Predicting the consequences of manipulating genotype (G) and agronomic management (M) on agricultural ecosystem performances under future environmental (E) conditions remains a challenge. Crop modelling has the potential to enable society to assess the efficacy of G × M technologies to mitigate and adapt crop production systems to climate change. Despite recent achievements, dedicated research to develop and improve modelling capabilities from gene to global scales is needed to provide guidance on designing G × M adaptation strategies with full consideration of their impacts on both crop productivity and ecosystem sustainability under varying climatic conditions. Opportunities to advance the multiscale crop modelling framework include representing crop genetic traits, interfacing crop models with large-scale models, improving the representation of physiological responses to climate change and management practices, closing data gaps and harnessing multisource data to improve model predictability and enable identification of emergent relationships. A fundamental challenge in multiscale prediction is the balance between process details required to assess the intervention and predictability of the system at the scales feasible to measure the impact. An advanced multiscale crop modelling framework will enable a gene-to-farm design of resilient and sustainable crop production systems under a changing climate at regional-to-global scales.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
A data-driven crop model for maize yield prediction
Communications Biology Open Access 21 April 2023
Silver lining to a climate crisis in multiple prospects for alleviating crop waterlogging under future climates
Nature Communications Open Access 10 February 2023
Identification of environment types and adaptation zones with self-organizing maps; applications to sunflower multi-environment data in Europe
Theoretical and Applied Genetics Open Access 07 May 2022
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Get just this article for as long as you need it
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Long, S. P., Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D., Nösberger, J. & Ort, D. R. Food for thought: lower-than-expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO2 concentrations. Science 312, 1918–1921 (2006).
Asseng, S. et al. Climate change impact and adaptation for wheat protein. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 155–173 (2019).
Cooper, M., Gho, C., Leafgren, R., Tang, T. & Messina, C. Breeding drought-tolerant maize hybrids for the US corn-belt: discovery to product. J. Exp. Bot. 65, 6191–6204 (2014).
Głowacka, K. et al. Photosystem II Subunit S overexpression increases the efficiency of water use in a field-grown crop. Nat. Commun. 9, 868 (2018).
Kromdijk, J. et al. Improving photosynthesis and crop productivity by accelerating recovery from photoprotection. Science 354, 857–861 (2016).
Hammer, G. L. et al. Crop design for specific adaptation in variable dryland production environments. Crop Pasture Sci. 65, 614–626 (2014).
Zhao, G. et al. The implication of irrigation in climate change impact assessment: a European‐wide study. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4031–4048 (2015).
Lobell, D. B. et al. Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs for food security in 2030. Science 319, 607–610 (2008).
Chapman, S. C., Hammer, G. L., Butler, D. G. & Cooper, M. Genotype by environment interactions affecting grain sorghum. III. Temporal sequences and spatial patterns in the target population of environments. Aust. J. Agr. Res. 51, 223–234 (2000).
Wang, E. et al. Improving process-based crop models to better capture genotype×environment×management interactions. J. Exp. Bot. 70, 2389–2401 (2019).
Chenu, K. et al. Contribution of crop models to adaptation in wheat. Trends Plant Sci. 22, 472–490 (2017).
Hammer, G., McLean, G., Doherty, A., van Oosterom, E. & Chapman, S. in Sorghum: State of the Art and Future Perspectives Agronomy Monographs Ch. 17 (American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of America, 2016).
Hunter, M. C., Smith, R. G., Schipanski, M. E., Atwood, L. W. & Mortensen, D. A. Agriculture in 2050: recalibrating targets for sustainable intensification. BioScience 67, 386–391 (2017).
Jones, J. W. et al. Toward a new generation of agricultural system data, models, and knowledge products: State of agricultural systems science. Agr. Syst. 155, 269–288 (2017).
Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Arnold, S., Simelton, E. & Fraser, E. Crops and climate change: progress, trends and challenges in simulating impacts and informing adaptation. J. Exp. Bot. 60, 2775–2789 (2009).
Hernandez-Ochoa, I. M. et al. Adapting irrigated and rainfed wheat to climate change in semi-arid environments: management, breeding options and land use change. Eur. J. Agron. 109, 125915 (2019).
