Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Supplementary Information for Tai et al. (2014): Threat to future global food security
from climate change and ozone air pollution, Nature Climate Change
Methods
CESM simulations
We use the Community Earth System Model (CESM) v1.1.1 to simulate present-day
and future surface ozone concentration and climate variables in 2050. Our configuration uses
coupled atmosphere and land components but fixed data ocean and cryosphere consistent
with current and future climates, at a latitude-by-longitude resolution of 1.9°×2.5°. Our
simulations consider time varying, zonally averaged greenhouse gas distributions for CO2,
CH4, N2O and halocarbons. Anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and ozone
precursors follow the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios represented in IPCC AR5. These two
RCPs assume rapid decreases of emissions of most ozone precursors globally due to
aggressive air pollution abatement measures. Exceptions include ammonia, which increases
in both scenarios, and CH4, which increases by ~10% in RCP4.5 and ~125% in RCP8.5 by
2050. Meanwhile, there is significant regional variability of the trends in ozone precursor
emissions (Lamarque et al., 2011; van Vuuren et al., 2011). By 2050, surface ozone
concentration is projected to decrease in most regions for RCP4.5 (Supplementary Fig. 1).
Such decreases are dominated by changes in anthropogenic emissions of ozone precursors,
e.g., following the large decline in global NOx emissions. For example, anthropogenic
emission changes drive ~90% of the summertime surface ozone decreases over the US for
RCP4.5 (Val Martin et al., 2014). Under RCP8.5, increases in surface ozone concentration
(Supplementary Fig. 1) are primarily driven by elevated CH4 in most parts of the world
(Fiore et al., 2012). Details of these simulations are presented in Val Martin et al. (2014).
Ozone exposure metrics and crop-exposure response
In this study we consider four different ozone exposure metrics widely used to
quantify ozone exposure and impacts on vegetation/crop productivity in the literature. They
include three cumulative exposure metrics (AOT40, SUM06 and W126) and two mean
exposure metrics (M12 and M7). They are defined as:
AOT40 = [O3]i − 0.04( )i=1
n
∑ (1)
Threat to future global food security from climate change and ozone air pollution
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATIONDOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE2317
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 1
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
M12 = 1n
103[O3]ii=1
n
∑ (2)
SUM06 = [O3]ii=1
n
∑ (3)
W126 = wi[O3]ii=1
n
∑ (4)
where [O3]i is the hourly mean ozone concentration in ppm during the twelve hours of local
daylight (08:00-19:59); n is the number of hours in the 3-month growing season defined as
the three months prior to the start of the harvest period in every country according to crop
calendar data (Sacks et al., 2010); and wi is a weighting function assigning greater weight to
higher levels of hourly ozone with an inflection point at ~65 ppb (Lefohn & Runeckles,
1988), defined by:
wi =1
1+ 4403e−126[O3 ]i (5)
AOT40, SUM06 and W126 are in units of ppmh, and M12 in units of ppb. M7 is defined
similarly to M12 but uses a 7-hour (09:00-15:59) daytime window instead of 12-hour for
summation. The relative yield, i.e., RY = Y/Y0 = f(M) as defined in equation (2) in Methods in
the main text as a function of these ozone exposure metrics (M) is detailed in Supplementary
Table 1.
Climate metrics and crop-climate responses
In this study we consider two temperature-driven climate metrics to encapsulate the
impacts of climate variability on regional crop yield following the approach of Butler et al.
(2012), namely, growing degree day (GDD) and killing degree day (KDD) defined as
GDD = max min Tmean,Topt( )−Tbase , 0( )i=1
N
∑ (6)
KDD = max Tmax −Topt , 0( )i=1
N
∑ (7)
where Tmean is the daily mean temperature, Tmax is the daily maximum temperature, Topt is the
maximum optimal growth temperature, Tbase is the minimum temperature threshold, and N is
the number of days in the growing season for each crop. Topt and Tbase are specific for each
crop as listed in Supplementary Table 2. Growing season is defined as the period between the
mean planting date and harvesting date in every country according to crop calendar data
(Sacks et al., 2010).
