You are viewing /report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1 in Turtle
Alternatives : HTML JSON YAML text N-Triples JSON Triples RDF+XML RDF+JSON Graphviz SVG
Raw
@prefix dcterms: <http://purl.org/dc/terms/> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
@prefix gcis: <http://data.globalchange.gov/gcis.owl#> .
@prefix cito: <http://purl.org/spar/cito/> .
@prefix biro: <http://purl.org/spar/biro/> .

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   dcterms:identifier "key-message-10-1";
   gcis:findingNumber "10.1"^^xsd:string;
   gcis:findingStatement "<p>Food and forage production will decline in regions experiencing increased frequency and duration of drought (<em>high confidence</em>). Shifting precipitation patterns, when associated with high temperatures, will intensify wildfires that reduce forage on rangelands, accelerate the depletion of water supplies for irrigation, and expand the distribution and incidence of pests and diseases for crops and livestock (<em>very likely, high confidence</em>). Modern breeding approaches and the use of novel genes from crop wild relatives are being employed to develop higher-yielding, stress-tolerant crops.</p>"^^xsd:string;
   gcis:isFindingOf <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities>;
   gcis:isFindingOf <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4>;

## Properties of the finding:
   gcis:findingProcess "<p>Each regional author team organized a stakeholder engagement process to identify the highest-priority concerns, including priorities for agriculture and rural communities. Due to the heterogeneous nature of agriculture and rural communities, the national chapter leads (NCLs) and coauthor team put in place a structured process to gather and synthesize input from the regional stakeholder meetings. Where possible, one or more of the authors or the chapter lead author listened to stakeholder input during regional stakeholder listening sessions. Information about agriculture and rural communities was synthesized from the written reports from each regional engagement workshop. During the all-authors meeting on April 2–3, 2017, the NCL met with authors from each region and other national author teams to identify issues relevant to this chapter. To finalize our regional roll-up, a teleconference was scheduled with each regional author team to discuss agriculture and rural community issues. Most of the regional author teams identified issues related to agricultural productivity, with underlying topics dominated by drought, temperature, and changing seasonality. Grassland wildfire was identified as a concern in the Northern and Southern Great Plains. All regional author teams identified soil and water vulnerabilities as concerns, particularly as they relate to soil and water quality impacts and a depleting water supply, as well as reduced field operation days due to wet soils and an increased risk of soil erosion due to precipitation on frozen soil. Heat stress in rural communities and among agricultural workers was of concern in the Southeast, Southern Great Plains, Northwest, Hawaiʻi and Pacific Islands, U.S. Caribbean, and Northeast. Livestock health was identified as a concern in the Northeast, Midwest, U.S. Caribbean, and Southern Great Plains. Additional health-related concerns were smoke from wildfire, pesticide impacts, allergens, changing disease vectors, and mental health issues related to disasters and climate change. Issues related to the vulnerability and adaptive capacity of rural communities were identified by all regions. Discussions with the regional teams were followed by expert deliberation on the draft Key Messages by the authors and targeted consultation with additional experts. Information was then synthesized into Key Messages, which were refined based on published literature and professional judgment.</p>"^^xsd:string;
   
