supplementary data section s1: current knowledge of lethal
TRANSCRIPT
1
Supplementary Data 1
2
Section S1: Current knowledge of lethal temperature thresholds 3
High temperatures affect crop growth and development through several mechanisms with the 4
most sensitive process depending on the stage of crop development. Serious effects on the 5
emergence of wheat seedlings were found for soil temperatures between 40 and 45°C [1-3]. 6
During vegetative growth, photosynthesis seems to be the most temperature sensitive process 7
[4] with an irreversible inhibition of Rubisco activation after incubation of wheat leaf tissue 8
at 45°C for 5 minutes [5]. The exposure of whole wheat plants to temperatures of 42.5 and 9
45°C for 1h (rapid and gradual increases in temperature) resulted in the complete inhibition 10
of the carbon exchange rate [4]. While crop yield is indirectly affected during the previous 11
growth stages, it is directly affected during the reproductive and seed filling stages. The most 12
temperature susceptible reproductive stages are the period prior to flowering and during 13
flowering and fertilization [6]. Three days of 30°C showed a reduction of grain set by almost 14
70% [7] and temperature regimes of 36/31°C (day/night) for 2 days resulted in 55 to 85% 15
grain sterility [8]. ‘Wheat failure’ has been reported with temperatures of 34°C [9]. Grain size 16
depends on the duration and rate of grain filling and high temperatures can reduce grain size 17
[8]. However, sensitivities to heat stress can vary widely between wheat cultivars [10]. 18
Many controlled environment experiments investigate the effect of high temperatures on 19
wheat development and yield but there is a lack of studies looking at temperatures high 20
enough to be lethal to the plant. There is also some ambiguity to the definition of lethal 21
temperature limits. Levitt [11] defined ‘heat-killing temperatures’ as the temperature at which 22
50% of the plant is killed whereas Porter & Gawith [12] define them as when ‘function is lost 23
beyond recovery’. We adopt the latter definition of lethal temperatures. Temperature 24
2
thresholds might refer to daily mean temperatures [6], mean temperatures during certain 25
hours of the day (e.g. day/night or morning hours only) [13] or daily Tmin/Tmax [14]. Not 26
every study is clear about the length of exposure to high temperatures and if thermotolerance, 27
the ability of a plant to survive normally lethal temperatures after a short exposure to a sub-28
lethal heat stress or a gradual increase in temperatures prior to reaching the normally lethal 29
temperature, was accounted for. A shortcoming of most crop simulation models is to apply 30
thresholds which are defined at the leaf or canopy level but drive the model with air instead 31
of foliage temperature (exception e.g. JULES [15]). Depending on the available soil water 32
and the vapour pressure deficit (VPD), canopy and air temperature can differ by about 10°C 33
[16-18]. 34
35
Section S2: Crop Model 36
The acceleration of senescence was parameterised according to the approach taken for the 37
Agricultural Production Systems sIMulator (APSIM) [19], i.e. Tmax hasten leaf senescence 38
threefold at just above 34°C and sixfold at 40°C. Relative leaf area reductions resulting from 39
including increased senescence in GLAM was tested against results from APSIM and 40
controlled environment studies [19]. Leaf senescence can accelerate during the whole crop 41
life cycle, resulting in reduced vegetative growth during the early crop developmental stages 42
and a shortening of the grain-filling period towards the end of the crop life cycle. 43
The effect of lethal temperatures was included by terminating crop development if daily Tmax 44
exceeds a threshold for a given number of days. During early crop development this would 45
lead to yield equal or close to zero. Maximum lethal temperature limits are not well defined 46
and are influenced by the ability of plants to acclimatise to high temperatures (this does not 47
apply to pollen) and to cool themselves down if enough water is available (transpiration 48
cooling). There can be a difference of several degrees Celsius between air temperature, 49
3
commonly used in crop models, and leaf or canopy temperature, commonly reported for 50
controlled environment studies. The temperature differences and the lack of knowledge of 51
lethal temperature thresholds were considered by using a wide range of lethal temperature 52
thresholds. Three thresholds were applied, 40, 45, and 50°C. They had to be exceeded for 1 to 53
