Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences (2014) 13, 107–115

King Saud University

Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences

www.ksu.edu.sa
www.sciencedirect.com

FULL LENGTH ARTICLE

Assessing climate change impacts on wheat

production (a case study)
J. Valizadeh a, S.M. Ziaei b, S.M. Mazloumzadeh b,*

a
University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Faculty of Biology, Zahedan, Iran
b
University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Faculty of Agriculture and Natural Resource of Saravan, Saravan, Iran

Received 21 November 2012; accepted 18 February 2013

Available online 26 February 2013

KEYWORDS Abstract Climate change is one of the major challenges facing humanity in the future and effect of
Simulation; climate change has been detrimental to agricultural industry. The aim of this study was to simulate
Model; the effects of climate change on the maturity period, leaf area index (LAI), biomass and grain yield
Scenario; of wheat under future climate change for the Sistan and Baluchestan region in Iran. For this pur-
Phenology; pose, two general circulation models HadCM3 and IPCM4 under three scenarios A1B, B1 and A2
Climatic parameters in three time periods 2020, 2050 and 2080 were used. LARS-WG model was used for simulating
climatic parameters for each period and CERES-Wheat model was used to simulate wheat growth.
The results of model evaluation showed that LARS-WG had appropriate prediction for climatic
parameters and simulation of stochastic growing season in future climate change conditions for
the studied region. Wheat growing season period in all scenarios of climate change was reduced
compared to the current situation. Possible reasons were the increase in temperature rate and the
accelerated growth stages of wheat. This reduction in B1 scenario was less than A1B and A2 sce-
narios. Maximum wheat LAI in all scenarios, except scenario A1B in 2050, is decreased compared
to the current situation. Yield and biological yield of wheat in both general circulation models
under all scenarios and all times were reduced in comparison with current conditions and the lowest
reduction was related to B1 scenario. In general, the results showed that wheat production in the
future will be affected by climate change and will decrease in the studied region. To reduce these
risks, the impact of climate change mitigation strategies and management systems for crop adapta-
tion to climate change conditions should be considered.
ª 2013 King Saud University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 9153621963; fax: +98 54835242413.
In the recent years, visible changes in temperature and rainfall
E-mail address: mazloumzadeh@gmail.com (S.M. Mazloumzadeh).
in both the global and regional aspects were known as climate
Peer review under responsibility of King Saud University.
change phenomenon in terms of amount and time of occur-
rence and consequently have exerted different impacts on the
inputs and agricultural production (Wolf, 2002). Researchers
Production and hosting by Elsevier of the related sciences have disagreements in the area of causes
1658-077X ª 2013 King Saud University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2013.02.002
108
and nature of climate changes, but it seems that in the past dec-
ades the climate change impacts and especially its ecological
consequences have been so apparent that many of these con-
tradictions have been resolved. The main factor in increasing
the greenhouse effect, is the increase in the concentration of
gases CO2, CH4 and N2O and types of Halo-Carbons (like
CFC) due to the human activities; these gases have an essential
role in absorbing the solar radiation that the climate system is
also affected by this issue (Tubiello et al., 2000).
Although the climate change in some areas of the world,
particularly the areas located within the northern widths
above 55, will have positive effects on agricultural produc-
tion (Ewert et al., 2005), but the negative impacts of these
changes will be so severe in hot and dry areas (Parry
et al., 2004; Gregory et al., 2005), so in developing countries
the rise in temperature and the decrease in rainfall have
been more severe (Sivakumar et al., 2005), and moreover
the frequency and intensity of the occurrence of rare climatic
phenomena (drought, heat, coldness and flood) will also be
intensified (IPCC, 2007). Undoubtedly, any change in
climatic condition will affect the agricultural production
systems of the world.
Although in recent years, experiments conducted in con-
trolled environments, have provided a lot of information about
the impacts of rise in temperature degree and carbon dioxide
concentration on plants’ growth and development processes,
but these studies are very costly and their implementation de-
pends on the exact instruments (Koocheki et al., 2001). Devel-
opment of modeling techniques is a suitable and low-cost
substitute for these types of studies that has already been con-
sidered by researchers. General circulation model (GCM) is
the right and accurate tool for the prediction of future climatic
condition and provides necessary data to run simulation mod-
els of the crops’ growth and development under climate change
condition (Jones and Thornton, 2003). The work of these mod-
els is based on global warming and the impact of rise in green-
house gas concentration and the climatic subsequent
consequences are predicted on the basis of the rise of land sur-
face temperature. Because the future climate change depends
on the intensity of global warming, predicting the future tem-
perature of the earth is of special importance (Morison, 2006).
Global circulation model is a mathematical estimation of the
natural climate systems which offer on atmospheric circulation
and energy exchange between the main components of the cli-
mate systems as a model.
Obtaining more precise information about the phenomenon
of climate change in Iran requires further studies on a regional
scale and the prediction of agricultural production systems’ re-
sponse to these changes in each region. Our country belongs to
the arid and semiarid areas which are more sensitive to envi-
ronmental changes and more vulnerable due to their special
ecological structures. So it seems that the occurrence of prob-
able climatic changes in these regions has a significant impact
on agricultural production systems (Fisher et al., 1994). How-
ever despite the world’s most arid and semiarid areas have
been located in developing countries, studies and scientific re-
searches related to climate change impacts in these areas are
very limited. The results of studies related to climate changes
that have been done in recent years in Iran, all have confirmed
the occurrence of this phenomenon in the country. Koocheki
J. Valizadeh et al.
and Nassiri (2008) have studied the climate change impact
on the water yield of the country by using a growth simulation
model and on the basis of various scenarios of climate change
and reported that on average the wheat yield in the country
will be reduced in the range between 14% and 21%.
Prediction and premonition of how climate change acts and
its impact on agricultural department can help the human to
deal with these changes. By predicting the extent and intensity
of climate change, the crop production changes can be specified
in different regions and it can also affect the sustainability of
agricultural production especially in arid and semiarid areas.
So the purpose of this study is to evaluate the performance of
CERES-wheat model and the simulation of the climate change
impacts on phonological stages, leaf area index (LAI), biomass
and grain yield of wheat plant in the studied region.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Study area
Sistan and Baluchestan region covers an area of about
178,502 km2. The province is located in the southeast of Iran,
within 2503 and 31027 north latitude and and 631021 east
longitude.
2.2. Data set and climate model
The IPCC has defined standard greenhouse gas emission sce-
narios for use in the evaluation of projected climate change
based on various socioeconomic, technological and energy
use factors ( IPCC, 2007). The SRES-A2 scenario indicated
very heterogeneous world conditions with high population
growth rate, slight economic development and slow technolog-
ical change (Prudhomme et al., 2010). The SRES-B1 defines a
convergent world with a global population that peaks in mid-
century and rapid changes in economic structures toward a
service and information economy (Wetterhall et al., 2009)
and the SRES-A1B scenario describes a world of rapid eco-
nomic growth, a global population that peaks in mid-century
and more efficient technologies based on a balanced energy
mix (Olesen et al., 2011). Two GCM models under three sce-
narios were used to project climate change effects on wheat
in this study. Daily climate data including, solar radiation,
maximum and minimum air temperature (C) and precipita-
tion (mm) were obtained for the period of 1975–2010 for stud-
ied region meteorological station. The GCM models include
the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Center (HadCM3)
(Mitchell et al., 1995) and Institute Pierre Simon Laplace
(IPCM4) (Semenov and Stratonovitch, 2010) and scenarios
were SRES-A2, SRES-B1 and SRES-A1B.
In this study, LARS-WG was used to produce daily climat-
ically parameters as one stochastic growing season for each
projection period. This one year data included radiation, max-
imum and minimum air temperature and precipitation of loca-
tion for four projection times (1975–2010 (baseline), 2020,
2050 and 2080). LARS-WG is a stochastic weather generator
based on the series approach (Semenov and Stratonovitch,
2010). LARS-WG produces synthetic daily time series of solar
radiation, maximum and minimum temperature and precipita-
Assessing climate change impacts on wheat production (a case study) 109