   gcis:descriptionOfEvidenceBase "<p>The Key Message and supporting text summarize extensive evidence documented in the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s (USGCRP) <em>Climate Science</em> <em>Special Report</em>{{< tbib '84' '75cf1c0b-cc62-4ca4-96a7-082afdfe2ab1' >}} indicating increasing drought frequency or severity in many parts of the United States, increased temperature, and increased frost-free days. An increased probability of hot days concurrent with drought has been reported by Mueller and Seneviratne (2012),{{< tbib '235' '77718bdb-b632-4762-b8a5-d4151785f65b' >}} Mazdiyasni and AghaKouchak (2015),{{< tbib '236' '38b0ec9f-8c00-428f-9ec9-6214f617515d' >}} and Diffenbaugh et al. (2015).{{< tbib '107' '89e08a41-6091-45fa-a92e-6168a90a8151' >}} The warming of minimum temperatures (lack of hard freezes) is contributing to expanding ranges for many insect, disease, and weed species.{{< tbib '237' '5aeba9d1-c405-45a2-b259-bd95dcf17a05' >}} Bebber et al. (2013){{< tbib '238' 'b3855765-38da-4fd9-8288-874a43b16607' >}} report an average poleward shift of 2.7 km/year (1.68 miles/year) since 1960 of numerous pests and pathogens.</p><p><strong>Agricultural production:</strong> Walthall et al. (2012){{< tbib '38' '3baf471f-751f-4d68-9227-4197fdbb6e5d' >}} synthesize a wide body of literature that documents the impacts of climate, including drought, on crop and livestock productivity and on the natural resources that support agricultural production. Marshall et al. 2015{{< tbib '97' 'bc6c6b92-e049-4b86-b772-8d35032d3cb0' >}} also quantified climate change impacts on the yield of major U.S. crops as well as the reduced ability in the future to mitigate drought by irrigation. Havstad et al. (2016){{< tbib '239' 'c779538d-b066-4e38-8527-ff3f7552f26e' >}} describe the resilience of livestock production on rangelands in the Southwest and identify adaptation management strategies needed in an increasingly arid and variable climatic environment. Liang et al. (2017){{< tbib '240' 'c5857041-2594-47cf-a6bc-3fab052fa903' >}} found that total factor productivity (TFP) for the U.S. agriculture sector is related to regional and seasonal temperature and precipitation factors. Rosenzweig et al. (2014){{< tbib '241' 'b84b193b-ca98-479c-b5ef-fe94e5ffd39c' >}} indicated strong negative effects of climate change on crop yields, particularly at higher levels of warming and lower latitudes. While technological improvements have outweighed the aggregate negative impacts of climate to date, projected climate change indicates that U.S. agriculture TFP could drop to pre-1980s levels by 2050. Ray et al. (2015){{< tbib '242' 'dcf14e95-6370-4d19-b975-33fc290cffae' >}} estimate that climate accounts for about one-third of global yield variability.</p><p><strong>Crop heat stress:</strong> Novick et al. (2016){{< tbib '243' '3a3fae72-1abc-4a9e-a816-02252ac7c6fe' >}} indicate that atmospheric vapor pressure deficits play a critical role in plant function and productivity and that it will become more important at higher temperatures as an independent factor, relative to available soil moisture. For instance, high temperature has been documented to decrease yields of major crops, including wheat, corn, rice, and soybean.{{< tbib '92' '79853924-784a-4bc1-8c47-551d3e6d9bc1' >}}<sup class='cm'>,</sup>{{<tbib '113' '2967c8a9-063e-4118-92a4-71f266341e2f' >}}<sup class='cm'>,</sup>{{<tbib '120' 'c918cb9e-c955-497f-b242-e68359b56b77' >}}<sup class='cm'>,</sup>{{<tbib '244' '9282485a-e4e4-42d8-b8c5-2cd00eecb3fd' >}} Multimodel simulations indicated that grain yield reductions of wheat at high temperature were associated with reduced grain number per head{{< tbib '120' 'c918cb9e-c955-497f-b242-e68359b56b77' >}} and that yield reductions were increased with higher temperature increases across a wide range of latitudes.{{< tbib '241' 'b84b193b-ca98-479c-b5ef-fe94e5ffd39c' >}} Hatfield et al. (2017){{< tbib '245' '83a3b10a-7eeb-4b2e-a3c0-4cf8fb10de7a' >}} report that yield gaps for Midwest corn were negatively related to July maximum and August minimum temperatures but positively related to July–August rainfall, and that soybeans were less sensitive to projected temperature changes than corn. For corn, projected yield gaps showed a strong North–South gradient, with large gaps in southern portions of the region. Kukal and Irmak (2018){{< tbib '246' '5cbf6744-fd90-4afb-8ba4-90979ee029ce' >}} reported that changes in the variability of maize, sorghum, and soybean yield patterns in the Great Plains from 1968–2013 were linked to temperature and precipitation, with irrigated crops showing low variability compared to rainfed crops. Temperature increases were detrimental to sorghum and soybean yield but not to corn during this period. Tebaldi and Lobbell (2015){{< tbib '247' '82a91188-b255-4485-8e65-0417131e5c25' >}} projected that corn would benefit from greenhouse gas mitigation to limit temperature increases throughout this century. For wheat, but less so for corn, impacts of exposure to extremely high temperatures would be partially offset by carbon dioxide fertilization effects. Tack et al. (2015){{< tbib '248' '72962214-b93d-4ced-b773-156135252d2d' >}} report that the largest drivers of Kansas wheat yield loss over 1985–2013 were freezing temperatures in the fall and extreme heat events in the spring.