Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

  • Article
  • Published:

The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions

An Author Correction to this article was published on 27 September 2017

An Erratum to this article was published on 03 August 2017

This article has been updated


Increasing the accuracy of crop productivity estimates is a key element in planning adaptation strategies to ensure global food security under climate change. Process-based crop models are effective means to project climate impact on crop yield, but have large uncertainty in yield simulations. Here, we show that variations in the mathematical functions currently used to simulate temperature responses of physiological processes in 29 wheat models account for >50% of uncertainty in simulated grain yields for mean growing season temperatures from 14 °C to 33 °C. We derived a set of new temperature response functions that when substituted in four wheat models reduced the error in grain yield simulations across seven global sites with different temperature regimes by 19% to 50% (42% average). We anticipate the improved temperature responses to be a key step to improve modelling of crops under rising temperature and climate change, leading to higher skill of crop yield projections.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Temperature response functions in 29 wheat simulation models.
Figure 2: Comparison of multi-model simulations against observations and average growing season temperature.
Figure 3: Uncertainty in simulated wheat responses due to variations in the temperature response functions of phenological development and biomass growth (RUE).
Figure 4: Derived temperature responses of various physiological processes.
Figure 5: Comparison of Q10 for respiration derived from the temperature response function in Fig. 4c to the temperature dependence of the Q10 of foliar respiration rates17.

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 27 September 2017

    In the original version of this Article, the name of one co-author was omitted. This has now been corrected by the addition of Benjamin Dumont to the author list.