Wu, A., Hammer, G. L., Doherty, A., von Caemmerer, S. & Farquhar, G. D. Quantifying impacts of enhancing photosynthesis on crop yield. Nat. Plants 5, 380–388 (2019).
Yin, X., van der Linden, C. G. & Struik, P. C. Bringing genetics and biochemistry to crop modelling, and vice versa. Eur. J. Agron. 100, 132–140 (2018).
Rötter, R. P., Tao, F., Höhn, J. G. & Palosuo, T. Use of crop simulation modelling to aid ideotype design of future cereal cultivars. J. Exp. Bot. 66, 3463–3476 (2015).
Messina, C. D. et al. On the dynamic determinants of reproductive failure under drought in maize. in silico. Plants 1, diz003 (2019).
Messina, C. D. et al. Leveraging biological insight and environmental variation to improve phenotypic prediction: integrating crop growth models (CGM) with whole genome prediction (WGP). Eur. J. Agron. 100, 151–162 (2018).
Cooper, M., Technow, F., Messina, C., Gho, C. & Totir, L. R. Use of crop growth models with whole-genome prediction: application to a maize multienvironment trial. Crop Sci. 56, 2141–2156 (2016).
Sinclair, T. R., Soltani, A., Marrou, H., Ghanem, M. & Vadez, V. Geospatial assessment for crop physiological and management improvements with examples using the simple simulation model. Crop Sci. 59, 1–9 (2019).
Chang, T.-G., Chang, S., Song, Q.-F., Perveen, S. & Zhu, X.-G. Systems models, phenomics and genomics: three pillars for developing high-yielding photosynthetically efficient crops. in silico Plants 1, diy003 (2019).
Hammer, G. et al. Models for navigating biological complexity in breeding improved crop plants. Trends Plant Sci. 11, 587–593 (2006).
Minorsky, P. V. Achieving the in silico plant. Systems biology and the future of plant biological research. Plant Physiol. 13, 404–409 (2003).
Hammer, G. L., Sinclair, T. R., Chapman, S. C. & van Oosterom, E. On systems thinking, systems biology, and the in silico plant. Plant Physiol. 134, 909–911 (2004).
Yin, X. & Struik, P. C. Modelling the crop: from system dynamics to systems biology. J. Exp. Bot. 61, 2171–2183 (2010).
Hammer, G. L. et al. Adapting APSIM to model the physiology and genetics of complex adaptive traits in field crops. J. Exp. Bot. 61, 2185–2202 (2010).
de Wit, C. T. & Penning de Vries, F. W. T. Crop growth models without hormones. Neth. J. Agr. Sci. 31, 313–323 (1983).
Parent, B. & Tardieu, F. Can current crop models be used in the phenotyping era for predicting the genetic variability of yield of plants subjected to drought or high temperature? J. Exp. Bot. 65, 6179–6189 (2014).
Messina, C. D., Jones, J. W., Boote, K. J. & Vallejos, C. E. A gene-based model to simulate soybean development and yield responses to environment Florida agricultural experiment station, journal series no. R-11017. Crop Sci. 46, 456–466 (2006).
Chenu, K. et al. Simulating the yield impacts of organ-level quantitative trait loci associated with drought response in maize: a ‘gene-to-phenotype’ modeling approach. Genetics 183, 1507 (2009).
Reymond, M., Muller, B., Leonardi, A., Charcosset, A. & Tardieu, F. Combining quantitative trait loci analysis and an ecophysiological model to analyze the genetic variability of the responses of maize leaf growth to temperature and water deficit. Plant Physiol. 131, 664 (2003).
Gu, J., Yin, X., Zhang, C., Wang, H. & Struik, P. C. Linking ecophysiological modelling with quantitative genetics to support marker-assisted crop design for improved yields of rice (Oryza sativa) under drought stress. Annal. Bot. 114, 499–511 (2014).
