26/01/2017

Changing Climate Has Stalled Australian Wheat Yields: Study

The ConversationZvi Hochman | David L. Gobbett | Heidi Horan

Fields of gold: Australia’s wheat industry contributes more than A$5 billion to the economy each year. Wheat image from www.shutterstock.com
Australia’s wheat yields more than trebled during the first 90 years of the 20th century but have stalled since 1990. In research published today in Global Change Biology, we show that rising temperatures and reduced rainfall, in line with global climate change, are responsible for the shortfall.
This is a major concern for wheat farmers, the Australian economy and global food security as the climate continues to change. The wheat industry is typically worth more than A$5 billion per year – Australia’s most valuable crop. Globally, food production needs to increase by at least 60% by 2050, and Australia is one of the world’s biggest wheat exporters.
There is some good news, though. So far, despite poorer conditions for growing wheat, farmers have managed to improve farming practices and at least stabilise yields. The question is how long they can continue to do so.

Worsening weather
While wheat yields have been largely the same over the 26 years from 1990 to 2015, potential yields have declined by 27% since 1990, from 4.4 tonnes per hectare to 3.2 tonnes per hectare.
Potential yields are the limit on what a wheat field can produce. This is determined by weather, soil type, the genetic potential of the best adapted wheat varieties and sustainable best practice. Farmers’ actual yields are further restricted by economic considerations, attitude to risk, knowledge and other socio-economic factors.
While yield potential has declined overall, the trend has not been evenly distributed. While some areas have not suffered any decline, others have declined by up to 100kg per hectare each year.
The distribution of the annual change in wheat yield potential from 1990 to 2015. Each dot represents one of the 50 weather stations used in the study. David Gobbett, Zvi Hochman and Heidi Horan, Author provided
We found this decline in yield potential by investigating 50 high-quality weather stations located throughout Australia’s wheat-growing areas.
Analysis of the weather data revealed that, on average, the amount of rain falling on growing crops declined by 2.8mm per season, or 28% over 26 years, while maximum daily temperatures increased by an average of 1.05℃.
To calculate the impact of these climate trends on potential wheat yields we applied a crop simulation model, APSIM, which has been thoroughly validated against field experiments in Australia, to the 50 weather stations.

Climate variability or climate change?
There is strong evidence globally that increasing greenhouse gases are causing rises in temperature.
Recent studies have also attributed observed rainfall trends in our study region to anthropogenic climate change.
Statistically, the chance of observing the decline in yield potential over 50 weather stations and 26 years through random variability is less than one in 100 billion.
We can also separate the individual impacts of rainfall decline, temperature rise and more CO₂ in the atmosphere (all else being equal, rising atmospheric CO₂ means more plant growth).
First, we statistically removed the rising temperature trends from the daily temperature records and re-ran the simulations. This showed that lower rainfall accounted for 83% of the decline in yield potential, while temperature rise alone was responsible for 17% of the decline.
Next we re-ran our simulations with climate records, keeping CO₂ at 1990 levels. The CO₂ enrichment effect, whereby crop growth benefits from higher atmospheric CO₂ levels, prevented a further 4% decline relative to 1990 yields.
So the rising CO₂ levels provided a small benefit compared to the combined impact of rainfall and temperature trends.

Closing the yield gap
Why then have actual yields remained steady when yield potential has declined by 27%? Here it is important to understand the concept of yield gaps, the difference between potential yields and farmers’ actual yields.
An earlier study showed that between 1996 and 2010 Australia’s wheat growers achieved 49% of their yield potential – so there was a 51% “yield gap” between what the fields could potentially produce and what farmers actually harvested.
Averaged out over a number of seasons, Australia’s most productive farmers achieve about 80% of their yield potential. Globally, this is considered to be the ceiling for many crops.
Wheat farmers are closing the yield gap. From harvesting 38% of potential yields in 1990 this increased to 55% by 2015. This is why, despite the decrease in yield potential, actual yields have been stable.
Impressively, wheat growers have adopted advances in technology and adapted them to their needs. They have adopted improved varieties as well as improved practices, including reduced cultivation (or “tillage”) of their land, controlled traffic to reduce soil compaction, integrated weed management and seasonally targeted fertiliser use. This has enabled them to keep pace with an increasingly challenging climate.

What about the future?
Let’s assume that the climate trend observed over the past 26 years continues at the same rate during the next 26 years, and that farmers continue to close the yield gap so that all farmers reach 80% of yield potential.
If this happens, we calculate that the national wheat yield will fall from the recent average of 1.74 tonnes per hectare to 1.55 tonnes per hectare in 2041. Such a future would be challenging for wheat producers, especially in more marginal areas with higher rates of decline in yield potential.
While total wheat production and therefore exports under this scenario will decrease, Australia can continue to contribute to future global food security through its agricultural research and development.

Links

Government To Keep Renewable Energy Targets Despite Trump Concerns: Frydenberg

ABC NewsHenry Belot

The Government ratified the Paris climate change agreement before Mr Trump's inauguration. (AAP/AP)
Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg says the Government has no plans to scrap its renewable energy targets (RET), despite internal criticism and concerns US President Donald Trump may withdraw from the Paris climate change agreement.
The Federal Government has set a target of producing 33,000 gigawatt-hours of renewable energy by 2020, although this was downgraded from 41,000 gigawatts hours under the Tony Abbott government.
"We have no plans to change that renewable energy target for 2020," Mr Frydenberg told ABC News.
"It does have an impact on electricity prices, but it is a much more moderate target than what we are seeing being proposed in Parliament by our political opponents.
"It's a real challenge for us to meet that target and I want people to be under no misapprehension about that — it is going to be challenging to meet that target."
Mr Frydenberg dismissed calls from former prime minister Mr Abbott to make cancelling the RET the first order of business for 2017.
Mr Abbott — along with a number of other conservative MPs — has claimed the RET will destroy heavy industry in South Australia due to rising electricity costs.
"The RET is not cost free but large, heavy industry is actually exempt," Mr Frydenberg said.
The Federal Government ratified the Paris climate change agreement in November before Mr Trump's inauguration.
Mr Trump vowed to cancel the agreement in early 2016, claiming it would give foreign bureaucrats control of how much energy the US uses.
He can cancel the executive order used by former US president Barack Obama to sign the agreement and bypass the Republican-controlled Senate.
"I'm not going to hypothesise about what Donald Trump does, but in terms of our international commitments, we have committed to a 26-28 per cent target," Mr Frydenberg said.
"Dare I say it — we are doing very well in terms of trying to meet our 2030 target as well as our 2020 target which we are on track to beat by more than 224 million tonnes."
The Energy Minister's comments come after Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said Australia was known as "an honourable negotiator".
"We don't sign agreements to pull out of them," he told ABC Radio on Monday.
"We go into them; we negotiate with the belief that, if you sign a piece of paper, you should be sticking to it."

Links

Donald Trump, Climate Vandal, Springs To Action On The Environment

Fairfax

Washington: He lied – again. President Donald Trump had car manufacturers in on Tuesday, giving them the rounds of the kitchen for locating their factories abroad – but assuring them he'd reduce "out of control" environmental regulations.
And lest he be seen as the climate vandal that most in the environmental movement fear he is, Trump touted his greenie credentials at the meeting – "I'm a very big person when it comes to the environment – I've received awards on the environment."

Trump approves controversial pipeline
US President Donald Trump signs executive orders on the Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipelines angering both environmental and American Indian groups. 

Nope! And when reporters asked for a list of the awards, the White House referred them to a book. Nope, again – instead of listing what the President had won, it listed what the author, Trump's longtime environmental consultant, thought he should have won.
But Trump's encounter with the car makers proved to be just a warm-up act for his inner vandal – later in the morning fears that he would drag the US back towards the yesteryears of fossil fuels were confirmed with his decision to revive two controversial projects, the Keystone XL and the Dakota Access oil pipelines.
It's hard not to conclude that this is all about money: on news of his election victory shares in companies making solar panels and wind turbines dropped by up to 10 per cent, but shares in Peabody Energy – the biggest US coal company – were up more than 50 per cent.
And viewed through the prism of the Trump dealmaker's logic, there might even be some commercial sense in the environmentalist notion that Trump is the last man who can help energy firms who find themselves stranded in a fast-changing world, because they are still sitting on huge fossil energy reserves fast being rendered useless by advances in renewable energy.
British activist writer George Monbiot writes: "Trump is the man who will let them squeeze every last cent from their oil and coal reserves before them become worthless.
"They need him because science, technology and people's demands for a safe and stable world have left them stranded. There is no fight they can win. So their last hope lies with a government that will rig the competition."
President Donald Trump speaks during his meeting with automobile leaders in the Roosevelt Room of the White House in Washington. Photo: AP
Trump's move on the two pipelines was part of a first-days-in-office smashing of things precious to his predecessor – who for all his sober handling of so many issues was passionate on the issue of climate change.
So, within minutes of Trump swearing the oath of office on Friday, the White House website that showcased the Obama administration's climate change policies disappeared into the ether, and was replaced with a statement on Trump's energy policy, which promises to reduce "burdensome regulations on our energy industry".
Happy days are here to stay longer? Exxon Mobil's Billings Refinery in Billings, Montana.  Photo: AP
And within hours, a government-wide memo was dispatched by Trump's White House chief of staff, Reince Priebus – he was ordering a freeze on new or pending regulations, halting a raft of Energy Department efficiency standards that analysts argue will save consumers billions of dollars over time in reduced energy consumption by airconditioners, walk-in coolers, freezers, boilers and some power supply systems.
And within days, an Environmental Protection Agency for environmental research and improvement, worth about $US4 billion a year for environmental research and improvement, was snap frozen.
Oklahoma Attorney-General Scott Pruitt, nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Photo: Bloomberg
Here, in a few words, are Trump's many plans on environmental issues – he had vowed to cancel the Paris global accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 28 per cent by 2025. He wants to shred a raft of energy and environmental regulation. He is committed to opening swaths of federal land to oil, gas and coal drilling and production. He thinks the Environmental Protection Agency should be all but neutered.
And he plans to put an axe through Obama's Clean Power Plan, which was to pressure electricity firms to reduce carbon emissions and the Waters of the US rule, which protects the country's big rivers and their smaller tributaries.
Ford Motors CEO Mark Fields, left, and General Motors CEO Mary Barra, walk to speak with reporters outside the White House in Washington. Photo: AP
In the transition team and the cabinet he is assembling Trump has included a small army of climate change sceptics.
Trump's pick for EPA administrator is one of the agency's greatest enemies – Oklahoma Attorney-General Scott Pruitt, who repeatedly led or joined legal challenges seeking to block Obama's efforts to regulate climate change. Pruitt's LinkedIn profile boasts that he's a "leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda".
A semi-submersible drilling unit as it arrives in Port Angeles, Washington.  Photo: AP
He twice sued the EPA, trying to derail regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
He joined the fight to make coal-fired power plants reduce mercury emissions and later, he led the charge against Obama's Clean Power Plan.
He fought the EPA's expanded oversight of water pollution. And according to reports on his record in Oklahoma, his decisions on how to handle cases seemed to have been made on the basis of the political donations he received.
Some environmentalists seem utterly defeated – Bill McKibben, founder of the climate action group 350.org, told The Washington Post: "I really don't know ... We'll do what we can, but truthfully, the path forward is not all that clear to me."
Others are girding for a fight. Recalling the early days of the George W. Bush administration, Friends of the Earth president Erich Pica, said: "[We] utilised the courts, the Senate filibuster, watchdogged political appointees and galvanised the public to take action – we'll have to take these same actions ... the environmental movement is stronger than we've ever been."
Both Pruitt and Rick Perry, the former Texas governor who as a presidential candidate could not remember the name of the Energy Department as one he intended to abolish, but who will lead that department under Trump, conceded in their Senate confirmation hearings that human activity had an impact on the climate, but they also showed themselves to be sceptics – either waffling or by bouncing questions as "academic" or "immaterial".
All but the last 330 metres of the 1880-kilometre Dakota Access pipeline, to move oil from the North Dakota shale oil reserves to Illinois, has been built – but in December a stop was ordered to allow alternate routes to be considered for the last stretch in the face of American Indian protests that their water supplies could be affected.
Analysts say that the potential for job creation or environmental damage from the Keystone XL pipeline, which is intended to carry 800 000 barrels a day from Canada to the Gulf coast, is minimal – but the project became a lightning rod as a test of Washington's preparedness make a call either to promote energy production or act to protect the environment. Obama dithered for years, but ultimately rejected the project on the eve of the Paris emissions conference, arguing that to proceed would have diminished US leadership in weaning the world off carbon fuel.
At his meeting with the auto makers, Trump promised easier regulation: "We're going to make the process much more simple for the auto companies and for everyone else who wants to do business in the US. You're going to find this to be [a shift] from being very inhospitable to extremely hospitable."
And trying to at least be seen to be environmentally conscious, he added: "I am, to a large extent, an environmentalist – I believe in it. But it's out of control and we're going to make it a very short process.
"And we're going to either give you your permits or we're not going to give you your permits – but you're going to know very quickly and, generally speaking, we're going to be giving you your permits."

Links