  1. Porter, J. R. & Semenov, M. A. Crop responses to climatic variation. Philos. T. Roy. Soc. B: Biological Sciences 360, 2021–2035 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu, B. et al. Similar estimates of temperature impacts on global wheat yield by three independent methods. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1130–1136 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Asseng, S. et al. Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 827–832 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenzweig, C. et al. The agricultural model intercomparison and improvement project (AgMIP): protocols and pilot studies. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 170, 166–182 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Rotter, R. P., Carter, T. R., Olesen, J. E. & Porter, J. R. Crop-climate models need an overhaul. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 175–177 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Li, T. et al. Uncertainties in predicting rice yield by current crop models under a wide range of climatic conditions. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 1328–1341 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bassu, S. et al. How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors? Glob. Change Biol. 20, 2301–2320 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Asseng, S. et al. Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 143–147 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wall, G. W., Kimball, B. A., White, J. W. & Ottman, M. J. Gas exchange and water relations of spring wheat under full-season infrared warming. Glob. Change Biol. 17, 2113–2133 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. White, J. W., Kimball, B. A., Wall, G. W., Ottman, M. J. & Hunt, L. A. Responses of time of anthesis and maturity to sowing dates and infrared warming in spring wheat. Field Crop. Res. 124, 213–222 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Reynolds, M., Balota, M., Delgado, M., Amani, I. & Fischer, R. Physiological and morphological traits associated with spring wheat yield under hot, irrigated conditions. Funct. Plant Biol. 21, 717–730 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Reynolds, M. P. et al. The International Heat Stress Genotype Experiment: results from 1990-1992 (CIMMYT, DF, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Parent, B. & Tardieu, F. Temperature responses of developmental processes have not been affected by breeding in different ecological areas for 17 crop species. New Phytol. 194, 760–774 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Parent, B., Turc, O., Gibon, Y., Stitt, M. & Tardieu, F. Modelling temperature-compensated physiological rates, based on the co-ordination of responses to temperature of developmental processes. J. Exp. Bot. 61, 2057–2069 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang, E. & Engel, T. Simulation of phenological development of wheat crops. Agric. Syst. 58, 1–24 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yin, X. & Struik, P. C. C3 and C4 photosynthesis models: an overview from the perspective of crop modelling. NJAS WAGEN J LIFE SC 57, 27–38 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Atkin, O. K. & Tjoelker, M. G. Thermal acclimation and the dynamic response of plant respiration to temperature. Trends Plant Sci. 8, 343–351 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. O'Sullivan, O. S. et al. High-resolution temperature responses of leaf respiration in snow gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora) reveal high-temperature limits to respiratory function. Plant Cell Environ. 36, 1268–1284 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Martre, P., Porter, J. R., Jamieson, P. D. & Triboï, E. Modeling grain nitrogen accumulation and protein composition to understand the sink/source regulations of nitrogen remobilization for wheat. Plant Physiol. 133, 1959–1967 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hunt, L. A., van der Poorten, G. & Pararajasingham, S. Postanthesis temperature effects on duration and rate of grain filling in some winter and spring wheats. Can. J. Plant Sci. 71, 609–617 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sofield, I., Evans, L., Cook, M. & Wardlaw, I. Factors influencing the rate and duration of grain filling in wheat. Funct. Plant Biol. 4, 785–797 (1977).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wang, E. & Engel, T. SPASS: a generic process-oriented crop model with versatile windows interfaces. Environ. Modell. Softw. 15, 179–188 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Triboï, E., Martre, P. & Triboï-Blondel, A.-M. Environmentally-induced changes in protein composition in developing grains of wheat are related to changes in total protein content. J. Exp. Bot. 54, 1731–1742 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nagai, T. & Makino, A. Differences between rice and wheat in temperature responses of photosynthesis and plant growth. Plant Cell Physiol. 50, 744–755 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Zhao, Z. et al. Accuracy of root modelling and its impact on simulated wheat yield and carbon cycling in soil. Field Crop. Res. 165, 99–110 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Fleisher, D. H. et al. A potato model intercomparison across varying climates and productivity levels. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 1258–1281 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ottman, M. J., Kimball, B. A., White, J. W. & Wall, G. W. Wheat growth response to increased temperature from varied planting dates and supplemental infrared heating. Agron. J. 104, 7–16 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Qualset, C. O., Vogt, H. E. & Borlaug, N. E. Registration of ‘Yecora Rojo’ wheat. Crop Sci. 25, 1130 (1985).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Reynolds, M. P. in Wheat in heat stressed environments: irrigated dry areas and rice-wheat farming systems (eds Saunders, D.A. & Hettel, G.P. ) 184–192 (DF, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wang, E. & Engel, T. Simulation of growth, water and nitrogen uptake of a wheat crop using the SPASS model. Environ. Modell. Softw. 17, 387–402 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Streck, N. A., Weiss, A., Xue, Q. & Stephen Baenziger, P. Improving predictions of developmental stages in winter wheat: a modified Wang and Engel model. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 115, 139–150 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Xue, Q., Weiss, A. & Baenziger, P. S. Predicting phenological development in winter wheat. Climate Res. 25, 243–252 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Streck, N. A., Lago, I., Gabriel, L. F. & Samboranha, F. K. Simulating maize phenology as a function of air temperature with a linear and a nonlinear model. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira 43, 449–455 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Streck, N. A., Bosco, L. C. & Lago, I. Simulating leaf appearance in rice . Agron. J. 100, 490–501 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Streck, N. A., Uhlmann, L. O., Zanon, A. J. & Bisognin, D. A. Impact of elevated temperature scenarios on potato leaf development. Eng. Agríc. 32, 689–697 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Haun, J. R. Visual quantification of wheat development. Agron. J. 65, 116–119 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. White, J. W., Kimball, B. A., Wall, G. W. & Ottman, M. J. Cardinal temperatures for wheat leaf appearance as assessed from varied sowing dates and infrared warming. Field Crop. Res. 137, 213–220 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Weir, A. H., Bragg, P. L., Porter, J. R. & Rayner, J. H. A winter wheat crop simulation model without water or nutrient limitations. J. Agr. Sci. 102, 371–382 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Wallach, D., Makowski, D., Jones, J. & Brun, F. Working with Dynamic Crop Models, 2nd Edition: Methods, Tools and Examples for Agriculture and Environment (Academic Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Nash, J. E. & Sutcliffe, J. V. River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles. J. Hydrol. 10, 282–290 (1970).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Martre, P. et al. The international heat stress genotype experiment for modeling wheat response to heat: field experiments and AgMIP-Wheat multi-model simulations. Harvard Dataverse (2017).

