Risk Assessment of Possible Impacts of Climate Change and Irrigation on Wheat Yield and Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of climate change on yield and quality for different climate regions had high uncertainty. Risk assessment is an effective measure to assess the seriousness of the projected impacts for decision-makers. The modified quality model was used to simulate integrated impacts of climate change, environment and management on wheat yield and quality. Then, the Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM2) was used to forecast the daily meteorological data, and Statistical Down Scaling Model was used for downscaling. CERES-Wheat was combined with the forecasted meteorological data to simulate the future wheat yield and grain protein concentration (GPC). The risk of wheat yield and quality in three climatic regions of Shaanxi combined with two climate change scenarios of CanESM2 were assessed. Temperature increased 0.22-3.34 °C and precipitation increased 10-60 mm for RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. Elevated temperature and precipitation had positive effects on yield in all regions. The yield risk of most regions with climate change decreased 3.8%-25.1%. The GPC risk of all regions with climate change decreased 7.3%-27.2%. Irrigation decreased yield risk greatly in all regions, while had totally different effects for the three climatic regions. Yield risk with irrigation decreased 37.7%-52.1% in different climate. In contrast to previous studies, GPC risk with irrigation increased greatly 25.8%-28.9% in humid region, 3.9%-8.8% in sub-humid region, and decreased 37.7%-52.1% in semi-arid region. Climate change decreased yield risk and GPC risk together. While irrigation decreased yield risk greatly in all regions, had totally different effects for the three climatic regions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".