Letter | Published:

Crop yields in a geoengineered climate

Nature Climate Change volume 2, pages 101105 (2012) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

Crop models predict that recent and future climate change may have adverse effects on crop yields1,2. Intentional deflection of sunlight away from the Earth could diminish the amount of climate change in a high-CO2 world3,4,5,6. However, it has been suggested that this diminution would come at the cost of threatening the food and water supply for billions of people7. Here, we carry out high-CO2, geoengineering and control simulations using two climate models to predict the effects on global crop yields. We find that in our models solar-radiation geoengineering in a high-CO2 climate generally causes crop yields to increase, largely because temperature stresses are diminished while the benefits of CO2 fertilization are retained. Nevertheless, possible yield losses on the local scale as well as known and unknown side effects and risks associated with geoengineering indicate that the most certain way to reduce climate risks to global food security is to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. in IPCC Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Parry, M., Canziani, O., Palutikof, J., van der Linden, P. & Hanson, C.) 273–313 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  2. 2.

    , & Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333, 616–620 (2011).

  3. 3.

    & Geoengineering Earth’s radiation balance to mitigate CO2-induced climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 2141–2144 (2000).

  4. 4.

    , , & Sunshade world?: A fully coupled GCM evaluation of the climatic impacts of geoengineering. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L12710 (2008).

  5. 5.

    et al. An overview of geoengineering of climate using stratospheric sulphate aerosols. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 366, 4007–4037 (2008).

  6. 6.

    , & Regional climate responses to geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO2 injections. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D16101 (2008).

  7. 7.

    Whither geoengineering? Science 320, 1166–1167 (2008).

  8. 8.

    & Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming. Environ. Res. Lett. 2, 014002 (2007).

  9. 9.

    & Potential impact of climate change on world food supply. Nature 367, 133–138 (1994).

  10. 10.

    & Global food security under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104, 19703–19708 (2007).

  11. 11.

    & Robust negative impacts of climate change on African agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 014010 (2010).

  12. 12.

    et al. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science 319, 607–610 (2008).

  13. 13.

    Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance and Uncertainty RS Policy document 10/29 (Royal Society, 2009).

  14. 14.

    et al. in IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) 748–845 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  15. 15.

    .

  16. 16.

    , , , & Impact of geoengineering schemes on the terrestrial biosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 2061 (2002).

  17. 17.

    & Global dimming: A review of the evidence for a widespread and significant reduction in global radiation with discussion of its probable causes and possible agricultural consequences. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 107, 255–278 (2001).

  18. 18.

    et al. Impact of changes in diffuse radiation on the global land carbon sink. Nature 458, 1014–1017 (2009).

  19. 19.

    , , & On the direct effect of clouds and atmospheric particles on the productivity and structure of vegetation. Oecologia 129, 21–30 (2001).

  20. 20.

    , & Sensitivity of ocean acidification to geoengineered climate stabilization. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L10706 (2009).

  21. 21.

    , & The impact of convection on ENSO: From a delayed oscillator to a series of events. J. Clim. 21, 5904–5924 (2008).

  22. 22.

    & Geoengineering as an optimization problem. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 034009 (2010).

  23. 23.

    , & Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 22, 1–19 (2008).

  24. 24.

    et al. Crop response to elevated CO2 and world food supply: A comment on ‘Food for Thought...’ by Long et al., Science 312:19181921, 2006 Eur. J. Agron. 26, 215–223 (2007).

  25. 25.

    et al. The DSSAT cropping system model. Eur. J. Agron. 18, 235–265 (2003).

  26. 26.

    et al. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000); available at .

  27. 27.

    , , , & Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model. Nature 408, 184–187 (2000).

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford 94305, USA

    • J. Pongratz
    • , L. Cao
    •  & K. Caldeira
  2. Department of Environmental Earth System Science and Program on Food Security and the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford 94305, USA

    • D. B. Lobell

Authors

  1. Search for J. Pongratz in:

  2. Search for D. B. Lobell in:

  3. Search for L. Cao in:

  4. Search for K. Caldeira in:

Contributions

K.C. and L.C. provided climate simulations, D.B.L. provided the yield model, J.P. carried out the analyses. All authors contributed to designing the analyses and to writing the manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Pongratz.

Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1373

Further reading