tion. LARS-WG applies observed daily weather data for a gi- ing the DTA, LAI, grain and biological yield of wheat for Sis-
ven site to compute a set of parameters for probability distri- tan conditions.
butions of weather variables as well as correlations between
them (Semenov and Brooks, 1999). 2.3.2. Crop model validation
The field experiment was conducted in the year 2011 at the
2.3. Field experiment
experiment station of the College of Agriculture, Saravan
University. The data of this experiment were used for the
2.3.1. Crop model calibration
crop model validation. This experiment was carried out to
The Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer assess the effect of different amounts of nitrogen fertilizer
(DSSAT) comprises six models for simulating the growth of on yield and yield components of wheat. Treatments in-
16 crops of economic importance (Jones and Thornton, cluded four levels of nitrogen fertilizer (0, 100, 200 and
2003). The model has demonstrated high reliability under dif- 300 kg ha1) which the experiment was conducted based on
ferent climates, soil and management conditions (Quiring and a randomized complete block design with three replications.
Legates, 2008). The CSM-CERES Wheat model is one of the Planting date of wheat was November 5 and the Cross felat
most popular and highly reliable wheat models and has been cultivar was planted. Grain and biological yield, HI, DTA
evaluated in many sites across the world and the results indi- and LAI were measured and used as observed data to vali-
cated its capability to simulate the development of roots and date the model.
shoots, growth and senescence of leaves and stems, biomass
accumulation and partitioning between roots and shoots, leaf
2.4. Model validation
area index, root, stem, leaf, and grain growth under different
climatic conditions (Quiring and Legates, 2008).
CERES wheat was calibrated by an experiment which was Several criteria were used to quantify the difference between
conducted in the year 1998 at the experiment station of the simulated and observed data. The root mean-squared error
College of Agriculture, Zabol University in the central part (RMSE) was computed to measure the coincidence between
of the studied region (Ferizeni, 1998). In this experiment the measured and simulated values (Eq. (1)) (Loague and Green,
effect of different amounts of irrigation on yield and yield 1991), while mean deviation (RMD) was calculated to evaluate
components of different varieties of wheat was assessed. Three systematic bias of the model (Eq. (2)). Model efficiency (ME)
levels of irrigation as the main plots and five varieties of wheat was calculated to estimate model performance in relation to
(Atrak, Sorkhtokhm, Cross Felat, Hirmand and Darab) as the the observed mean (Eq. (3)) (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970). More-
sub-plots by split plot experiment based on a randomized com- over, linear regression was applied between simulations and
plete block design with three replications were considered in observations to evaluate model performance and correlation
the experiment. The common planting date of wheat in the coefficient (R2) for each simulation.
study area is about early November. Some of the measured sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Pn 2
factors such as, grain yield, biological yield, leaf area index 100 i¼1 ðPi  Oi Þ
in different growth stages, plant height, 100 seed weight, days RMSE ¼ ð1Þ
O n
to anthesis (DTA) and days to maturity and harvest index
were provided for the model as observed data. CERES-Wheat 100 Xn Pi  Oi
determines the yield using six genetic coefficients that differ by RMD ¼ ð2Þ
O i¼1 n
variety. Accurate simulation of yield requires the correct genet-
ic coefficients. Genetic coefficients of the wheat varieties that Pn P
i¼1 ðOi  OÞ2  ni¼1 ðPi  Oi Þ2
are used for simulating wheat yield are shown in Table 1. ME ¼ Pn 2
ð3Þ
i¼1 ðOi  OÞ
We used the observed data to calibrate the model for project-
where P and O are simulated and observed data, respec-
tively, O is the mean of observed data and n is the number
of observations. The RMSE illustrated the model’s predic-
Table 1 Cultivar coefficients used with the CSM-CERES- tion error by heavily weighting high errors, while the
Wheat model. RMD uses same weights for all errors, which tends to
smooth out discrepancies between simulated and observed
Cultivar PHINT G3 G2 G1 P5 P1D P1V
data. ME indicated the efficiency of the model and can have
Atrak 85.5 1.8 3.4 1.9 4.6 3 4.4 positive or negative values (Bannayan and Hoogenboom,
Sorkhtokhm 84.3 1.6 2.7 1.7 5.1 2.8 4.2 2008; Huang et al., 2009).
Cross Felat 85 1.5 2.8 1.4 7.7 3.2 5.4
Another criterion was the test of difference between simu-
Hirmand 86 2.2 3.2 1.5 7.1 3 4.6
Darab 87 2.4 3.2 2.1 6.7 3 4.3
lated and observed data which was 1:1 line. Under best
simulation the simulated and observed data should be the
P1D = photoperiod sensitivity coefficient; P1V = Vernalization same so its regression equation is y = x (1:1 line). Fitted
sensitivity coefficient; P5 = thermal time from the onset of linear
regression equation between simulated and observed data
filling to maturity; G1 = Kernel number per unit stem;
G2 = standard kernel size under optimum conditions (mg);
(Simulated = a + b · Observed) with 1:1 line (Simu-
G3 = standard, non-stressed dry weight (total, including grain) of lated = Observed) was tested by t-test. Hypothesis 0 (H0) is
a single tiller at maturity (g); PHINT = thermal time between the b = 1 and so hypothesis 1 (H1) is b „ 1 in the t-test. If H0 is
appearance of leaf tips (degree days). accepted so this means that the difference between simulated
and observed data is not significant.
110 J. Valizadeh et al.