  42. Martre, P. et al. The hot serial cereal experiment for modeling wheat response to temperature: field experiments and AgMIP-Wheat multi-model simulations. Harvard Dataverse (2017).

Download references


The authors thank D. Lobell for useful comments on an earlier version of the paper. E.W. acknowledges support from the CSIRO project ‘Enhanced modelling of genotype by environment interactions’ and the project ‘Advancing crop yield while reducing the use of water and nitrogen’ jointly funded by CSIRO and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). Z.Z. received a scholarship from the China Scholarship Council through the CSIRO and the Chinese Ministry of Education PhD Research Program. P.M., A.M. and D.R. acknowledge support from the FACCE JPI MACSUR project (031A103B) through the metaprogram Adaptation of Agriculture and Forests to Climate Change (AAFCC) of the French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA). A.M. received the support of the EU in the framework of the Marie-Curie FP7 COFUND People Programme, through the award of an AgreenSkills fellowship under grant agreement No. PCOFUND-GA-2010-267196. S.A. and D.C. acknowledge support provided by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), the CGIAR Research Program on Wheat and the Wheat Initiative. C.S. was funded through USDA National Institute for Food and Agriculture award 32011-68002-30191. C.M. received financial support from the KULUNDA project (01LL0905 L) and the FACCE MACSUR project (031A103B) funded through the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). F.E. received support from the FACCE MACSUR project (031A103B) funded through the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (2812ERA115) and E.E.R. was funded through the German Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development (Project: PARI). M.J. and J.E.O. were funded through the FACCE MACSUR project by the Danish Strategic Research Council. K.C.K. and C.N. were funded by the FACCE MACSUR project through the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). F.T., T.P. and R.P.R. received financial support from the FACCE MACSUR project funded through the Finnish Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MMM); F.T. was also funded through the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 41071030). C.B. was funded through the Helmholtz project ‘REKLIM-Regional Climate Change: Causes and Effects’ Topic 9: ‘Climate Change and Air Quality’. M.P.R. and PD.A. received funding from the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food Security (CCAFS). G.O'L. was funded through the Australian Grains Research and Development Corporation and the Department of Economic Development, Jobs, Transport and Resources Victoria, Australia. R.C.I. was funded by Texas AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University. B.B. was funded by USDA-NIFA Grant No: 2015-68007-23133.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



E.W., P.M., S.A. and F.E. motivated the study; E.W. and P.M. designed and coordinated the study, and analysed the data; E.W., P.M., Z.Z., A.M., L.L. and B.B. conducted model improvement simulations; E.W., P.M., S.A., F.E., Z.Z., A.M., R.P.R.,.K.A., P.D.A., J.A., C.B., D.C., A.J.C., G.D.S., J.D., E.F., M.G.-V., S.G., G.H., L.A.H., R.C.I., M.J., C.D.J., K.C.K., A.-K.K., C.M., L.L., S.N.K., C.N., G.O'L., J.E.O., T.P., E.P., M.P.R., E.E.R., D.R., A.C.R., M.A.S., I.S., C.S., P.S., T.S., I.S., F.T., P.T., K.W., D.W., J.W. and Y.Z. carried out crop model simulations and discussed the results; B.A.K., M.J.O., G.W.W., J.W.W., M.P.R., P.D.A. and Z.W. provided experimental data; E.W. and P.M. analysed the results and wrote the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Enli Wang or Pierre Martre.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–4, Supplementary Figures 1–4, Supplementary References (PDF 2031 kb)

Supplementary Data 1

Extracted data describing the key temperature response functions in each of the 29 wheat models. (XLSX 12620 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wang, E., Martre, P., Zhao, Z. et al. The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions. Nature Plants 3, 17102 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


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