Transcript Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Research Network

Potential Impacts of Climate Change on
Agriculture in Eastern Canada:
a summary of some results of recent research
__________________________________________________________
Presented by:
Andy Bootsma, Agro-climatologist
Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre (ECORC)
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Ottawa, Ontario
Presented at: Workshop on “Climate Change and Agriculture in the Great Lakes Region: The
Potential Impacts and What We Can Do”. Kellogg Center, Michigan State University, East
Lansing, MI, USA, March 22, 2002.
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
1
Research projects on impacts of climate change
(supported in part by Gov’t of Canada Climate Change Action Fund)
_________________________________________________________________________
3 projects
(AAFC scientists + collaborators):
• Impacts on agricultural production in Atlantic region
(Bootsma et al.)
• Crop yields and yield variability for selected regions in
Canada using EPIC (De Jong et al.)
• Risk of winter injury in eastern Canada (Bélanger et al.)
2
Impacts on agriculture in Atlantic region
• Crop Heat Units – corn and soybeans
• ‘Effective’ growing degree-days – barley
(GDD > 5C adjusted for start/stop dates, daylength)
• Water deficits (PE – P)
3
Major areas of agriculture in Atlantic region
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
4
Average Crop Heat Units
Change in Crop Heat Units
5
EGDD
Change in EGDD
6
Water Deficit
Change in Deficit
7
Potential impact on grain corn
190
y = 0.102x - 148.1
R2 = 0.92
P <0.001
Yield (bu/acre)
160
130
100
70
2200
2600
3000
3400
CHU
Relationship between average CHU and average yield
from hybrid trial locations in eastern Canada.
8
Potential impact on grain corn
Yield (bu/acre)
140
120
y = 0.0235x + 39.5
R2 = 0.19
P <0.01
100
80
2400
2800
3200
3600
CHU
Relationship between average CHU and average yields based
on farm statistics in eastern Canada.
9
Potential impacts on soybeans
70
Yield (bu/acre)
60
50
y = 0.0237x - 18.8
R2 = 0.69
P < 0.001
40
30
2400
2800
3200
3600
CHU
Relationship between average CHU and average yields from
variety trial locations in eastern Canada.
10
Potential impacts on soybeans
44
Yield (bu/acre)
40
36
y = 0.0049x + 22.7
R2 = 0.08
P = 0.09
32
28
2400
2800
3200
3600
CHU
Relationship between average CHU and average yields from
farm statistics in eastern Canada.
11
Potential impacts on 6-row barley
Yield (bu/acre)
120
100
80
y = -0.026x + 1.33
R2 = 0.24
P = 0.02
60
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
EGDD
Relationship between EGDD and average yields from variety
trial locations in eastern Canada.
12
Potential impacts on barley
Yield (bu/acre)
70
60
50
40
1000
1400
1800
2200
EGDD
Relationship between EGDD and yields from farm statistics
in eastern Canada.
13
Some conclusions
• Corn and soybean yields and acreage likely to
increase significantly with climate warming.
• Barley yields not likely to change significantly;
acreage likely to decrease as a result.
• Change in water deficits not likely to impact
average yields significantly.
14
Production scenario
Corn
Soybeans
Barley
Yield
Area
Production
(bu/acre)
(acres)
(‘000 bu)
Present
90
5,700
513
By 2055
112
75,000
8,400
Present
34
8,600
292
By 2055
44
50,000
2,200
Present
55
136,000
7,500
By 2055
58
62,000
3,600
15
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis
Global Coupled Model (CGCM1)
Greenhouse Gas With Aerosol Simulation
Mean Temperature Change Spring - MAM 2050s
Source: Canadian Climate Impacts Scenarios (CCIS) Group
CGCM1 Global Coupled Model, Greenhouse Gas With Aerosol Simulation
Precipitation Change Summer - JJA 2050s
Source: Canadian Climate Impacts Scenarios (CCIS) Group
17
Comparisons with other GCM’s – summer period, S. Ont.
CGCM1
Source: Canadian Climate Impacts Scenarios (CCIS) Group
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
18
Comparison with other GCM’s –annual period, S.Ont.
CGCM1
Source: Canadian Climate Impacts Scenarios (CCIS) Group
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
19
Average corn yields vs CHU – USA Locations
240
2i
1
Yield (bu/acre)
2i
2i
1
33
5
5
200
5
5
5
5
44
4
160
51
6
6i
6i
4
4
5
6
1
3
4 1
6i
6
55
42
3
36i
6i
1
2i
1 = Illinois
2 = Nebraska
3 = Indiana
4 = Iowa
5 = Ohio
6 = Missouri
i = irrigated
6i
1
6
6
6
6
(based on average
yield of top 10
hybrids in field
trials, 4 to 8 yrs
data, 1994-2001)
6
2
2
120
3000
3500
4000
CHU
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
4500
5000
Increase in CHU for locations in Ontario near Great Lakes
Increase in CHU
800
600
2010-39
400
2040-69
200
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
w
H
ar
w
to
R
id
ge
ro
n
n
do
Lo
n
re
M
t.
