42
ASSBT, February 2013 Recent and Future Yield Increases Keith Jaggard JAGGARD CONSULTANCY with Dr. Aiming Qi Broom’s Barn JAGGARD CONSULTANCY
ASSBT, February 2013
Recent and Future Yield IncreasesKeith Jaggard
JAGGARD CONSULTANCYwith
Dr. Aiming QiBroom’s Barn
JAGGARD CONSULTANCY
Topics
Contributions to recent yield increases• Weather (UK)• Varieties and agronomy (UK)Contributions for the future• CO2
• Climate (UK & US)• Technology and the yield gap (UK & US)
Units
• I will use t/ha of sugar (raw, not recoverable)• 1t/ha is ~ 800 lbs/ac recoverable• A big sugar yield is 15 t/ha (12,000 lb/ac recoverable)
Where?
Contributions to Recent Increases
• plant breeding?• agronomy and crop protection ?• the environment?
Sugar yields in UK variety trials and commercial crops since 1976
Crop year1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Suga
r yie
ld (t
/ha)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Commercial cropsVariety trials
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Tem
pera
ture
(°C
)
10
11
12
13
14
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Rai
nfal
l (m
m)
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
March – October weather across 18 weather stations in UK beet growing areas.
BB sugar beet growth model
Crop cover
Root depth
Available water
Intercepted radiation
Radiation conversion efficiency
Partitioning
Structure materials
Sugar
Net dry matter
Global radiation
Temperature
RainfallPET
Latitude
Soil texture
Radiationintensity
Sowing date
Harvesting dateCultivar is not an input The time step is daily
Simulated sugar yield (t/ha)0 5 10 15 20
Obs
erve
d su
gar y
ield
(t/h
a)
0
5
10
15
20
UKGermanyRed River Valley, USAx=y
Model works well in many conditions
Simulated yield trend using mean sowing date
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Suga
r yie
ld (t
/ha)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
y=-267.3+0.139*x
UK annual 50% crop sowing date
Crop Year1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Sow
ing
date
(Jul
ian
day
of th
e ye
ar)
70
80
90
100
110
120
Allocation of the annual yield increase rate (t/ha/year) that was measured in
UK variety trials: 1976 - 2005
Source of annual increase t/ha/a %
Earlier sowing 0.025 12
Climate change 0.140 56
Residual (agronomy and vars.) 0.065 32
Total 0.204 100
Weekly sampled versus simulated sugar yield in 2004
Sampling date
2 Aug9 Aug
16 Aug23 Aug
30 Aug6 Sep
13 Sep20 Sep
27 Sep4 Oct
11 Oct18 Oct
Suga
r yie
ld (t
/ha)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SampledModelled
Weekly sampled versus simulated sugar yield
Sampling date
4 Aug11 Aug
1 Sep8 Sep
Suga
r yie
ld (t
/ha)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SampledModelled
3 Aug10 Aug
17 Aug24 Aug
1 Sep7 Sep
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SampledModelled
2008 2009
2 Aug9 Aug
16 Aug23 Aug
31 Aug6 Sep
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SampledModelled
2011
1 Aug8 Aug
15 Aug22 Aug
29 Aug5 Sep
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SampledModelled
2010
Comparison of observed with simulated growth and sugar yield using the old model
Simulated sugar yield (t/ha)0 5 10 15 20 25
Obs
erve
d su
gar y
ield
(t/h
a)0
5
10
15
20
25
Broom's Barn IrrigatedBroom's Barn RainfedCavenhamLittleportHolbeachx=y
Simulated total dry matter (t/ha)0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Obs
erve
d to
tal d
ry m
atte
r (t/h
a)
05
1015202530354045
Broom's Barn IrrigatedBroom's Barn RainfedCavenhamLittleportHolbeachx=y
EF=80.7%RMSE=4.9MAE=3.8
EF=82.2%RMSE=2.5MAE=2.0
Observed versus simulated canopy cover with the old model
60 75 90 105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
285
300
Can
opy