Kadam, N. N., Krishna Jagadish, S., Struik, P. C., der Linden, C. & Yin, X. Incorporating genome-wide association into eco-physiological simulation to identify markers for improving rice yields. J. Exp. Bot. 70, 2575–2586 (2019).
Bhakta, M. S. et al. A predictive model for time-to-flowering in the common bean based on QTL and environmental variables. G3-Genes Genom. Genet. 7, 3901–3912 (2017).
Marshall-Colon, A. et al. Crops in silico: generating virtual crops using an integrative and multi-scale modeling platform. Front. Plant Sci. 8, 786 (2017).
Zhu, X.-G. et al. Plants in silico: why, why now and what?—an integrative platform for plant systems biology research. Plant Cell Environ. 39, 1049–1057 (2016).
Zhu, X.-G., Wang, Y. U., Ort, D. R. & Long, S. P. e-photosynthesis: a comprehensive dynamic mechanistic model of C3 photosynthesis: from light capture to sucrose synthesis. Plant Cell Environ. 36, 1711–1727 (2013).
Kannan, K. et al. Combining gene network, metabolic and leaf-level models shows means to future-proof soybean photosynthesis under rising CO2. in silico. Plants 1, diz008 (2019).
Chew, Y. H. et al. Multiscale digital Arabidopsis predicts individual organ and whole-organism growth. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E4127–E4136 (2014).
Xiao, Y. et al. ePlant for quantitative and predictive plant science research in the big data era—Lay the foundation for the future model guided crop breeding, engineering and agronomy. Quant. Biol. 5, 260–271 (2017).
Earles, J. M. et al. Embracing 3D complexity in leaf carbon–water exchange. Trends Plant Sci. 24, 15–24 (2018).
Hansen, J. W. & Jones, J. W. Scaling-up crop models for climate variability applications. Agr. Syst. 65, 43–72 (2000).
Lawrence, D. M. et al. The Community Land Model version 5: description of new features, benchmarking, and impact of forcing uncertainty. J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy. 11, 4245–4287 (2019).
Peng, B. et al. Improving maize growth processes in the community land model: implementation and evaluation. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 250–251, 64–89 (2018).
Scanlon, B. R. et al. The food–energy–water nexus: transforming science for society. Water Resour. Res. 53, 3550–3556 (2017).
Levis, S. et al. Interactive crop management in the Community Earth System Model (CESM1): seasonal influences on land–atmosphere fluxes. J. Climate 25, 4839–4859 (2012).
Osborne, T. et al. JULES-crop: a parametrisation of crops in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 1139–1155 (2015).
Wu, X. et al. ORCHIDEE-CROP (v0), a new process-based agro-land surface model: model description and evaluation over Europe. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 857–873 (2016).
Drewniak, B., Song, J., Prell, J., Kotamarthi, V. R. & Jacob, R. Modeling agriculture in the Community Land Model. Geosci. Model Dev. 6, 495–515 (2013).
Dunbabin, V. M. et al. Modelling root–soil interactions using three–dimensional models of root growth, architecture and function. Plant Soil 372, 93–124 (2013).
Wang, Y. et al. Development of a three-dimensional ray-tracing model of sugarcane canopy photosynthesis and its application in assessing impacts of varied row spacing. BioEnerg. Res. 10, 626–634 (2017).
Vos, J. et al. Functional–structural plant modelling: a new versatile tool in crop science. J. Exp. Bot. 61, 2101–2115 (2009).
Bonan, G. B. et al. Modeling canopy-induced turbulence in the Earth system: a unified parameterization of turbulent exchange within plant canopies and the roughness sublayer (CLM-ml v0). Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 1467–1496 (2018).
Ewert, F. et al. Scale changes and model linking methods for integrated assessment of agri-environmental systems. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 142, 6–17 (2011).
Müller, C. et al. Global gridded crop model evaluation: benchmarking, skills, deficiencies and implications. Geosci. Model Dev. 10, 1403–1422 (2017).
Elliott, J. et al. The Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison: data and modeling protocols for Phase 1 (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 261–277 (2015).
Rosenzweig, C. et al. The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): protocols and pilot studies. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 170, 166–182 (2013).
