Major areas of agriculture in Atlantic region


5

Change in Crop Heat Units

Average Crop Heat Units

6

Change in EGDD

EGDD

7

Change in Deficit

Water Deficit

8

Potential impact on grain corn

Relationship between average CHU and average yield

from hybrid trial locations in eastern Canada.

y = 0.102x - 148.1R2 = 0.92P<0.001

70

100

130

160

190

2200 2600 3000 3400CHU

Yield (bu/acre)

9

Potential impact on grain corn

Relationship between average CHU and average yields based

on farm statistics in eastern Canada.

y = 0.0235x + 39.5R2 = 0.19P<0.01

80

100

120

140

2400 2800 3200 3600

CHU

Yield (bu/acre)

10

Potential impacts on soybeans

Relationship between average CHU and average yields from

variety trial locations in eastern Canada.

y = 0.0237x - 18.8R2 = 0.69P< 0.001

30

40

50

60

70

2400 2800 3200 3600

CHU

Yield (bu/acre)

11

Potential impacts on soybeans

Relationship between average CHU and average yields from farm statistics in eastern Canada.

y = 0.0049x + 22.7R2 = 0.08P= 0.09

28

32

36

40

44

2400 2800 3200 3600

CHU

Yield (bu/acre)

12

Potential impacts on 6-row barley

Relationship between EGDD and average yields from variety trial locations in eastern Canada.

y = -0.026x + 1.33R2 = 0.24P= 0.02

60

80

100

120

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

EGDD

Yield (bu/acre)

13

Potential impacts on barley

Relationship between EGDD and yields from farm statistics in eastern Canada.

40

50

60

70

1000 1400 1800 2200

EGDD

Yield (bu/acre)

14

Some conclusions

• Corn and soybean yields and acreage likely to increase significantly with climate warming.

• Barley yields not likely to change significantly; acreage likely to decrease as a result.

• Change in water deficits not likely to impact average yields significantly.

15

Production scenario

Yield(bu/acre)

Area(acres)

Production(‘000 bu)

Corn Present 90 5,700 513

By 2055 112 75,000 8,400

Soybeans Present 34 8,600 292

By 2055 44 50,000 2,200

Barley Present 55 136,000 7,500

By 2055 58 62,000 3,600

Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis Global Coupled Model (CGCM1)

Greenhouse Gas With Aerosol Simulation Mean Temperature Change Spring - MAM 2050s

Source: Canadian Climate Impacts Scenarios (CCIS) Group

17

CGCM1 Global Coupled Model, Greenhouse Gas With Aerosol Simulation Precipitation Change Summer - JJA 2050s


18

Comparisons with other GCM’s – summer period, S. Ont.

CGCM1



19

Comparison with other GCM’s –annual period, S.Ont.


CGCM1


Average corn yields vs CHU – USA Locations

1 = Illinois

2 = Nebraska

3 = Indiana

4 = Iowa

5 = Ohio

6 = Missouri

i = irrigated

(based on average yield of top 10 hybrids in field trials, 4 to 8 yrs data, 1994-2001)


21

Increase in CHU for locations in Ontario near Great Lakes


22

Heat units (CHU) available for corn

2405

2688

2529

2647

3244

3242

3050

2185

2389

2177

2865

3145

3288

2004

2796

2293

2214

2370

3081 3190

32053532

3310

2860

2792

2330

2567

2523

3188

2559

3143 3126

2411

3165

2556

2553

29393010

2783

3316

3102

3174

MAN.ONT.

ONT.

QUE.

N.Y.

PA.

MICH.

OHIOIND.ILL.

IOWA

MINN.

WIS.


23

Change in Water Deficits (PE – P) for future periods

24

Average seasonal water deficits (PE – P) (inches)

4.0

6.7

6.4

6.4

9.3

9.2

6.0

7.2

7.9

5.3

7.6

5.3

7.5

6.3

8.2

7.7

2.9

7.0

8.4

10.3 8.9

10.44.7

5.0

7.2

6.4

4.7

4.1

10.0

5.7

6.3

9.8 2.4

7.5

7.0

3.5

6.0

5.32.4

8.7

5.8

2.4

10.3

MAN.ONT.

ONT.

QUE.

N.Y.

PA.

MICH.

OHIOIND.ILL.

IOWA

MINN.

WIS.


1 = Illinois

2 = Nebraska

3 = Indiana

4 = Iowa

5 = Ohio

6 = Missouri(based on average yield of top 10 hybrids in field trials, 4 to 8 yrs data, 1994-2001)


26

Crop Yield and Yield Variability from EPIC model

________________________________________________________________________________________________

• EPIC = Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (Williams et al.)

• Simulated annual yields for baseline (1965-95) period and 2xCO2 climate scenario (2040-2060)

• barley, spring wheat, canola, corn, soybeans, potatoes and winter wheat

• 29 locations across Canada (not all crops at all locations)

Location of climate stations and GCM grid points


28

Changes in monthly mean temperature and precipitation as a result of the 2xCO2 scenario.