5 consecutive days in order to be lethal. For simplicity it was assumed that the same threshold 54
holds during the whole crop life cycle even though certain stages are more susceptible to heat 55
stress than others [12]. Quantitative information on these differences is not enough for 56
parameterisation. 57
In order to optimize GLAM, some crop specific global (i.e. site-independent) model 58
parameters are required, i.e. a single varietal type is modelled. Additionally two parameters 59
which vary spatially, the yield gap parameter (YGP) and the planting date, are needed. The 60
YGP is used to calibrate GLAM by accounting for impacts other than weather, e.g. pests, 61
diseases and non-optimal management of the crop, i.e. nutrient limitations and water stress in 62
places that are rainfed or have non-optimal irrigation. The YGP acts on the leaf area index 63
and the value is chosen which minimizes a measure of difference between the predicted and 64
observed yield. The root mean squared error (RMSE) was used to compare simulated yield 65
driven with observed and ERA40-reanalysis data. For crop model simulations driven by 66
global climate model outputs it cannot be assumed that the timing of specific years matches, 67
i.e. observed yields can only be used to compare the mean and standard deviation of 68
simulated yields [20]. For this reason, for the climate model output, the squared difference 69
between the simulated and observed yield mean and standard deviation was used [20]. The 70
calibration is a form of mean bias-correction and can compensate to some degree for input 71
climate bias [21]. Ranges for the global model parameters were taken from the literature. 72
Optimal parameter-sets were determined by randomly varying one parameter at a time and 73
4
choosing the parameter-set which had the lowest measure of difference between the 74
simulated and observed yield after 5000 repetitions. 75
76
Section S3: Mean and variability of simulated yield 77
Simulations with the raw climate model output show a decrease in mean yield for India from 78
about 1500 kg/ha for the baseline to just over 1000 kg/ha in 2070 to 2089 (Figure S3). Yield 79
simulations with the bias-corrected climate model data agree on a slight decrease in mean 80
yield towards the end of the century. Baseline simulations with the observed and ERA40-81
reanalysis data show similar mean yields compared to simulations with the bias-corrected 82
climate model data for 2030 to 2049 (Figure S3). Unrealistically high yield outliers were 83
simulated with both bias-corrected climate model data and the values increase with time 84
(Figure S3). They do not occur in such extremes in simulations using the raw climate model 85
output. The yield outliers are a combination of longer crop durations for the thermal time 86
development setting CT1 and CT2 compared to CT3 (which has ‘optimal’ development up to 87
50°C, Table S1) and a higher leaf area compared to simulations with the raw climate model 88
output. The bias-corrected climate data have lower temperatures than the raw climate model 89
output so that increased leaf senescence has less impact. The yield outliers simulated with the 90
bias-corrected climate model data are confined to an area in West India (Figure 1), where 91
instances of Tmax > 34°C do not occur frequently in the baseline or the future climate (Figure 92
S1). The coefficient of variation (CV), relating changes in the variability of simulated yield to 93
changes in mean yield, show an increase with time especially in the southern half of India 94
and substantially more for simulations using the raw climate model output (Figure S4). 95
96
97
98
5
Section S4: CO2 fertilization and water stress 99
We did not include the effect of CO2 fertilization, i.e. an increase in the rate of photosynthetic 100
carbon fixation and net primary production for C3 crops like wheat with elevated CO2. Many 101
crop models overestimate the effect of CO2 fertilization as non-FACE (Free-Air CO2 102
Enrichment), i.e. chamber experiments, were used for parameterization [22]. FACE 103
experiments show an increase in yield under elevated CO2 of about 14% compared to 30% 104
for chamber experiments [22, 23]. Using the data from [22], it was estimated that there was a 105
global boost in wheat production of about 3% due to rising CO2 levels from 1980 to 2008 106
[24]. Experimental studies show that even though elevated CO2 increases the size of grain 107
yield, it can lead to a reduction in grain quality [25, 26]. It further can enhance the effect of 108
lethal temperatures as stomatal conductance decreases by an average of 22% (for CO2 109
increases from on average 366 to 567 µmol mol-1
) [27]. A reduction in stomatal opening can 110
lead to a reduction in transpiration cooling and therefore an increase in canopy temperature. 111
Furthermore there is evidence supporting a CO2 induced negative impact on the ability of 112
plants to absorb nitrogen [25]. However, the importance to model C-N effects together [28] is 113
beyond the capacity of the crop simulation model used in our study. 114
Our study looks at irrigated yields only, but water availability into the future is not 115
guaranteed. High temperatures often coincide with water stress. Currently over 90% of wheat 116
in India is irrigated [29] which can reduce heat stress through transpiration cooling but is 117
highly dependent on water availability and vapour pressure deficit. Canopy and air 118
temperature can differ up to 10°C, with canopy temperature being cooler if water is available 119
[16], and warmer under water stress [17, 18]. Widespread declines in water tables in India 120
[30] may suggest that current irrigation practices are not sustainable [31]. This might lead to 121
an increased risk of drought, higher temperatures experienced by the plant, and with it an 122
increased risk of exceeding crop temperature stress thresholds. 123
6
Supplementary Table S1: Cardinal temperatures (CT, in °C) for wheat, i.e. base, optimum 124
and maximum temperature for the four crop developmental stages and the function used for 125
thermal time development. CT3 using a trapezoid function is characterised by ‘optimal’ 126
development up to the maximum temperature. 127
CT set-up
and
reference
Sowing to
flowering
Flowering to
begin grain
filling
Begin to end
grain filling
End grain
filling to
maturity
Triangular /
trapezoid
CT1 [12] 0 / 23 / 35 1 / 22 / 35 1 / 22 / 35 1 / 22 / 35 Triangular
CT2 [32] 0 / 21 / 35.4 8.9 / 20.7 /
35.4
8.9 / 22.1 /
35.4
8.9 / 22.1 /
35.4
Triangular
CT3 [33] 0 / 26 / 50 0 / 26 / 50 0 / 26 / 50 0 / 26 / 50 Trapezoid
128
7
Supplementary Table S2: Thresholds for high temperature stress (‘HTS’) around anthesis. 129
Tcrit is the critical temperature above which grain set begins to be affected. Tlim is the 130
temperature at which grain set is zero. 131
Tcrit Tlim Days affected
before anthesis
Days affected
from anthesis
References
Tmax > 31°C Tmax > 40°C 6 12 [34, 35]
Tmean > 28°C Tmean > 36°C 6 12 [32]
Tmax > 27°C Tmax > 40°C 0 10 [36]
132
133
8
Supplementary Table S3: Summary table of simulations performed with GLAM-wheat with 134
each optimal parameter-set (pobs, pERA40, praw) except for HTS. CTj, j=1, 2, 3 are the three 135
thermal time development set-ups from Table S1. All simulations (i) shift planting date on a 136
daily time step from -14 to +14 days relative to the Sacks planting date [37], (ii), use none, 137
40, 45, and 50°C lethal temperature thresholds that needs to be exceeded for 1 to 5 138
consecutive days, and (iii) use all 17 QUMP ensemble members. 139
Baseline Projection
Bias-corrected
Observed
weather
ERA40-
reanalysis
Historical
QUMP raw
Projection
QUMP raw
Projection
QUMP BC
Projection
QUMP CF
pobs[CTj]
pERA40[CTj]
praw[CTj]
pobs[CTj]
pERA40[CTj]
praw[CTj]
pobs[CTj]
pERA40[CTj]
praw[CTj]
pobs[CTj]
pERA40[CTj]
praw[CTj]
pobs[CTj]
pERA40[CTj]
praw[CTj]
pobs[CTj]
pERA40[CTj]
praw[CTj]
140
141
9
Supplementary Figure S1: Changes in crop (thermal + lethal) versus climate model 142
(climate) uncertainty with changing planting date for 2050 to 2069 using the BC bias-143
corrected climate model output. The bottom right plot shows a linear increase in the average 144
contribution of climate model uncertainty. Therefore for the HTS simulations the earliest, 145
middle and latest planting date were chosen to cover the full range. Results using the CF bias-146
corrected climate model output are similar. 147
148
149
10
Supplementary Figure S2: The average number of days Tmax exceeds 34°C for a fixed crop 150
duration of 120 days starting with the Sacks planting date [37]. The left column shows the 151
baseline period 1969-1988 for the observed weather data (obswth), the ERA40-reanalysis 152
data (ERA40) and the climate model control run (QUMP). The other columns show the three 153
projection time periods for the climate model control run (QUMP raw), and the two bias-154
corrected climate model control runs (QUMP BC, QUMP CF). 155
156
157
11
Supplementary Figure S3: Boxplot of grid cell mean yield for the baseline and the three 158
future time periods. The baseline period shows mean yield simulated with the raw climate 159
model output (QUMP raw), the observed weather (obswth) and the ERA40-reanalysis 160
(ERA40) data. The future time periods show mean yield simulated with the raw climate 161
model output (QUMP raw), and the two bias-corrected climate model outputs (QUMP BC, 162
QUMP CF). 163
164
165
12
Supplementary Figure S4: Coefficient of variation (CV) for yield simulated using the raw 166
climate model output (QUMP raw) and the two bias-corrected climate model outputs (QUMP 167
BC, QUMP CF) for the three future time periods 2030 to 2049, 2050 to 2069, and 2070 to 168
2089. 169
170
171
13
Supplementary Figure S5: As Figure 2 but for 2030 to 2049. 172
173 174
14
Supplementary Figure S6: As Figure 2 but for 2070 to 2089. 175
176 177
15
Supplementary Figure S7: As Figure 3 but for the CF bias-corrected climate model output. 178
179
180
181
16
Supplementary Figure S8: Total uncertainty as an average over all grid cells for (a) yield 182
and (b) crop duration for simulations using the two bias-corrected climate model outputs 183
(QUMP BC, QUMP CF). (c) and (d) show the contribution of the single sources of 184
uncertainty (climate, lethal, thermal, optimization, planting) for yield and crop duration, 185
respectively. QUMP CF = black, QUMP BC = light grey. 186
187
188
17
Supplementary Figure S9: Boxplot of mean percentage reduction in crop duration when 189
including lethal temperatures of 40, 45, and 50°C which have to be exceeded for 1, 3, and 5 190
consecutive days compared to not including lethal temperature thresholds. The columns 191
separate simulations using the two bias-corrected climate model outputs (QUMP CF, QUMP 192
BC) for the three time periods 2030-49, 2050-69, and 2070-89 (rows). 193
194
195
18
References 196
1. Acevedo E, Silva P, Silva H. Wheat growth and physiology. In: Curtis BC, Rajaram 197
S, Gomez Macpherson H, editors. Bread Wheat Improvement and Production. Rome: FAO; 198
2002. p. 39-70. 199
2. Blumenthal CS, Bekes F, Wrigley CW, Barlow EWR. The Acquisition and 200
Maintenance of Thermotolerance in Australian Wheat. Australian Journal of Plant 201
Physiology. 1990;17:37-47. 202
3. Stone P. The Effects of Heat Stress on Cereal Yield and Quality. In: Basra AS, editor. 203
Crop Responses and Adaptations to Temperature Stress: Food Products Press, The Haworth 204
Press; 2001. p. 243-91. 205
4. Law RD, Crafts-Brandner SJ. Inhibition and Acclimation of Photosynthesis to Heat 206
Stress Is Closely Correlated with Activation of Ribulose-1,5-Bisphosphate 207
Carboxylase/Oxygenase. Plant Physiol. 1999;120:173-81. 208
5. Feller U, Crafts-Brandner SJ, Salvucci ME. Moderately High Temperatures Inhibit 209
Ribulose-1,5-Bisphosphate Carboxylase/Oxygenase (Rubisco) Activase-Mediated Activation 210
of Rubisco. Plant Physiol. 1998;116:539-46. 211
6. Singh RP, Prasad PVV, Sharma AK, Reddy KR. Impacts of High-Temperature Stress 212
and Potential Opportunities for Breeding. In: Yadav SS, Redden RJ, Hatfield JL, Lotze-213
Campen H, Hall AE, editors. Crop Adaptation to Climate Change: John Wiley & Sons, 214
Wiley-Blackwell; 2011. p. 166-85. 215
7. Saini HS, Aspinall D. Abnormal Sporogenesis in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) 216
Induced by Short Periods of High Temperature. Ann Bot. 1982;49:835-46. 217
8. Tashiro T, Wardlaw IF. The response to high temperature shock and humidity 218
changes prior to and during the early stages of grain development in wheat. Australian 219
Journal of Plant Physiology. 1990;17(5):551-61. 220
19
9. Hatfield JL. Agriculture: U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and 221
Assessment Product 4.3, www.climatescience.gov; 2008. 222
10. Hays DB, Do JH, Mason RE, Morgan G, Finlayson SA. Heat stress induced ethylene 223
production in developing wheat grains induces kernel abortion and increased maturation in a 224
susceptible cultivar. Plant Science. 2007;172(6):1113-23. 225
11. Levitt J. Responses of Plants to Environmental Stresses: Chilling, Freezing, and High 226
Temperature Stresses. Kozlowski TT, editor. New York: Academic Press; 1980. 227
12. Porter JR, Gawith M. Temperatures and the growth and development of wheat: a 228
review. European Journal of Agronomy. 1999;10:23-36. 229
13. Vara Prasad PV, Craufurd PQ, Summerfield RJ, Wheeler TR. Effects of short 230
episodes of heat stress on flower production and fruit-set of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea 231
L.). J Exp Bot. 2000;51(345):777-84. 232
14. Wollenweber B, Porter JR, Schellberg J. Lack of Interaction between Extreme High-233
Temperature Events at Vegetative and Reproductive Growth Stages in Wheat. Journal of 234
Agronomy and Crop Science. 2003;189:142-50. 235
15. Best M. JULES Technical Documentation. 2009. 236
16. Idso SB, Reginato RJ, Jackson RD, Pinter Jr. PJ. Measuring Yield-Reducing Plant 237
Potential Depressions in Wheat by Infrared Thermometry. Irrigation Science. 1981;2:205-12. 238
17. Ehrler WL, Idso SB, Jackson RD, Reginato RJ. Wheat canopy temperature: Relation 239
to plant water potential. Agronomy Journal. 1978;70:251-6. 240
18. Altschuler M, Mascarenhas JP. Heat shock proteins and the effect of heat shock in 241
plants. Plant Mol Biol. 1982;1:103-15. 242
19. Asseng S, Foster IAN, Turner NC. The impact of temperature variability on wheat 243
yields. Global Change Biology. 2011;17(2):997-1012. 244
20
20. Challinor AJ, Wheeler TR, Craufurd PQ, Ferro CAT, Stephenson DB. Adaptation of 245
crops to climate change through genotypic responses to mean and extreme temperatures. 246
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2007;119(1-2):190-204. 247
21. Challinor AJ, Slingo JM, Wheeler TR, Doblas-Reyes FJ. Probabilistic simulations of 248
crop yield over western India using the DEMETER seasonal hindcast ensembles. Tellus A. 249
2005;57:498-512. 250
22. Ainsworth EA, Leakey ADB, Ort DR, Long SP. FACE-ing the facts: inconsistencies 251
and interdependence among field, chamber and modeling studies of elevated [CO2] impacts 252
on crop yield and food supply. New Phytologist. 2008;179:5-9. 253
23. Long SP, Ainsworth EA, Leakey AD, Nosberger J, Ort DR. Food for thought: lower-254
than-expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO2 concentrations. Science. 2006 Jun 255
30;312(5782):1918-21. PubMed PMID: 16809532. Epub 2006/07/01. eng. 256
24. Lobell DB, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J. Climate trends and global crop production 257
since 1980. Science. 2011 Jul 29;333(6042):616-20. PubMed PMID: 21551030. Epub 258
2011/05/10. eng. 259
25. Pleijel H, Uddling J. Yield vs. Quality trade-offs for wheat in response to carbon 260
dioxide and ozone. Global Change Biology. 2012;18(2):596-605. 261
26. Hogy P, Wieser H, Kohler P, Schwadorf K, Breuer J, Franzaring J, et al. Effects of 262
elevated CO2 on grain yield and quality of wheat: results from a 3-year free-air CO2 263
enrichment experiment. Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2009 Nov;11 Suppl 1:60-9. PubMed PMID: 264
19778369. Epub 2009/09/26. eng. 265
27. Ainsworth EA, Rogers A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance 266
to rising [CO2]: mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 2007 267
Mar;30(3):258-70. PubMed PMID: 17263773. Epub 2007/02/01. eng. 268
21
28. Yin X. Improving ecophysiological simulation models to predict the impact of 269
elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop productivity. Ann Bot. 2013. 270
29. Singh S, Mustard A. India Grain and Feed Annual. USDA Foreign Agricultural 271
Services, 2012 Contract No.: Grain Report Number IN2026. 272
30. Rodell M, Velicogna I, Famiglietti JS. Satellite-based estimates of groundwater 273
depletion in India. Nature. 2009 Aug 20;460(7258):999-1002. PubMed PMID: 19675570. 274
Epub 2009/08/14. eng. 275
31. Milesi C, Samanta A, Hashimoto H, Kumar KK, Ganguly S, Thenkabail PS, et al. 276
Decadal Variations in NDVI and Food Production in India. Remote Sensing. 2010;2(3):758-277
76. 278
32. Osborne T, Rose G, Wheeler T. Variation in the global-scale impacts of climate 279
change on crop productivity due to climate model uncertainty and adaptation. Agricultural 280
and Forest Meteorology. 2013;170:183-94. 281
33. Lobell DB, Sibley A, Ortiz-Monasterio JI. Extreme heat effects on wheat senescence 282
in India. Nature Climate Change. 2012. 283
34. Challinor AJ, Simelton ES, Fraser EDG, Hemming D, Collins M. Increased crop 284
failure due to climate change: assessing adaptation options using models and socio-economic 285
data for wheat in China. Environmental Research Letters. 2010;5(3):034012. 286
35. Wheeler TR, Batts GR, Ellis RH, Hadley P, Morison JIL. Growth and yield of winter 287
wheat (Triticum aestivum) crops in response to CO2 and temperature. Journal of Agricultural 288
Science. 1996;127:37-48. 289
36. Semenov MA. Development of high-resolution UKCIP02-based climate change 290
scenarios in the UK. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2007;144(1-2):127-38. 291
37. Sacks WJ, Deryng D, Foley JA, Ramankutty N. Crop planting dates: an analysis of 292
global patterns. Global Ecology and Biogeography. 2010;19:607-20. 293