Hoffmann, H. et al. Impact of spatial soil and climate input data aggregation on regional yield simulations. PLoS ONE 11, e0151782 (2016).
Chaney, N. W. et al. Harnessing big data to rethink land heterogeneity in Earth system models. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 3311–3330 (2018).
Webber, H. et al. Climate change impacts on European crop yields: do we need to consider nitrogen limitation? Eur. J. Agron. 71, 123–134 (2015).
Zimmermann, A. et al. Climate change impacts on crop yields, land use and environment in response to crop sowing dates and thermal time requirements. Agr. Syst. 157, 81–92 (2017).
Boote, K. J., Jones, J. W., White, J. W., Asseng, S. & Lizaso, J. I. Putting mechanisms into crop production models. Plant Cell Environ. 36, 1658–1672 (2013).
Asseng, S. et al. Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 827–832 (2013).
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).
Fleisher, D. H. et al. A potato model intercomparison across varying climates and productivity levels. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 1258–1281 (2017).
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).
Rosenzweig, C. et al. Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3268–3273 (2014).
Martre, P. et al. Multimodel ensembles of wheat growth: many models are better than one. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 911–925 (2015).
Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D. B., Ort, D. R. & Long, S. P. FACE-ing the facts: inconsistencies and interdependence among field, chamber and modeling studies of elevated [CO2] impacts on crop yield and food supply. New Phytol. 179, 5–9 (2008).
Tao, F. et al. Why do crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections? A comprehensive analysis based on eight barley crop models. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 281, 107851 (2020).
Wang, E. et al. The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions. Nat. Plants 3, 17102 (2017).
Wallach, D. et al. Multimodel ensembles improve predictions of crop–environment–management interactions. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 5072–5083 (2018).
Rötter, R. P., Carter, T. R., Olesen, J. E. & Porter, J. R. Crop-climate models need an overhaul. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 175–177 (2011).
Manderscheid, R., Erbs, M. & Weigel, H.-J. Interactive effects of free-air CO2 enrichment and drought stress on maize growth. Eur. J. Agr. 52, 11–21 (2014).
Ainsworth, E. A. & Long, S. P. What have we learned from 15 years of free‐air CO2 enrichment (FACE)? A meta‐analytic review of the responses of photosynthesis, canopy properties and plant production to rising CO2. New Phytol. 165, 351–372 (2005).
Kimball, B. A. Lessons from FACE: CO2 effects and interactions with water, nitrogen, and temperature. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 31, 36–43 (2010).
Kimball, B. A. Crop responses to elevated CO2 and interactions with H2O, N, and temperature. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 31, 36–43 (2016).
Bernacchi, C. J., Kimball, B. A., Quarles, D. R., Long, S. P. & Ort, D. R. Decreases in stomatal conductance of soybean under open-air elevation of [CO2] are closely coupled with decreases in ecosystem evapotranspiration. Plant Physiol. 143, 134–144 (2007).
Gray, S. B. et al. Intensifying drought eliminates the expected benefits of elevated carbon dioxide for soybean. Nat. Plants 2, 16132 (2016).
Jin, Z., Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A. D. B. & Lobell, D. B. Increasing drought and diminishing benefits of elevated carbon dioxide for soybean yields across the US Midwest. Glob. Change Biol. 24, e522–e533 (2018).
Sanz-Sáez, Á. et al. Leaf and canopy scale drivers of genotypic variation in soybean response to elevated carbon dioxide concentration. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 3908–3920 (2017).
Bishop, K. A., Betzelberger, A. M., Long, S. P. & Ainsworth, E. A. Is there potential to adapt soybean (Glycine max Merr.) to future [CO2]? An analysis of the yield response of 18 genotypes in free-air CO2 enrichment. Plant Cell Environ. 38, 1765–1774 (2015).
Ainsworth, E. A. & Rogers, A. The response of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance to rising [CO2]: mechanisms and environmental interactions. Plant Cell Environ. 30, 258–270 (2007).
Cai, C. et al. Responses of wheat and rice to factorial combinations of ambient and elevated CO2 and temperature in FACE experiments. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 856–874 (2016).