J F M A M J J A S O N D Year

S. Ontario

Kemptville 5.8 9.9 5.0 3.2 3.1 4.1 3.6 3.2 3.6 4.3 4.0 1.1 4.3Peterborough 6.1 11.3 5.8 4.1 3.2 4.1 3.6 3.2 3.6 4.3 4.1 1.8 4.7

Brucefie ld 6.5 11.7 7.0 3.2 3.6 4.3 3.6 3.2 3.8 4.5 4.5 2.5 4.9Harrow 6.5 11.2 7.7 3.1 3.4 4.3 3.8 3.6 4.0 4.5 4.5 2.9 4.9

Delhi 6.7 11.7 6.8 4.0 3.4 4.3 3.6 3.4 3.8 4.3 4.5 2.5 4.9Average: 6.3 11.2 6.5 3.5 3.3 4.2 3.6 3.3 3.7 4.4 4.3 2.2 4.7

S. ManitobaBrandon 8.6 11.0 8.6 9.5 4.9 5.4 5.2 6.1 5.6 4.5 3.1 5.8 6.5

Winnipeg 9.5 9.9 6.8 11.2 4.7 5.6 5.2 6.3 5.8 4.3 2.7 6.7 6.5

S. Ontario

Kemptville 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.0 -0.5 -0.3 -0.1 -0.2 0.4 -0.1 0.9Peterborough 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 -0.2 -0.5 0.0 -0.2 0.3 -0.1 1.4

Brucefie ld 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.1 -0.4 0.4 0.0 0.8 -0.4 3.3Harrow 0.4 0.2 0.8 0.4 0.1 0.3 0.4 -0.4 0.5 0.0 0.8 -0.5 3.1

Delhi 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.1 -0.6 0.2 -0.2 0.7 -0.3 2.9Average: 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.0 -0.4 0.2 -0.1 0.6 -0.3 2.3

S. ManitobaBrandon 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.0 -0.1 -0.8 -0.6 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.8

Winnipeg 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.0 -0.4 -0.9 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.4

Precipitation Change (inches)

Temperature Change (¡F)


30

Summary of Results for S. Ontario/S. Manitoba

Crop # sitesBaseline 2xCO2 % change Baseline 2xCO2 % change

Southern OntarioBarley 5 2.9 2.8 -1.1 0.44 0.52 18.6

Spring wheat1 2 3.1 3.5 11.5 0.85 0.94 10.6Corn 5 5.8 5.0 -12.3 1.79 2.01 12.5Soybeans 5 2.0 2.3 12.7 0.57 0.82 43.6

Winter wheat2 2 3.5 4.2 18.7 0.77 0.92 20.3

Southern ManitobaBarley 2 4.2 3.8 -8.7 1.27 1.47 16.2Spring wheat 2 3.0 2.6 -12.4 1.18 1.18 0.0Canola 2 2.5 2.3 -8.3 0.96 1.06 10.4

Locations: Ontario - Kemptville, Peterborough1, Brucefield1, Harrow2, Delhi2

Manitoba - Winnipeg, Brandon

Yields (t/ha)Average Std. Dev.


31

Impacts on Risk of Winter Damage to Perennial Crops in Eastern Canada

G. Bélanger, P. Rochette, Y. Castonguay, A. Bootsma, D. Mongrain______________________________________________________

• Forage crops and fruit trees

• Developed suite of climatic indices (imperfect)

• Indices for Forage Crops:

- fall hardening: Tsum < 42°F during hardening- loss of hardiness in winter: Tsum > 32°F accumulation rate

during cold period- cold stress during winter: days with snow cover – period

Tmin < 5°F- soil heaving/smothering: rain during period Tmin < 5°F

32

Indices for Fruit Trees

• Fall hardening: daylength at first frost

• Winter cold: Tsum < 5°F

• Cold intensity: Lowest Tmin

• Winter dehardening: Tsum > 32°F after Jan 1 to last date of Tmin < 5°F

• Spring frost damage: Tsum > 32°F , Jan 1 to last 32 °F Tsum > 42°F , Jan 1 to last 28 °F

33

Climatic Stations in Eastern CanadaCompared indices for 1961-90 period to 2010-39, 2040-69

34

Some results/conclusions for locations in Ontario near Great Lakes for 2040-69 period

Results for Forage crops:

• reduced hardening in fall due to warm temperatures during hardening phase

• loss of hardiness during winter due to periods of mild temperatures

• less protection from snow cover during cold period in colder regions

• Moreheaving/smothering in cold areas, less in milder areas of S. Ontario

• Overall, expect increased risk of damage in most areas of eastern Canada – some areas near G. Lakes less certain

35

Results for fruit trees

• improved fall hardening due to shorter daylength at first autumn frost

• less cold stress in winter due to fewer T < 5°F in winter; higher Tmin)

• more de-hardening in cold areas due to warm temperatures during winter; less in milder regions by lakes due to short cold period)

• less bud damage due to spring frosts in cold regions as GDD from Jan 1 to last spring frost decrease; more in mild areas (assumes chilling requirement for dormancy before Jan 1is met; otherwise bud burst will be delayed and reduce the risk)

36

Results for fruit trees (cont’d)

Overall conclusions:

• New varieties/species may be possible in current regions

• Northward extension of commercial production possible

• More stable production in currently marginal areas due to lower risks of spring frost damage

37

Results of all 3 studies available in Adobe pdf format from A. Bootsma at:

E-mail: [email protected]

Atlantic study available at: http://res2.agr.ca/ecorc/staff/boot-a.htm

Thank you for your attention!

mailto:[email protected]






38

Some gaps and needs

• Need results for multiple GCM experiments

• Improved downscaling procedures

• Include change in climate variability

• Procedures to update results with new GCM’s

• Improved and more impact models

• Include soils, management scenarios

39

Some future plans (CCAF projects)

• Ste-Foy & Swift Current RC’s + collaborators:– Impacts on forage (timothy) yield and quality (east

&west)– Risk of winter damage – alfalfa (prairies)– Economics of forage production (prairies)

• ECORC/PFRA + collaborators:– Impacts on LSRS using multiple GCM outputs– Expand to entire country– Refinement of LSRS climate criteria

• ECORC + collaborators:– Daily scenarios at 0.5° lat./long. Grid– Multiple GCM outputs– Several downscaling methods– Focus on agricultural areas

Documents

1 Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Agriculture in Eastern Canada: a summary of some results of recent research __________________________________________________________