Economic and environmental performance of dryland wheat-based farming systems in a 1.5 °C world

  • John M. AntleEmail author
  • Seojin Cho
  • S. M. Hossein Tabatabaie
  • Roberto O. Valdivia
Original Article


In 2015, the United Nations challenged the scientific community to evaluate development pathways consistent with the goal of limiting global average temperature increase to 1.5 °C. This study reports analysis that was carried out as part of a project responding to that challenge. Using recently developed methods for regional integrated assessment of agricultural systems, this study evaluates the economic and environmental performance of dryland farming systems in the United States of America (U.S). Pacific Northwest, a major wheat (Triticum aestivum) production region, under greenhouse gas mitigation and policy scenarios consistent with the 1.5 °C goal. A novel feature of this study is to combine bio-physical and economic models with site-specific life cycle analysis to evaluate both the economic performance of current and possible alternative farming systems. The analysis shows that these farming systems could be adapted through changes in management to reduce soil emissions of greenhouse gases and incorporation of new biofuel crops, and could be affected by changes in prices and costs of production associated with greenhouse gas mitigation policies. These changes could result in a win-win outcome for those farms in the Pacific Northwest region where site-specific conditions are suited to these adaptations, providing both higher farm incomes and contributing to greenhouse gas emissions reductions. A key implication for mitigation and adaptation strategies is the need to coordinate climate policy design and development of technologies needed to achieve policy goals.


Climate policy Greenhouse gas mitigation Economic and environmental performance Wheat Life-cycle analysis Pacific Northwest 


Funding information

This research was supported in part by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA OCE grant 58-0111-16-010) and by the Oregon State University College of Agriculture.


