Abstract
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) is a pillar of global wheat and maize production. However, certain areas within the CEE region have become climate change hotspots, experiencing intensifying water deficits and drought pressure, rising mean and maximum temperatures. This study focuses on the long-term statistical relationships between climatic factors and rain-fed wheat and maize yields for different landscape types in Hungary over 30-year time windows between 1921 and 2010. The relationship between the variances of the detrended climatic parameters and crop yields was tested employing both simple and multifactorial linear models according to landscape types and periods. The sensitivity of wheat yields to spring–summer mean temperature shifted dynamically from the western part of the country to east (from cooler and wetter hilly landscapes to plains) between the periods 1921–1950 and 1981–2010. The cooling observed in summer temperature between the periods 1921–1950 and 1951–1980 supported an increase in wheat yields by an estimated 0.11–0.43 t ha−1 year−1, while the 0.9–1.2 °C warming of May–July temperature may have cut wheat yields by an estimated 0.44–0.56 t ha−1 year−1 in various regions over 1981–2010. That being said, the regional sensitivity of wheat yields to May–July mean temperature did not display substantial differences between the periods 1921–1950 and 1981–2010. Besides negative effects, climate change had a positive impact on wheat yields, since increasing January–March mean temperatures mitigated the negative impact of warming summer temperatures on wheat yields by an estimated 16–34% over 1981–2010. In this 30-year period, increasing mean temperature together with decreasing precipitation explained 46–75% of the variances in maize yields reducing annual maize harvests by an estimated 11.1–12.4% year−1.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Globally, one of the areas where wheat and maize production has grown most dynamically over recent decades is Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) (FAO 2023; Tikhomirova 2023), and a major part of the European yield gap, i.e. growing potential, has been identified as being located in these regions (Schils et al. 2018). While the CEE group of countries is a pillar of global food security, it is in the southern part of this region that the zone of greatest sensitivity of cereal production to the warming climate and shrinking freshwater resources in Europe has been identified (Olesen et al. 2011; Pinke et al. 2022). Other studies also underline the high degree of climatic sensitivity of CEE countries with continental climate, where decreasing soil moisture and changing atmospheric circulation (Seneviratne et al. 2014) induce extremes of heat and severe droughts (Fischer et al. 2007; Bastos et al. 2021). As a result, while globally less than one-third of the variability in maize and wheat yield is explained by climate (Ray et al. 2015), in the southern part of CEE region, more than two-thirds of the fluctuation in maize yield is driven by combined climatic factors (Ray et al. 2012; Kern et al. 2018).
As a consequence of the fact that the transformation of regional climatic regimes and their impacts unfolds over the long-term, short data series allow only limited conclusions to be drawn (IPCC 2021). For instance, land use and landscape policy require long-term trends and predictions, as well as spatially explicit quantitative vulnerability assessments of environmental effects, including climate change (IPCC 2019; Pastor et al. 2022). The few long-term studies available highlight significant temporal differences in the pace of the transformation of the regional scale climate indices and of the relationship between climate and cereal yield (Trnka et al. 2016). Both past and predicted future impacts of climate change on grain yields have been researched along a scale ranging from individual parcels (Hidy et al. 2012) to the global (Asseng et al. 2015). Certain pioneering studies focus on high resolution regional or landscape patterns of the climatic sensitivity of crop yields (Trnka et al. 2016; Mohammed et al. 2022), and successfully explore some hotspots in crop farming in relation to recent climate change, e.g. grain-growing in drylands (Huang et al. 2017; Leng and Huang 2017), maize cultivation in the US Midwest (Lobell et al. 2020) and wheat production in southern and eastern France (Ceglar et al. 2016). However, studies discussing long-term associations between climatic and cereal yield variables in a landscape context and especially analyses of the climate sensitivity of yields in different landscape types are scarce (Trnka et al. 2012). Yet landscape as a complex geographical and socioecological framework may well be key to an appropriate adaptation to the climate challenge (Harvey et al. 2014), as earlier confirmed in a qualitative risk assessment of European landscape characterisation (Delbaere and Nieto Serradilla 2004; Wascher 2005). In an attempt to address this scarcity, this examination aims to discover the long-term associations between, on the one hand, climatic factors as independent variables, and on the other, wheat and maize yields as dependent variables by landscape type in Hungary (CEE region) in 30-year time windows between 1921 and 2010.
Materials and methods
Study area
Situated in the southern part of CEE, in the Middle Danube Basin (Fig. 1), Hungary is in the temperate zone and may be characterised in the Köppen climate classification as a continental climate with cold winters, no dry seasons and hot and warm summers (Peel et al. 2007). Monthly mean temperature varies between − 4 and 22 °C, and annual precipitation (594 ± 51 mm) is one of the lowest among the croplands of the European countries (Izsak et al. 2022). Despite this, cereal fields are mostly (> 95%) rainfed, and only 3% of the area given over to maize has been irrigated (Bozan et al. 2018a). As a result of agricultural modernisation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, an estimated 45% of the country was covered by arable lands in 2021 (KSH 2023). However, the abandonment rate of arable land is relatively high, with a mean of 0.44% year−1 over the last 50 years (KSH 2023). Almost half of the arable land of the country is thought to be prone to droughts (Fiala et al. 2014; Gulacsi and Kovacs 2015), and this sensitivity is characteristic of a wider region in South-Eastern Europe (Olesen et al. 2011). Looking at the years 1981–2010, in Hungary, 67% of wheat and 81% of maize yield fluctuation were driven by climate (Kern et al. 2018), while temperature has had a steadily growing negative impact on crop yields on the countrywide scale over the past century (SI Table S2).