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Supplementary Fig. 2 shows the correlation coefficients between GDD and growing
season mean precipitation for 1961-2010. We find that KDD is strongly negatively correlated
with seasonal mean precipitation worldwide for all four crops considered, and thus at least in
part encapsulates the correlations with low precipitation and drought usually associated with
high temperature extremes. As the future projections of regional precipitation are among the
most uncertain climate variables predicted by climate models (IPCC, 2013), we resolve to use
KDD as a more robust metric to quantify the climate change effect.
To derive fine resolution maps (1.9°×2.5°) of annual crop yields for 1961-2010, we
apply a data fusion technique on national crop statistics from the Food and Agriculture
Organization FAOSTAT database (http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/home/E)
using the approach of Monfreda et al. (2008). Briefly, for each crop and each 1.9°×2.5° grid
cell, the yield (Yt) for year t is estimated as
Yt = Y2000 ⋅Yt
∗
Y2000∗ ⋅εY (8)
where Y2000 is the fine-resolution crop yield data for year 2000 from Monfreda et al. (2008)
regridded to 1.9°×2.5°, Y*2000 and Y*
t are national crop yield data from FAOSTAT for the
country to which the grid cell belongs for year 2000 and t, respectively, and εY is an error
term that accounts for regridding and other errors and ensures that the summation of Yt over
all grid cells for a given country equals Y*t from FAOSTAT.
The observed sensitivities of crop yield to GDD and KDD (βGDD and βKDD) as found
by the multiple linear regression model equation (4) in Methods (main text) are shown in
Supplementary Figs. 3 amd 4.
The correlations between ozone exposure indices and climate metrics (GDD and
KDD) are estimated from NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis 1 meteorological data (Kalnay et al.,
1996) and hourly ozone observations from the AQS
(http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/detaildata/downloadaqsdata.htm) and CASTNET
(http://java.epa.gov/castnet/clearsession.do) networks in the US and EMEP
(http://www.nilu.no/projects/CCC/onlinedata/intro.html) network in Europe for 1993-2010,
using a simple linear regression model for each 1.9°×2.5° grid
M −Mm( ) = β0 + β1 D − Dm( ) (9)
where M is one of the four ozone exposure indices, D is one of the agro-climatic variables
(GDD or KDD), m denotes 5-year moving average for detrending the data, and β1 = dM/dD is
the observed sensitivity of M to GDD or KDD as used in equation (5) in Methods (main text)
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
to find the true, non-confounded sensitivity of crop yield to GDD and KDD. We find that
∂lnY/∂M*dM/dD as used in equation (5) in Methods (main text) varies spatially across the US
and Europe but approximately follows a lognormal distribution. We therefore apply its
geometric mean values for the rest of the world where long-term ozone data are not available
for evaluating dM/dD (see Supplementary Tables 3 and 4).
The uncertainties of crop projections as shown in Fig. 2 (main text) are quantified
using a Monte Carlo approach. We repeatedly and randomly sample the future model
projections and the statistical parameters for crop-climate and crop-ozone responses to derive
a probability distribution of crop projections for each region. The most important sources of
variability for crop projections arise from the variances of βGDD and βKDD in the regression
model, and the choice of ozone exposure index. Among the four ozone exposure indices, we
give less weight to the mean exposure indices (M7 and M12), because cumulative indices
(e.g., AOT40) that give higher weight to higher ozone concentrations are believed to be more
accurate predictors of crop yield losses than mean metrics (Lefohn & Runeckles, 1988).
FAO methodology to characterize undernourishment rate
The distribution of per capita food consumption for a population can be modeled as a
lognormal distribution
f (x) = 1xσ 2π
exp −ln x − µ( )22σ 2
⎡
⎣⎢
⎤
⎦⎥ (10)
where x is the per capita food consumption or dietary energy supply (DES) (kcal/person/day),
µ and σ are parameters of the lognormal distribution that can be related to the actual
arithmetic mean DES (xm) by
µ = ln xm − 0.5σ2 (11)
The rate of undernourishment (ru) is defined to be the fraction of population with a DES
below the minimum dietary energy requirement (xmin)
ru = f (x)dx0
xmin
∫ (12)
Assuming σ and xmin to remain constant, any change in mean DES (∆xm) caused by climate
change and/or ozone pollution can result in a shift in the distribution f(x), leading to a change
in ru as shown in Fig. 1g in the main text.