  1. Abatzoglou JT, Brown TJ (2012) A comparison of statistical downscaling methods suited for wildfire applications. Int J Climatol 32:772–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AgMRC (2015) Agricultural marketing resource center.
  3. Antle JM (2011) Parsimonious multi-dimensional impact assessment. Am J Agric Econ 93(5):1292–1311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antle JM, Capalbo SM, Mooney S, Elliott ET, Paustian KT (2003) Spatial heterogeneity, contract design, and the efficiency of carbon sequestration policies for agriculture. J Environ Econ Manag 46(2):231–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Antle JM, Stoorvogel JJ, Valdivia RO (2014) New parsimonious simulation methods and tools to assess future food and environmental security of farm populations. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B: Biol Sci 369(1639):20120280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antle JM et al (2015) AgMIP’s transdisciplinary agricultural systems approach to regional integrated assessment of climate impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation. Handbook of Climate Change and Agroecosystems: The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Integrated Crop and Economic Assessments—Joint Publication with American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America (In 2 Parts) pp3–27Google Scholar
  7. Antle JM, Mu JE, Zhang H, Capalbo SM, Diebel PL, Eigenbrode SD, Kruger CE, Stöckle CO, Wulfhorst JD, Abatzoglou JT (2017a) Design and use of representative agricultural pathways for integrated assessment of climate change in U.S. Pacific Northwest Cereal-Based Systems. Front Ecol Evol 5.
  8. Antle JM, Zhang H, Mu J, Abatzoglou J, Stöckle CO (2017b) Methods to assess between-system adaptations to climate change: dryland wheat systems in the Pacific Northwest United States. Agric Ecosyst Environ 253:195–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bessou C, Lehuger S, Gabrielle B, Mary B (2013) Using a crop model to account for the effects of local factors on the LCA of sugar beet ethanol in Picardy region, France. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18(1):24–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Capalbo SM, Antle JM, Seavert C (2017) Next generation data systems and knowledge products to support agricultural producers and science-based policy decision making. Agric Syst 155:191–199. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ebbert JC, Roe RD (1998) Soil erosion in the Palouse River Basin: indications of improvement. USGS Fact Sheet FS-069-98Google Scholar
  12. Food and Agriculture Organization (2016) The State of Food and Agriculture: Climate change, Agriculture and Food Security. Accessed 7 Feb 2018
  13. Fumoto T, Kobayashi K, Li C, Yagi K, Hasegawa T (2008) Revising a process-based biogeochemistry model (DNDC) to simulate methane emission from rice paddy fields under various residue management and fertilizer regimes. Glob Chang Biol 14(2):382–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gilhespy SL, Anthony S, Cardenas L, Chadwick D, del Prado A, Li C, Misselbrook T, Rees RM, Salas W, Sanz-Cobena A, Smith P (2014) First 20 years of DNDC (DeNitrification DeComposition): model evolution. Ecol Model 292:51–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goglio P, Grant BB, Smith WN, Desjardins RL, Worth DE, Zentner R, Malhi SS (2014) Impact of management strategies on the global warming potential at the cropping system level. Sci Total Environ 490:921–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goglio P, Smith WN, Grant BB, Desjardins RL, McConkey BG, Campbell CA, Nemecek T (2015) Accounting for soil carbon changes in agricultural life cycle assessment (LCA): a review. J Clean Prod 104:23–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hastings AF, Wattenbach M, Eugster W, Li C, Buchmann N, Smith P (2010) Uncertainty propagation in soil greenhouse gas emission models: an experiment using the DNDC model and at the Oensingen cropland site. Agric Ecosyst Environ 136:97–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huggins D et al (2015) Crop diversity and intensity in Pacific Northwest dryland cropping systems. REACCH. Annu Rep:39–41Google Scholar
  19. ISO 14040 (2006) Environmental management, life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. International standards organizationGoogle Scholar
  20. Jungbluth N, Chudacoff M, Dauriat A, Dinkel F, Doka G, Faist Emmenegger M, Gnansounou E, Kljun N, Schleiss K, Spielmann M, Stettler C, Sutter J (2007) Life cycle inventories of bioenergy. ecoinvent report No. 17. Swiss Center for Life Cycle Inventories, DubendorfGoogle Scholar
  21. Koohafkan P, Stewart BA (2008) Water and cereals in drylands. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Earth. Rome, chapter 2 pp17–24Google Scholar
  22. Krohn BJ, Fripp M (2012) A life cycle assessment of biodiesel derived from the “niche filling” energy crop camelina in the USA. Appl Energy 92:92–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Li C, Frolking S, Xiao X, Moore B, Boles S, Qiu J, Huang Y, Salas W, Sass R (2005) Modeling impacts of farming management alternatives on CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions: a case study for water management of rice agriculture of China. Glob Biogeochem Cycles 19(3):GB3010Google Scholar