Fo
ro
bo
er
st
h
ug
lle
vi
ck
Pe
t
B
ro
er
nd
Th
u
Fo
rt
Fr
an
ce
s
B
ay
0
21
Heat units (CHU) available for corn
MAN.
ONT.
2405
QUE.
2185
2688
ONT.
2293
2529
MINN.
2004
2389
2647
2411
2214
2567
2177
2523
3244
WIS.
3242
IOWA
ILL.
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
2556
3310
IND.
3316
2860
3145
3205
N.Y.
3174
2792
3190
3081
2783
3102
3188
3288
3165
2330
MICH.
2865
3050
2370
2796
2939
3010
3532
2553
2559
3143
3126
PA.
OHIO
22
Fr
Th anc
es
un
de
rB
ay
B
ro
ck
Pe
vi
te
lle
rb
or
ou
gh
M
t.
Fo
re
s
Lo t
nd
R
on
id
ge
to
w
n
H
ar
ro
w
Fo
rt
Water Deficit change (in.)
Change in Water Deficits (PE – P) for future periods
3.0
2.0
1.0
2010-39
2040-69
0.0
-1.0
23
Average seasonal water deficits (PE – P) (inches)
MAN.
ONT.
4.0
6.3
QUE.
7.2
6.7
6.4
MINN.
8.2
7.9
6.4
9.3
9.2
7.6
10.0
5.3
10.4
ILL.
IND.
6.4
8.9
10.3
7.0
8.7
4.7
MICH.
7.5
5.3
2.4
4.1
8.4
7.7
6.0
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
7.5
7.0
5.3
WIS.
IOWA
ONT.
2.9
N.Y.
2.4
3.5
5.7
5.8
10.3
7.2
5.0
4.7
6.0
6.3
9.8
2.4
PA.
OHIO
24
Corn Yield vs Water Deficits - U SA Locations
1 = Illinois
2 = Nebraska
3 = Indiana
4 = Iowa
5 = Ohio
6 = Missouri
240
1
Yield (bu/acre)
1
1
3
3
6
15
200
5
6
5
1
41
4
65
3
4
64 6
5
5 5
5
6
4 4
3
160
3
5
5
1
4
2
(based on average
yield of top 10
hybrids in field
trials, 4 to 8 yrs
data, 1994-2001)
6
6
2
2
120
4
6
8
10
Wate r D eficit (inche s)
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
12
14
Crop Yield and Yield Variability from
EPIC model
________________________________________________________________________________________________
• EPIC = Environmental Policy Integrated Climate
(Williams et al.)
• Simulated annual yields for baseline (1965-95) period and
2xCO2 climate scenario (2040-2060)
• barley, spring wheat, canola, corn, soybeans, potatoes and
winter wheat
• 29 locations across Canada (not all crops at all locations)
26
Location of climate stations and GCM grid points
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
Changes in monthly mean temperature and precipitation as a result
of the 2xCO2 scenario.
S. Ontario
Kemptville
Peterborough
Brucefield
Harrow
Delhi
Average:
S. Manitoba
Brandon
Winnipeg
J
F
M
A
M
J
J
A
Temperature Change (°F)
5.8
6.1
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.3
9.9
11.3
11.7
11.2
11.7
11.2
5.0
5.8
7.0
7.7
6.8
6.5
3.2
4.1
3.2
3.1
4.0
3.5
3.1
3.2
3.6
3.4
3.4
3.3
4.1
4.1
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.2
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.8
3.6
3.6
8.6
9.5
11.0
9.9
8.6
6.8
9.5
11.2
4.9
4.7
5.4
5.6
5.2
5.2
S
O
N
D
Year
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.6
3.4
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.8
4.0
3.8
3.7
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.5
4.3
4.4
4.0
4.1
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.3
1.1
1.8
2.5
2.9
2.5
2.2
4.3
4.7
4.9
4.9
4.9
4.7
6.1
6.3
5.6
5.8
4.5
4.3
3.1
2.7
5.8
6.7
6.5
6.5
Precipitation Change (inches)
S. Ontario
Kemptville
Peterborough
Brucefield
Harrow
Delhi
Average:
S. Manitoba
Brandon
Winnipeg
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.3
-0.5
-0.2
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.0
-0.3
-0.5
-0.4
-0.4
-0.6
-0.4
-0.1
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
-0.2
-0.2
0.0
0.0
-0.2
-0.1
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
-0.1
-0.1
-0.4
-0.5
-0.3
-0.3
0.9
1.4
3.3
3.1
2.9
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.3
0.0
0.1
-0.1
0.0
-0.8
-0.4
-0.6
-0.9
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.4
28
Summary of Results for S. Ontario/S. Manitoba
Yields (t/ha)
Crop
# sites
Southern Ontario
Barley
Spring wheat1
Corn
Soybeans
Winter wheat2
Average
Baseline 2xCO2 % change
Std. Dev.
Baseline 2xCO2 % change
5
2
5
5
2
2.9
3.1
5.8
2.0
3.5
2.8
3.5
5.0
2.3
4.2
-1.1
11.5
-12.3
12.7
18.7
0.44
0.85
1.79
0.57
0.77
0.52
0.94
2.01
0.82
0.92
18.6
10.6
12.5
43.6
20.3
Southern Manitoba
Barley
2
Spring wheat
2
Canola
2
4.2
3.0
2.5
3.8
2.6
2.3
-8.7
-12.4
-8.3
1.27
1.18
0.96
1.47
1.18
1.06
16.2
0.0
10.4
Locations: Ontario - Kemptville, Peterborough 1, Brucefield1, Harrow 2, Delhi 2
Manitoba - Winnipeg, Brandon
Agriculture and
Agri-Food Canada
30
Impacts on Risk of Winter Damage to Perennial Crops in
Eastern Canada
G. Bélanger, P. Rochette, Y. Castonguay, A. Bootsma, D. Mongrain
______________________________________________________
• Forage crops and fruit trees
• Developed suite of climatic indices (imperfect)
• Indices for Forage Crops:
- fall hardening:
- loss of hardiness in winter:
- cold stress during winter:
- soil heaving/smothering:
Tsum < 42°F during hardening
Tsum > 32°F accumulation rate
during cold period
days with snow cover – period
Tmin < 5°F
rain during period Tmin < 5°F
31
Indices for Fruit Trees
• Fall hardening:
daylength at first frost
• Winter cold:
Tsum < 5°F
• Cold intensity:
Lowest Tmin
• Winter dehardening:
Tsum > 32°F after Jan 1 to
last date of Tmin < 5°F
• Spring frost damage:
Tsum > 32°F , Jan 1 to last 32 °F
Tsum > 42°F , Jan 1 to last 28 °F
32
Climatic Stations in Eastern Canada
Compared indices for 1961-90 period to 2010-39, 2040-69
33
Some results/conclusions for locations in Ontario
near Great Lakes for 2040-69 period
Results for Forage crops:
• reduced hardening in fall due to warm temperatures during
hardening phase
• loss of hardiness during winter due to periods of mild
temperatures
• less protection from snow cover during cold period in
colder regions
• Moreheaving/smothering in cold areas, less in milder areas
of S. Ontario
• Overall, expect increased risk of damage in most areas of
eastern Canada – some areas near G. Lakes less certain
34
Results for fruit trees
• improved fall hardening due to shorter daylength at first
autumn frost
• less cold stress in winter due to fewer T < 5°F in winter;
higher Tmin)
• more de-hardening in cold areas due to warm
temperatures during winter; less in milder regions by
lakes due to short cold period)
• less bud damage due to spring frosts in cold regions as
GDD from Jan 1 to last spring frost decrease; more in
mild areas (assumes chilling requirement for dormancy before Jan 1is
met; otherwise bud burst will be delayed and reduce the risk)
35
Results for fruit trees (cont’d)
Overall conclusions:
• New varieties/species may be possible in current regions
• Northward extension of commercial production possible
• More stable production in currently marginal areas due to
lower risks of spring frost damage
36
Results of all 3 studies available in Adobe pdf format
from A. Bootsma at:
E-mail: [email protected]
Atlantic study available at:
http://res2.agr.ca/ecorc/staff/boot-a.htm
Thank you for your attention!
37
Some gaps and needs
• Need results for multiple GCM experiments
• Improved downscaling procedures
• Include change in climate variability
• Procedures to update results with new GCM’s
• Improved and more impact models
• Include soils, management scenarios
38
Some future plans (CCAF projects)
• Ste-Foy & Swift Current RC’s + collaborators:
– Impacts on forage (timothy) yield and quality (east &west)
– Risk of winter damage – alfalfa (prairies)
– Economics of forage production (prairies)
• ECORC/PFRA + collaborators:
– Impacts on LSRS using multiple GCM outputs
– Expand to entire country
– Refinement of LSRS climate criteria
• ECORC + collaborators:
–
–
–
–
Daily scenarios at 0.5° lat./long. Grid
Multiple GCM outputs
Several downscaling methods
Focus on agricultural areas
39