Figure 1 Air temperature trend for Zahedan for a 45-year period.

Table 2 Comparison of simulated and observed climatic variables estimated with LARS-WG.
Month Precipitation (mm) Minimum temperature (C) Maximum temperature (C)
– Simulated Observed Simulated Observed Simulated Observed
January 5.90 3.40 4.00 2.30 19.00 19.40
February 41.70 44.90 5.10 6.40 23.70 20.20
March 25.40 22.00 9.20 10.60 29.00 27.60
April 6.00 4.00 17.00 16.00 28.10 26.40
May 0.40 0.00 21.00 19.90 38.00 35.40
June 1.20 0.00 20.40 22.90 35.10 37.60
July 0.00 0.00 25.00 26.60 42.50 39.70
August 0.00 0.00 27.00 24.80 37.50 41.20
September 1.90 0.00 20.90 20.00 35.90 37.90
October 0.50 0.00 14.50 16.30 35.10 32.90
November 0.00 0.00 6.20 8.80 28.00 26.80
December 23.10 26.40 3.70 2.30 18.70 20.30
RMSE (%) 23.93 11.61 7.62

3. Results and discussion imum temperature. As estimated RMSE for rainfall and min-
imum temperature was obtained ±%23.93 and ±%11.61
An examination of the temperature changes in 25 years (1985– respectively, that shows the low accuracy of LARS-WG for
2010) in the studied region showed that over time the annual the simulation of the amount of rainfall for the studied region
mean temperature has been increased (Fig. 1). In a way that (Table 2), in a way that the amount of rainfall was simulated
about 0.055 degree centigrade has been added to the mean with the difference of %23.93 of the observed data and this dif-
temperature of the region annually. These results confirm the ference was %11.61 for the minimum temperature (Table 2).
issue of climate change for this region. In general the validation results showed that the LARS-WG
has a good ability to simulate climatic data (rainfall, maximum
3.1. Validation of the data resulted from LARS-WG and minimum temperature) for the studied region and these
climatic data can be used for the stimulation of the probable
growth season in the future conditions of climate change and
Validation results obtained from LARS-WG data showed that
LARS-WS has more accuracy in the simulation of maximum
temperature compared with the minimum temperature and
rainfall (Table 2). The maximum temperature simulated by Table 3 Comparison of simulated and observed studied traits
LARS-WG was estimated with the difference of ±%7.62 from by Root Mean-squared Error (RMSE), Model Efficiency (ME)
the observed data, as RMSE obtained for the maximum tem- and Root Mean Deviation (RMD).
perature was ±%7.62 which shows the high accuracy of the Parameters RMD ME RMSE
LARS-WG in the simulation of maximum temperature (Table
Grain yield 1.36 0.98 7.86
2). Considering that the amount of rainfall fluctuations was
Biological yield 1.41 0.96 9.59
high in different seasons in the studied region, it can be ex-
Maximum LAI 1.69 0.71 10.02
pected that LARS-WG has a lower accuracy in the simulation Day to maturity 1.11 0.19 1.71
of the amount of rainfall compared to the maximum and min-
Assessing climate change impacts on wheat production (a case study)
Table 4 The t-test for comparing the 1:1 line and the fitted
regression equation between observed and simulated data
(y = a + bx).
Parameters b t R 2
Value Std. error tb
Grain yield 1.14 1.05 0.98 1.23
Biological yield 1.13 1.04 0.97 0.19
Maximum LAI 0.99 1.45 0.98 0.96
Day to maturity 0.82 1.44 0.77 1.67
the studies related to the impact of these climatic factors on the
growth and development of the crops.
3.2. Validation of the growth model
Due to the low values calculated for the RMSE, the difference
between predicated and observed data was low for all traits
that are indicative of the high ability of this model in the pre-
diction of these traits (Table 3). Predicted values for the traits
of biomass yield, leaf area index and the day to maturity, were
estimated respectively by the model with the difference of %
±9.59, % ±10.02 and % ±1.71 of the measured data (the
amounts of RMSE for the mentioned traits are respectively,
9.59, 10.02 and 1.71) which is the appropriate amount for
the validity of crop’s growth simulation model (Table 3).
Jamieson et al. (1998) reported that if the numeric value of
RMSE is in the range between 0 and 10, the model has a high
estimation of the observed data, if it is between 10 and 20, this
model has a good estimation, if it is between 20 and 30, the
estimation is average and if it is over 30, it has poor estimation.
Also a high correlation was observed between predicted and
measured values for the biomass yield, leaf area index and
the day to maturity with a correlation coefficient of 0.97,
0.98 and 0.77 respectively, (Table 4).
The wheat yield was predicted by the model with the differ-
ence of 86.7% of the observed data (RMSE-7.86) and a high