  24. Miller P, Kumar A (2013) Development of emission parameters and net energy ratio for renewable diesel from Canola and Camelina. Energy 58:426–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Molden D, Frenken K, Barker R, de Fraiture C, Mati B, Svendsen M, Sadoff C, Finlayson CM (2007) Trends in water and agricultural development. In: Molden D (ed) Water for food, water for life. Earthscan, London and International Water Management Institute, Colombo, pp 57–89Google Scholar
  26. openLCA (2016) Available at:
  27. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (2017) Investing in climate, investing in growth. OECD Publishing, Paris. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Paustian K, Antle JM, Sheehan J, Paul EA (2006) Agriculture’s role in greenhouse gas mitigation, vol 76. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, ArlingtonGoogle Scholar
  29. Prechsl UE, Wittwer R, van der Heijden MG et al (2017) Assessing the environmental impacts of cropping systems and cover crops: life cycle assessment of FAST, a long-term arable farming field experiment. Agr Syst 157:39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pribyl DW (2010) A critical review of the conventional SOC to SOM conversion factor. Geoderma 156:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rosenzweig C, Antle JM, Elliott J (2016a) Assessing impacts of climate change on food security worldwide. Eos 97 Published on 9 March 2016
  32. Rosenzweig C, Jones JW, Hatfield J, Antle JM, Ruane AC, Boote KJ, Thorburn P, Valdivia RO, Descheemaeker K, Porter CH, Janssen S, Bartels W, Sulivan A, Mutter CZ (2016b) Protocols for AgMIP Regional Integrated Assessments Version 6.1.
  33. Rosenzweig C, Ruane AC, Antle JM, Elliott J et al (2018) Coordinating AgMIP data and models across global and regional scales for 1.5 °C and 2.0 °C assessments. Philosphical Trans Royal Soc A 376:20160455.
  34. Ruane AC, Antle JM et al (2018) Global and regional agricultural implications of +1.5 and +2.0 °C warming. Clim Res (in press)Google Scholar
  35. Ryberg M, Vieira MD, Zgola M, Bare J, Rosenbaum RK (2014) Updated US and Canadian normalization factors for TRACI 2.1. Clean Techn Environ Policy 16:329–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith P, M Bustamante, H Ahammad et al (2014) Agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) in climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, pp. 811–922Google Scholar
  37. Soil Survey Staff (2016) The gridded soil survey geographic (gSSURGO) database for Oregon. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Available at: Accessed 08 Mar 2017
  38. Stöckle CO, Nelson RL, Higgins S, Brunner J, Grove G, Boydston R, Whiting M, Kruger C (2010) Assessment of climate change impact on eastern Washington agriculture. Clim Chang 102:77–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stöckle CO et al (2016) Evaluating opportunities for an increased role of winter crops as adaptation to climate change in dryland cropping systems of the U.S. Inland Pacific Northwest. Climatic change. DOI
  40. Tabatabaie SMH, Murthy GS (2016) Cradle to farm gate life cycle assessment of strawberry production in the United States. J Clean Prod 127:548–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tabatabaie SMH, Murthy GS (2017) Effect of geographical location and stochastic weather variation on life cycle assessment of biodiesel production from camelina in the northwestern USA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(6):867–882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. US Department of Agriculture (1997) 1997 census of agriculture. Washington, DC, National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDAGoogle Scholar
  43. Valdivia RO et al (2015) Representative agricultural pathways and scenarios for regional integrated assessment of climate change impact, vulnerability and adaptation. Handbook of Climate Change and Agroecosystems: The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Integrated Crop and Economic Assessments—Joint Publication with American Society of Agronomy. Crop Science Society of America. and Soil Science Society of America (In 2 Parts) pp3–101Google Scholar
  44. Van Meijl H, P Havlik, H Lotze-Campen, E Stehfest, P Witzke, I Pérez Domínguez, B Bodirsky, M van Dijk, J Doelman, T Fellmann, F Humpenoeder, J Levin-Koopman, C Mueller, A Popp, A Tabeau, H Valin (2017) Challenges of global agriculture in a climate change context by 2050 (AgCLIM50). JRC Science for Policy Report, EUR 28649 EN,
  45. Wang M, Huo H, Arora S (2011) Methods of dealing with co-products of biofuels in life-cycle analysis and consequent results within the US context. Energ Policy 39:5726–5736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. World Bank (2012) Economic and sector work. carbon sequestration in agricultural soils (no. 67395-GLB). In: The World Bank. USA, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  47. Wysocki DJ, Chastain TG, Schillinger WF, Guy SO, Karow RS (2013) Camelina: seed yield response to applied nitrogen and sulfur. Field Crop Res 145:60–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Zaher U, Stöckle C, Painter K, Higgins S (2013) Life cycle assessment of the potential carbon credit from no- and reduced-tillage winter wheat-based cropping systems in Eastern Washington State. Agric Syst 122:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • John M. Antle
    • 1
    Email author
  • Seojin Cho
    • 1
  • S. M. Hossein Tabatabaie
    • 2
  • Roberto O. Valdivia
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied EconomicsOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological and Ecological EngineeringOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations