Climate Change Implications for Crop Production in Central and Eastern Canada

Transcription

1 Climate Change Implications for Crop Production in Central and Eastern Canada Presented by: Sam Gameda and Andy Bootsma, Environmental Health Program, Soil, Water and Air Quality theme, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), Ottawa, Ontario Presented at: C-CIARN Workshop on Climate Change Adaptation and Canadian Agriculture, February 16-18, 2005, Edmonton, Alberta. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 1

2 Some recent research projects on impacts of climate change Impacts on agricultural production in Atlantic region (Bootsma et al.)** Impacts on agroclimatic indices in Ontario and Quebec (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.)** **supported in part by Gov t of Canada Climate Change Action Fund 2

3 Average Crop Heat Units Change in Crop Heat Units 3

4 EGDD Change in EGDD 4

5 Water Deficit Change in Deficit 5

6 Comparisons with other GCM exp ts spring period Eastern New Brunswick grid point CGCM1 +A ens #1 Source: Canadian Climate Impacts Scenarios (CCIS) Group 6

7 Comparison with other GCM exp ts summer period Eastern New Brunswick grid point CGCM1 +A, ens #1 Source: Canadian Climate Impacts Scenarios (CCIS) Group 7

8 Average CHU versus average yield of grain corn in eastern Canada 14 Yield (t ha -1 ) y = x R 2 = 0.86 P < CHU Corn yields increase about 0.6 t ha -1 for each increase of 100 CHU 8

9 Average CHU versus average yield of soybeans in eastern Canada Yield (t ha -1 ) y = x R 2 = 0.74 P < CHU Soybean yields increase about 0.13 t ha -1 for each increase of 100 CHU 9

10 Average yields of barley versus Effective Growing Degree-Days above 5ºC (EGDD) 6 - Row Barley 2 - Row Barley Yield (t ha -1 ) y = x R 2 = 0.26 P < Yield (t ha -1 ) y = x R 2 = 0.16 (NS) EGDD EGDD Increasing EGDD by 400 units reduces yield of 6-row and 2- row barley about 0.6 and 0.4 t ha-1, respectively 10

11 Average yields of barley versus water deficit (PE P) 6 - Row Barley 2 - Row Barley Yield (t ha -1 ) y = x x R 2 = DEFICIT (mm) Yield (t ha -1 ) y = x x R 2 = DEFICIT (mm)

12 Production scenario for Atlantic region Climate Scenario Yield (t/ha) Area (ha) Production ( 000 tonnes) 1990 s: Observed 5.6 2, Corn By 2055 CGCM1 Multiple GCMs , To , to 330 Soybeans Barley 1990 s Observed CGCM ,500 20, By s By 2055 Multiple GCMs Observed CGCM1 3.5 to ,000 55,000 25, to

13 Some conclusions for Atlantic region Corn and soybean yields and acreage likely to increase significantly with climate warming. Barley yields not likely to change greatly; acreage likely to decrease. Change in water deficits not likely to impact average yields of corn and soybeans significantly, but may affect barley yields. 13

14 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

15 CGCM1 Global Coupled Model, Greenhouse Gas With Aerosol Simulation Precipitation Change Summer - JJA 2050s Source: Canadian Climate Impacts Scenarios (CCIS) Group 15

16 Comparisons with other GCM s summer period, S. Ont. CGCM1 Source: Canadian Climate Impacts Scenarios (CCIS) Group Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 16

17 Comparison with other GCM s annual period, S.Ont. CGCM1 Source: Canadian Climate Impacts Scenarios (CCIS) Group Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 17

18

19 Average corn yields vs CHU USA Locations Yield (t/ha) i i 2i 2i 2i i i i 1i i 6 6i CHU 6i 3 6i 6i 1 = Illinois 2 = Nebraska 3 = Indiana 4 = Iowa 5 = Ohio 6 = Missouri i = irrigated (based on average yield of top 10 hybrids in field trials, 4 to 8 yrs data, ) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

20 20

21 Corn yields vs Water Deficits USA Locations Yield (t/ha) Water Deficit (mm) 1 = Illinois 2 = Nebraska 3 = Indiana 4 = Iowa 5 = Ohio 6 = Missouri (based on average yield of top 10 hybrids in field trials, 4 to 8 yrs data, ) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

22 Crop Yield and Yield Variability from EPIC model EPIC = Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (Williams et al.) Simulated annual yields for baseline ( ) period and 2xCO 2 climate scenario ( ) barley, spring wheat, canola, corn, soybeans, potatoes and winter wheat 29 locations across Canada (not all crops at all locations) 22

23 Changes in monthly mean temperature and precipitation as a result of the 2xCO2 scenario for EPIC model. J F M A M J J A S O N D Year Temperature Change ( C) S. Ontario (average for 5 locations) Quebec (average for 4 locations) Precipitation Change (mm) S. Ontario Quebec Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 23

24 Summary of Results from EPIC model for Southern Ontario and Quebec Yields (t/ha) Crop # sites Average Std. Dev. Baseline 2xCO2 % change Baseline 2xCO2 % change Southern Ontario Barley Spring wheat Corn Soybeans Winter wheat Southern Quebec Barley Spring wheat Corn Soybeans Locations: Ontario - Kemptville, Peterborough 1, Brucefield 1, Harrow 2, Delhi 2 Quebec - Normandin, Lennoxville, Mont Joli, St Hyacinthe 1 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 24

25 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: Tsum < 5 C during hardening - loss of hardiness in winter: Tsum > 0 C accumulation rate during cold period - cold stress during winter: days with snow cover period Tmin < -15 C - soil heaving/smothering: rain during period Tmin < -15 C 25

26 Indices for Fruit Trees Fall hardening: Winter cold: daylength at first frost Tsum < -15 C Cold intensity: Lowest Tmin Winter dehardening: Tsum > 0 C after Jan 1 to last date of Tmin < -15 C Spring frost damage: Tsum > 0 C, Jan 1 to last 0 C Tsum > 5 C, Jan 1 to last -2 C 26

27 Climatic Stations in Eastern Canada Compared indices for period to ,

28 Some results/conclusions for locations in Ontario near Great Lakes for 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 28

29 Results for fruit trees improved fall hardening due to shorter daylength at first autumn frost less cold stress in winter due to fewer T < -15 C in winter; higher T min) 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 1 is met; otherwise bud burst will be delayed and reduce the risk) 29

30 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 30

31 Summary of some conclusions Increased risk of damage to forage crops due to: reduced fall hardening loss of hardiness during winter less protection from snow cover Decreased risk of damage to fruit trees due to: improved fall hardening due to shorter photoperiod at first frost less cold stress in winter less bud damage due to spring frosts except in warmest regions 31

32 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 32