correlation was obtained between simulated and observed
grain yield (correlation coefficient = 98.0)(Tables 3 and 4).
The RMD and ME values obtained for all the traits were
low that show the high accuracy of the model in the proper
evaluation of the simulated values for the mentioned traits
(Table 3).
The lowest correlation between the measured and simulated
data was related to the day to the flowering trait with a corre-
lation coefficient of 0/77 (Table 4). Considering the drown line
1:1 the difference between the simulated and observed data for
all traits also shows the high accuracy of the model in the pre-
diction of these traits (Fig. 2). Test result for all the traits
showed that the zero supposition is acceptable for the slope
of fitted regression equation and this means that there is no sig-
nificant difference between the line 1:1 (y = x) and the fitted
regression between observed and simulated data (Table 4
and Fig. 2). Model validation results for the day to maturity,
showed that the model has had a very good estimation of this
trait in comparison with other traits, though the correlation
between simulated and measured data for the trait of the day
to maturity was less (Table 4).
111
3.3. Climate change impact on wheat
3.3.1. The number of the days from planting to flowering
The simulated amount of the number of days from planting to
flowering of wheat in all scenarios and general circulation
models used for the three periods of 2020, 2050 and 2080
was less than the current situation of the studied region (Table
5). In other words the prediction results of the number of days
to flowering for the future of climate change showed that this
trait will decrease under the situation of climate change. Mean-
while the A2 scenario influenced by general circulation model
HadCM3 in the period of 2080 with 180 days, had the maxi-
mum rate of reduction in the number of days to flowering
within the current situation of climate change (Table 5). Also
the B1 scenario in the period of 2020 under the influence of
both general circulation models, revealed the least difference
within the present condition of this trait in Sistan by having
200 days from planting to flowering (Table 5). Lal et al.
(1998) reported that 1 rise in temperature leads to a reduction
of about 5 days in the flowering time of the wheat, affects the
time period of wheat flowering and reduces the time of grain
filling and as a result wheat yield in India.
The simulation results of the number of days from plant-
ing to flowering of wheat in terms of climate change in the
studied region showed that from the time 2020–2080, the
reduction rate of this trait was more than the current situa-
tion (Table 5). As stated, it is anticipated that the tempera-
ture degree will be risen overtime that leads to the increase
in evaporation and transpiration, so it seems that the rise
in temperature, evaporation and transpiration, leads to the
increase in the growth rate of the plant and in other words
the plant efforts to complete the growth process by recogniz-
ing the heat stress condition and as a result the period of
planting to flowering is reduced. Also Roberts and Summer-
field (2007) stated that the rise in temperature during the
growth season leads to the fast growth and earlier flowering
of the plant. Magrin et al. (1997) used the IS92 scenario
and observed that phonological stages from the emergence
to flowering and from flowering to physiological maturity
were reduced from about 10–15 days, respectively. They re-
ported that the biomass accumulation and grain filling were
affected by the negative impact of this factor and for the
other scenario, the time required to the completion of matu-
rity period was reduced for about 21–32 days. With the sim-
ulation of the climate change impact on the flowering time,
Ozdogan (2011) showed that this trait in three scenarios of
A2, A1B and B1 revealed about 9%, 13% and 6% decrease
respectively, according to the current situation of Turkey and
also reported that the amount of this reduction in the period
of 2061–2080 was more than the period of 2041–2060 and the
latter was more than the period of 2021–2040 and stated that
with the passage of time the amount of reduction in the flow-
ering time was decreased in the present condition of this
country.
The decrease in the growth period of barley (Jones and
Thornton, 2003), rice (Prasad et al., 2006; Mall and Aggarwal,
2002) and wheat (Lawlor and Mitchell, 2000; Remy et al.,
2003; Koocheki and Nassiri, 2008) was also reported in the
studies of climate change. Available evidence shows that the
decrease in the grain filling period due to the rise in tempera-
112 J. Valizadeh et al.

5000 9000
-1 -1
Grain Yield (kg ha ) Biological Yield (kg ha )
4500 8000
1:1 line 1:1 line
(y = x)
4000 (y = x)
7000

3500
6000

3000
5000
2500

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Simulated

Simulated
230
4.6 LAI Day to maturity

4.4 228

1:1 line 1:1 line

4.2
(y = x) (y = x) 226
4.0
224
3.8

3.6 222

3.4
220
3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.6 220 222 224 226 228 230
Observed

Figure 2 Comparison of simulated and observed grain yield, biological yield, LAI and maturity day across data varying plant.

Table 5 Simulated phenological stages, maximum leaf area index, biomass and grain yield (kg ha1) of wheat based on HadCM3 and
IPCM4 under A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios in 3 periods for Sistan and baluchestan province.
Period Scenario GCM Model Anthesis day Maturity Grain Yield kg ha1 Maximum LAI HI
Current A1B 201 226 4694.8 4.38 52
2020 197 217 2933.7 3.97 43
2050 193 217 4193.8 4.58 46
2080 192 213 3234.0 3.23 50
2020 A2 197 221 4266.9 4.04 48
2050 HadCM3 192 217 4224.0 3.52 47
2080 189 210 2961.2 3.26 45
2020 B1 200 224 4645.9 4.19 51
2050 196 218 3856.1 4.09 49
2080 192 215 3823.1 4.02 47
2020 A1B 196 220 4206.4 4.02 49
2050 195 219 4059.6 3.59 48
2080 190 211 3961.7 3.59 45
2020 A2 197 221 4197.1 3.92 47
2050 IPCM4 195 220 4143.2 3.56 50
2080 192 213 3111.9 3.16 47
2020 B1 200 225 4546.9 4.26 51
2050 197 220 4307.6 4.09 50
2080 194 216 3874.2 4.02 49
Assessing climate change impacts on wheat production (a case study) 113

HadCM3 IPCM4
A1B A2 B1 A1B A2 B1

2020
2050
2080
2020
2050
2080
2020
2050
2080
2020
2050
2080
2020
2050
2080
2020
2050
2080
0

Change (%)
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40

Figure 3 Changing wheat grain yield as affected by climate change using HadCM3 and IPCM4 models under A1B, A2 and B1 scenarios
in Sistan & Baluchestan for 3 periods.

ture is the main factor in the yield decrease of the crops in the dicted climate changes in Mashhad region will have a negative
climate change condition (Challinor et al., 2007). impact on the wheat yield. The reduction rate of wheat yield
was variable between 1% and 37% (Fig. 3). Among all the sce-
3.3.2. The number of the days from planting to maturity narios and general circulation models used, in the time period
of 2020, under the general circulation model HadCM3, the
The number of the days from planting to maturity also obeyed
A1B scenario showed the maximum reduction of grain yield
the similar results of the number of the days from planting to
compared to the wheat yield and after it the A2 scenario in
flowering of wheat (Table 5). As in all scenarios and general
both general circulation models and A1B in general circulation
circulation models used in all studied periods, the rate pre-
model HadCM3 had the maximum reduction of this trait in
dicted by this trait is less than its present condition in the stud-
the time period of 2080 (Table 5). On the other hand, the B1
ied region and this difference increased over time. Among the
scenario in the general circulation models HadCM3 and
studied scenarios, the B1 scenario for both general circulation
IPCM4 with about 4546 kg of wheat yield, showed the least
models and in the period of 2020 showed the least reduction of
reduction of this trait within the current situation of the stud-
this trait within the present condition of the number of days of
ied region (Table 5) in a way that the yield reduction rate in
planting to maturity of wheat and in turn the A2 scenario af-
both general circulation models for wheat was about 1% and
fected by general circulation model HadCM3 and A1B sce-
4% within the current situation (Fig. 3). Also in a study in
nario affected by general circulation model IPCM4 for the
the northwest of India, Lal et al. (1998) found that 4 degree
period of 2008 showed the greatest difference (Table 5). This
centigrade rise in the average daily temperature led to 54%
reflects the impact of temperature rise based on scenarios
reduction of wheat yield in this region. Moreover with the
and general circulation model on the increase in the develop-
examination of climatic change impacts including rise in tem-
ment rate (Tao et al., 2006) and thus reduces the wheat growth
perature and carbon dioxide concentration on the wheat yield,
season. Though it has been reported that in the areas where the
Mitchell et al. (1995) observed that the plant yield showed
crop’s growth season encounters limitation, climate change
reduction between 16% and 35% under the impact of temper-
and earth warming can lead to the improvement of crops’ yield
ature rise within the current situation. Also it was observed in
by increasing the growth season period and the improvement
Philippines that the rice yield was reduced about 10% with the
of the plant flowering strength (Challinor et al., 2007).
average daily temperature of 1 rise in temperature (Peng et al.,
The rise in temperature will increase the growth and devel-
2004). In all scenarios and general circulation models used, it
opment speed of the crops, though experimental evidence has
was observed that with the increase in time period from 2020
showed that under this condition, the length of maturity of the
to 2080, the simulated yield rate was reduced (Table 5). For in-
seed in the grains and seedy plants will be reduced (Parry et al.,
stance in A2 scenario in general circulation model HadCM3,
2004). Since achieving optimal performance depends on the so-
the increase in time period from 2020 to 2080, the variability
lid material accumulation during the growth season on one
of wheat yield was from 10% to 36% compared to its yield
hand and also on the existence of enough time to transfer
in the current situation of the studied region (Fig. 3). The re-
the material to the grain on the other hand, the rise in temper-
sults of these studies were corresponding to Ozdogan’s
ature leads to the shorter length period of grain filling in the
(2011), in a way that with the examination of various scenarios
grains and thus will decrease the performance of these prod-
in different time periods for different general circulation mod-
ucts (Menzel, 2003).
els (GFDL CM2.1, CSIRO MK3.5, HADCM3 and NCAR
CCSM 3.0), he also reported that the B1 scenario had less
3.3.3. The grain yield reduction in wheat yield compared with A2 and A1B scenarios
The prediction results of wheat yield showed that this trait will within the current situation of Turkey and on the other hand
decrease under the influence of future climate changes in all with the passage of periods studied from 2020 to 2080, the
scenarios and general circulation models within the present reduction rate of wheat yield was more in Turkey in all scenar-
condition of the studied region (Table 5). It means that the pre- ios and general circulation models. He recognized that the
114
reduction yield of wheat in simulated condition of climate
change is correspondent with the change in the rate of evapo-
ration and transpiration in wheat growth condition in this
country. By the examination of global warming impact on
the wheat production in Finland, Saarikko and Carter (1996)
also stated that the wheat yield was reduced in southern areas
of this country.
3.3.4. Harvest index
The simulation results showed that the changes in this trait
obeyed the wheat yield. As the maximum rate of harvest index
in all scenarios and general circulation models was less than
the current situation of the studied region (Table 5). For the
time period of 2080, the A1B scenario under the impact of gen-
eral circulation model HadCM3 and the A2 scenario for the
general circulation model IPCM4, showed the maximum
change according to the rate of this trait in the current climatic
condition of Mashhad (52). On the other hand for the period
of 2080, the B1 scenario showed the least reduction of this trait
in both general circulation models within the current situation
of the studied region with 51% of harvest index. The reduction
of wheat harvest index in the climatic change condition of Sis-
tan in relation to its current situation, can illustrate this issue
that the climatic changes ahead, which have more emphasis
on the temperature rise on the basis of the mentioned scenarios
between 1.5 and 5 degree centigrade in the next 100 years
(IPCC, 2007), have less influenced on wheat biomass produc-