To delineate bioclimatological regions, average cereal yields-by-county of the three 30-year periods studied (1921–1950, 1951–1980, 1981–2010) were clustered using Ward’s method of hierarchical clustering with Euclidean distance. The threshold value at which to cut the dendrogram was determined on the basis of the topographical characteristics of the counties, derived from the EU-DEM v1.1 digital surface model (EEA 2016), so that the four selected regions represent the main landform types of the country (Table 1). The most characteristic landscape types are as follows: continental lowland dominated by arable lands, continental hills dominated by arable lands and continental hills dominated by forests (Wascher 2005; Kocsis et al. 2018). The Hungarian Plain belongs to forest-steppe zone, but the other three regions are transitional areas between temperate broadleaf forest and forest-steppe zones (Kocsis et al. 2018). The climatic and cereal yield variables studied differed from each other significantly by region (SI Table S3, S4). Though a relative dominance of arable lands characterises the land use system in Hungary (arable lands 45%, forests 21%, meadows 8%) (KSH 2023), the Hungarian Plain has by far the most homogenous pattern of land use. Regional and depth averaged soil hydrologic and hydraulic parameters of the upper 2 m (Table 1; Toth et al. 2017) suggest rather homogeneous soil conditions throughout the country; however, the varying proportions of soil types comprising the topsoil reveal differences between the regions (Table 1). Excluding soil types unsuitable for cultivation (peat, gravel, non- or partly weathered rocks), loamy soils (sandy loam, loam and clay loam) dominate all regions; however, while their proportion exceeds 80% in the Transdanubian lowlands and Transdanubian hills and reaches almost 90% in the Highlands, only 63.5% of the Hungarian Plain is covered with loamy soils considered suitable for growing maize and wheat. On the other hand, sandy soils with poor water retention capacity and often low organic matter content and clay soils usually prone to waterlogging and compaction cover more than one-third of the Hungarian Plain, while their proportion remains below 20% in the Transdanubian hills and slightly exceeds 10% in the Transdanubian lowlands and the Highlands. A significantly lower average value for the soil productivity index is to be found in the Hungarian Plain than in other landscapes (Table 1). The lower index values represent lower biomass productivity potential based on climatic conditions, fertilisation practice and soil hydraulic parameters, while the higher ones represent a greater potential (Tóth et al. 2013).
No generalised evaluation or conclusion may be arrived at with regard to the regional differences in production factors of the Hungarian agriculture. Reviewing the most important factors, it was found that there are no significant differences between the regional averages of fertilisers used, agricultural labour, capital and education in agriculture (KSH 2008). Two indicators did, however, show significant regional differences: (i) the number of agricultural machines was higher in the Hungarian Plain than in Transdanubia and (ii) the greater share of irrigated areas (76%) was found in the Hungarian Plain (KSH 2008).
Data
The monthly averages of daily maximum (Tmax), mean (Tmean) temperatures (°C) and monthly precipitation sums (Prec) (mm month−1) (quality controlled and amended for inhomogeneity by Izsák et al. 2022; Szentes et al. 2023) for six meteorological stations were obtained from the Hungarian Meteorological Service (OMSZ 2023). These provide an even spatial distribution across Hungary for the period 1921–2010. The gridded data of mean monthly potential evapotranspiration (PET) (mm month−1) and the SPEI1 drought anomaly index at 0.5° resolution were extracted from the CRU TS 4.07 data series (Harris et al. 2020). PET was calculated using mean temperature, vapour pressure, cloud cover and static 1961–90 average wind field values in the Penman–Monteith equation (Harris et al. 2020). Using PET, the climatic water balance (Prec-PET) was calculated, that is, the difference between the precipitation and potential evapotranspiration sums. SPEI is a standardised precipitation evapotranspiration index based on normalised Prec-PET (Vicente-Serrano et al. 2010).
The county-scale (NUTS 3 statistical regions of the European Community) averages of annual wheat and maize yields (t ha−1) and harvested areas (ha) were obtained from the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH 2023). The time series of crop yields, however, had missing data for the years 1921, 1944–1946 and 1949. Additionally, there are no separate data on yields by different wheat types in the Hungarian agricultural statistics. However, given that the share of winter wheat was always predominant (e.g. 94–97% during 2010–2018) (KSH 2023), data for wheat were considered to refer to winter wheat exclusively.
Data analysis
The 90-year time series provided a unique opportunity for the analysis of long-term spatial differences in climatic impacts on wheat and maize yields in three 30-year periods. Shapiro–Wilk and variance inflation tests showed that almost all data were distributed independently and identically (Supplementary Information [SI] Table S1). The life-cycle of winter wheat spans the period September/October–June/July overlapping the recharging phase of the annual hydrological cycle of the soils (mid-autumn–mid spring) when the soil hydrological balance is positive. In general terms, the plant’s C3 metabolic mechanism is more efficient in cool environments. Shortly after seeding, in late autumn and winter, winter wheat requires a period of cold weather to start the dormant vegetative growth stage (Acevedo et al. 2002), in which the plant is very resistant to frost. During this period, the intensity of transpiration is low and the saturation of soils may negatively affect the plant (Mercau et al. 2016; Bozan et al. 2018b). The sensitive phase of winter wheat to freezing stress is the flowering stage over the late winter–early spring period. Later, between April and June, early droughts may cause significant harm to the plant but the probability of severe droughts in spring is low because of the dynamics of interannual hydrological cycle (Czibolya et al. 2020). The harvesting time of winter wheat falls between late June and mid-July in the region preceding the most drought prone late summer period. Therefore, the analysis focuses on the statistical associations between February–July Prec, and Prec-PET (hereinafter ‘water deficit’), with the Tmean of May–July as independent variables, and annual wheat yields as dependent variables. An earlier investigation revealed that late winter and early spring temperature increase had a positive effect on yields of winter wheat in the CEE region. Consequently, the linear relationship between January–March Tmean and wheat yields is also examined.
In contrast to wheat, maize is sown between mid-April and early May in the CEE region. Maize has a C4 metabolism and the plant requires a hot and wet environment but its life cycle includes the hottest and driest months (July–September) when the evapotranspiration deficit (the difference between actual and potential evapotranspiration) is acute; therefore, the sensitivity of maize to water stress or drought is high (Marton et al. 2020; Kocsis et al. 2020). In the case of maize, the response of yield to the variables of Prec, Prec-PET, Tmax and Tmean was examined for the entire period of active root water uptake (May–August). The relationship between the variances of detrended climatic parameters (e.g. ΔPrec, Δ(Prec-PET), ΔTmax and ΔTmean) and crop yield (ΔY) using the first difference method was tested employing simple and multifactorial linear models by region (r) and periods (p). For example:
The adjusted bootstrap percentile (BCa) 95% confidence interval of the coefficients of determination (R2) was estimated by non-parametric bootstrap resampling tests over 5000 replicates (Davison and Hinkley 1997) using the boot package in an R environment (Lobell and Field 2007; Canty and Ripley 2022). Besides independent variables, the linear combination of two climatic variables (e.g. Tmean + Prec, hereinafter ‘combined climatic factors’) and cereal yields was investigated, as suggested by Kronmal (1993). As PET is greatly influenced by temperature, consequently, neither Tmean nor Tmax was not examined using Prec-PET indices in a combined climatic factor since they cannot be considered independent variables. Although a linear regression test is only statistical association, the fact that changes in Prec, Prec-PET, Tmax and Tmean may have significant impact on cereal yields via plant physiology is justified (Lobell and Field 2007). Thus, we may reasonably presume that the results of the regression tests indicate the intensity of the relationship between the explanatory climatic variables and the response (yield) variables.
Results
Descriptive analyses
All regional averages of the explanatory variables studied differed from each other (SI Table S2), except for the hilly and lowland regions of Transdanubia where similar annual averages of mean temperature were recorded in 1951–1980 and 1981–2010 (SI Table S2). Maximum temperature showed the most spectacular changes over the 90 years studied, because Tmax regional averages declined significantly from 1921–1950 to 1951–1980 and increased, and significantly so, between 1951–1980 and 1981–2010 (Fig. 2; SI Table S1). The 30-year annual as well as summer and winter half year averages of mean temperature increased significantly in every region from 1951–1980 to 1981–2010. In contrast, mean temperature did not change significantly anywhere from 1921–1950 to 1951–1980 (Fig. 2, SI Table S1, S2). The increase in the summer mean temperatures was greater almost everywhere than in the winter ones (Fig. 2, SI Table S1, S2). The highest 30-year averages of the temperature and the lowest Prec-PET variables were observed in the Hungarian Plain. While the averages of temperature variables increased significantly, water deficit decrease proved significant only in the Transdanubian regions during the 1981–2010 period, and precipitation sums did not show significant change over the 90-year period.
Chiefly due to agrotechnological development, the regional averages of wheat and maize yields were 3.3 and 3.2 times higher in 1980–2010 than in 1921–1950, respectively (Fig. 2; SI Table S1). Wheat and maize yields grew dynamically between the 1950s and the 1980s, and then, following a similar pattern to that of the European trends, slowed down from the mid-1980s. Moreover, wheat yields reached a plateau between the mid-1980s and late 2000s. The regional averages differed from each other significantly in every 30-year period, with only the yield averages of the Highlands region and the Hungarian Plain being the were same in 1921–1950 and 1951–1980 (SI Table S3). The highest yields appeared in the Transdanubian Lowlands region where climate was characterised by the mildest temperatures (Fig. 2; SI Table S1), with the smallest fluctuation and the highest sums of precipitation among the four regions. By way of contrast, farmers of the eastern lowlands, the Hungarian Plain, where continental climate conditions are characteristic, harvested significantly lower yields than on the Transdanubian Lowlands (Fig. 2; SI Table S1). Moreover, the wheat yield average of the Hungarian Plain had become the lowest within the four bioclimatological regions by 1981–2010.
Associations between climatic factors and cereal yields
Using non-parametric bootstrap resampling tests, we found that the spatiotemporal changes in the relationships of climatic and wheat yield variances resulted in a dynamic and diverse picture over the three 30-year periods under consideration. May–July mean temperature proved to be the dominant climatic driver of wheat yield fluctuations. Their association had a negative direction, i.e. the observed cooling from 1921–1950 to 1951–1980 bolstered wheat yields, then the significant May–July warming cut them back in every Hungarian region over 1981–2010. This negative relationship of Tmean and wheat yields displayed an important spatial transformation over 1921 and 2010 (Table 2). While TmeanMay–July had a non-significant association with wheat yields in the Hungarian Plain (p > 0.05; df = 28) in 1921–1950, this association then became the most considerable in the Hungarian Plain over the third 30-year period (p < 0.01; df = 28) (Table 2). Simultaneously, in the Transdanubian Lowlands and hills, May–July Tmean ~ wheat yield associations proved to be the strongest in 1921–1950, but then the sensitivity of wheat yield had declined significantly by 1981–2010 (Fig. 3). The constantly increasing January–March Tmean had a much milder, and at the same time positive impact on wheat yields (SI Table S2), and their relationships had weakened significantly by 1981–2010. February–July precipitation and water deficit, as well as May–July drought indices, showed a positive impact on wheat yields but remained marginal even in 1981–2010 (Table 2).