Ruiz-Vera, U. M., Siebers, M. H., Drag, D. W., Ort, D. R. & Bernacchi, C. J. Canopy warming caused photosynthetic acclimation and reduced seed yield in maize grown at ambient and elevated [CO2]. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4237–4249 (2015).
Sinclair, T. R. & Muchow, R. C. in Advances in Agronomy Vol. 65 (Ed. Sparks, D. L.) 215–265 (Academic Press, 1999).
Yin, X. & Struik, P. C. Can increased leaf photosynthesis be converted into higher crop mass production? A simulation study for rice using the crop model GECROS. J. Exp. Bot. 68, 2345–2360 (2017).
Vanuytrecht, E. & Thorburn, P. J. Responses to atmospheric CO2 concentrations in crop simulation models: a review of current simple and semicomplex representations and options for model development. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 1806–1820 (2017).
Huntingford, C. et al. Implications of improved representations of plant respiration in a changing climate. Nat. Commun. 8, 1602 (2017).
Yin, X. Improving ecophysiological simulation models to predict the impact of elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop productivity. Annal. Bot. 112, 465–475 (2013).
Asseng, S., Kassie, B. T., Labra, M. H., Amador, C. & Calderini, D. F. Simulating the impact of source-sink manipulations in wheat. Field Crop. Res. 202, 47–56 (2017).
Emberson, L. D. et al. Ozone effects on crops and consideration in crop models. Eur. J. Agr. 100, 19–34 (2018).
Ewert, F. & Porter, J. R. Ozone effects on wheat in relation to CO2: modelling short-term and long-term responses of leaf photosynthesis and leaf duration. Glob. Change Biol. 6, 735–750 (2000).
Guarin, J. R., Kassie, B., Mashaheet, A. M., Burkey, K. & Asseng, S. Modeling the effects of tropospheric ozone on wheat growth and yield. Eur. J. Agr. 105, 13–23 (2019).
van Oijen, M., Dreccer, M. F., Firsching, K. H. & Schnieders, B. J. Simple equations for dynamic models of the effects of CO2 and O3 on light-use efficiency and growth of crops. Ecol. Model. 179, 39–60 (2004).
Ainsworth, E. A., Yendrek, C. R., Sitch, S., Collins, W. J. & Emberson, L. D. The effects of tropospheric ozone on net primary productivity and implications for climate change. Annual Rev. Plant Biol. 63, 637–661 (2012).
Tao, F., Feng, Z., Tang, H., Chen, Y. & Kobayashi, K. Effects of climate change, CO2 and O3 on wheat productivity in Eastern China, singly and in combination. Atmos. Environ. 153, 182–193 (2017).
Field, C. B., Barros, V., Stocker, T. F. & Dahe, Q. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).
Lesk, C., Rowhani, P. & Ramankutty, N. Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature 529, 84–87 (2016).
Barnabás, B., Jäger, K. & Fehér, A. The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant Cell Environ. 31, 11–38 (2008).
Eyshi Rezaei, E., Webber, H., Gaiser, T., Naab, J. & Ewert, F. Heat stress in cereals: mechanisms and modelling. Eur. J. Agr. 64, 98–113 (2015).
Prasad, P. V. V., Bheemanahalli, R. & Jagadish, S. V. K. Field crops and the fear of heat stress—Opportunities, challenges and future directions. Field Crop. Res. 200, 114–121 (2017).
Shi, W. et al. High day- and night-time temperatures affect grain growth dynamics in contrasting rice genotypes. J. Exp. Bot. 68, 5233–5245 (2017).
Peng, S. et al. Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 9971–9975 (2004).
Saini, H. S. & Westgate, M. E. in Advances in Agronomy Vol. 68 (Ed. Sparks, D. L.) 59–96 (Academic Press, 1999).
Mazdiyasni, O. & AghaKouchak, A. Substantial increase in concurrent droughts and heatwaves in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 11484–11489 (2015).
Lobell, D. B. et al. The shifting influence of drought and heat stress for crops in northeast Australia. Glob. Change Biol. 21, 4115–4127 (2015).