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Table 1. Crop-exposure response equations used to calculate relative yield (RY) of wheat,
rice, maize and soybean from four different ozone exposure metrics (M).
Crop Exposure-yield relationship Reference
Wheat a RY = 1 − 0.0163AOT40 Mills et al., 2007 Van Dingenen et al., 2009
RY = 1 − 0.0228AOT40
(for winter variety in China only) b
Wang et al., 2012
RY = exp[−(SUM06/52.32)2.176] Wang and Mauzerall, 2004
RY = exp[−(W126/53.4)2.367] Lee and Hogsett, 1996
RY = exp[−(M7/186)3.2]/exp[−(25/186)3.2]
(for spring variety only)
Adams et al., 1989
RY = exp[−(M7/137)2.34]/exp[−(25/137)2.34]
(for winter variety only)
Lesser et al., 1990
Rice 1 − 0.00415AOT40 Mills et al., 2007 Van Dingenen et al., 2009
1 − 0.00949AOT40 (for China only) b Wang et al., 2012
RY = exp[−(M7/202)2.47]/exp[−(25/202)2.47] Adams et al., 1989
Maize RY = 1 − 0.00356AOT40 Mills et al., 2007 Van Dingenen et al., 2009
RY = exp[−(SUM06/93.485)3.5695] Wang and Mauzerall, 2004
RY = exp[−(W126/97.9)2.966] Lee and Hogsett, 1996
RY = exp[−(M12/124)2.83]/exp[−(20/124)2.83] Lesser et al., 1990
Soybean RY = 1 − 0.0113AOT40 Mills et al., 2007 Van Dingenen et al., 2009
RY = exp[−(SUM06/101.505)1.452] Wang and Mauzerall, 2004
RY = exp[−(W126/110.2)1.359] Lee and Hogsett, 1996
RY = exp[−(M12/107)1.58]/exp[−(20/107)1.58] Lesser et al., 1990
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
(Table 1 continued)
a. Relationships are assumed for both spring and winter varieties unless otherwise noted.
b. Values for China are applied to a longitude range of 92.5°E-147.5°E and a latitude range
of 8.53°S-52.11°N.
Table 2. Equivalent food energy, maximum optimal temperature (Topt), and minimum
threshold temperature (Tbase) to define growing degree day and killing degree day for four
major crops considered in this study.
Crop Equivalent food energy
(106 kcal ton-1) a
Topt (°C) b Tbase (°C) b
Wheat 3.34 26 0
Rice 3.63 34 10
Maize 3.65 29 8
Soybean 4.46 30 10
a. From the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database for Standard
Reference: http://ndb.nal.usda.gov
b. Adopted from, e.g., Boschetti et al. (2009), Schlenker & Roberts (2009), Levis et al.
(2012), etc.
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Table 3. Geometric mean values for ∂lnY/∂M*dM/dGDD as used in equation (5) in Methods
(main text) and described in Supplementary Methods for four major crops and four different
ozone exposure indices.
AOT40 SUM06 W126 M7 or M12
Wheat (spring) -2.159×10-4 -1.136×10-4 -4.716×10-5 -1.250×10-5
Wheat (winter) -9.148×10-5 -4.956×10-5 -2.001×10-5 -2.627×10-5
Rice -5.440×10-5 N/A N/A -2.505×10-5
Maize -4.295×10-5 -1.662×10-6 -2.818×10-6 -5.133×10-5
Soybean -1.464×10-4 -8.728×10-5 -6.159×10-5 -1.580×10-4
Table 4. Geometric mean values for ∂lnY/∂M*dM/dKDD as used in equation (5) in Methods
(main text) and described in Supplementary Methods for four major crops and four different
ozone exposure indices.