{{< tbib '249' '4d4ae7e2-bd4f-429c-a696-e60e0156d95f' >}}<sup class='cm'>,</sup>{{<tbib '250' 'dcd0b157-c8af-44c1-a0f9-ce824c551b03' >}} The overall effect of warming on yields was negative, even after accounting for the benefits of reduced exposure to freezing temperatures. Warming effects were partially offset by increased spring precipitation. Of concern was evidence that recently released wheat varieties are less able to resist high temperature stress than older varieties. Gammans et al. (2017){{< tbib '251' '63db2021-16af-4542-a6ca-c8c35406118d' >}} found that wheat and barley yields in France were negatively related to spring and summer temperatures. Liu et al. (2016){{< tbib '252' '68ae490c-ab1d-4cf6-9e49-1d55448c154a' >}} report that with a 1.8°F (1°C) global temperature increase, global wheat yield is projected to decline between 4.1% and 6.4%, with the greatest losses in warmer wheat-producing regions. Wienhold et al.(2017){{< tbib '253' 'b1cbd298-7ce4-4106-a802-f8de95517c97' >}} identify an increase in the number of extreme temperature events (higher daytime highs or nighttime lows) as a vulnerability of Northern Great Plains crops due to increased plant stress during critical pollination and grain fill periods. Burke and Emerick (2016){{< tbib '254' '7266e04a-9ec1-49cd-9e71-6b9502733ec0' >}} found that adaptation appeared to have mitigated less than half of the negative impacts of extreme heat on productivity.</p><p><strong>Wildfire and rangelands:</strong> Margolis et al. (2017){{< tbib '255' 'a5604aed-9a6f-468e-acf4-f4a0bb574d3e' >}} report that fire scars in tree rings for the years 1599–1899 indicate that large grassland fires in New Mexico are strongly influenced by the current year cool-season moisture, but that fires burning mid-summer to fall are also influenced by monsoon moisture. Wet conditions several years prior to the fire year, resulting in increased fuel load, are also important for spring through late-summer fires. Persistent cool-season drought lasting longer than three years may inhibit fires due to the lack of moisture to replenish surface fuels. Donovan et al. (2017){{< tbib '95' '81917ef2-289f-4700-bc1a-254feb5156e5' >}} reported that wildfires greater than 400 hectares increased from 33.4 ± 5.6 per year during the period 1985–1994 to 116.8 ± 28.8 wildfires per year for the period 2005–2014 and that the total area burned in the Great Plains by large wildfires increased 400%.</p><p><strong>Water supply:</strong> Dai and Zhao (2017){{< tbib '256' '476ae3ff-66e2-4cea-8e8f-6e9946356ed0' >}} quantify historical trends in drought based on indices derived from the self-calibrated Palmer Drought Severity Index and the Penman–Monteith potential evapotranspiration index. For greater reliability, they compare these results with observed precipitation change patterns, streamflow, and runoff in three different periods: 1950–2012, 1955–2000, and 1980–2012. They indicate that spatially consistent patterns of drying have occurred in many parts of the Americas, that evaporation trends were slightly negative or slightly positive (exclusive of 1950–1980), and that drought has been increasingly linked to increased vapor pressure deficits since the 1980s.</p><p><strong>Pest pressures:</strong> Integrated pest management is rapidly evolving in the face of intensifying pest challenges to crop production.{{< tbib '257' '9be3da44-0c39-418f-8dbb-1aca0400d6f7' >}} There is considerable capacity for genetic improvement in agricultural crops and livestock breeds, but the ultimate ability to breed increased heat and drought tolerance into germplasm while retaining desired agronomic or horticultural attributes remains uncertain.{{< tbib '258' 'aa176a1e-7be0-4a50-9099-3656f2bb7d42' >}} The ability to breed pest-resistant varieties into a wide range of species to address rapidly evolving disease, insect, and weed species{{< tbib '237' '5aeba9d1-c405-45a2-b259-bd95dcf17a05' >}} is also uncertain.</p>"^^xsd:string;
   
