Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Simulating US agriculture in a modern Dust Bowl drought

Abstract

Drought-induced agricultural loss is one of the most costly impacts of extreme weather13, and without mitigation, climate change is likely to increase the severity and frequency of future droughts4,5. The Dust Bowl of the 1930s was the driest and hottest for agriculture in modern US history. Improvements in farming practices have increased productivity, but yields today are still tightly linked to climate variation6 and the impacts of a 1930s-type drought on current and future agricultural systems remain unclear. Simulations of biophysical process and empirical models suggest that Dust-Bowl-type droughts today would have unprecedented consequences, with yield losses 50% larger than the severe drought of 2012. Damages at these extremes are highly sensitive to temperature, worsening by 25% with each degree centigrade of warming. We find that high temperatures can be more damaging than rainfall deficit, and, without adaptation, warmer mid-century temperatures with even average precipitation could lead to maize losses equivalent to the Dust Bowl drought. Warmer temperatures alongside consecutive droughts could make up to 85% of rain-fed maize at risk of changes that may persist for decades. Understanding the interactions of weather extremes and a changing agricultural system is therefore critical to effectively respond to, and minimize, the impacts of the next extreme drought event.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Histogram of historical JJA (June, July, August) average PGF (Princeton University Global Meteorological Forcing Dataset, Phase 2; ref. 41) precipitation weighted by present-day US maize production.
Figure 2: Box plots of US modelled maize (left), soy (centre) and wheat (right) yields under 2012 (blue) and 2035 (red) technology (tech.) and CO2 concentrations.
Figure 3: National maize yield response surface to changes in temperature and precipitation.

References

  1. 1

    National Mitigation Strategy – Partnerships for Building Safer Communities (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1995).

  2. 2

    Smith, A. B. & Katz, R. W. US billion-dollar weather and climate disasters: data sources, trends, accuracy and biases. Nat. Hazards 67, 387–410 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Billion-dollar weather and climate disasters. NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/ (2015).

  4. 4

    Sheffield, J. & Wood, E. F. Projected changes in drought occurrence under future global warming from multi-model, multi-scenario, IPCC AR4 simulations. Clim. Dyn. 31, 79–105 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Wehner, M. et al. Projections of future drought in the continental United States and Mexico. J. Hydrometeorol. 12, 1359–1377 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Ray, D. K., Gerber, J. S., MacDonald, G. K. & West, P. C. Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nat. Commun. 6, 5989 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Warrick, R. A. The possible impacts on wheat production of a recurrence of the 1930s drought in the US Great Plains. Clim. Change 6, 5–26 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Hansen, Z. K. & Libecap, G. D. Small farms, externalities, and the Dust Bowl of the 1930's. J. Polit. Econ. 112, 665–694 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Hornbeck, R. The enduring impact of the American Dust Bowl: short and long-run adjustments to environmental catastrophe. Am. Econ. Rev. 102, 1477–1507 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Parton, W. J., Gutmann, M. P. & Ojima, D. Long-term trends in population, farm income, and crop production in the Great Plains. Bioscience 57, 737–747 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    McLeman, R. A. et al. What we learned from the Dust Bowl: lessons in science, policy, and adaptation. Popul. Environ. 35, 417–440 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Rosenberg, N. J. & Crosson, P. R. The MINK Project: a new methodology for identifying regional influences of, and responses to, increasing atmospheric CO2 and climate change. Environ. Conserv. 18, 313–322 (1991).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Rosenzweig, C. & Hillel, D. The Dust Bowl of the 1930s: analog of greenhouse effect in the Great Plains? J. Environ. Qual. 22, 9–22 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Extreme Weather and Resilience of the Global Food System (The Global Food Security programme, 2015).

  15. 15

    Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W. & Costa-Roberts, J. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science 333, 616–620 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Urban, D., Roberts, M. J., Schlenker, W. & Lobell, D. B. Projected temperature changes indicate significant increase in interannual variability of US maize yields. Clim. Change 112, 525–533 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Cook, B. I., Seager, R. & Smerdon, J. E. The worst North American drought year of the last millennium: 1934. Geophys. Res. Lett. 41, 7298–7305 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Hatfield, J. L. et al. Climate impacts on agriculture: implications for crop production. Agronomy J. 103, 351–370 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Scanlon, B. R. et al. Groundwater depletion and sustainability of irrigation in the US High Plains and Central Valley. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 9320–9325 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Elliott, J. et al. Constraints and potentials of future irrigation water availability on agricultural production under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3239–3244 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Blum, A. Drought resistance, water-use efficiency, and yield potential—are they compatible, dissonant, or mutually exclusive? Crop Pasture Sci. 56, 1159–1168 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Lewandrowski, J. & Brazee, R. Farm programs and climate change. Clim. Change 23, 1–20 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Wahid, A., Gelani, S., Ashraf, M. & Foolad, M. R. Heat tolerance in plants: an overview. Environ. Exp. Bot. 61, 199–223 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Bita, C. E. & Gerats, T. Plant tolerance to high temperature in a changing environment: scientific fundamentals and production of heat stress-tolerant crops. Front. Plant Sci. 4, 273 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Cook, B. I., Miller, R. L. & Seager, R. Amplification of the North American ‘Dust bowl’ drought through human-induced land degradation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 4997–5001 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Cook, B. I., Seager, R. & Miller, R. L. Atmospheric circulation anomalies during two persistent North American droughts: 1932–1939 and 1948–1957. Clim. Dyn. 36, 2339–2355 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Cook, B. I., Ault, T. R. & Smerdon, J. E. Unprecedented 21st century drought risk in the American Southwest and Central Plains. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400082 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Ault, T. R., Cole, J. E., Overpeck, J. T., Pederson, G. T. & Meko, D. M. Assessing the risk of persistent drought using climate model simulations and paleoclimate data. J. Climate 27, 7529–7549 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Munson, S. M., Belnap, J. & Okin, G. S. Responses of wind erosion to climate-induced vegetation changes on the Colorado Plateau. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3854–3859 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Lesk, C., Rowhani, P. & Ramankutty, N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 529, 84–87 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32