tion than the grain yield. It appears that the rise in temperature
in climate change condition has had negative impacts on the
grain filling period by reducing the plant’s growth period (Ta-
ble 5), and resulted in the reduction of wheat yield within its
current situation. Change in temperature and rainfall level, af-
fects the plant photosynthesis, growth and absorption rate and
water and nutrient distribution and as a result the leaf area in-
dex (Long, 1991).
3.3.5. The maximum leaf area index
The maximum level of simulated leaf area index in wheat plant
was variable between 3.16 and 4.38 (Table 5). The results
showed that the amount of this trait in all scenarios and gen-
eral circulation models of climatic change for all studied peri-
ods was less than the simulated amount within the current
situation of the studied region. It means that the maximum leaf
area index in the future climate change condition was reduced
according to the current situation of this trait in the studied re-
gion. Among the scenarios and general circulation models
used, for the time period of 2020, in both general circulation
models, the B1 scenario with about 2% difference, showed
the least reduction within the current situation of this trait (Ta-
ble 5). In general the rate of maximum leaf area index, for all
studied periods for B1 scenario was about four in both general
circulation models, and compared with other scenarios showed
less difference with simulated amount of current situation. In
all scenarios, the negative impacts of climate change on the
rate of maximum leaf area index of wheat was more over time,
in a way that the rate of this trait in all scenarios and in both
general circulation models in the period of 2020 was more than
2050, and in the latter was more than 2080 (Table 5).
The leaf area index indicates the canopy development and
thus the crop’s ability to absorb the radiation (Koocheki and
J. Valizadeh et al.
Kamali, 2010). So the leaf area reduction shows less absorp-
tion of light and consequently the lower rate of canopy photo-
synthesis. It seems that in the future climatic condition, lack of
water, will be the main factor in the reduction of leaf area
development (Koocheki and Kamali, 2010). The researches’
results (Van Ittersum et al., 2003; Kimball et al., 1995) have
shown that the soil moisture reduction in climate change con-
dition, limits the root availability to water and in this way will
reduce the wheat leaf area. On the other hand the temperature
rise in climate change leads to the fast accumulation of wheat
growth day’s degree and as a result with the increase in canopy
development rapidity, the maximum reaching of leaf area in-
dex will accelerate compared with the current situation (Kirby,
1990). This issue will change the temporal coincidence between
the maximum solar radiation efficiency and the canopy devel-
opment and as a result the canopy efficiency decreases consid-
erably to absorb the radiation.
4. Conclusion
In this study the effects of climate change on the maturity per-
iod, leaf area index(LAI), biomass and grain yield of wheat un-
der future climate change for the studied region in Iran were
simulated. For this purpose, two general circulation models
HadCM3 and IPCM4 under three scenarios A1B, B1 and A2
in three time periods 2020, 2050 and 2080 were used. The re-
sults of model evaluation showed that LARS-WG had appro-
priate prediction for climatic parameters and simulation of
stochastic growing season in future climate change conditions
for the studied region. Wheat growing season period in all sce-
narios of climate change was reduced compared to the current
situation. Possible reasons were the increase in temperature
rate and the accelerated growth stages of wheat. This reduction
in B1 scenario was less than A1B and A2 scenarios. Maximum
wheat (LAI) in all scenarios, except scenario A1B in 2050, is
decreased compared to the current situation. Yield and biolog-
ical yield of wheat in both general circulation models under all
scenarios and all times were reduced in comparison with cur-
rent conditions and the lowest reduction was related to B1 sce-
nario. In general, the results showed that wheat production in
the future will be affected by climate change and will decrease
in the studied region. To reduce these risks, the impact of cli-
mate change mitigation strategies and management systems for
crop adaptation to climate change conditions should be
considered.
References
Bannayan, M., Hoogenboom, G., 2008. Weather analogue: a tool for
real-time prediction of daily weather data realizations based on a
modified k-Nearest neighbor approach. Environment Modeling
Software 3, 703–713.
Challinor, A.J., Wheeler, T.R., Craufurd, P.Q., Ferro, C.A.T.,
Stephenson, D.B., 2007. Adaptation of crops to climate change
through genotypic responses to mean and extreme temperatures
agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 119, 190–204.
Ewert, F., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Reginster, I., Metzger, M.G.,
Leemans, R., 2005. Future scenarios of European agricultural land
use. I. Estimating changes in crop productivity. Agriculture,
Ecosystem and Environment 107, 101–116.
Assessing climate change impacts on wheat production (a case study)
Ferizeni, M.S., 1998. Assessing effect of drought stress on 5 varieties of
Wheat in Sistan region. MSc Thesis. Faculty of Agriculture. Sistan
and Baluchestan University.
Fisher, G., Frohberg, K., Parry, M.L., Rosenzweig, C., 1994. Climate
change and world food supply, demand and trade: who benefits,
who loses? Global Environmental Change 4 (1), 7–23.
Gregory, P.J., Ingram, J.S.I., Brklacich, M., 2005. Climate change and
food security. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 360,
2139–2148.
Huang, Y. et al, 2009. Agro-C: a biogeophysical model for simulating
the carbon budget of agroecosystems. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology 149, 106–129.
IPCC, 2007. Summary for Policy Makers. Climate Change 2007: The
Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the
Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Jamieson, P.D., Semenov, M.A., Brooking, I.R., Francis, G.S., 1998.
Sirius: a mechanistic model of wheat response to environmental
variation. European Journal of Agronomy 8, 161–179.
Jones, P.G., Thornton, P.K., 2003. The potential impacts of climate
change on maize production in Africa and Latin America in 2055.
Global Environment Change 13, 51–59.
