Abstract
Using a multi-model ensemble of climate-change impacts over the Iberian Peninsula, we identified regions and cropping options for which the uncertainty levels of projected impacts on crop productivity were either high or low. The ensemble consisted of 10 members per combination of scenario, climate model, location and cropping option, and was used to quantify the uncertainty of impacts on crop yield. CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate. The contribution of RCMs, locations and cropping options to uncertainty on yield projections was analysed. Differences between the sign of the response and 30 yr time series of projections generated by each member of the ensemble were compared. The largest response to A2 scenarios also resulted in the smallest uncertainty, and vice versa. Low uncertainty was found for the sign of the yield response, which was mainly positive for spring and winter cropping options and negative for the summer option. Uncertainty was lower for A2 than for control projections. Uncertainty was largest in northern, coastal and mountain regions, and smallest for inland southern regions, and depended on seasonal cropping options. Minimum and maximum uncertainty were found for maize and irrigated spring wheat, respectively. Water availability was the determinant for interannual variability and its uncertainty. Choice of RCM contributed less to uncertainty than choice of location, and choice of cropping option contributed more to uncertainty than both of these factors. Interannual variability showed larger uncertainty than mean impact magnitude, and this uncertainty was larger than that of the sign of the yield response. Regions with high uncertainty could benefit from higher-resolution simulations.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 16
Claim · model-written summary
The largest yield response to the A2 scenarios had the smallest uncertainty, and vice versa.
- Taxon
- wheat and maize
Triticum aestivum
Zea mayse1 - Treatment
- A2 scenariose2
- Outcome
- uncertaintye2
- Direction
- smalleste2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e2“The largest response to A2 scenarios also resulted in the smallest uncertainty, and vice versa”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield response sign under the A2 future climate was mainly positive for spring and winter cropping options, with low uncertainty.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Treatment
- A2 future (2070–2100) climatee1
- Outcome
- sign of the yield responsee3
- Direction
- mainly positivee3
- Qualifier
- spring and winter cropping optionse3
- Comparator
- control (1969–1990)e1
- Setting
- Iberian Peninsulae4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e3“Low uncertainty was found for the sign of the yield response, which was mainly positive for spring and winter cropping options and negative for the summer option”
e4“Using a multi-model ensemble of climate-change impacts over the Iberian Peninsula”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield response sign under the A2 future climate was negative for the summer cropping option.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Treatment
- A2 future (2070–2100) climatee1
- Outcome
- sign of the yield responsee3
- Direction
- negativee3
- Qualifier
- the summer optione3
- Comparator
- control (1969–1990)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e3“Low uncertainty was found for the sign of the yield response, which was mainly positive for spring and winter cropping options and negative for the summer option”
Claim · model-written summary
Uncertainty of yield projections was lower under A2 than under control projections.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Treatment
- A2e4
- Outcome
- Uncertaintye4
- Direction
- lowere4
- Comparator
- control projectionse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e4“Uncertainty was lower for A2 than for control projections”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield-projection uncertainty was largest in northern, coastal and mountain regions.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Outcome
- Uncertaintye5
- Direction
- largeste5
- Setting
- northern, coastal and mountain regionse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e5“Uncertainty was largest in northern, coastal and mountain regions, and smallest for inland southern regions, and depended on seasonal cropping options”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield-projection uncertainty was smallest for inland southern regions.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Outcome
- Uncertaintye5
- Direction
- smalleste5
- Setting
- inland southern regionse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e5“Uncertainty was largest in northern, coastal and mountain regions, and smallest for inland southern regions, and depended on seasonal cropping options”
Claim · model-written summary
Yield-projection uncertainty depended on seasonal cropping options.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Outcome
- Uncertaintye5
- Qualifier
- depended on seasonal cropping optionse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e5“Uncertainty was largest in northern, coastal and mountain regions, and smallest for inland southern regions, and depended on seasonal cropping options”
Claim · model-written summary
Minimum yield-projection uncertainty was found for maize.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Minimum and maximum uncertainty were found for maize and irrigated spring wheat, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Maximum yield-projection uncertainty was found for irrigated spring wheat.
- Taxon
- irrigated spring wheatTriticum aestivume6
- Outcome
- uncertaintye6
- Qualifier
- maximume6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e6“Minimum and maximum uncertainty were found for maize and irrigated spring wheat, respectively”
Claim · model-written summary
Water availability was the determinant of interannual variability and its uncertainty.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Treatment
- Water availabilitye7
- Outcome
- interannual variabilitye7
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e7“Water availability was the determinant for interannual variability and its uncertainty”
Claim · model-written summary
Choice of RCM contributed less to yield-projection uncertainty than choice of location.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Treatment
- Choice of RCMe2
- Outcome
- uncertaintye2
- Direction
- lesse2
- Comparator
- choice of locatione2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e2“Choice of RCM contributed less to uncertainty than choice of location, and choice of cropping option contributed more to uncertainty than both of these factors”
Claim · model-written summary
Choice of cropping option contributed more to yield-projection uncertainty than both choice of RCM and choice of location.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Treatment
- choice of cropping optione2
- Outcome
- uncertaintye2
- Direction
- moree2
- Comparator
- both of these factorse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e2“Choice of RCM contributed less to uncertainty than choice of location, and choice of cropping option contributed more to uncertainty than both of these factors”
Claim · model-written summary
Interannual variability showed larger uncertainty than mean impact magnitude.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Outcome
- uncertaintye2
- Direction
- largere2
- Comparator
- mean impact magnitudee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e2“Interannual variability showed larger uncertainty than mean impact magnitude, and this uncertainty was larger than that of the sign of the yield response”
Claim · model-written summary
The uncertainty of interannual variability was larger than the uncertainty of the sign of the yield response.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Outcome
- uncertaintye2
- Direction
- largere2
- Comparator
- sign of the yield responsee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e2“Interannual variability showed larger uncertainty than mean impact magnitude, and this uncertainty was larger than that of the sign of the yield response”
Claim · model-written summary
Regions with high uncertainty could benefit from higher-resolution simulations.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Outcome
- higher-resolution simulationse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e2“Regions with high uncertainty could benefit from higher-resolution simulations”
Claim · model-written summary
Uncertainty of the sign of the yield response was low.
- Taxon
- wheat and maizeTriticum aestivumZea mayse1
- Outcome
- sign of the yield responsee3
- Qualifier
- Low uncertaintye3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e1“CERES wheat and maize simulation models were linked to the control run and 1 scenario provided by 10 regional climate models (RCMs): control (1969–1990) and A2 future (2070–2100) climate”
e3“Low uncertainty was found for the sign of the yield response, which was mainly positive for spring and winter cropping options and negative for the summer option”
The same questions in other papers
climate site · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
81 papers in the same direction as this paper · 72 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
150 papers more in this group
See all 154 papers →climate site · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 102 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
176 papers more in this group
See all 180 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.