Liu, B. et al. Testing the responses of four wheat crop models to heat stress at anthesis and grain filling. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 1890–1903 (2016).
Barlow, K. M., Christy, B. P., O’Leary, G. J., Riffkin, P. A. & Nuttall, J. G. Simulating the impact of extreme heat and frost events on wheat crop production: a review. Field Crop. Res. 171, 109–119 (2015).
Siebert, S., Webber, H., Zhao, G. & Ewert, F. Heat stress is overestimated in climate impact studies for irrigated agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 054023 (2017).
Webber, H. et al. Diverging importance of drought stress for maize and winter wheat in Europe. Nat. Commun. 9, 4249 (2018).
Siebert, S., Ewert, F., Rezaei, E. E., Kage, H. & Graβ, R. Impact of heat stress on crop yield—on the importance of considering canopy temperature. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 044012 (2014).
Webber, H. et al. Physical robustness of canopy temperature models for crop heat stress simulation across environments and production conditions. Field Crop. Res. 216, 75–88 (2018).
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).
Ebrahimi-Mollabashi, E. et al. Enhancing APSIM to simulate excessive moisture effects on root growth. Field Crop. Res. 236, 58–67 (2019).
Li, Y., Guan, K., Schnitkey, G. D., DeLucia, E. & Peng, B. Excessive rainfall leads to maize yield loss of a comparable magnitude to extreme drought in the United States. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 2325–2337 (2019).
Constantin, J. et al. Management and spatial resolution effects on yield and water balance at regional scale in crop models. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 275, 184–195 (2019).
Brilli, L. et al. Review and analysis of strengths and weaknesses of agro-ecosystem models for simulating C and N fluxes. Sci. Total Environ. 598, 445–470 (2017).
Luo, Y. et al. Toward more realistic projections of soil carbon dynamics by Earth system models. Global Biogeochem. Cy. 30, 40–56 (2015).
Koven, C. D. et al. The effect of vertically resolved soil biogeochemistry and alternate soil C and N models on C dynamics of CLM4. Biogeosciences 10, 7109–7131 (2013).
Tang, J. Y., Riley, W. J., Koven, C. D. & Subin, Z. M. CLM4-BeTR, a generic biogeochemical transport and reaction module for CLM4: model development, evaluation, and application. Geosci. Model Dev. 6, 127–140 (2013).
Niu, S. et al. Global patterns and substrate-based mechanisms of the terrestrial nitrogen cycle. Ecol. Lett. 19, 697–709 (2016).
Rötter, R. P. et al. Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: a comparison of nine crop models. Field Crop. Res. 133, 23–36 (2012).
Palosuo, T. et al. Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of Europe: a comparison of eight crop growth models. Eur. J. Agr. 35, 103–114 (2011).
Ehrhardt, F. et al. Assessing uncertainties in crop and pasture ensemble model simulations of productivity and N2O emissions. Glob. Change Biol. 24, e603–e616 (2018).
Basso, B. et al. Soil organic carbon and nitrogen feedbacks on crop yields under climate change. Agricultural & Environmental Letters 3, 180026 (2018).
Basso, B., Hyndman, D. W., Kendall, A. D., Grace, P. R. & Robertson, G. P. Can impacts of climate change and agricultural adaptation strategies be accurately quantified if crop models are annually re-initialized? PLoS ONE 10, e0127333 (2015).
Kollas, C. et al. Crop rotation modelling—a European model intercomparison. Eur. J. Agr. 70, 98–111 (2015).
McDermid, S., Mearns, L. & Ruane, A. Representing agriculture in Earth system models: approaches and priorities for development. J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy. 9, 2230–2265 (2017).
Deutsch, C. A. et al. Increase in crop losses to insect pests in a warming climate. Science 361, 916–919 (2018).
Savary, S. et al. Crop health and its global impacts on the components of food security. Food Secur. 9, 311–327 (2017).
Porter, J. H., Parry, M. L. & Carter, T. R. The potential effects of climatic change on agricultural insect pests. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 57, 221–240 (1991).
Donatelli, M. et al. Modelling the impacts of pests and diseases on agricultural systems. Agr. Syst. 155, 213–224 (2017).
Lammoglia, S.-K. et al. Modelling pesticides leaching in cropping systems: effect of uncertainties in climate, agricultural practices, soil and pesticide properties. Environ. Modell. Softw. 109, 342–352 (2018).
Wang, R. et al. A review of pesticide fate and transport simulation at watershed level using SWAT: current status and research concerns. Sci. Total Environ. 669, 512–526 (2019).
Ruane, A. C. et al. An AgMIP framework for improved agricultural representation in IAMs. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 125003 (2017).
Rötter, R. P. et al. Linking modelling and experimentation to better capture crop impacts of agroclimatic extremes—a review. Field Crop. Res. 221, 142–156 (2018).
Schlenker, W. & Roberts, M. J. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U. S. crop yields under climate change. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15594–15598 (2009).
Grunwald, S., Thompson, J. & Boettinger, J. Digital soil mapping and modeling at continental scales: finding solutions for global issues. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 75, 1201–1213 (2011).
Hengl, T. et al. SoilGrids1km—global soil information based on automated mapping. PLoS ONE 9, e105992 (2014).
Chaney, N. W. et al. POLARIS soil properties: 30-meter probabilistic maps of soil properties over the contiguous United States. Water Resour. Res. 55, 2916–2938 (2019).
Han, E., Ines, A. V. M. & Koo, J. Development of a 10-km resolution global soil profile dataset for crop modeling applications. Environ. Modell. Softw. 119, 70–83 (2019).
Coucheney, E. et al. Key functional soil types explain data aggregation effects on simulated yield, soil carbon, drainage and nitrogen leaching at a regional scale. Geoderma 318, 167–181 (2018).
Pongratz, J. et al. Models meet data: challenges and opportunities in implementing land management in Earth system models. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 1470–1487 (2018).
Gbegbelegbe, S. et al. Baseline simulation for global wheat production with CIMMYT mega-environment specific cultivars. Field Crop. Res. 202, 122–135 (2017).
Woodard, J. D. et al. The power of agricultural data. Science 362, 410–411 (2018).
Minet, J. et al. Crowdsourcing for agricultural applications: a review of uses and opportunities for a farmsourcing approach. Comput. Electron. Agr. 142, 126–138 (2017).
van Bussel, L. G. J., Ewert, F. & Leffelaar, P. A. Effects of data aggregation on simulations of crop phenology. Agr. Ecosyst. Environ. 142, 75–84 (2011).
Boryan, C., Yang, Z., Mueller, R. & Craig, M. Monitoring US agriculture: the US department of agriculture, national agricultural statistics service, cropland data layer program. Geocarto Int. 26, 341–358 (2011).
Xie, Y., Lark, T. J., Brown, J. F. & Gibbs, H. K. Mapping irrigated cropland extent across the conterminous United States at 30 m resolution using a semi-automatic training approach on Google Earth Engine. ISPRS J. Photogramm. 155, 136–149 (2019).
Azzari, G. et al. Satellite mapping of tillage practices in the North Central US region from 2005 to 2016. Remote Sens. Environ. 221, 417–429 (2019).
Seifert, C. A., Azzari, G. & Lobell, D. B. Satellite detection of cover crops and their effects on crop yield in the Midwestern United States. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 064033 (2018).
Urban, D., Guan, K. & Jain, M. Estimating sowing dates from satellite data over the U. S. Midwest: a comparison of multiple sensors and metrics. Remote Sens. Environ. 211, 400–412 (2018).
Lobell, D. B., Sibley, A. & Ortiz-Monasterio, J. I. Extreme heat effects on wheat senescence in India. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 186–189 (2012).
Sakamoto, T. et al. A two-step filtering approach for detecting maize and soybean phenology with time-series MODIS data. Remote Sens. Environ. 114, 2146–2159 (2010).
Baldocchi, D. et al. FLUXNET: A new tool to study the temporal and spatial variability of ecosystem–scale aarbon dioxide, water vapor, and energy flux densities. B. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 82, 2415–2434 (2001).