AOT40 SUM06 W126 M7 or M12
Wheat (spring) -7.248×10-4 -4.065×10-4 -1.859×10-4 -4.214×10-5
Wheat (winter) -9.655×10-4 -4.571×10-4 -1.911×10-4 -2.619×10-4
Rice -4.304×10-3 N/A N/A -1.844×10-3
Maize -4.132×10-4 -2.979×10-5 -4.245×10-5 -4.767×10-4
Soybean -2.045×10-3 -1.464×10-3 -1.047×10-3 -1.910×10-3
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Table 5. Impacts of 2000-to-2050 climate change and ozone pollution trends on global total
crop production (in 1015 kcal a-1) using FAO 2050 projections as baseline for calculation,
complementary to Fig. 1 in the main text. In brackets are the percentage changes. Global total
crop production is projected to be 11.89×1015 kcal a-1 for 2050.
RCP4.5 RCP8.5
Pollution effect only +0.31 (+2.6%) -0.39 (-3.3%)
Climate effect only -1.47 (-12%) -1.52 (-13%)
Combined effect -1.27 (-11%) -1.92 (-16%)
Table 6. Regional definitions used to define major producing countries/regions in the pie
charts of Fig. 2 in the main text.
Major producing countries/regions Included countries
US All states of the United States
Europe All countries in Europe, not including Russia
China Mainland China only
S Asia All member countries of the South Asian Association for
Regional Cooperation (SAARC)
SE Asia All member countries of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations (ASEAN)
S America All countries in South America (excluding Central
American countries, e.g., Panama)
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Figure 1. Projected 2000-to-2050 changes in mean northern summer (JJA) ozone
concentration and surface temperature as a result of a combination of climate, land use and
anthropogenic emissions changes simulated by CESM, for two IPCC AR5 scenarios: RCP4.5
and RCP8.5. Ozone concentrations are maximum daily 8-hour average (MDA8) and
temperatures are daily mean. Stippling with dots indicates significant changes at 95%
confidence from Student’s t test.
Figure 2. Correlation coefficients between growing season killing degree day (KDD) and
mean precipitation over 1961-2010 for four major crops.
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Figure 3. Observed sensitivities of crop yield to growing degree day (GDD) based on
multiple linear regression of data from 1961-2010 as represented in equation (4) in Methods
(main text). Values are in units of 10-3 (log unit) (degree day)-1. Only values with 90%
confidence level are shown.
Figure 4. Observed sensitivities of crop yield to killing degree day (KDD) based on multiple
linear regression of data from 1961-2010 as represented in equation (4) in Methods (main
text) and described in Supplementary Methods. Values are in units of 10-3 (log unit) (degree
day)-1. Only values with 90% confidence level are shown.
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Figure 5. Relationships between the true sensitivities of crop yield to killing degree day
(KDD) and mean growing season temperature. Sensitivities are represented by βK̃DD (in log
unit per degree day) in equation (5) in Methods (main text). Values outside the 90%
interquartile range are excluded. Given also are the Pearson’s correlation coefficients (r).
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
References:
Adams, R. M., Glyer, J. D., Johnson, S. L., and Mccarl, B. A.: A reassessment of the
economic effects of ozone on United States agriculture, Japca J. Air Waste Ma., 39, 960-
968, 1989.
Boschetti, M., Stroppiana, D., Brivio, P. A., and Bocchi, S.: Multi-year monitoring of rice
crop phenology through time series analysis of MODIS images, Int. J. Remote Sens., 30,
4643-4662, 2009.
Butler, E. E. and Huybers, P.: Adaptation of US maize to temperature variations, Nat Clim
Change, 3, 68-72, 2013.
Fiore, A. M., Naik, V., Spracklen, D. V., Steiner, A., Unger, N., Prather, M., Bergmann, D.,
Cameron-Smith, P. J., Cionni, I., Collins, W. J., Dalsoren, S., Eyring, V., Folberth, G. A.,
Ginoux, P., Horowitz, L. W., Josse, B., Lamarque, J. F., MacKenzie, I. A., Nagashima,
T., O'Connor, F. M., Righi, M., Rumbold, S. T., Shindell, D. T., Skeie, R. B., Sudo, K.,
Szopa, S., Takemura, T., and Zeng, G.: Global air quality and climate, Chem Soc Rev,
41, 6663-6683, 2012.
IPCC: Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK; New York, NY, USA, 2013.
Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L., Iredell, M.,
Saha, S., White, G., Woollen, J., Zhu, Y., Chelliah, M., Ebisuzaki, W., Higgins, W.,
Janowiak, J., Mo, K. C., Ropelewski, C., Wang, J., Leetmaa, A., Reynolds, R., Jenne, R.,
and Joseph, D.: The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 77,
437-471, 1996.
Lamarque, J. F., Kyle, G. P., Meinshausen, M., Riahi, K., Smith, S. J., van Vuuren, D. P.,
Conley, A. J., and Vitt, F.: Global and regional evolution of short-lived radiatively-active
gases and aerosols in the Representative Concentration Pathways, Climatic Change, 109,
191-212, 2011.
Lee, E. H. and Hogsett, W. E.: Methodology for calculating inputs for ozone secondary
standard benefits analysis: part II. Report prepared for Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA,
1996.
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Lefohn, A. S., Laurence, J. A., and Kohut, R. J.: A comparison of indexes that describe the
relationship between exposure to ozone and reduction in the yield of agricultural crops,
Atmos. Environ., 22, 1229-1240, 1988.
Lesser, V. M., Rawlings, J. O., Spruill, S. E., and Somerville, M. C.: Ozone Effects on
Agricultural Crops - Statistical Methodologies and Estimated Dose-Response
Relationships, Crop Sci., 30, 148-155, 1990.
Levis, S., Bonan, G. B., Kluzek, E., Thornton, P. E., Jones, A., Sacks, W. J., and Kucharik,
C. J.: Interactive crop management in the Community Earth System Model (CESM1):
Seasonal influences on land-atmosphere fluxes, J. Climate, 25, 4839-4859, 2012.
Mills, G., Buse, A., Gimeno, B., Bermejo, V., Holland, M., Emberson, L., and Pleijel, H.: A
synthesis of AOT40-based response functions and critical levels of ozone for agricultural
and horticultural crops, Atmos. Environ., 41, 2630-2643, 2007.
Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N., and Foley, J. A.: Farming the planet: 2. Geographic
distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the
year 2000, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 22, GB1022, 2008.
Sacks, W. J., Deryng, D., Foley, J. A., and Ramankutty, N.: Crop planting dates: an analysis
of global patterns, Global Ecol. Biogeogr., 19, 607-620, 2010.
Schlenker, W. and Roberts, M. J.: Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to
US crop yields under climate change, P Natl Acad Sci USA, 106, 15594-15598, 2009.
Val Martin, M., Heald, C. L., Lamarque, J. F., Tilmes, S., and Emmons, L.: Mid-century
predicted changes on PM2.5 and O3 over the United States National Parks: effects of
climate, emissions, fires and land use, In prep, 2014. 2014.
van Dingenen, R., Dentener, F. J., Raes, F., Krol, M. C., Emberson, L., and Cofala, J.: The
global impact of ozone on agricultural crop yields under current and future air quality
legislation, Atmos. Environ., 43, 604-618, 2009.
van Vuuren, D. P., Edmonds, J., Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., Thomson, A., Hibbard, K., Hurtt,
G. C., Kram, T., Krey, V., Lamarque, J. F., Masui, T., Meinshausen, M., Nakicenovic, N.,
Smith, S. J., and Rose, S. K.: The representative concentration pathways: an overview,
Climatic Change, 109, 5-31, 2011.
Wang, X. K., Zhang, Q. Q., Zheng, F. X., Zheng, Q. W., Yao, F. F., Chen, Z., Zhang, W. W.,
Hou, P. Q., Feng, Z. Z., Song, W. Z., Feng, Z. W., and Lu, F.: Effects of elevated O3
concentration on winter wheat and rice yields in the Yangtze River Delta, China, Environ.
Pollut., 171, 118-125, 2012.
© 2014 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Wang, X. P. and Mauzerall, D. L.: Characterizing distributions of surface ozone and its
impact on grain production in China, Japan and South Korea: 1990 and 2020, Atmos.
Environ., 38, 4383-4402, 2004.