Sugar Tech

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 347–355 | Cite as

Predicting Climate Change Impacts on Sugarcane Production at Sites in Australia, Brazil and South Africa Using the Canegro Model

  • Abraham Singels
  • Matthew Jones
  • Fabio Marin
  • Alexander Ruane
  • Peter Thorburn
Research Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

Reliable predictions of sugarcane response to climate change are necessary to plan adaptation strategies. The objective of this study was to assess the use of global climate models (GCMs) and a crop simulation model for predicting climate change impacts on sugarcane production. The Canegro model was used to simulate growth and development of sugarcane crops under typical management conditions at three sites (irrigated crops at Ayr, Australia; rainfed crops at Piracicaba, Brazil and La Mercy, South Africa) for current and three future climate scenarios. The baseline scenario consisted of a 30-year time series of historical weather records and atmospheric CO2 concentration ([CO2]) set at 360 ppm. Future climate scenarios were derived from three GCMs and [CO2] set at 734 ppm. Future cane yields are expected to increase at all three sites, ranging from +4 % for Ayr, to +9 and +20 % for Piracicaba and La Mercy. Canopy development was accelerated at all three sites by increased temperature, which led to increased interception of radiation, increased transpiration, and slight increases in drought stress at rainfed sites. For the high potential sites (Ayr and Piracicaba), yield increases were limited by large increases in maintenance respiration which consumed most of the daily assimilate when high biomass was achieved. A weakness of the climate data used was the assumption of no change in rainfall distribution, solar radiation and relative humidity. Crop model aspects that need refinement include improved simulation of (1) elevated [CO2] effects on crop photosynthesis and transpiration, and (2) high temperature effects on crop development, photosynthesis and respiration.

Keywords

Climate change Crop model Cane yield Canopy cover Global climate model 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was conducted under the auspices of AgMIP, with support from SASRI, CSIRO and Embrapa. The authors thank Jody Biggs of CSIRO for assistance in preparing data for Ayr. We acknowledge the global climate modelling groups, the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) and the WCRP’s Working Group on Coupled Modelling (WGCM), for their roles in making available the WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset. Support of this dataset is provided by the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy.

References

  1. Biggs, J.S., P.J. Thorburn, S.J. Crimp, B. Masters, and S.J. Attard. 2013. Interactions between climate change and sugarcane management systems for improving water quality leaving farms in the Mackay-Whitsunday region, Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, in press (doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.11.00).
  2. Boote, K.J., L.H. Jr Allen, P.V.V. Prasad, and J.W. Jones. 2010. Testing effects of climate change in crop models. In Handbook of Climate Change and Agro-ecosystems: Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation, eds. Daniel Hillel and Cynthia Rosenzweig. ICP Series on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, and Mitigation 1: 109–129. London: Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cheeroo-Nayamuth, F.B., and R.A.H. Nayamuth. 2001. Climate change and sucrose production in Mauritius. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 24: 107–112.Google Scholar
  4. De Souza, A.P., M. Gaspar, E.A. da Silva, E.C. Ulian, A.J. Waclawovsky, and M.Y. Nishiyama. 2008. Elevated CO2 increases photosynthesis, biomass and productivity, and modifies gene expression in sugarcane. Plant, Cell and Environment 31: 1116–1127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Inman-Bamber, N.G. 1991. A growth model for sugar-cane based on a simple carbon balance and the CERES-Maize water balance. South African Journal of Plant and Soil 8: 93–99.Google Scholar
  6. Inman-Bamber, N.G. 1994. Temperature and seasonal effects on canopy development and light interception of sugarcane. Field Crops Research 36: 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. IPCC SRES. 2000. Special Report on Emissions Scenarios: A special report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-80081-1.Google Scholar
  8. Jones, J.W., G. Hoogenboom, C.H. Porter, K.J. Boote, W.D. Batchelor, L.A. Hunt, P.W. Wilkens, U. Singh, A.J. Gijsman, and J.T. Ritchie. 2003. The DSSAT cropping system model. European Journal of Agronomy 18: 235–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Keating, B.A., M.J. Robertson, and R.C. Muchow. 1999. Modeling sugarcane production systems I. Development and performance of the sugarcane module. Field Crops Research 61: 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Knox, J.W., J.A. Rodríguez Díaz, D.J. Nixon, and M. Mkhwanazi. 2010. A preliminary assessment of climate change impacts on sugarcane in Swaziland. Agricultural Systems 103: 63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marin, F.R., J.W. Jones, F. Royce, C. Suguitani, J.L. Donzelli, W.J.F. Pallone, and D.S.P. Nassif. 2011. Parameterization and evaluation of predictions of DSSAT/CANEGRO for Brazilian sugarcane. Agronomy Journal 103: 304–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Marin, F.R., J.W. Jones, A. Singels, F. Royce, E.D. Assad, G.O. Pellegrino, and F. Justino. 2013. Climate change impacts on sugarcane attainable yield in Southern Brazil. Climatic Change 117: 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Meehl, G.A., C.J. Boer, C. Covey, M. Latif, and R.J. Stouffer. 2000. The coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 81: 313–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rosenzweig, C., J.W. Jones, J.L. Hatfield, A.C. Ruane, K.J. Boote, P.J. Thorburn, J. Antle, G. Nelson, C.H. Porter, S. Janssen, S. Asseng, J.M. Winter, and A.P. Greeley. 2013. The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): protocols and pilot studies. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 170: 166–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schulze, R.E., and R.P. Kunz. 2010. Climate Change and Sugarcane Production Using the Smith Model. In Climate Change and the South African Sugarcane Sector: A 2010 Perspective, ed R.E. Schulze, ACRUcons Report 61: 73–81. Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal, School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology.Google Scholar
  16. Singels, A., A.J. Kennedy, and C.N. Bezuidenhout. 2000. The effect of water stress on sugarcane biomass accumulation and partitioning. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists’ Association 74: 169–172.Google Scholar
  17. Singels, A., and C.N. Bezuidenhout. 2002. A new method of simulating dry matter partitioning in the Canegro sugarcane model. Field Crops Research 78: 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Singels, A., R.A. Donaldson, and M.A. Smit. 2005. Improving biomass production and partitioning in sugarcane: theory and practice. Field Crops Research 92: 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Singels, A., M. Jones, and M. van den Berg. 2008. DSSAT v4.5 Canegro Sugarcane Plant Module: scientific documentation, 34. Mount Edgecombe: SASRI.Google Scholar
  20. Singels, A., M.R. Jones, C.H. Porter, M.A. Smit, G. Kingston, F. Marin, S. Chinorumba, A. Jintrawet, C. Suguitani, M. van den Berg, and G. Saville. 2010. The DSSAT4.5 Canegro model: A useful decision support tool for research and management of sugarcane production. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 27: (CD-ROM).Google Scholar
  21. Singh, B., and M. El Maayar. 1998. Potential impacts of greenhouse gas climate change scenarios on sugarcane yields in Trinidad. Tropical Agriculture 75: 348–353.Google Scholar
  22. Walker, N.J., and R.E. Schulze. 2010. Simulations of rainfed and irrigated sugarcane yields at the scale of mill supply areas in South Africa with the APSIM Model: a verification analysis and study of sensitivities of yields to scenarios of climate change. In Climate Change and the South African Sugarcane Sector: A 2010 Perspective, ed R.E. Schulze, ACRUcons Report 61: 83–104. Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal, School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology.Google Scholar
  23. Wilby, R.L., S. Charles, E. Zorita, B. Timbal, P. Whetton, and L. Mearns. 2004. Guidelines for use of climate scenarios developed from statistical downscaling methods. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Supporting Material, available from the Data Distribution Centre of the IPPC Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impacts and Climate Analysis (TGCIA), http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/dgm_no2_v1_09_2004.pdf. Accessed 15 September 2013.

Copyright information

© Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abraham Singels
    • 1
  • Matthew Jones
    • 1
  • Fabio Marin
    • 2
  • Alexander Ruane
    • 3
  • Peter Thorburn
    • 4
  1. 1.South African Sugarcane Research InstituteMount EdgecombeSouth Africa
  2. 2.Embrapa Agriculture InformaticsCampinasBrazil
  3. 3.NASA Goddard Institute for Space StudiesNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.CSIRO Ecosystems SciencesBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations