International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas - ICARDA

IFPRI, Rome, 26 May, 2015

Global Futures and Strategic ForesightExtended Team Meeting

Hotel Abitart, Rome, 25 – 28 May 2015

Aden Aw-HassanRoberto TelleriaPrakash DixitAymen Frija

Country-level bio-economic modeling of improved agricultural practices on wheat-based agricultural

systems of the dry areas

Justification• Key crop for food security (some MENA countries

highest wheat consumption per capita);• Last 50 years Decline per-capita wheat production;• MENA largest wheat importer in the world;• Governments are determined to increase wheat

production;• Wheat Anyways dominate rainfall production in

MENA;• Crop employs most people than any other crop in

MENA;

• Yet, some countries current wheat production brings declining soil productivity (less organic matter), erosion, etc.;

• Future climate change can further lower wheat production?

• Promising technologies (including CA) in other arid regions (e.g. arid parts of Australia);

• Technologies capacity to enhance and sustain yield, increase farmer income, protection against land degradation, environmental services (carbon sequestration), mitigation of climate change.

• Public investment in technologies is convenient?

Country-level bio-economic modeling of improved technologies on wheat-based

agricultural systems of the dry areas

Crop model (APSIM)

Policy making

IMPACT model

Wheat technologies1) Conventional tillage: Normal practice includes removal of

residues by tillage operations (two before sowing). Traditional wheat variety.

2) Zero-tillage: Complete residue retention without any tillage operation (grain harvested and the entire residue left in the field). Improved wheat variety Sham 3;

3) Mulching: Complete residue retention and 6,000 kg/ha wheat residue mulch added at sowing. Sham 3 wheat variety;

4) Raised bed: 15% increase in water holding capacity of 0-0.45 layer and 25% residue removal at harvest. Sham 3 wheat variety.

Biophysical data collection for crop simulation

- All these technologies tested with management practices: 1) Sowing time (two beginning of October and November); and 2) Fertilizer application (N).

- 50 year daily weather data (maximum and minimum temperatures, solar radiation and rainfall) generated using Long Ashton Research Station Weather Generator (LARS-WG)-version 5.5. Two wheat growing areas: Tel Hadya and Breda;

- Crop simulations Agricultural Production Systems Simulator - APSIM (v. 7.5) Capable of simulating crop yields for different environments and soil types;

Key messages All technologies

provide benefit over conventional tillage except No-till at Tel Hadya with no N application

Benefits are more pronounced with higher rates of N application

Mulching seems to produce best results

Yield effects of No-till, Mulching and Raised-based depend on the location

Planting time Early Late Fertilizer rates (kg N/ha) Fertilizer rates (kg N/ha)

0 30 60 0 30 60

Tel Hadya

Zero-tillage -19.6 -2.6 24.7 -13.0 11.3 49.8

Mulching 20.3 17.8 38.8 3.1 31.9 65.3

Raised-bed -4.6 5.9 28.3 5.3 26.4 51.0

Breda

Zero-tillage 33.9 120.2 188.2 88.0 151.4 213.6

Mulching 90.4 163.7 225.4 131.5 187.5 258.7

Raised-bed 53.3 114.4 166.8 62.8 118.6 114.8

Percentage change in wheat yield in relation to different planting time, fertilizer rates and cropping technologies in Tel

Hadya and Breda sites in Northern Syria.

IMPACT modeling Scenarios (Tel Hadya):

Assumptions:Socioeconomic: SSP3 (or “Fragmentation’’), economic growth is assumed to be much slower as a combination of multiple causes: slow technological progress, low education levels, lack of international cooperation. Climate: Climate dataset chosen GFDL (rcp8p5 - representative concentration pathway). Adoption: Each TP 35% of cultivated areas following a logistic function of scale 6 and median the year 2028. Timeframe: 2015-2040 (25 years).

Name Technology simulated

Fertilizers dose (Kg N/ha)

Planting date% change in yield compared to conventional wheat

TP1 Zero-Till 30 Late planting 11.3

TP2 Mulching 30 Early planting 17.8

TP3 Mulching 30 Late planting 31.9

TP4 Raised bed 30 Early planting 5.9

TP5 Raised bed 30 Late planting 26.4

Improved technologies

Technical adoption:

P1: First period of 5 years: Some difference in wheat yield is observed between conventional and improved technologies.

P2: Second period of 7 years: Yield gap between conventional and improved technologies becomes more evident.

P3: Third period of 13 years: Yield difference between enhanced technologies and conventional farming is relatively stable.

