Climatic Change

, Volume 109, Supplement 1, pp 317–333 | Cite as

California perennial crops in a changing climate

  • David B. LobellEmail author
  • Christopher B. Field


Perennial crops are among the most valuable of California’s diverse agricultural products. They are also potentially the most influenced by information on future climate, since individual plants are commonly grown for more than 30 years. This study evaluated the impacts of future climate changes on the 20 most valuable perennial crops in California, using a combination of statistical crop models and downscaled climate model projections. County records on crop harvests and weather from 1980 to 2005 were used to evaluate the influence of weather on yields, with a series of cross-validation and sensitivity tests used to evaluate the robustness of perceived effects. In the end, only four models appear to have a clear weather response based on historical data, with another four presenting significant but less robust relationships. Projecting impacts of climate trends to 2050 using historical relationships reveals that cherries are the only crop unambiguously threatened by warming, with no crops clearly benefiting from warming. Another robust result is that almond yields will be harmed by winter warming, although this effect may be counteracted by beneficial warming in spring and summer. Overall, the study has advanced understanding of climate impacts on California agriculture and has highlighted the importance of measuring and tracking uncertainties due to the difficulty of uncovering crop-climate relationships.


Ordinary Less Square Lasso Ordinary Less Square Regression Crop Model Perennial Crop 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank Claudia Tebaldi for many helpful discussions on the statistical models, Mary Tyree for providing the observed and model climate datasets, Sue Olson and Jack Rutz for data on almond variety production and area, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. This work was supported by a grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program.


  1. Baldocchi D, Wong S (2008) Accumulated winter chill is decreasing in the fruit growing regions of California. Clim Change 87:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonfils C et al (2008) Identification of external influences on temperatures in California. Clim Change, in press:  10.1007/s10584-007-9374-9.
  3. California Agricultural Statistics Service (2006) California Agricultural Statistics 2005: overview. USDA-NASS, SacramentoGoogle Scholar
  4. Cayan D, Tyree M, Dettinger M, Hidalgo M, Das T, Maurer E, Bromirski P, Graham N, Flick R (2009) Climate change scenarios and sea level rise estimates for the California 2009 climate change scenarios assessment. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CEC-500-2009-014-FGoogle Scholar
  5. Efron B, Hastie T, Johnstone I, Tibshirani R (2004) Least angle regression. Ann Stat 32(2):407–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2001) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer series in statistics. Springer, New York, p 533Google Scholar
  7. Hayhoe K et al (2004) Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(34):12422–12427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Idso SB, Kimball BA (2001) CO2 enrichment of sour orange trees: 13 years and counting. Environ Exp Bot 46(2):147–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kester DE, Martin GC, Labavitch JM (1996) Growth and development, almond production manual. University of California, pp 90–97Google Scholar
  10. Lobell DB, Bala G, Bonfils C, Duffy PB (2006a) Potential bias of model projected greenhouse warming in irrigated regions. Geophys Res Lett 33:L13709. doi: 10.1029/2006GL026770 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lobell DB, Cahill KN, Field C (2007) Historical effects of temperature and precipitation on California crop yields. Clim Chang 81:187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lobell DB, Field CB, Cahill KN, Bonfils C (2006b) Impacts of future climate change on California perennial crop yields: model projections with climate and crop uncertainties. Agr Forest Meteorol 141(2–4):208–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Long SP, Ainsworth EA, Leakey ADB, Nosberger J, Ort DR (2006) Food for thought: lower-than-expected crop yield stimulation with rising CO2 concentrations. Science 312(5782):1918–1921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Medellin-Azuara J, Howitt R, MacEwan D, Lund J (2011) Economic impacts of climate-related agricultural yield changes in California. Climatic Change 109 Suppl 1Google Scholar
  15. Meehl GA et al (2007) Global climate projections. In: Solomon S et al (eds) Climate Change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. Polito V, Micke W, Kester D (1996) Bud development, pollination and fertilization, Almond Production Manual. University of California Publication, pp 98–102Google Scholar
  17. Tanaka SK et al (2006) Climate warming and water management adaptation for California. Clim Chang 76(3):361–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. White MA, Diffenbaugh NS, Jones GV, Pal JS, Giorgi F (2006) Extreme heat reduces and shifts United States premium wine production in the 21st century. Proc Natl Acad Sci 103(30):11217CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Earth System Science and Program on Food Security and EnvironmentStanford UniversityStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Department of Global EcologyCarnegie InstitutionStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations