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.

Combined influence of soil moisture and atmospheric evaporative demand is important for accurately predicting US maize yields

Abstract

Understanding the response of agriculture to heat and moisture stress is essential to adapt food systems under climate change. Although evidence of crop yield loss with extreme temperature is abundant, disentangling the roles of temperature and moisture in determining yield has proved challenging, largely due to limited soil moisture data and the tight coupling between moisture and temperature at the land surface. Here, using well-resolved observations of soil moisture from the recently launched Soil Moisture Active Passive satellite, we quantify the contribution of imbalances between atmospheric evaporative demand and soil moisture to maize yield damage in the US Midwest. We show that retrospective yield predictions based on the interactions between atmospheric demand and soil moisture significantly outperform those using temperature and precipitation singly or together. The importance of accounting for this water balance is highlighted by the fact that climate simulations uniformly predict increases in atmospheric demand during the growing season but the trend in root-zone soil moisture varies between models, with some models indicating that yield damages associated with increased evaporative demand are moderated by increased water supply. A damage estimate conditioned only on simulated changes in atmospheric demand, as opposed to also accounting for changes in soil moisture, would erroneously indicate approximately twice the damage. This research demonstrates that more accurate predictions of maize yield can be achieved by using soil moisture data and indicates that accurate estimates of how climate change will influence crop yields require explicitly accounting for variations in water availability.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Yield sensitivity to VPD.
Fig. 2: Moisture supply and demand drive yield.
Fig. 3: Maize yield response to moisture supply and demand in present and future climates.

Data availability

SMAP science data are available at the NASA National Snow and Ice Data Center Distributed Active Archive Center (https://nsidc.org/data/smap). Meteorological data are available at the PRISM Climate Group at Oregon State University (http://prism.oregonstate.edu). Maize yield data are available at the US Department of Agriculture/National Agriculture Statistics service (https://www.nass.usda.gov). Observations from the US-Ne3 eddy covariance site are available at the AmeriFlux (soil moisture; http://ameriflux.lbl.gov) and FLUXNET2015 (VPD, GPP and solar radiation; http://fluxnet.fluxdata.org/) data repositories.

References

  1. 1.

    Butler, E. E. & Huybers, P. Variations in the sensitivity of US maize yield to extreme temperatures by region and growth phase. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 034009 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Handmer, J. et al. in Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (eds Field, C. B. et al.) 231–290 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

  3. 3.

    Lobell, D. B., Bänziger, M., Magorokosho, C. & Vivek, B. Nonlinear heat effects on African maize as evidenced by historical yield trials. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 42–45 (2011).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Lobell, D. B. et al. The critical role of extreme heat for maize production in the United States. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 497–501 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Porter, J. R. et al. in Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. (eds Field, C. B. et al.) 485–533 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).

  6. 6.

    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).

    ADS  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Zhao, C. et al. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9326–9331 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Butler, E. E. & Huybers, P. Adaptation of US maize to temperature variations. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 68–72 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Basso, B. & Ritchie, J. T. Temperature and drought effects on maize yield. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 233 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Fezzi, C. & Bateman, I. The impact of climate change on agriculture: nonlinear effects and aggregation bias in Ricardian models of farmland values. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 2, 57–92 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Anderson, C. J., Babcock, B. A., Peng, Y., Gassman, P. W. & Campbell, T. D. Placing bounds on extreme temperature response of maize. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 124001 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Carter, E. K., Melkonian, J., Riha, S. J. & Shaw, S. B. Separating heat stress from moisture stress: analyzing yield response to high temperature in irrigated maize. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 094012 (2016).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Carter, E. K., Melkonian, J., Steinschneider, S. & Riha, S. J. Rainfed maize yield response to management and climate covariability at large spatial scales. Agric. For. Meteorol. 256–257, 242–252 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

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

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Schauberger, B. et al. Consistent negative response of US crops to high temperatures in observations and crop models. Nat. Commun. 8, 1–9 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Shaw, S. B., Mehta, D. & Riha, S. J. Using simple data experiments to explore the influence of non-temperature controls on maize yields in the mid-West and Great Plains. Clim. Change 122, 747–755 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Troy, T. J., Kipgen, C. & Pal, I. The impact of climate extremes and irrigation on US crop yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 054013 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Urban, D. W., Sheffield, J. & Lobell, D. B. The impacts of future climate and carbon dioxide changes on the average and variability of US maize yields under two emission scenarios. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 045003 (2015).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    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).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Siebert, S., Ewert, F., Eyshi Rezaei, E., Kage, H. & Graß, R. Impact of heat stress on crop yield—on the importance of considering canopy temperature. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 044012 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Webber, H. et al. Simulating canopy temperature for modelling heat stress in cereals. Environ. Model. Softw. 77, 143–155 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Kaur, G., Zurweller, B. A., Nelson, K. A., Motavalli, P. P. & Dudenhoeffer, C. J. Soil waterlogging and nitrogen fertilizer management effects on corn and soybean yields. Agron. J. 109, 97–106 (2017).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Ortiz-Bobea, A., Wang, H., Carrillo, C. M. & Ault, T. R. Unpacking the climatic drivers of US agricultural yields. Environ. Res. Lett. 14, 064003–064013 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    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. Global Change Biol. 5, 143–113 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Entekhabi, D. et al. The Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) mission. Proc. IEEE 98, 704–716 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Hsiao, J., Swann, A. L. S. & Kim, S.-H. Maize yield under a changing climate: the hidden role of vapor pressure deficit. Agric. For. Meteorol. 279, 107692 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Seneviratne, S. I. et al. Investigating soil moisture–climate interactions in a changing climate: a review. Earth Sci. Rev. 99, 125–161 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Novick, K. A. et al. The increasing importance of atmospheric demand for ecosystem water and carbon fluxes. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 1023–1027 (2016).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Tao, F., Yokozawa, M. & Zhang, Z. Modelling the impacts of weather and climate variability on crop productivity over a large area: a new process-based model development, optimization, and uncertainties analysis. Agric. For. Meteorol. 149, 831–850 (2009).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Suyker, A. AmeriFlux US-Ne3 Mead – Rainfed Maize-Soybean Rotation Site from 2001–Present (AmeriFlux, 2016); http://ameriflux.lbl.gov/sites/siteinfo/US-Ne3

  31. 31.