Time

Yields under enhanced technologies

Yields under conventional wheat farming

Yields

P1 P2 P3

2025 2030 2039

Average Yield T/ha

% change compared

to CC scenario

Average Yield T/ha

% change compared

to CC scenario

Average Yield T/ha

% change compared

to CC scenario

No CC, no TP

Irrigated 5.94 2.45 6.29 3.20 6.77 4.29Rainfed 1.51 3.44 1.58 4.54 1.65 6.45

CC, no TP (baseline)

Irrigated 5.79 -- 6.10 -- 6.50 --Rainfed 1.46 -- 1.51 -- 1.55 --

TP1 Irrigated 5.82 0.38 6.17 1.26 6.75 3.91Rainfed 1.47 0.38 1.53 1.25 1.61 3.90

TP2 Irrigated 5.83 0.61 6.22 2.03 6.91 6.38Rainfed 1.47 0.61 1.55 2.01 1.65 6.36

TP3 Irrigated 5.86 1.11 6.33 3.74 7.28 12.15Rainfed 1.48 1.10 1.57 3.71 1.73 12.09

TP4 Irrigated 5.81 0.20 6.14 0.64 6.62 1.95Rainfed 1.47 0.19 1.52 0.63 1.58 1.94

TP5 Irrigated 5.85 0.92 6.28 3.07 7.13 9.85Rainfed 1.48 0.91 1.56 3.05 1.70 9.80

ResultsImpact of different TPs on the average wheat yield in Syria (% of change against baseline scenario: climate change without any technology adoption)

Tot Supply (000 mt)

% change compared

to CC scenario

Tot Supply (000 mt)

% change compared

to CC scenario

Tot Supply (000 mt)

% change compared

to CC scenario

No CC 6194.78 3.16 6624.67 4.15 7185.7 5.81

GFDL 6004.88 0 6360.67 0 6790.88 0

TP1 6027.82 0.38 6440.81 1.26 7055.89 3.9

TP2 6041.44 0.61 6489.31 2.02 7222.96 6.36

TP3 6071.17 1.1 6597.69 3.73 7613.31 12.11

TP4 6016.54 0.19 6401.16 0.64 6922.97 1.95

TP5 6059.67 0.91 6555.29 3.06 7457.59 9.82

2025 2030 2039

Impact of different TPs on the total wheat supply in Syria (% of change against baseline scenario: climate change without any technology adoption)

Net trade balance (000 mt)

% change compared

to CC scenario

Net trade balance (000 mt)

% change compared

to CC scenario

Net trade balance (000 mt)

% change compared

to CC scenario

GFDL -124.02 0 -425 0 -1133.6 0

TP1 -101.14 -22.63 -345.07 -23.16 -869.39 -30.39

TP2 -87.55 -41.65 -296.71 -43.23 -702.82 -61.29

TP3 -57.91 -114.18 -188.63 -125.3 -313.66 -261.4

TP4 -112.39 -10.35 -384.62 -10.5 -1001.9 -13.14

TP5 -69.37 -78.77 -230.91 -84.05 -468.91 -141.75

2025 2030 2039

Effect of different TPs on the long term trade balance of wheat in Syria

Note: Negative percent value indicates reduction in trade balance deficit.

Initial implications: • Genetic improvement of wheat should be carefully

undertaken and adapted to different countries of the region;

• Investments in high yield varieties seem to be profitable;

• Adapted improved packages should be developed by the research organizations.

Mean change in grain yield (%)without CO2 (carbon fertilization) response

Mean change in grain yield considering CO2 response (%)

Year RCP4.5 RCP8.5 RCP4.5 RCP8.52025 -2.45 -2.20 1.50 2.652035 -4.25 -3.85 3.80 7.002045 -5.35 -8.50 6.75 7.752055 -8.05 -11.20 7.00 11.152065 -9.15 -16.35 8.29 11.202075 -10.20 -22.25 8.40 8.452085 -13.40 -25.80 4.35 8.552095 -14.10 -30.50 4.05 5.10

Mean change in wheat yield (%) taking 2015 as base (i.e., decade of 2010-2020) based on RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 climate change scenarios in Jordan

APSIM was used for Analysis

Results based on two soil types: Heavy clay at Maru and clay loam at Mushaqar

Water holding capacity of Maru soil = 194 mm and, Mushaqar soil =117 mm for a depth of 1.5 m

KEY MESSAGES• Impact of ONLY temperature and rainfall due to CC is negative on wheat yield;• Elevated CO2 in atmosphere improved yield due to increased photosynthesis;• OVERALL: There is no negative impact of climate change rather small gains in yield.

Will future climate change be favorable for wheat production in Jordan? A decadal analysis

Steps ahead1. Country level bio-economic modelling of conservation

agriculture practices on wheat-based agricultural systems in Jordan/Tunisia (In collaboration with ministries of agriculture of Tunisia and Jordan):

• Improved food security from groundwater, conjunctive use, and better management of water storage capacities: Application in selected dry areas (in collaboration with IWMI)

• Workshop on 16-17 June in Amman-Jordan;

2. Adaptation of different wheat crops varieties to the climate change in the MENA region: a comparative analysis (in collaboration with CIMMYT).

Thank you

Collaborators/Partners

- NCARE, Jordan (Amal Al-Khatib, Siham Allouzi)

- INRAT, Tunisia (Mohammad Annabi)