The combined climatic factor composed of May–July mean temperature and February–July precipitation explained 54–66% of wheat yield variances in the Transdanubian Lowlands and Transdanubian Hills in 1981–2010, but this association was weak and non-significant in the Hungarian Plain between 1921 and 1950 (Table 2). Interestingly, in the Transdanubian Lowlands and Transdanubian Hills, precipitation displayed a significant level of explanatory power in terms of a negative impact on wheat yields in the combined models over 1921–1950. In the case of the Highlands region, precipitation played a non-significant role in the multiple model during 1921–1950 (p > 0.05). In this period, TmeanJanuary–March + TmeanMay–July ~ wheat yield associations were mostly non-significant flowing from the non-significant level of explanatory power of either predictor, with the single exception of the Transdanubian Lowlands, where not only TmeanJanuary–March + TmeanMay–July ~ wheat yield (p < 0.01; df = 28) (Table 2) but also TmeanJanuary–March + TmeanMay–July + PrecMay–July ~ wheat yield association was significant (p < 0.01; df = 28; R2 = 0.62). In the next two 30-year periods, the sensitivity of wheat yields to the combined TmeanMay–July + PrecMay–July climatic factor grew at an unbroken pace in the Hungarian Plain and decreased continuously on the Transdanubian Lowlands. In contrast, TmeanJanuary–March + TmeanMay–July ~ wheat yield relationships weakened in every region over 1951–1980. While the direction of change was up-down in the Transdanubian Hills, it was the opposite, down-up, in the Highlands. During 1981–2010, only the TmeanJanuary–March + TmeanMay–July combined climatic factor showed a significant and a remarkably close relationship to wheat yields explaining an estimated 49 to 66% of wheat yield variances (Fig. 5, Table 2). The precipitation lost explanatory power (at the p = 0.05 level) in the TmeanMay–July + PrecMay–July ~ wheat yield model in the last 30-year period.
Water deficit (Prec-PET) and drought indicated by the SPEI1 index clearly has the major impact on maize yields in 1921–1951 (Table 3), only to weaken with decreasing temperature in 1951–1980 and jump back to a very high level in 1981–2010, by which time the variances of water deficit explained 42–69% of maize yield variances (Fig. 4, Table 3). A different temporal pattern was observed concerning the associations of temperature indices and maize yields: Tmean and Tmax had neither linear relationship with maize nor a significant level of explanatory power in the combined climatic predictors over the first two 30-year periods. The coefficient of determination of temperature indices, however, jumped up by 1981–2010, and Tmax explained 49–64% and Tmean a 37–0.51% of maize variances (Fig. 3, Table 3). Precipitation was the dominant driver over the first two 30-year periods (Table 3), its variances explaining 35–66% of maize yield variances by region during 1921–1951. In this period, Highland maize seemed to be the most sensitive to precipitation (Table 3). Then the coefficients of determination indicated weaker precipitation ~ maize yield relationships in the period 1951–1980, then to return to a similarly strong level in 1981–2010 (Table 3). Interestingly, the R2 of the last (‘climate change affected’) 30 years did not reach the values seen in 1921–1951 in the Hungarian Plain and the Highlands. Although May–July precipitation variables displayed a significant relationship to maize yields in all regions in 1981–2010, and Prec and Tmax indices did not show multicollinearity, Prec had a non-significant level of explanatory power within the Tmax + Prec ~ maize yield models in the Hungarian Plain and the Highlands only in the Transdanubian regions. In contrast, Prec was a significant component in Tmean + Prec ~ maize yields models over 1981–2010, when Tmean + Prec combined climatic predictors attained the status of a strong driver of maize yield variances explaining 46–75% of their variances (Fig. 5).
Estimating the contribution of climatic variables to yields
The results of point estimation using the regression equations suggest that rising May–July mean temperature may have reduced wheat yields by an estimated 0.44–0.56 t ha−1 year−1 in the bioclimatic regions examined here over the period 1981–2010 (Fig. 6, SI Table S5). However, the observed positive impact of increasing January–March mean temperatures on wheat yields mitigated this negative impact by an amount estimated to range between 16 and 34% (Fig. 6, SI Table S5). The lowest estimate of the positive impact of warming January–March mean temperature was obtained in the Hungarian Plain, while the highest ones occurred in the Transdanubian regions.
Using the regression equations of the association between the combined predictor of TmeanMay–Aug + PrecMay–Aug and maize yield our estimation is that rising May–August mean temperature together with decreasing precipitation (SI Table S1, S2) may have reduced maize yields seriously in the examined bioclimatic regions during 1981–2010 (Fig. 6, SI Table S5). On the basis of the significant statistical relationship between Prec-PET and maize yields over 1951–1980, the decreasing water deficit from 1921–1950 to 1951–1980 (Fig. 2; SI Table S1) may have resulted a significant yield increase by region.
