Abstract
[1] Climate change is expected to significantly impact global food production, and it is important to understand the potential geographic distribution of yield losses and the means to alleviate them. This study presents a new global crop model, PEGASUS 1.0 (Predicting Ecosystem Goods And Services Using Scenarios) that integrates, in addition to climate, the effect of planting dates and cultivar choices, irrigation, and fertilizer application on crop yield for maize, soybean, and spring wheat. PEGASUS combines carbon dynamics for crops with a surface energy and soil water balance model. It also benefits from the recent development of a suite of global data sets and analyses that serve as model inputs or as calibration data. These include data on crop planting and harvesting dates, crop-specific irrigated areas, a global analysis of yield gaps, and harvested area and yield of major crops. Model results for present-day climate and farm management compare reasonably well with global data. Simulated planting and harvesting dates are within the range of crop calendar observations in more than 75% of the total crop-harvested areas. Correlation of simulated and observed crop yields indicates a weighted coefficient of determination, with the weighting based on crop-harvested area, of 0.81 for maize, 0.66 for soybean, and 0.45 for spring wheat. We found that changes in temperature and precipitation as predicted by global climate models for the 2050s lead to a global yield reduction if planting and harvesting dates remain unchanged. However, adapting planting dates and cultivar choices increases yield in temperate regions and avoids 7–18% of global losses.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Simulated planting and harvesting dates fell within the range of crop calendar observations in more than 75% of the harvested area.
- Taxon
- maize, soybean, and spring wheat
Glycine max
Triticum aestivum
Zea mayse0 - Outcome
- Simulated planting and harvesting datese1
- Value
- more than 75%e1
- Comparator
- crop calendar observationse1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for maize, soybean, and spring wheat”
e1“Simulated planting and harvesting dates are within the range of crop calendar observations in more than 75% of the total crop-harvested areas”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize simulated yields had a weighted coefficient of determination of 0.81 against observed yields.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Correlation of simulated and observed crop yields indicates a weighted coefficient of determination, with the weighting based on crop-harvested area, of 0.81 for maize, 0.66 for soybean, and 0.45 for spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Soybean simulated yields had a weighted coefficient of determination of 0.66 against observed yields.
- Taxon
- soybeanGlycine maxe2
- Outcome
- weighted coefficient of determinatione2
- Value
- 0.66e2
- Comparator
- observed crop yieldse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Correlation of simulated and observed crop yields indicates a weighted coefficient of determination, with the weighting based on crop-harvested area, of 0.81 for maize, 0.66 for soybean, and 0.45 for spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Spring wheat simulated yields had a weighted coefficient of determination of 0.45 against observed yields.
- Taxon
- spring wheatTriticum aestivume2
- Outcome
- weighted coefficient of determinatione2
- Value
- 0.45e2
- Comparator
- observed crop yieldse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e2“Correlation of simulated and observed crop yields indicates a weighted coefficient of determination, with the weighting based on crop-harvested area, of 0.81 for maize, 0.66 for soybean, and 0.45 for spring wheat”
Claim · model-written summary
Projected 2050s temperature and precipitation changes lead to a global yield reduction if planting and harvesting dates stay unchanged.
- Taxon
- maize, soybean, and spring wheatGlycine maxTriticum aestivumZea mayse0
- Treatment
- changes in temperature and precipitation as predicted by global climate models for the 2050se4
- Outcome
- global yielde4
- Direction
- reductione4
- Qualifier
- if planting and harvesting dates remain unchangede4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for maize, soybean, and spring wheat”
e4“changes in temperature and precipitation as predicted by global climate models for the 2050s lead to a global yield reduction if planting and harvesting dates remain unchanged”
Claim · model-written summary
Adapting planting dates and cultivar choices increases yield in temperate regions and avoids 7–18% of global losses.
- Taxon
- maize, soybean, and spring wheatGlycine maxTriticum aestivumZea mayse0
- Treatment
- adapting planting dates and cultivar choicese5
- Outcome
- yielde5
- Direction
- increasese5
- Value
- 7–18%e5
- Setting
- temperate regionse5
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for maize, soybean, and spring wheat”
e5“adapting planting dates and cultivar choices increases yield in temperate regions and avoids 7–18% of global losses”
Claim · model-written summary
Model results for present-day climate and farm management compare reasonably well with global data.
- Taxon
- maize, soybean, and spring wheatGlycine maxTriticum aestivumZea mayse0
- Outcome
- Model resultse3
- Qualifier
- reasonably welle3
- Comparator
- global datae3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“for maize, soybean, and spring wheat”
e3“Model results for present-day climate and farm management compare reasonably well with global data”
The same questions in other papers
rainfall · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
23 papers in the same direction as this paper · 14 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
34 papers more in this group
See all 38 papers →climate site · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Results differ
36 papers in the same direction as this paper · 36 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
69 papers more in this group
See all 73 papers →rainfall · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results differ
48 papers in the same direction as this paper · 32 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
77 papers more in this group
See all 81 papers →rainfall · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
35 papers in the same direction as this paper · 34 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
66 papers more in this group
See all 70 papers →climate site · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results
81 papers in the same direction as this paper · 72 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
150 papers more in this group
See all 154 papers →climate site · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
77 papers in the same direction as this paper · 102 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
176 papers more in this group
See all 180 papers →sowing time · yield · Glycine max (soybean)Positive and negative results
114 papers in the same direction as this paper · 89 in the opposite direction · 3 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
203 papers more in this group
See all 207 papers →sowing time · yield · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
177 papers in the same direction as this paper · 89 in the opposite direction · 2 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- negative
- negative
265 papers more in this group
See all 269 papers →8 of 9 groups shown: named compounds and organisms first, then groups whose results differ (checked claim by claim), then those with positive and negative results, then the smaller groups.
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.