    Kramer, P. J. & Boyer, J. S. Water Relations of Plants and Soils (Elsevier, 1995).

  32. 32.

    Bennett, J. M., Sinclair, T. R., Muchow, R. C. & Costello, S. R. Dependence of stomatal conductance on leaf water potential, turgor potential, and relative water content in field-grown soybean and maize. Crop Sci. 27, 984–990 (1987).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Cochard, H. Xylem embolism and drought-induced stomatal closure in maize. Planta 215, 466–471 (2002).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Farquhar, G. D. & Sharkey, T. D. Stomatal conductance and photosynthesis. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 33, 317–345 (1982).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Wenkert, W., Fausey, N. R. & Watters, H. D. Flooding responses in Zea mays L. Plant Soil 62, 351–366 (1981).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Yordanova, R. Y. & Popova, L. P. Flooding-induced changes in photosynthesis and oxidative status in maize plants. Acta Physiol. Plant. 29, 535–541 (2007).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Voesenek, L. A. C. J. & Bailey-Serres, J. Flood adaptive traits and processes: an overview. New Phytol. 206, 57–73 (2015).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service (US Department of Agriculture, 2019); https://www.nass.usda.gov

  39. 39.

    Cui, C. et al. Soil moisture mapping from satellites: an intercomparison of SMAP, SMOS, FY3B, AMSR2, and ESA CCI over two dense network regions at different spatial scales. Remote Sens. 10, 33–19 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Ma, H. et al. Satellite surface soil moisture from SMAP, SMOS, AMSR2 and ESA CCI: a comprehensive assessment using global ground-based observations. Remote Sens. Environ. 231, 111215 (2019).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Albergel, C. et al. From near-surface to root-zone soil moisture using an exponential filter: an assessment of the method based on in-situ observations and model simulations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 12, 1323–1337 (2008).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Ficklin, D. L. & Novick, K. A. Historic and projected changes in vapor pressure deficit suggest a continental-scale drying of the United States atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 122, 2061–2079 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Berg, A., Sheffield, J. & Milly, P. C. D. Divergent surface and total soil moisture projections under global warming. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 236–244 (2017).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Ukkola, A. M. et al. Evaluating CMIP5 model agreement for multiple drought metrics. J. Hydrometeorol. 19, 969–988 (2018).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Kell, D. B. Breeding crop plants with deep roots: their role in sustainable carbon, nutrient and water sequestration. Ann. Bot. 108, 407–418 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Messina, C. D. et al. Limited-transpiration trait may increase maize drought tolerance in the US corn belt. Agron. J. 107, 1978 (2015).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Daly, C. et al. Physiographically sensitive mapping of climatological temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. Int. J. Climatol. 28, 2031–2064 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Nicoullaud, B., King, D. & Tardieu, F. Vertical distribution of maize roots in relation to permanent soil characteristics. Plant Soil 159, 245–254 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Ford, T. W., Harris, E. & Quiring, S. M. Estimating root zone soil moisture using near-surface observations from SMOS. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 139–154 (2014).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Bell, J. E. et al. U.S. climate reference network soil moisture and temperature observations. J. Hydrometeorol. 14, 977–988 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Diamond, H. J. et al. U.S. climate reference network after one decade of operations: status and assessment. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 94, 485–498 (2013).

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Slaets, J. I. F., Piepho, H.-P., Schmitter, P., Hilger, T. & Cadisch, G. Quantifying uncertainty on sediment loads using bootstrap confidence intervals. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 21, 571–588 (2017).

    ADS  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Leakey, A. D. B. et al. Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE. J. Exp. Bot. 60, 2859–2876 (2009).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge the World Climate Research Programme’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling, which is responsible for CMIP, and we thank the climate modelling groups (listed in Supplementary Table 2) 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 led development of software infrastructure in partnership with the Global Organization for Earth System Science Portals. We also acknowledge the US Department of Energy’s Office of Science for funding the AmeriFlux data resources, as well as the FLUXNET community, whose data processing and harmonization was carried out by the European Fluxes Database Cluster, the AmeriFlux Management Project and the Fluxdata project of FLUXNET, with the support of the CDIAC and ICOS Ecosystem Thematic Center, and the OzFlux, ChinaFlux and AsiaFlux offices. N.P. acknowledges partial financial support from the Office of Naval Research. A.J.R. acknowledges financial support from the Rockefeller Foundation Planetary Health Fellows programme at Harvard University.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

A.J.R. and P.H. conceived and drafted the manuscript, A.J.R. performed the analysis, and all authors contributed to the writing and interpretation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. J. Rigden.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–13 and Tables 1–3.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rigden, A.J., Mueller, N.D., Holbrook, N.M. et al. Combined influence of soil moisture and atmospheric evaporative demand is important for accurately predicting US maize yields. Nat Food 1, 127–133 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-0028-7

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