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.

Processing tomato production is expected to decrease by 2050 due to the projected increase in temperature


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

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Simulated trends of processing tomato production.
Fig. 2: Relationship between simulated processing tomato yield and mean air temperature at different locations and different future climate scenarios.
Fig. 3: Relation between mean air temperature, latitude and yield.
Fig. 4: Production stability.
Fig. 5: Water-use efficiency.

Data availability

The DSSAT model is available from the DSSAT portal upon request free of charge ( The baseline weather data were obtained for free from NASA Power ( and the climate projections from Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

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’,, Harvard Dataverse. Source data are provided with this paper.


  1. Tomato News (World Processing Tomato Council, 2021);

  2. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  4. Bassu, S. et al. Modelling potential maize yield with climate and crop conditions around flowering. Field Crops Res. 271, 108226 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Raymundo, R. et al. Climate change impact on global potato production. Eur. J. Agron. 100, 87–98 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ruane, A. C. et al. An AgMIP framework for improved agricultural representation in integrated assessment models. Environ. Res. Lett. (2017).

  8. Meenakshi, J. V. Trends and patterns in the triple burden of malnutrition in India. Agric. Econ. 47, 115–134 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Choudhury, S. et al. What underlies inadequate and unequal fruit and vegetable consumption in India? An exploratory analysis. Glob Food Sec. 24, 100332 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rosenzweig, C. et al. The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): protocols and pilot studies. Agric. For. Meteorol. 170, 166–182 (2013).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  16. ISIMIP. The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (accessed 31 March 2022);

  17. 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 (2012).

  18. Hoogenboom, G. et al. in Advances in Crop Modeling for a Sustainable Agriculture (ed. Boote, K. J.) 173–216 (Burleigh Dodds, 2019).

  19. Koo, J. Modelling the Impacts of Climate Variability on Tomato Disease Management and Production. MSc thesis, University of Florida (2002).

  20. 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).

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  21. 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).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Challinor, A., Martre, P., Asseng, S., Thornton, P. & Ewert, F. Making the most of climate impacts ensembles. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 77–80 (2014).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  24. 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).

    CAS  Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  25. Xie, W. et al. Decreases in global beer supply due to extreme drought and heat. Nat. Plants 4, 964–973 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ruane, A. C. et al. Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability. Environ. Model. Softw. 81, 86–101 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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).

  29. Savary, S. et al. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 430–439 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Emberson, L. D. et al. Ozone effects on crops and consideration in crop models. Eur. J. Agron. 100, 19–34 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 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).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hanson, B. R. & May, D. M. Crop evapotranspiration of processing tomato in the San Joaquin Valley of California, USA. Irrig. Sci. 24, 211 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. You, L., Wood, S., Wood-Sichra, U. & Wu, W. Generating global crop distribution maps: from census to grid. Agric. Syst. 127, 53–60 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Han, E., Ines, A. V. M. & Koo, J. Global High-Resolution Soil Profile Database for Crop Modeling Applications (International Food Policy Research Institute, 2015).

  40. Han, E., Ines, A. V. M. & Koo, J. Harvard Dataverse, v.1 (2015);

  41. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Passioura, J. Increasing crop productivity when water is scarce—from breeding to field management. Agric. Water Manage. 80, 176–196 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  45. Lange, S. Trend-preserving bias adjustment and statistical downscaling with ISIMIP3BASD (v1.0). Geosci. Model Dev. 12, 3055–3070 (2019).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  46. O’Neill, B. C. et al. The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geosci. Model Dev. 9, 3461–3482 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references


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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



D.C. initiated the study, calibrated and ran the baseline of the crop model, wrote the manuscript and analysed the data. S.J. ran the crop model, formatted the data, developed the codes for the figures and contributed to writing the manuscript. G.H. supported the model’s calibration/evaluation and contributed to writing the manuscript. A.C.R. provided the climate data and contributed to writing the manuscript. D.N. contributed on the crop-climate simulations and to writing the manuscript. D.R. contributed in the literature review of the data for tomato calibration and evaluation, and to writing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Davide Cammarano.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Domenico Ventrella and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

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 methods (trend analysis), Tables 1–8 and Figs. 1–18.

Reporting Summary

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Includes CSV files for generating Fig. 1.

Source Data Fig. 2

Includes CSV files for generating Fig. 2.

Source Data Fig. 3

Includes CSV files for generating Fig. 3.

Source Data Fig. 4

Includes CSV files for generating Fig. 4.

Source Data Fig. 5

Includes CSV files for generating Fig. 5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Further reading


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