    Hoogenboom, G. et al. Decision Support System and Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) v.4.6 (DSSAT Foundation, 2015); http://dssat.net

  33. 33

    Elliott, J. et al. The parallel system for integrating impact models and sectors (pSIMS). Environ. Model. Softw. 62, 509–516 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34

    Zhao, Y. et al. in 2007 IEEE Congress on Services 199–206 (IEEE, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  35. 35

    Crop Progress (NASS, 1995–2013); https://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1048

  36. 36

    Elliott, J. et al. Predicting agricultural impacts of large-scale drought: 2012 and the case for better modeling. Preprint at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2222269 (2013).

  37. 37

    Thornton, P. E. et al. Daymet: Daily Surface Weather Data on a 1-km grid for North America, Version 2. (Oak Ridge National Laboratory Distributed Active Archive Center, 2014); https://daac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/dsviewer.pl?ds_id=1219

  38. 38

    Portmann, F. T., Siebert, S. & Döll, P. MIRCA2000—Global monthly irrigated and rainfed crop areas around the year 2000: a new high-resolution data set for agricultural and hydrological modeling. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008GB003435 (2010).

  39. 39

    Shangguan, W., Dai, Y., Duan, Q., Liu, B. & Yuan, H. A global soil data set for earth system modeling. J. Adv. Model. Earth Sys. 6, 249–263 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40

    Kim, H. Global Soil Wetness Project Phase 3 (2014); http://hydro.iis.u-tokyo.ac.jp/GSWP3/

  41. 41

    Sheffield, J., Goteti, G. & Wood, E. F. Development of a 50-year high-resolution global dataset of meteorological forcings for land surface modeling. J. Climate 19, 3088–3111 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42

    Compo, G. P. et al. The twentieth century reanalysis project. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137, 1–28 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43

    Harris, I., Jones, P., Osborn, T. & Lister, D. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—the CRU TS3.10 dataset. Intern. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44

    Sacks, W. J. & Kucharik, C. J. Crop management and phenology trends in the US Corn Belt: Impacts on yields, evapotranspiration and energy balance. Agric. For. Meteorol. 151, 882–894 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45

    Mourtzinis, S. et al. Climate-induced reduction in US-wide soybean yields underpinned by region-and in-season-specific responses. Nat. Plants 1, 14026 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46

    Setiyono, T. et al. Understanding and modeling the effect of temperature and daylength on soybean phenology under high-yield conditions. Field Crops Res. 100, 257–271 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47

    USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (accessed 8 February 2016); http://www.nass.usda.gov/

  48. 48

    Good, D. Corn and soybean production—some unfinished business. University of Illinois Extension (19 September 2013); http://web.extension.illinois.edu/cefj/news/news29698.html

  49. 49

    Rosenzweig, C., Tubiello, F. N., Goldberg, R., Mills, E. & Bloomfield, J. Increased crop damage in the US from excess precipitation under climate change. Glob. Environ. Change. 12, 197–202 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 50

    Livneh, B. & Hoerling, M. P. The physics of drought in the US central Great Plains. J. Climate 29, 6783–6804 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 51

    Kay, J. et al. The Community Earth System Model (CESM) large ensemble project: a community resource for studying climate change in the presence of internal climate variability. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 96, 1333–1349 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 52

    Seager, R., Kushnir, Y., Herweijer, C., Naik, N. & Velez, J. Modeling of tropical forcing of persistent droughts and pluvials over western North America: 1856–2000. J. Climate 18, 4065–4088 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53

    Schubert, S. D., Suarez, M. J., Pegion, P. J., Koster, R. D. & Bacmeister, J. T. On the cause of the 1930s Dust Bowl. Science 303, 1855–1859 (2004).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 54

    Seager, R. et al. Would advance knowledge of 1930s SSTs have allowed prediction of the Dust Bowl drought?. J. Climate 21, 3261–3281 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. 55

    Cook, B. I., Miller, R. L. & Seager, R. Dust and sea surface temperature forcing of the 1930s ‘Dust Bowl’ drought. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35 (2008).

  56. 56

    Cunfer, G. On the Great Plains: Agriculture and Environment (Texas A&M Univ. Press, 2005).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was performed as part of the Center for Robust Decision-making on Climate and Energy Policy (RDCEP) at the University of Chicago. RDCEP is funded by a grant from NSF (no. SES-0951576) through the Decision Making Under Uncertainty program. M.G. acknowledges support of an NSF Graduate Fellowship (no. DGE-1144082). We thank C. Müller, A. Ruane and J. Winter—as well as the AgMIP (Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project) community—for valuable insight in formulating the ideas for this research. We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme's Working Group on Coupled Modelling, and we thank the climate modelling groups for producing and making available their model output. For CMIP, the US Department of Energy's Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison provides coordinating support and software infrastructure development in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals. Computing for this project was facilitated using the Swift parallel scripting language (NSF grant OCI-1148443), and completed in part with resources provided by the University of Chicago Research Computing Center.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.G. and J.E. contributed equally to this work. Both authors designed and performed the experiments, analysed the data, discussed the results, and wrote the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Michael Glotter or Joshua Elliott.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figures 1–11. (PDF 2510 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Glotter, M., Elliott, J. Simulating US agriculture in a modern Dust Bowl drought. Nature Plants 3, 16193 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2016.193

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing