Stochastically modeling the projected impacts of climate change on rainfed and irrigated US crop yields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Food demands are rising due to an increasing population with changing food preferences, placing pressure on agricultural production. Additionally, climate extremes have recently highlighted the vulnerability of the agricultural system to climate variability. This study seeks to fill two important gaps in current knowledge: how irrigation impacts the large-scale response of crops to varying climate conditions and how we can explicitly account for uncertainty in yield response to climate. To address these, we developed a statistical model to quantitatively estimate historical and future impacts of climate change and irrigation on US county-level crop yields with uncertainty explicitly treated. Historical climate and crop yield data for 1970–2009 were used over different growing regions to fit the model, and five CMIP5 climate projections were applied to simulate future crop yield response to climate. Maize and spring wheat yields are projected to experience decreasing trends with all models in agreement. Winter wheat yields in the Northwest will see an increasing trend. Results for soybean and winter wheat in the South are more complicated, as irrigation can change the trend in projected yields. The comparison between projected crop yield time series for rainfed and irrigated cases indicates that irrigation can buffer against climate variability that could lead to negative yield anomalies. Through trend analysis of the predictors, the trend in crop yield is mainly driven by projected trends in temperature-related indices, and county-level trend analysis shows regional differences are negligible. This framework provides estimates of the impact of climate and irrigation on US crop yields for the 21st century that account for the full uncertainty of climate variables and the range of crop response. The results of this study can contribute to decision making about crop choice and water use in an uncertain future climate.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".