The global production of processing tomatoes is concentrated in a small number of regions where climate change could have a notable impact on the future supply. Process-based tomato models project that the production in the main producing countries (the United States, Italy and China, representing 65% of global production) will decrease 6% by 2050 compared with the baseline period of 1980–2009. The predicted reduction in processing tomato production is due to a projected increase in air temperature. Under an ensemble of projected climate scenarios, California and Italy might not be able to sustain current levels of processing tomato production due to water resource constraints. Cooler producing regions, such as China and the northern parts of California, stand to improve their competitive advantage. The projected environmental changes indicate that the main growing regions of processing tomatoes might change in the coming decades.
This is a preview of subscription content
Subscribe to Nature+
Get immediate online access to the entire Nature family of 50+ journals
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $9.92 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The codes for generating the figures and the simulated outputs used to build the figures are available as: ‘Replication data for: Processing tomato production is expected to decrease due to the projected increase in temperature’, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/SNDP5W, Harvard Dataverse. Source data are provided with this paper.
Tomato News (World Processing Tomato Council, 2021); http://www.tomatonews.com/en/wptc_3_411002.html
Cammarano, D., Ronga, D., Di Mola, I., Mori, M. & Parisi, M. Impact of climate change on water and nitrogen use efficiencies of processing tomato cultivated in Italy. Agric. Water Manage. 241, 106336 (2020).
Asseng, S. et al. Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 827–832 (2013).
Bassu, S. et al. Modelling potential maize yield with climate and crop conditions around flowering. Field Crops Res. 271, 108226 (2021).
Jägermeyr, J. et al. Climate impacts on global agriculture emerge earlier in new generation of climate and crop models. Nat. Food 2, 873–885 (2021).
Raymundo, R. et al. Climate change impact on global potato production. Eur. J. Agron. 100, 87–98 (2018).
Ruane, A. C. et al. An AgMIP framework for improved agricultural representation in integrated assessment models. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8da6 (2017).
Meenakshi, J. V. Trends and patterns in the triple burden of malnutrition in India. Agric. Econ. 47, 115–134 (2016).
Choudhury, S. et al. What underlies inadequate and unequal fruit and vegetable consumption in India? An exploratory analysis. Glob Food Sec. 24, 100332 (2020).
Giuliani, M. M. et al. Identifying the most promising agronomic adaptation strategies for the tomato growing systems in southern Italy via simulation modeling. Eur. J. Agron. 111, 125937 (2019).
Gustafson, D. et al. Supply chains for processed potato and tomato products in the United States will have enhanced resilience with planting adaptation strategies. Nat. Food 2, 862–872 (2021).
White, J. W., Hoogenboom, G., Kimball, B. A. & Wall, G. W. Methodologies for simulating impacts of climate change on crop production. Field Crops Res. 124, 357–368 (2011).
Ventrella, D., Charfeddine, M., Moriondo, M., Rinaldi, M. & Bindi, M. Agronomic adaptation strategies under climate change for winter durum wheat and tomato in southern Italy: irrigation and nitrogen fertilization. Reg. Environ. Change 12, 407–419 (2012).
Rinaldi, M., Ventrella, D. & Gagliano, C. Comparison of nitrogen and irrigation strategies in tomato using CROPGRO model. A case study from southern Italy. Agric. Water Manage. 87, 91–105 (2007).
Rosenzweig, C. et al. The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): protocols and pilot studies. Agric. For. Meteorol. 170, 166–182 (2013).
ISIMIP. The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (accessed 31 March 2022); https://www.isimip.org/
Boote, K. J., Rybak, M. R., Scholberg, J. M. S. & Jones, J. W. Improving the CROPGRO-Tomato model for predicting growth and yield response to temperature. HortScience https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.47.8.1038 (2012).
Hoogenboom, G. et al. in Advances in Crop Modeling for a Sustainable Agriculture (ed. Boote, K. J.) 173–216 (Burleigh Dodds, 2019).
Koo, J. Modelling the Impacts of Climate Variability on Tomato Disease Management and Production. MSc thesis, University of Florida (2002).
Marklein, A., Elias, E., Nico, P. & Steenwerth, K. Projected temperature increases may require shifts in the growing season of cool-season crops and the growing locations of warm-season crops. Sci. Total Environ. 746, 140918 (2020).
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).
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 Crops Res. 133, 23–36 (2012).
