| 1. |
- Mills, Gina, 1959, et al.
(författare)
-
Closing the global ozone yield gap: Quantification and cobenefits for multistress tolerance
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Global Change Biology. - : Wiley. - 1354-1013 .- 1365-2486. ; 24:10, s. 4869-4893
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Increasing both crop productivity and the tolerance of crops to abiotic and biotic stresses is a major challenge for global food security in our rapidly changing climate. For the first time, we show how the spatial variation and severity of tropospheric ozone effects on yield compare with effects of other stresses on a global scale, and discuss mitigating actions against the negative effects of ozone. We show that the sensitivity to ozone declines in the order soybean>wheat>maize>rice, with genotypic variation in response being most pronounced for soybean and rice. Based on stomatal uptake, we estimate that ozone (mean of 2010–2012) reduces global yield annually by 12.4%, 7.1%, 4.4% and 6.1% for soybean, wheat, rice and maize, respectively (the “ozone yield gaps”), adding up to 227Tg of lost yield. Our modelling shows that the highest ozone-induced production losses for soybean are in North and South America whilst for wheat they are in India and China, for rice in parts of India, Bangladesh, China and Indonesia, and for maize in China and the United States. Crucially, we also show that the same areas are often also at risk of high losses from pests and diseases, heat stress and to a lesser extent aridity and nutrient stress. In a solution-focussed analysis of these results, we provide a crop ideotype with tolerance of multiple stresses (including ozone) and describe how ozone effects could be included in crop breeding programmes. We also discuss altered crop management approaches that could be applied to reduce ozone impacts in the shorter term. Given the severity of ozone effects on staple food crops in areas of the world that are also challenged by other stresses, we recommend increased attention to the benefits that could be gained from addressing the ozone yield gap.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pandey, Divya, et al.
(författare)
-
Assessing the costs of ozone pollution in India for wheat producers, consumers, and government food welfare policies
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. - 0027-8424 .- 1091-6490. ; 120:32
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We assess wheat yield losses occurring due to ozone pollution in India and its economic burden on producers, consumers, and the government. Applying an ozone flux-based risk assessment, we show that ambient ozone levels caused a mean 14.18% reduction in wheat yields during 2008 to 2012. Furthermore, irrigated wheat was particularly sensitive to ozone-induced yield losses, indicating that ozone pollution could undermine climate-change adaptation efforts through irrigation expansion. Applying an economic model, we examine the effects of a counterfactual, "pollution-free" scenario on yield losses, wheat prices, consumer and producer welfare, and government costs. We explore three policy scenarios in which the government support farmers at observed levels of either procurement prices (fixed-price), procurement quantities (fixed-procurement), or procurement expenditure (fixed-expenditure). In pollution-free conditions, the fixed-price scenario absorbs the fall in prices, thus increasing producer welfare by USD 2.7 billion, but total welfare decreases by USD 0.24 billion as government costs increase (USD 2.9 billion). In the fixed-procurement and fixed-expenditure scenarios, ozone mitigation allows wheat prices to fall by 38.19 to 42.96%. The producers lose by USD 5.10 to 6.01 billion, but the gains to consumers and governments (USD 8.7 to 10.2 billion) outweigh these losses. These findings show that the government and consumers primarily bear the costs of ozone pollution. For pollution mitigation to optimally benefit wheat production and maximize social welfare, new approaches to support producers other than fixed-price grain procurement may be required. We also emphasize the need to consider air pollution in programs to improve agricultural resilience to climate change.
|
|