   gcis:assessmentOfConfidenceBasedOnEvidence "<p>The USGCRP{{< tbib '84' '75cf1c0b-cc62-4ca4-96a7-082afdfe2ab1' >}} determined that recent droughts and associated heat waves have reached record intensities in some regions of the United States; however, by geographic scale and duration, the 1930s Dust Bowl remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event in the historical record since 1895 (<em>very high confidence</em>). The confidence is <em>high</em> that drought negatively impacts crop yield and quality, increases the risk of range wildfires, and accelerates the depletion of water supplies (<em>very likely and high confidence</em>).</p></div>"^^xsd:string;
   
   gcis:newInformationAndRemainingUncertainties "<p>Drought impacts on crop yields and forage are critical at the farm economic scale and are well documented.{{< tbib '38' '3baf471f-751f-4d68-9227-4197fdbb6e5d' >}}<sup class='cm'>,</sup>{{<tbib '97' 'bc6c6b92-e049-4b86-b772-8d35032d3cb0' >}} However, the extent to which drought impacts larger-scale issues of food security depends on a wide range of economic and social factors that are less certain. Chavez et al. (2015){{< tbib '259' '0c472f1b-25ac-44c2-a3a5-a04ba7567fdd' >}} lay out a framework for food security assessment that incorporates risk mitigation, risk forecast, and risk transfer instruments. There is considerable uncertainty in what is expected for the frequency and severity of future droughts.{{< tbib '260' 'c8348455-9866-465b-8291-35119f3eb615' >}} However, retrospective analyses and global climate modeling of 1900–2014 drought indicators show consistent results. The applied global climate models project 50%–200% increases in agricultural drought frequency in this century, even under low forcing scenarios. There is uncertainty about the interactive effects of carbon dioxide concentration, temperature, and water availability on plant physiological responses, particularly in highly dynamic field environments. There is uncertainty about future technological advances in agriculture and about changes in diet choices and food systems.</p>"^^xsd:string;

   a gcis:Finding .

## This finding cites the following entities:


<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1038/nclimate2747>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/0c472f1b-25ac-44c2-a3a5-a04ba7567fdd>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1038/ncomms13931>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/2967c8a9-063e-4118-92a4-71f266341e2f>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1073/pnas.1422945112>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/38b0ec9f-8c00-428f-9ec9-6214f617515d>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1038/nclimate3114>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/3a3fae72-1abc-4a9e-a816-02252ac7c6fe>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/usda-techbul-1935>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/3baf471f-751f-4d68-9227-4197fdbb6e5d>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1705-2>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/476ae3ff-66e2-4cea-8e8f-6e9946356ed0>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3313-2>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/4d4ae7e2-bd4f-429c-a696-e60e0156d95f>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1002/bes2.1315>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/5aeba9d1-c405-45a2-b259-bd95dcf17a05>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1038/s41598-018-21848-2>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/5cbf6744-fd90-4afb-8ba4-90979ee029ce>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6b0c>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/63db2021-16af-4542-a6ca-c8c35406118d>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1038/nclimate3115>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/68ae490c-ab1d-4cf6-9e49-1d55448c154a>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1257/pol.20130025>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/7266e04a-9ec1-49cd-9e71-6b9502733ec0>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1073/pnas.1415181112>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/72962214-b93d-4ced-b773-156135252d2d>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/report/climate-science-special-report>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/75cf1c0b-cc62-4ca4-96a7-082afdfe2ab1>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1073/pnas.1204330109>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/77718bdb-b632-4762-b8a5-d4151785f65b>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1073/pnas.1701762114>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/79853924-784a-4bc1-8c47-551d3e6d9bc1>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1002/2017GL072901>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/81917ef2-289f-4700-bc1a-254feb5156e5>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1537-5>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/82a91188-b255-4485-8e65-0417131e5c25>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1007/s10584-017-1997-x>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/83a3b10a-7eeb-4b2e-a3c0-4cf8fb10de7a>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   cito:cites <https://data.globalchange.gov/article/10.1073/pnas.1422385112>;
   biro:references <https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/89e08a41-6091-45fa-a92e-6168a90a8151>.



<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   prov:wasDerivedFrom <https://data.globalchange.gov/scenario/rcp_4_5>.

<https://data.globalchange.gov/report/nca4/chapter/agriculture-and-rural-communities/finding/key-message-10-1>
   prov:wasDerivedFrom <https://data.globalchange.gov/scenario/rcp_8_5>.