Challinor, A., Martre, P., Asseng, S., Thornton, P. & Ewert, F. Making the most of climate impacts ensembles. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 77–80 (2014).
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).
Xie, W. et al. Decreases in global beer supply due to extreme drought and heat. Nat. Plants 4, 964–973 (2018).
Ruane, A. C. et al. Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability. Environ. Model. Softw. 81, 86–101 (2016).
White, J. W. et al. Integrated description of agricultural field experiments and production: the ICASA version 2.0 data standards. Comput. Electron. Agric. 96, 1–12 (2013).
Hoogenboom, G., Jones, J. W., Traore, P. C. S. & Boote, K. J. in Improving Soil Fertility Recommendations in Africa Using the Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT) (eds Kihara, J. et al.) 9–18 (Springer, 2012).
Savary, S. et al. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 430–439 (2019).
Emberson, L. D. et al. Ozone effects on crops and consideration in crop models. Eur. J. Agron. 100, 19–34 (2018).
Elsayed, M. et al. Assessment of transplanting date influence on processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) production using the Cropping System Model (CSM)-CROPGRO-Tomato simulation model: a case study for northeastern Italy. Egypt. J. Soil Sci. 57, 13 (2017).
Zhao, D., Wang, Z., Zhang, J., Li, W. & Zhou, B. Improving yield and quality of processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Miller) using alternate partial root-zone drip irrigation in arid northwest China. Water 11, 1503 (2019).
Ronga, D. et al. Changes in yield components, morphological, physiological and fruit quality traits in processing tomato cultivated in Italy since the 1930’s. Sci. Hort. 257, 108726 (2019).
Lu, J., Shao, G., Cui, J., Wang, X. & Keabetswe, L. Yield, fruit quality and water use efficiency of tomato for processing under regulated deficit irrigation: a meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manage. 222, 301–312 (2019).
Zhang, H., Xiong, Y., Huang, G., Xu, X. & Huang, Q. Effects of water stress on processing tomatoes yield, quality and water use efficiency with plastic mulched drip irrigation in sandy soil of the Hetao Irrigation District. Agric. Water Manage. 179, 205–214 (2017).
Barrios-Masias, F. H. & Jackson, L. E. California processing tomatoes: morphological, physiological and phenological traits associated with crop improvement during the last 80 years. Eur. J. Agron. 53, 45–55 (2014).
Hanson, B. R. & May, D. M. Crop evapotranspiration of processing tomato in the San Joaquin Valley of California, USA. Irrig. Sci. 24, 211 (2005).
You, L., Wood, S., Wood-Sichra, U. & Wu, W. Generating global crop distribution maps: from census to grid. Agric. Syst. 127, 53–60 (2014).
Han, E., Ines, A. V. M. & Koo, J. Global High-Resolution Soil Profile Database for Crop Modeling Applications (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2015).
Han, E., Ines, A. V. M. & Koo, J. Harvard Dataverse, v.1 (2015); https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/1PEEY0
Du, Y.-D., Niu, W.-Q., Gu, X.-B., Zhang, Q. & Cui, B.-J. Water- and nitrogen-saving potentials in tomato production: a meta-analysis. Agric. Water Manage. 210, 296–303 (2018).
Farneselli, M. et al. High fertigation frequency improves nitrogen uptake and crop performance in processing tomato grown with high nitrogen and water supply. Agric. Water Manage. 154, 52–58 (2015).
Passioura, J. Increasing crop productivity when water is scarce—from breeding to field management. Agric. Water Manage. 80, 176–196 (2006).
Eyring, V. et al. Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 1937–1958 (2016).
Lange, S. Trend-preserving bias adjustment and statistical downscaling with ISIMIP3BASD (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 3055–3070 (2019).
O’Neill, B. C. et al. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).
D.R. and D.C. dedicate this manuscript to the memory of Prof. Antonio Michele Stanca of the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia who passed away. His useful feedback inspired us to make this study by giving us directions and encouragements. D.N. was supported by John E. ‘Bric’ Elliot Professor Endowment at The University of Texas at Austin. A.C.R.’s contributions were made possible by NASA Earth Sciences Division support for the NASA GISS Climate Impacts Group.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review information
Nature Food thanks Domenico Ventrella and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Cammarano, D., Jamshidi, S., Hoogenboom, G. et al. Processing tomato production is expected to decrease by 2050 due to the projected increase in temperature. Nat Food 3, 437–444 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00521-y
Nature Food (2022)