Kimball, B.A., Pinter, P.J., Garcia, R.L., LaMorte, R.L., Wall, G.W.,
Hunsaker, D.J., Wechsung, G., Wechsung, F., Kartschall, T., 1995.
Productivity and water use of wheat under free-air CO2 enrich-
ment. Global Change Biology 1, 429–442.
Kirby, E.J.M., 1990. Number of main shoot leaves in wheat as affected
by temperature. Journal of Agricultural Science 45, 270–279.
Koocheki, A., Kamali, G.H., 2010. Climate change and rainfed wheat
production in Iran. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 8,
508–520 (In Persian).
Koocheki, A., Nassiri, M., 2008. Impacts of climate change and CO2
concentration on wheat yield in Iran and adaptation strategies.
Iranian Field Crops Research 6, 139–153 (In Persian).
Koocheki, A., Nassiri Mahallati, M., Sharifi, A., Zand, E., Kamali,
G.H., 2001. Simulation of growth, phenology and production of
wheat varieties in effected by climate change in Mashhad climate.
Biaban 6, 117–127 (In Persian).
Lal, M., Singh, K.K., Rathore, L.S., Srinivasan, G., Saseendran, S.A.,
1998. Vulnerability of rice and wheat yields in NW India to future
changes in climate. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 89, 101–
114.
Lawlor, D.W., Mitchell, R.A.C., 2000. Crop ecosystem responses to
climatic change: wheat. In: Reddy, K.R., Hodges, H.F. (Eds.),
Climate Change and Global Crop Productivity. CAB Interna-
tional, Cambridge, pp. 57–80.
Loague, K., Green, R.E., 1991. Statistical and graphical methods for
evaluating solute transport models: overview and application.
Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 7, 51–73.
Long, S.P., 1991. Modification of the response of photosynthetic
productivity to rising temperature by atmospheric CO2 concentra-
tions: has its importance been underestimated? Plant Cell Envi-
ronment 14 (8), 729–739.
Magrin, G.O., Travasso, M.I., Diaz, R.A., Rodriguez, R.O., 1997.
Vulnerability of the agricultural system of Argentina to climate
change. Climate change 9, 31–36.
Mall, R.K., Aggarwal, P.K., 2002. Climate change and rice yields in
diverse agro-environments of India. I. Evaluation of impact
assessment models. Climate Change 52, 315–330.
Menzel, A., 2003. Plant phenological anomalies in Germany and their
relation to air temperature and NAO. Climate Change 57 (3), 243–
263.
Mitchell, R.A.C., Lawlor, D.W., Mitchell, V.J., Gibbard, C.L., White,
E.M., Porter, J.R., 1995. Effects of elevated CO2 concentration and
increased temperature on winter wheat: test of ARCWHEAT1
simulation model. Plant Cell Environment 18, 736–748.
Morison, J.I.L., 2006. Plant Growth and Climate Change. Blackwell
Publishing, Oxford, 238 page.
115
Nash, J.E., Sutcliffe, J.V., 1970. River flow forecasting through
conceptual models. Part I: a discussion of principles. Journal of
Hydrology 10, 282–290.
Olesen, J.E., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K.C., Skjelvag, A.O., Seguin, B.,
Peltonen-Sainio, P., Rossi, F., Kozyra, J., Micale, F., 2011.
Impacts and adaptation of European crop production systems to
climate change. European Journal of Agronomy 34, 96–112.
Ozdogan, M., 2011. Modeling the impacts of climate change on wheat
yields in Northwestern Turkey. Agriculture, Ecosystems and
Environment 141, 1–12.
Parry, M., Rosenzweig, C., Inglesias, A., Livermore, M., Gischer, G.,
2004. Effects of climate change on global food production under
SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ-
ment Change 14, 53–67.
Peng, S., Huang, J., Sheehy, J.E., Laza, R.C., Visperas, R.M., Zhong,
X., Centeno, G.S., Khush, G.S., Cassman, K.G., 2004. Rice yields
decline with higher night temperature from global warming.
Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 101 (27), 9971–9975.
Prasad, P.V.V., Boote, K.J., Allen Jr., L.H., Sheehy, J.E., Thomas,
J.M.G., 2006. Species, ecotype and cultivar differences in spikelet
fertility and harvest index of rice in response to high temperature
stress. Field Crops Research 95 (2/3), 398–411.
Prudhomme, C., Wilby, R.L., Crooks, S., Kay, A.L., Reynard, N.S.,
2010. Scenario-neutral approach to climate change impact studies:
application to flood risk. Journal of Hydrology 390, 198–209.
Quiring, S.M., Legates, D.R., 2008. Application of CERES-Maize for
within-season prediction of rainfed corn yields in Delaware, USA.
Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 148, 964–975.
Remy, M., Stefan, B., Andreas, B., Hans, J.W., 2003. Effect of CO2
enrichment on growth and daily radiation use efficiency of wheat in
relation to temperature and growth stage. European Journal of
Agronomy 19, 411–425.
Roberts, E.H., Summerfield, R.J., 2007. Measurement and prediction
of flowering in annual crops. In: Atherton, J.G. (Ed.), Manipula-
tion of Flowering. Butterworths, London, pp. 17–50.
Saarikko, R.A., Carter, T.R., 1996. Estimating the development and
regional thermal suitability of spring wheat in Finland under
climatic warming. Climatic Research 7, 243–252.
Semenov, M.K., Brooks, R.J., 1999. Spatial interpolation of the
LARS-WG stochastic weather generator in Great Britain. Climatic
Research 11, 137–148.
Semenov, M.K., Stratonovitch, A., 2010. Use of multi-model ensem-
bles from global climate models for assessment of climate change
impacts. Climatic Research 41, 1–14.
Sivakumar, M.V.K., Das, H.P., Brunini, O., 2005. Impacts of present
and future climate variability and change on agriculture and
forestry in the arid and semi-arid tropics. Climatic Change 70, 31–
72.
Tao, F., Yokozawa, M., Xu, Y., Hayashi, Y., Zhang, Z., 2006. Climate
changes and trends in phenology and yields of field crops in China,
1981–2000. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 138, 82–92.
Tubiello, F.J., Donatelli, M., Rosenzweig, C., Stockle, C.O., 2000.
Effects of climate change and elevated CO2 on cropping systems:
model predictions at two Italian locations. European Journal of
Agronomy 13, 179–189.
Van Ittersum, M.K., Howden, S.M., Asseng, S., 2003. Sensitivity of
productivity and deep drainage of wheat cropping system in a
Mediterranean environment to changes in CO2, temperature
and precipitation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 97,
255–273.
Wetterhall, F., Bardossy, A., Chen, D., Halldin, S., XU, Ch., 2009.
Statistical downscaling of daily precipitation over Sweden using
GCM output. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 96, 95–103.
Wolf, J., 2002. Comparison of two potato simulation models under
climate change. I. Model calibration and sensitivity analyses.
Climate Research 21, 173–186.