Ag Weather Forum

Climate Change Reducing Soybean Yields

Bryce Anderson
By  Bryce Anderson , Ag Meteorologist Emeritus
Connect with Bryce:

The following article, written by Leslie Reed of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, summarizes some keynote research in the climate change-and-agriculture arena--a study which has put a dollar tag on the net loss to soybean growers because of the steadily-warming climate.

Bryce

Twitter @BAndersonDTN

Climate change cost American soybean farmers an estimated $11 billion in unrealized potential yield in the past two decades, a newly published study says.

The study’s researchers included UNL's James Specht, emeritus professor of agronomy and horticulture. Specht assisted lead researchers Spyridon Mourtzinis and Shawn Conley of the University of Wisconsin in developing and reviewing the study.

U.S. farmers have increased soybean yields in the past 20 years by about a third of a bushel per acre per year, Specht said. Those gains, of about 0.8 percent a year, resulted from adoption of higher-yielding soybean varieties and improved farming methods.

But the gains would have been 30 percent higher if it weren’t for the higher temperatures and changing rainfall patterns resulting from climate change, the author-researchers concluded in their paper, which was published in Nature Plants. That works out to $11 billion in lost opportunity cost, they said.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

“We’re doing OK, but we could have done a heck of a lot better without climate change,” Specht said.

The United States experienced a warming trend during the May-September growing season during the study period of 1994 to 2003. Rainfall patterns have changed as well, increasing in spring and fall but declining in June, July and August.

Mourtzinis and Conley compared soybean yields in 12 soybean-producing states to month-by-month temperature and rainfall changes. They found soybean yields declined by about 4.3 percent for every degree Fahrenheit rise in average growing season temperatures.

They also found that changing rainfall patterns cut into soybean yields. They dropped when May, July and September were wetter than normal. They also dropped if June and August were drier.

The researchers appear to be the first to look at climate change’s state-by-state impact on agriculture during each month of the growing season. Previous studies have calculated global temperature changes and yield impacts by country.

“We were able to leverage decades of measured — not estimated — yield data from across the country, to account for agronomic and genetic yield advances and to isolate the impact of climate change on soybean yield and yield gain,” Conley said.

Successfully adapting to climate change depends upon where and when the crop is grown, Specht and the other researchers said. They found that some states saw improved soybean yields as a result of climate change, though not enough to offset the reduced yields seen in bigger producing states.

Specht said soybean production has recently increased in northern states and Canada because of warmer temperatures and changing rainfall patterns.

“This shift is a reflection of the impact of global warming,” he said. “Due to warmer springs and falls that allow for longer growing seasons in the Dakotas and southern Canada, soybeans now are being grown in places where in the past they could not be grown.”

The study’s authors estimated, for example, that Minnesota farmers saw an economic gain of about $1.7 billion over the past 20 years because of increased soybean yields resulting from climate change. However, Missouri farmers experienced smaller yields, reflecting a $5 billion opportunity cost.

“Our data highlight the importance of developing location-specific adaptation strategies for climate change based on early-, mid- and late-growing season climate trends,” the researchers concluded.

States studied were North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas and Mississippi.

The study was limited to non-irrigated soybean yields. Though Specht assisted with the study, Nebraska data was not included because a significant proportion of Nebraska’s crop is irrigated and the non-irrigated production data was not readily available.

You may also read the article here: http://tinyurl.com/…

(ES/SK/AG)

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Brandon Butler
2/12/2015 | 8:07 AM CST
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html
FRANK FULWIDER
2/11/2015 | 4:51 PM CST
Bruce, The increase in soybean yield may be to climate change. Corn and beans moving north and record yields in the south. Warmer means more evaporation,more water vapor means more precipitation, more CO2 means plants grow better. A win win in my book.
Jay Mcginnis
2/11/2015 | 4:24 PM CST
oil and other fossil fuels are what allows the worlds human population to grow like it has. in 1900 the population was 1 billion souls, now we are at 7 billion and are told that without fossil fuels we would only be at 1 billion. Simple biology states that when an organism has an unlimited food source it multiplies to the point where the food source is consumed then drops back to the pre-food boom, its the "bell curve" and applies to all organisms. One such organism is yeast like in the production of ethanol. The yeast devours the sugar giving off CO2 and alcohol, eventually the huge population of yeast die in their own waste. Ummmm,,,,,, maybe we don't have a choice here? So whoop it up and lets make the Koch brothers stinking rich so we can have their trickle down,,, we will really impress our descendants with the wealth of corporations!!!! Don't worry,,, oil is unlimited, climate change is a hoax, Bush was the best president ever, there are "no go zones" in France, corporations are people and the future has tons of opportunities with a climate as hot as hell!!!!!
TOM DRAPER
2/11/2015 | 4:15 PM CST
In an interview in investors business daily, the United Nations executive dealing with climate change named Christiana Figueres, said the main goal of environmental activism is to bring an end to capitalism. I'm not looking for an argument here, but how can you come to an informed opinion in the face of all this "information".
bbob
2/10/2015 | 10:35 PM CST
The mid 90's was the time period that RR beans were introduced and rapidly adapted. Farmers accepted a yield drag for weed control. Yield and defensive traits were back burner to RR weed control. There you have it Bruce. The truth doesn't advance the agenda, so maybe you should delete it.
JOHN JANSSEN
2/10/2015 | 5:40 PM CST
Change is opportunity .
Jay Mcginnis
2/10/2015 | 4:23 PM CST
Ice on my dog dish again this morning,,, proof global warming is a hoax!!! Nice trying Bryce but as long as I have proof you can't fool and Sean Hannity knows as well!
Brandon Butler
2/10/2015 | 12:13 PM CST
Oh, how precious. The government doing the explaining of the "slight" adjustments. They don't have a vested interest in this big lie, noooooo..... Fox guarding the hen house come to mind anyone? What a crock. And what a bunch of lockstep water carriers. Goebbels would be proud.
ctnprod07
2/10/2015 | 9:25 AM CST
Please explain the yields in a Southern state, Louisana, top yields in the nation in 2014. No doubt it is warmer in the Southern states than in the northern tier.
Bryce Anderson
2/10/2015 | 6:59 AM CST
Over the course of time, temperature data has been reviewed and some minor adjustments have been made due to location of instruments or methodology. However, these reviews have not altered the trends that have been going on. NOAA has a full explanation of temperature data at this link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php
TOM DRAPER
2/9/2015 | 8:23 PM CST
Thanks for your efforts to inform us on the effects of climate change. I just finished reading an article on the "adjusting" of raw temperature data. Can you shed some light on this practice, if, in fact it's true? I'm not in denial, just confused with all the conflicting info.