Discussion and conclusions
The long-term data analysed indicated a non-significant decrease in water deficit as well as an increase in spring and summer temperatures, and also in precipitation from 1921–1950 to 1951–1980. A subsequent combination of a significantly increasing water deficit, rising mean and maximum temperature from 1951–1980 to 1981–2010, and a non-significant increase in precipitation sums—taken together, these describe the main temporal processes of the climatic indices studied. Winter mean temperatures did not show a corresponding trend; they grew steadily over the 90 years studied (SI Table S2). As a result, temperature and water deficit had a decisive impact on wheat and maize yield variances, respectively (Tables 2 and 3), so much so that the TmeanMay–July + TempJan–March combined predictor explained 49 to 66% of wheat yield variances, while the TmeanMay–Aug + PrecMay–Aug combined predictor and Prec-PET fluctuations accounted for 44 to 75% of interannual maize yield variance over the period 1981–2010 (Tables 2 and 3). During 1981–2010, warming May–August temperature, together with the decrease in precipitation, may have caused an estimated yield loss of 11.1–12.4% year−1 in maize, while warming may have reduced wheat yields an estimated 9.4–14.4% (Fig. 6, SI Table S1, S5). However, the observed positive impact of increasing January–March mean temperatures on wheat yields mitigated this negative impact by an estimated 16–34% (Fig. 6, SI Table S1, S5). This finding is in line with the results of recent studies underlining the prediction that frost-prone agricultural zones will benefit from a warming climate (Gaeva et al. 2023, Pavlova and Karachenkova 2023). Beyond these developments, we found that the range of regional sensitivity of wheat yields to May–July mean temperature, the dominant climatic driver, did not display substantial differences between the first period (1921–1950) and the ‘climate change affected’ period (1981–2010) (Table 3). A similar pattern was observed in case of May–August precipitation, the dominant climatic driver of maize in 1921–1950 (Table 3).
The most suitable climate conditions for grain production, the mildest temperatures, the highest precipitation and the smallest water deficit were found in the Transdanubian Lowlands, and indeed the highest yields in the country were harvested in this region (Fig. 2; SI Table S1). In contrast, yields in the Hungarian Plain, where the warmest summer temperature, lowest precipitation sums and highest water deficit were observed, slid down the regional rank lists of wheat productivity (Fig. 2; SI Table S1). In the meantime, the sensitivity of wheat yield to May–July mean temperature shifted dynamically from the western part of the country to the Hungarian Plain (where a more continental climate prevails) from 1921–1950 to 1981–2010. Other studies also underline the higher climatic sensitivity of wheat production in drier landscapes situated in the steppe/prairie zone under continental climate conditions (Huang et al. 2017; IPCC 2019), especially due to rapid transformations in regional climate regimes in Europe (Liu et al. 2019; Bognar et al. 2022). Since a noticeable technological gap between the studied bioclimatic regions could not be presumed, only environmental conditions, e.g. the aggregate and interconnected impact of soil and (changing) soil water and climatic conditions could have caused the observed divergence in the regional wheat productivity. And indeed, the highest spring and summer values of temperature and Prec-PET variables, and relatively low precipitation sums (Fig. 2; SI Table S1, S2), a dynamic lowering of the groundwater table (Garamhegyi et al. 2018) and the lowest soil productivity (Table 1), were observed in the Hungarian Plain. We also hypothesise that the changing agro-suitability of arable lands as a consequence of regionally different dynamics in land use change could be another explanatory factor in this changing yield rank position. Soil databases often have to grapple with uncertainties stemming from factors such as the spatial variability of soils, limited sampling density or methodology and diverse soil properties (Dai et al. 2019; Gupta et al. 2021). These uncertainties can challenge the accuracy and reliability of soil-related information, impacting research, practice and decision-making processes in agriculture, environmental management and land use planning. Addressing these uncertainties is essential to improve the accuracy of research founded on soil databases. These questions illuminate the limitation of this research and point to the necessity of more complex regional analyses. We also need to consider another limitation of the monthly averages of climatic parameters since a few days of extreme (hydro)climatic events frosts, droughts, heatwaves, etc. can explain a greater part of yield variances than the averages of the vegetation period or a major part of the vegetation period (Schauberger et al. 2021). Nonetheless, our results supplement previous findings on the regional pattern of crop yield-climate relationship, illuminating the increasing vulnerability of lowland landscapes to a warming climate, and especially the increasing frequency and severity of heatwaves and drought events of the kind seen in 2022.
Both the rapidly growing sensitivity of wheat and maize yields to warming and water limitation have become more dominant in recent years (Fiala et al. 2014; Fuzi and Ladanyi 2022), and may yet become more frequent according to climate model simulations (Toreti et al. 2019). The combination of landscape conditions and climate water deficit constitute a clear alarm signal, urging the implementation of a climate-smart land use system in Hungary, and especially in the lowlands. To mitigate further consequences of the climate crisis, there is a wide spectrum of adaptation options, e.g. moisture conservation measures, such as no-till cultivation (Jakab et al. 2017), mulching, increasing soil water storage capacity through improving soil porosity, infiltration and soil hydraulic conductivity (Madarasz et al. 2018), a change in crop-rotation (Brisson et al. 2010) and water harvesting (Reznik et al. 2017). Beyond these agroecological solutions, the direction of land use change needs to be turned back on the so-called marginal lands via combined land use solutions (e.g. agroforestry and cultivation of periodically inundated areas Opperman et al. 2009; Serra-Llobet et al. 2022), and restoration of reclaimed ecosystems (IPCC 2019; European Commission 2020), and degraded lands (Arneth et al. 2021)). In this context, one of the most critical ecosystems is wetlands, since the area loss of natural wetlands is exceptionally large across CEE countries and wetlands were converted primarily to croplands (Fluet-Chouinard et al. 2023), especially in Hungary, where 97% of the wetlands, which covered an estimated one-third of the plains, were converted into agricultural areas (Schleupner and Schneider 2012; Nemeth et al. 2021). Wetlands are crucial ecosystems in supporting biochemical and hydrological cycles, as well as biodiversity (Tan et al. 2020), or in mitigating impacts from diffuse agricultural loads (Hatvani et al. 2022). Their restoration has benefits not only for biodiversity but via active interactions between surface waters and shallow groundwater for agriculture and forestry too (Levintal et al. 2023; Pepliński 2023). Thus, wetland restoration is increasingly being considered a key step towards the achievement of climate mitigation goals (Verhoeven 2014). Taking this avenue, the European Union is setting its sights on restoring 25,000 km of its rivers with their floodplains (European Commission 2020).
Availability of data and materials
The datasets analysed during the current study are available in the Open Science Framework repository (OSF; DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6GVXN). Eurostat (2023) Agricultural production – crops.https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/%0Aindex.php?title=Agricultural_production_-_crops; FAO (2023) Faostat: Cereals; Crops and livestock products export quantity. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC; http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/%23data/TP; OMSZ (2023) ODP MET. https://odp.met.hu/.
References
Acevedo E, Silva P, Silva H (2002) Wheat growth and physiology. In: Curtis BC, Rajaram S, Macpherson HG (eds) Bread wheat: improvement and production. FAO, Rome, pp 39–70
Arneth A, Olsson L, Cowie A, Erb K-H, Hurlbert M et al (2021) Restoring degraded lands. Annu Rev Environ Resour 46:569–599. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012320-054809
Asseng S, Ewert F, Martre P, Lobell DB, Cammarano D et al (2015) Rising temperatures reduce global wheat production. Nat Clim Chang 5:143–147. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2470
Bastos A, Orth R, Reichstein M, Ciais P, Viovy N et al (2021) Vulnerability of European ecosystems to two compound dry and hot summers in 2018 and 2019. Earth Syst Dyn 12:1015–1035. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-1015-2021
Bognar P, Kern A, Pasztor S, Steinbach P, Lichtenberger J (2022) Testing the robust yield estimation method for winter wheat, corn, rapeseed, and sunflower with different vegetation indices and meteorological data. Remote Sens 14:2860. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14122860
Bozan C, Peter K, Vari E, Kiss A, Misko K et al (2018a) An assessment of the potential for increasing the irrigated area in Hungary as determined by natural and economic constraints. Research Institute of Agricultural Economics, Budapest, Hungary
Bozan C, Takacs K, Korosparti J, Laborczi A, Túri N et al (2018b) Integrated spatial assessment of inland excess water hazard on the Great Hungarian Plain. L Degrad Dev 29:4373–4386. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.3187
Brisson N, Gate P, Gouache D, Charmet G, Oury F-X et al (2010) Why are wheat yields stagnating in Europe? A comprehensive data analysis for France. F Crop Res 119:201–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.07.012
Canty A, Ripley BD (2022) Functions. R package version 1.3-28.1
Ceglar A, Toreti A, Lecerf R, Van der Velde M, Dentener F et al (2016) Impact of meteorological drivers on regional inter-annual crop yield variability in France. Agric for Meteorol 216:58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.10.004
Copernicus (2019) Corine land cover 2018 (CLC2018). https://doi.org/10.2909/71c95a07-e296-44fc-b22b-415f42acfdf0. Accessed 12 Oct 2021
Czibolya L, Makra L, Pinke Z, Horváth J, Csépe Z (2020) Dependence of the crop yields of maize, wheat, barley and rye on temperature and precipitation in Hungary. Carpathian J Earth Environ Sci 15:359–368. https://doi.org/10.26471/cjees/2020/015/136
Dai Y, Shangguan W, Wei N, Xin Q, Yuan H et al (2019) A review of the global soil property maps for Earth system models. SOIL 5:137–158. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-5-137-2019
Davison AC, Hinkley D (1997) Bootstrap methods and their applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Delbaere B, Nieto Serradilla A (2004) Environmental risks from agriculture in Europe: Environmental risks from agriculture in Europe: locating environmental risk zones in Europe using agri-environmental indicators. Tilburg, ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation
EEA (2016) EU-DEM (raster) - version 1.1. https://sdi.eea.europa.eu/catalogue/geoss/api/records/3473589f-0854-4601-919e-2e7dd172ff50. Accessed 29 Oct 2023
European Commission (2020) EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 (COM/2020/380). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52020DC0380. Accessed 12 Oct 2021
Eurostat (2023) Agricultural production – crops. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statisticsexplained/%0Aindex.php?title=Agricultural_production_-_crops. Accessed 26 Nov 2023
FAO (2023) Faostat: cereals; crops and livestock products and export quantity. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC; http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/%23data/TP. Accessed 8 Jan 2023
Fiala K, Blanka V, Ladányi Z, Szilassi P, Benyhe B et al (2014) Drought severity and its effect on agricultural production in the Hungarian-Serbian cross-border area. J Environ Geogr 7:43–51. https://doi.org/10.2478/jengeo-2014-0011
Fischer EM, Seneviratne SI, Vidale PL, Lüthi D, Schär C et al (2007) Soil moisture–atmosphere interactions during the 2003 European summer heat wave. J Clim 20:5081–5099. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4288.1
Fluet-Chouinard E, Stocker BD, Zhang Z, Malhotra A, Melton JR et al (2023) Extensive global wetland loss over the past three centuries. Nature 614:281–286. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-022-05572-6
Fuzi T, Ladanyi M (2022) Frequency and variability trends of extreme meteorological events in the Moson Plain, Hungary (1961–2018). Idojaras 126:319–334
Gaeva DV, Barinova GM, Krasnov EV (2023) Hot and cold extreme temperature risk and resilience in the Baltic Sea region: agricultural aspects. In: Filho WL, Dinis MAP, Moggi S et al (eds) SDGs in the European Region. Springer, Cham, pp 1–26
Garamhegyi T, Kovacs J, Pongracz R, Tanos P, Hatvani IG (2018) Investigation of the climate-driven periodicity of shallow groundwater level fluctuations in a Central-Eastern European agricultural region. Hydrogeol J 26:677–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-017-1665-2
Gulacsi A, Kovacs F (2015) Drought monitoring with spectral indices calculated from MODIS satellite images In Hungary. J Environ Geogr 8:11–20. https://doi.org/10.1515/jengeo-2015-0008
Gupta S, Lehmann P, Bonetti S, Papritz A, Or D (2021) Global prediction of soil saturated hydraulic conductivity using random forest in a covariate-based geoTransfer function (CoGTF) framework. J Adv Model Earth Syst 13. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020MS002242