cove
r (%
)
0102030405060708090
100
Broom's Barn IrrigatedSimulated
60 75 90 105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
285
300
0102030405060708090
100
Broom's Barn RainfedSimulated
Harvest date (Julian day of the year)
60 75 90105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
285
300
Can
opy
cove
r (%
)
0102030405060708090
100
CavenhamSimulated
Harvest date (Julian day of the year)
60 75 90105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
285
300
0102030405060708090
100
LittleportSimulated
Harvest date (Julian day of the year)
60 75 90 105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
285
300
Can
opy
cove
r (%
)
0102030405060708090
100
HolbeachSimulated
e--
+T-Tf=f T-T- 01μμμexp min0
0min0
050
010
0015
0020
0025
0030
0035
0040
0045
0050
00
Suga
r yie
ld (g
m-2
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Broom's Barn Irrigated
050
010
0015
0020
0025
0030
0035
0040
0045
0050
00
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Broom's Barn Rainfed
Total dry matter (g m-2)
050
010
0015
0020
0025
0030
0035
0040
0045
0050
00
Suga
r yie
ld (g
m-2
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Cavenham
Total dry matter (g m-2)0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Littleport
Total dry matter (g m-2)
050
010
0015
0020
0025
0030
0035
0040
0045
0050
00
Suga
r yie
ld (g
m-2
)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Holbeach
Observed and simulated allocation of dry matter to sugar: old model
)1(log1 kW+k
Y=W-
Today, autumn foliage tends to be healthier and more extensive.
28 October 2011
September 2000
Observed and simulated sugar yield: recalibrated model
60 75 90105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
285
300
Suga
r yie
ld (t
/ha)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Broom's Barn irrigatedSimulated
60 75 90105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
285
300
0
5
10
15
20
25
Broom's Barn rain-fedSimulated
Harvest date (Julian day of the year)
60 75 90105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
285
300
Suga
r yie
ld (t
/ha)
0
5
10
15
20
25
CavenhamSimulated
Harvest date (Julian day of the year)
60 75 90105
120
135
150
165
180
195
210
225
240
255
270
285
300
0
5
10
15
20
25
LittleportSimulated
Harvest date (Julian day of the year)60 75 9010
512
013
515
016
518
019
521
022
524
025
527
028
530
0
Suga
r yie
ld (t
/ha)
0
5
10
15
20
25HolbeachSimulated
Sampled and simulated sugar yield: recalibrated model
Sampling date
4 Aug11 Aug
1 Sep8 Sep
Suga
r yie
ld (t
/ha)
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SampledModelled
3 Aug10 Aug
17 Aug24 Aug
1 Sep7 Sep
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SampledModelled
2008 2009
2 Aug9 Aug
16 Aug23 Aug
31 Aug6 Sep
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SampledModelled
2011
1 Aug8 Aug
15 Aug22 Aug
29 Aug5 Sep
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
SampledModelled
2010
Recent yield increases in UK were about 20%:
• from primed beet seeds which gave earlier seedling emergence
• NOT from faster canopy growth or from better allocation of dry matter to sugar (a big surprise)
• from better radiation use efficiency in late summer and autumn (variety and fungicide effects)
Possible Sources of Future Increases
• Extra CO2
• A changed climate
• Plant breeding & technology
Past and future CO2 concentrations
Most scenarios assume c. 550ppm by 2050
Free Air CO2 Experiments
Sugar yield increased by 15% at 550ppm
Climate Change• Assumed CO2 concentrations
Decade ppm
2000s 367
2020s 418
2050s 523
• Ensemble of 17 GCMs• Two areas: East England & central N. America• Simulated daily weather for 10 years
US region covered by future climate projection
Monthly mean air temperature increase over baseline 2000s in East England
MonthJa
nFeb Mar AprMay Ju
n Jul
AugSep OctNovDec
Tem
pera
ture
(°C
)
0
1
2
3
4
52020s2050s Warmer by 1 ‐ 3°C
Monthly mean air temperature increase over baseline 2000s in RRV
MonthJa
nFeb Mar AprMay Ju
n Jul
AugSep OctNovDec
Tem
pera
ture
(°C
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
2020s2050s
Warmer, especially in late winter and spring
Monthly precipitation change over baseline 2000s in East Anglia, England
MonthJa
nFeb Mar AprMay Ju
n Jul
AugSep OctNovDec
Prec
ipita
tion
(mm
)
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30 2020s2050s Drier summer
Monthly precipitation change over baseline 2000s in RRV
MonthJa
nFeb Mar AprMay Ju
n Jul
AugSep OctNovDec
Prec
ipita
tion
(mm
)
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30 2020s2050s
Wetter summer
Median sugar yield simulations for beet in England
Scenarios2000s 2020s 2050s
Med
ian
yiel
d (t/
ha)
0
5
10
15
20
Clay loamSandySandy loamSilt
Climate change effects on simulated mean sugar yields (%)
Decade UK RRV
2000s - - 2020s 7 6 2050s 14 8
UK values adjusted for sowing date (4 & 10 days earlier)
Technology(breeding, agronomy and yield gap)
y = 0.337x ‐ 667.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2000 2004 2008 2012
American Crystal Sugar
y = 0.277x ‐ 548.1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2000 2004 2008 2012
Sugar (t/ha
)
England
Technology(breeding, agronomy and yield gap)
• Commercial increase rates are similar, about 0.3t/ha per year
• Part of the effect is climate change (0.14t/ha per year)
• Can we expect changes in technology to continue to deliver 0.16t/ha per year?
• Why not? In the last decade it delivered about 20% more yield in the UK, so there is no yield plateau yet.
Can we close the yield gap?
• Difference between potential yield and delivered yield
• Closing the gap is considered a good way to increase delivered yield
• Potential might be measured in variety trials
y = 0.375x ‐ 738.5
y = 0.277x ‐ 548.1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2000 2004 2008 2012
Sugar (t/ha
)
England
Trials
Delivered
Yield Gap
Gap due to:• water stress in commercial crop
• storage losses• post harvest handling
• occasional crop failure
• weeds, pests and diseases
Yield Gap
y = 0.132x ‐ 255.3
y = 0.337x ‐ 667.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2000 2004 2008 2012
American Crystal Sugar
Trials
Delivered
y = 0.375x ‐ 738.5
y = 0.277x ‐ 548.1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
2000 2004 2008 2012
Sugar (t/ha
)
England
Trials
Delivered
Possible sugar yields (t/ha)?
UK RRV2000’s 10 102020’s 14.8 14.72050’s 19 18.7
Values are today’s yield plus allowances for CO2effect, climate change and a continuation of the technology effect measured since 2000.
Climate change and theprocess
UK warmer winters
• Reduced freezing risk for very late harvest
• Could UK plan to run for another 2 weeks?
Cold periods (days)1 2 3 4 5
Prob
abili
ty
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
2000s2020s2050s
Monthly mean air temperature increase over baseline 2000s in RRV
Month
Jan
Feb Mar AprMay Ju
n Jul
AugSep OctNovDec
Tem
pera
ture
(°C
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
2020s2050s Warmer winter.
Will the piles stay frozen?
Thank youfor inviting me to speakand for your attention
![Recent Progress in Nano-space Radiation Chemistry ...The Acid Production Pathway [H +] PiTs Pi3F TPS-Tf PiTs decreases acid yield, but Pi3F increases acid yield. OH O S CF 3 OH O O](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/6097df4ad9ccd83fa56183de/recent-progress-in-nano-space-radiation-chemistry-the-acid-production-pathway.jpg)
