When things get MESI: The Manipulation Experiments Synthesis Initiative-A coordinated effort to synthesize terrestrial global change experiments

Responses of the terrestrial biosphere to rapidly changing environmental conditions are a major source of uncertainty in climate projections. In an effort to reduce this uncertainty, a wide range of global change experiments have been conducted that mimic future conditions in terrestrial ecosystems, manipulating CO₂ , temperature, and nutrient and water availability. Syntheses of results across experiments provide a more general sense of ecosystem responses to global change, and help to discern the influence of background conditions such as climate and vegetation type in determining global change responses. Several independent syntheses of published data have yielded distinct databases for specific objectives. Such parallel, uncoordinated initiatives carry the risk of producing redundant data collection efforts and have led to contrasting outcomes without clarifying the underlying reason for divergence. These problems could be avoided by creating a publicly available, updatable, curated database. Here, we report on a global effort to collect and curate 57,089 treatment responses across 3644 manipulation experiments at 1145 sites, simulating elevated CO₂ , warming, nutrient addition, and precipitation changes. In the resulting Manipulation Experiments Synthesis Initiative (MESI) database, effects of experimental global change drivers on carbon and nutrient cycles are included, as well as ancillary data such as background climate, vegetation type, treatment magnitude, duration, and, unique to our database, measured soil properties. Our analysis of the database indicates that most experiments are short term (one or few growing seasons), conducted in the USA, Europe, or China, and that the most abundantly reported variable is aboveground biomass. We provide the most comprehensive multifactor global change database to date, enabling the research community to tackle open research questions, vital to global policymaking. The MESI database, freely accessible at doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7153253, opens new avenues for model evaluation and synthesis-based understanding of how global change affects terrestrial biomes. We welcome contributions to the database on GitHub.

Narrowing uncertainties in the effects of elevated CO2 on crops

Plant responses to rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) concentrations, together with projected variations in temperature and precipitation will determine future agricultural production. Estimates of the impacts of climate change on agriculture provide essential information to design effective adaptation strategies, and develop sustainable food systems. Here, we review the current experimental evidence and crop models on the effects of elevated CO₂ concentrations. Recent concerted efforts have narrowed the uncertainties in CO₂-induced crop responses so that climate change impact simulations omitting CO₂ can now be eliminated. To address remaining knowledge gaps and uncertainties in estimating the effects of elevated CO₂ and climate change on crops, future research should expand experiments on more crop species under a wider range of growing conditions, improve the representation of responses to climate extremes in crop models, and simulate additional crop physiological processes related to nutritional quality.

Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation

Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1.Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk?2.Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output.3.Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper.

Responses to atmospheric CO2 concentrations in crop simulation models: a review of current simple and semicomplex representations and options for model development

Elevated atmospheric CO₂ concentrations ([CO₂ ]) cause direct changes in crop physiological processes (e.g. photosynthesis and stomatal conductance). To represent these CO₂ responses, commonly used crop simulation models have been amended, using simple and semicomplex representations of the processes involved. Yet, there is no standard approach to and often poor documentation of these developments. This study used a bottom-up approach (starting with the APSIM framework as case study) to evaluate modelled responses in a consortium of commonly used crop models and illuminate whether variation in responses reflects true uncertainty in our understanding compared to arbitrary choices of model developers. Diversity in simulated CO₂ responses and limited validation were common among models, both within the APSIM framework and more generally. Whereas production responses show some consistency up to moderately high [CO₂ ] (around 700 ppm), transpiration and stomatal responses vary more widely in nature and magnitude (e.g. a decrease in stomatal conductance varying between 35% and 90% among models was found for [CO₂ ] doubling to 700 ppm). Most notably, nitrogen responses were found to be included in few crop models despite being commonly observed and critical for the simulation of photosynthetic acclimation, crop nutritional quality and carbon allocation. We suggest harmonization and consideration of more mechanistic concepts in particular subroutines, for example, for the simulation of N dynamics, as a way to improve our predictive understanding of CO₂ responses and capture secondary processes. Intercomparison studies could assist in this aim, provided that they go beyond simple output comparison and explicitly identify the representations and assumptions that are causal for intermodel differences. Additionally, validation and proper documentation of the representation of CO₂ responses within models should be prioritized.

A potato model intercomparison across varying climates and productivity levels

A potato crop multimodel assessment was conducted to quantify variation among models and evaluate responses to climate change. Nine modeling groups simulated agronomic and climatic responses at low-input (Chinoli, Bolivia and Gisozi, Burundi)- and high-input (Jyndevad, Denmark and Washington, United States) management sites. Two calibration stages were explored, partial (P1), where experimental dry matter data were not provided, and full (P2). The median model ensemble response outperformed any single model in terms of replicating observed yield across all locations. Uncertainty in simulated yield decreased from 38% to 20% between P1 and P2. Model uncertainty increased with interannual variability, and predictions for all agronomic variables were significantly different from one model to another (P < 0.001). Uncertainty averaged 15% higher for low- vs. high-input sites, with larger differences observed for evapotranspiration (ET), nitrogen uptake, and water use efficiency as compared to dry matter. A minimum of five partial, or three full, calibrated models was required for an ensemble approach to keep variability below that of common field variation. Model variation was not influenced by change in carbon dioxide (C), but increased as much as 41% and 23% for yield and ET, respectively, as temperature (T) or rainfall (W) moved away from historical levels. Increases in T accounted for the highest amount of uncertainty, suggesting that methods and parameters for T sensitivity represent a considerable unknown among models. Using median model ensemble values, yield increased on average 6% per 100-ppm C, declined 4.6% per °C, and declined 2% for every 10% decrease in rainfall (for nonirrigated sites). Differences in predictions due to model representation of light utilization were significant (P < 0.01). These are the first reported results quantifying uncertainty for tuber/root crops and suggest modeling assessments of climate change impact on potato may be improved using an ensemble approach.