Harris I, Osborn TJ, Jones P, Lister D (2020) Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci Data 7:109. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0453-3
Harvey CA, Chacón M, Donatti CI, Garen E, Hannah L et al (2014) Climate-smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. Conserv Lett 7:77–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12066
Hatvani IG, Dokulil MT, Clement A (2022) The role of wetlands in mitigating impacts from diffuse agricultural loads. In: Encyclopedia of inland waters. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Hollandia, pp 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819166-8.00093-1
Hidy D, Barcza Z, Haszpra L, Churkina G, Pintér K et al (2012) Development of the Biome-BGC model for simulation of managed herbaceous ecosystems. Ecol Modell 226:99–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2011.11.008
Huang J, Yu H, Dai A, Wei Y, Kang L (2017) Drylands face potential threat under 2 °c global warming target. Nat Clim Chang 7:417–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3275
IPCC (2019) In: Shukla PR, Skea J, Buendia EC, Masson-Delmotte V, Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Zhai P, Slade R, Connors S, van Diemen R, Ferrat M, Haughey E, Luz S, Neogi S, Pathak M, Petzold J, Pereira JP, Vyas P, Huntley E, Kissick K, Belkacemi M, Malley J (eds) Climate change and land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. IPCC. In press
IPCC (2021) Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Izsak B, Szentimrey T, Lakatos M, Pongracz R, Szentes O (2022) Creation of a representative climatological database for Hungary from 1870 to 2020. Idojaras 126:1–26. https://doi.org/10.28974/idojaras.2022.1.1
Jakab G, Madarasz B, Szabo J, Tóth A, Zacháry D et al (2017) Infiltration and soil loss changes during the growing season under ploughing and conservation tillage. Sustainability 9:1726. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101726
Kern A, Barcza Z, Marjanović H, Árendás T, Fodor N et al (2018) Statistical modelling of crop yield in Central Europe using climate data and remote sensing vegetation indices. Agric for Meteorol 260–261:300–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.06.009
Kocsis K (2018) National atlas of Hungary – natural environment. MTA CSFK Geographical Institute, Budapest
Kocsis M, Dunai A, Mako A, Farsang A, Mészáros J et al (2020) Estimation of the drought sensitivity of Hungarian soils based on corn yield responses. J Maps 16:148–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2019.1709576
Kronmal RA (1993) Spurious correlation and the fallacy of the ratio standard revisited. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Statistics Soc) 156:379. https://doi.org/10.2307/2983064
KSH (2008) A mezőgazdaság fejlettségének regionális különbségei (Regional differences of agricultural development). KSH, Szeged
KSH (2023) Yields, harvested areas and land use. https://www.ksh.hu/stadat?lang=hu&theme=mez. Accessed 7 Jan 2023
Leng G, Huang M (2017) Crop yield response to climate change varies with crop spatial distribution pattern. Sci Rep 7:1463. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01599-2
Levintal E, Kniffin ML, Ganot Y, Marwaha N, Murphy NP et al (2023) Agricultural managed aquifer recharge (Ag-MAR)—a method for sustainable groundwater management: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 53:291–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2022.2050160
Liu B, Martre P, Ewert F, Porter JR, Challinor AJ et al (2019) Global wheat production with 1.5 and 2.0°C above pre-industrial warming. Glob Chang Biol 25:1428–1444. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14542
Lobell DB, Field CB (2007) Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming. Environ Res Lett 2:014002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
Lobell DB, Deines JM, Di TS (2020) Changes in the drought sensitivity of US maize yields. Nat Food 1:729–735. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-020-00165-w
Madarasz B, Jakab G, Toth A (2018) Facing to real sustainability—conservation agricultural practices around the world. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25:975–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-1040-9
Marton TA, Kis A, Zubor-Nemes A, Zubor-Nemes A, Kern A et al (2020) Human impact promotes sustainable corn production in Hungary. Sustainability 12:6784. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176784
Mercau JL, Nosetto MD, Bert F, Gimenez R, Jobbagy EG (2016) Shallow groundwater dynamics in the Pampas: climate, landscape and crop choice effects. Agric Water Manag 163:159–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.09.013
Mohammed S, Alsafadi K, Enaruvbe GO, Bashir B, Elbeltagi A et al (2022) Assessing the impacts of agricultural drought (SPI/SPEI) on maize and wheat yields across Hungary. Sci Rep 12:8838. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-12799-w
Nemeth G, Loczy D, Gyenizse P (2021) Long-term land use and landscape pattern changes in a marshland of Hungary. Sustainability 13:12664. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212664
Olesen JE, Trnka M, Kersebaum KC, Skjelvåg AO, Seguin B et al (2011) Impacts and adaptation of European crop production systems to climate change. Eur J Agron 34:96–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2010.11.003
OMSZ (2023) Meteorological database, OMSZ. https://odp.met.hu/. Accessed 26 Jan 2023
Opperman JJ, Galloway GE, Fargione J, Mount JF, Richter BD et al (2009) Sustainable floodplains through large-scale reconnection to rivers. Science 326:1487–1488. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1178256
Pastor AV, Nunes JP, Ciampalini R, Bahri H, Annabi M et al (2022) ScenaLand: a simple methodology for developing land use and management scenarios. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 27:52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-022-10024-7
Pasztor L, Laborczi A, Takacs K, Szatmári G, Dobos E et al (2015) Compilation of novel and renewed, goal oriented digital soil maps using geostatistical and data mining tools. Hungarian Geogr Bull 64:49–64. https://doi.org/10.15201/hungeobull.64.1.5
Pavlova VN, Karachenkova AA (2023) Changes in agroclimatic resources of grain-producing regions of Russia and grain productivity for the new reference period of 1991–2020. Russ Meteorol Hydrol 48:755–764. https://doi.org/10.3103/S1068373923090030
Peel MC, Finlayson BL, McMahon TA (2007) Updated world map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1633–1644. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1633-2007
Pepliński B (2023) External costs to agriculture associated with further open pit lignite mining from the Bełchatów deposit. Energies 16:4602. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16124602
Pinke Z, Decsi B, Jambor A, Kardos MK, Kern Z et al (2022) Climate change and modernization drive structural realignments in European grain production. Sci Rep 12:7374. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10670-6
Ray DK, Ramankutty N, Mueller ND, West Foley JA (2012) Recent patterns of crop yield growth and stagnation. Nat Commun 3:1293. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2296
Ray DK, Gerber JS, MacDonald GK, West PC (2015) Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability. Nat Commun 6:5989. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6989
Reznik A, Feinerman E, Finkelshtain I, Fisher F, Huber-Lee A et al (2017) Economic implications of agricultural reuse of treated wastewater in Israel: a statewide long-term perspective. Ecol Econ 135:222–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.01.013
Schauberger B, Makowski D, Ben-Ari T, BoeJ CP (2021) No historical evidence for increased vulnerability of French crop production to climatic hazards. Agric for Meteorol 306:108453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108453
Schils R, Olesen JE, Kersebaum K-C, Rijk B, Oberforster M et al (2018) Cereal yield gaps across Europe. Eur J Agron 101:109–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2018.09.003
Schleupner C, Schneider UA (2012) Gis-based estimation of wetland conservation potentials in Europe. Appl Ecol Environ Res 10:385–403
Seneviratne SI, Donat MG, Mueller B, Alexander LV (2014) No pause in the increase of hot temperature extremes. Nat Clim Chang 4:161–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2145
Serra-Llobet A, Jähnig SC, Geist J, Kondolf GM, Damm C et al (2022) Restoring rivers and floodplains for habitat and flood risk reduction: experiences in multi-benefit floodplain management from California and Germany. Front Environ Sci 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.778568
Szentes O, Lakatos M, Pongrácz R (2023) New homogenized precipitation database for Hungary from 1901. Int J Climatol 43:4457–4471. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.8097
Tan L, Ge Z, Zhou X, Li S, Li X et al (2020) Conversion of coastal wetlands, riparian wetlands, and peatlands increases greenhouse gas emissions: a global meta-analysis. Glob Chang Biol 26:1638–1653. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14933
Tikhomirova VA (2023) The role and place of Russia in the world grain market. In: Popkova EG, Sergi BS (eds) Current problems of the global environmental economy under the conditions of climate change and the perspectives of sustainable development. Advances in global change research. Springer, Cham., pp 519–526
Toreti A, Belward A, Perez-Dominguez I, Naumann G, Luterbacher J et al (2019) The exceptional 2018 European water seesaw calls for action on adaptation. Earth’s Futur 7:652–663. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001170
Toth G, Gardi C, Bodis K, Ivits É, Aksoy E et al (2013) Continental-scale assessment of provisioning soil functions in Europe. Ecol Process 2:32. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-1709-2-32
Toth B, Weynants M, Pasztor L, Hengl T (2017) 3D soil hydraulic database of Europe at 250 m resolution. Hydrol Process 31:2662–2666. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11203
Trnka M, Brázdil R, Olesen JE, Eitzinger J, Zahradníček P et al (2012) Could the changes in regional crop yields be a pointer of climatic change? Agric for Meteorol 166–167:62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.05.020
Trnka M, Olesen J, Kersebaum K, Rötter RP, Brázdil R et al (2016) Changing regional weather-crop yield relationships across Europe between 1901 and 2012. Clim Res 70:195–214. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01426
Verhoeven JTA (2014) Wetlands in Europe: perspectives for restoration of a lost paradise. Ecol Eng 66:6–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2013.03.006
Vicente-Serrano SM, Beguería S, López-Moreno JI (2010) A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index. J Clim 23:1696–1718. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1
Wascher DM (2005) European landscape character areas – typologies, cartography and indicators for the assessment of sustainable landscapes. Wageningen, Alterra
Funding
Open access funding provided by Eötvös Loránd University. This research was supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NRDI) Fund PD 18 Grant Project no. 128970, the NRDI Fund FK 20 Grant Project no. 134547, and it is a contribution to the activity of the Global Land Programme and the PAGES Landcover6k.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the study’s conception and design. ZP conceived the study, while material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by TÁ, BD, GD, ZK and ZP, and figures prepared by PK and ZP. The first draft of the manuscript was written by ZP and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript and read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Communicated by Helmut Haberl
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Pinke, Z., Decsi, B., Demeter, G. et al. Continental lowlands face rising crop vulnerability: structural change in regional climate sensitivity of crop yields, Hungary (Central and Eastern Europe), 1921–2010. Reg Environ Change 24, 33 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-024-02192-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-024-02192-w