Kimball, B. A. et al. Simulation of maize evapotranspiration: an inter-comparison among 29 maize models. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 271, 264–284 (2019).
Boote, K. J., Prasad, V., Allen, L. H. Jr, Singh, P. & Jones, J. W. Modeling sensitivity of grain yield to elevated temperature in the DSSAT crop models for peanut, soybean, dry bean, chickpea, sorghum, and millet. Eur. J. Agr. 100, 99–109 (2017).
Lobell, D. B. et al. Greater sensitivity to drought accompanies maize yield increase in the U. S. Midwest. Science 344, 516–519 (2014).
Lobell, D. B. & Asseng, S. Comparing estimates of climate change impacts from process-based and statistical crop models. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 015001 (2017).
Roberts, M. J., Braun, N. O., Sinclair, T. R., Lobell, D. B. & Schlenker, W. Comparing and combining process-based crop models and statistical models with some implications for climate change. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 095010 (2017).
Guan, K. et al. The shared and unique values of optical, fluorescence, thermal and microwave satellite data for estimating large-scale crop yields. Remote Sens. Environ. 199, 333–349 (2017).
Luo, Y., Guan, K. & Peng, J. STAIR: a generic and fully-automated method to fuse multiple sources of optical satellite data to generate a high-resolution, daily and cloud-/gap-free surface reflectance product. Remote Sens. Environ. 214, 87–99 (2018).
Viña, A., Gitelson, A. A., Nguy-Robertson, A. L. & Peng, Y. Comparison of different vegetation indices for the remote assessment of green leaf area index of crops. Remote Sens. Environ. 115, 3468–3478 (2011).
Anderson, M. et al. Mapping daily evapotranspiration at field to continental scales using geostationary and polar orbiting satellite imagery. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sc. 15, 223–239 (2011).
Cai, Y. et al. Integrating satellite and climate data to predict wheat yield in Australia using machine learning approaches. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 274, 144–159 (2019).
Huang, J. et al. Assimilation of remote sensing into crop growth models: current status and perspectives. Agr. Forest Meteorol. 276–277, 107609 (2019).
Asseng, S. et al. Model-driven multidisciplinary global research to meet future needs: the case for “improving radiation use efficiency to increase yield”. Crop Sci. 59, 843–849 (2019).
Vermeulen, S. et al. Climate change, agriculture and food security: a global partnership to link research and action for low-income agricultural producers and consumers. Curr. Opin. Env. Sust. 4, 128–133 (2012).
B.P., K.G., H.K. and W.Z. are supported by the United States National Science Foundation (NSF) Career Award (grant no. 1847334), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Carbon Monitoring System managed by NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program (grant no. 80NSSC18K0170), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) Program (grant no. 2017-67013-26253) to K.G. B.P., K.G., S.A. and D.I.G acknowledge support by USDA NIFA (grant no. 2017-68002-26789). B.P., K.G., W.Z., A.M.C. and J.C.S. acknowledge support by the Foundation for Food and Agriculture Research (FFAR) (grant no. 602757). B.P., K.G., D.M.L. and D.L.L acknowledge support by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which is a major facility sponsored by the NSF under cooperative agreement no. 1852977. The content of this publication is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the FFAR. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USDA. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this publication is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the USDA. Due to space constrictions, we could not cite all relevant literature. We apologize to the authors whose important work was not cited in this Perspective.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peng, B., Guan, K., Tang, J. et al. Towards a multiscale crop modelling framework for climate change adaptation assessment. Nat. Plants 6, 338–348 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-020-0625-3
This article is cited by
A data-driven crop model for maize yield prediction
Communications Biology (2023)
The Effects of Weather Data Sources on Simulated Winter Wheat Yield at Regional Scales
International Journal of Plant Production (2023)
Silver lining to a climate crisis in multiple prospects for alleviating crop waterlogging under future climates
Nature Communications (2023)
Food security in climate mitigation scenarios
Nature Food (2022)
Designing high-yielding wheat crops under late sowing: a case study in southern China
Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2022)