Content uploaded by Rishipal Singh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rishipal Singh on Feb 24, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
DOI: 10.5958/j.0000-0000.1.1.006
Impact of climate change and farm management
R.P. Singh1 ••
••
• K.R. Reddy2*
Abstract Climate change is all about increased temperature,
altered precipitation regime and more recurrent frequency
of extreme events. The global climate change resulted from
anthropogenic activities. The major impact will be on the
grain filling duration and incident radiation. The paradox is
that areas that are currently most food-insecure will be most
affected by climate change. Even a small change in climate
may result in high social vulnerability. Since, climate change
poses complex challenges like multiple abiotic stresses on
crops and livestock, shortage of water, land degradation and
affecting economies in addition to serious challenge to
produce 40% more food, with limited land and water, using
less energy. Due to climate change, the geographical shift
of major field crops is likely to take place. Moreover, the
useful insects are reducing which causes serious concerns
to food and nutritional security. Furthermore, the excessive
chemicals drained in water responsible for the development
of dead zones due to which Marine Industries are bound
further loss to the food and nutritional security for the ever
increasing population. The biodiversity loss, climate change
and the rising use of fertilizers are the major threat to our
planet. The impact of climate change can be mitigated by
suitable varieties and crop substitution, altering irrigation,
water management practices the judicious use of fertilizers,
manures and increased use of natural microbes that can fix
nitrogen naturally. Similarly, the use of biofertilizers,
biopesticides, biofungicides, and so on to reduce the
chemical load and to sustain productivity. The conservation
of natural resources (i.e., land and water) and better farm
management practices will certainly help in not only
enhancing production and productivity. Similarly, the
integration of different components of the system, namely
agriculture, livestock and agro/social forestry, will certainly
be beneficial for the sustainability of the farms. Nevertheless,
the practices of ecological agriculture, diversity farming,
optimum levels of farm mechanization and reduction of post-
harvest losses become the key component for maintaining
factor productivity. The adoption of climate-resilient
agriculture, change in crop calendar and new techniques like
SRI, crop diversification and pollination management
techniques will definitely reduce the yield gap at the farm
level. The strengthening of weather forecasting system, credit
facilities, linking to the market with better storage facilities
and/or infrastructural development, and so on will be key
factors to obtain the optimum price of the farm produce at
the right time and the right place. The adaptation to climate
change should include autonomous as well as planned
measures. Therefore, suitable adjustment and improvements
over the existing practices are required at different levels to
mitigate the negative impact of climate change at the farm
level.
Keywords Climate change, Extreme events, Biodiversity,
Natural resources, Farm management
Introduction
If current greenhouse gas emission rates continue into
the future, both agricultural and natural ecosystems will face
enormous pressure. Past changes have resulted in about
0.6°C increases in global temperature over the past century.
The projected global mean temperatures for those CO2
stabilization scenarios are 0.4 - 1.1°C by 2025, 0.8 - 2.6°C
by 2050 and 1.4 -5.8°C by 2100, which will be above the
values of 1990. These changes in climate have remained
unprecedented during the last 10,000 years (Reddy, 2008).
According to the International Fund for Agricultural
Development (IFAD), 75% of the world’s 1.2 billion poor
live and work in rural areas (IFAD, 2001). They are largely
situated in the zone with tropical savannah agro-ecosystems
and are characterized by considerable challenges: seasonal
rainfall, intermittent dry spells, recurrent drought years, high
evaporative demand and often inherently low-fertile soils
1Directorate of Seed and Farms, Birsa Agricultural University, Ranchi 834006, Jharkhand, India. E-mail id: dsfbau@rediffmail.com
2Professor, Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Box 9555, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA
*Email id: krreddy@pss.msstate.edu
54 Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
vulnerable to erosion (Falkenmark and Rockstrom, 2004).
There is widespread agreement on three points in particular:
(a) all regions will become warmer; (b) soil moisture will
decline with higher temperatures and evapotranspiration in
the sub-tropics; and (c) sea level will rise globally with
thermal expansion of the oceans and glacial melt. With
glacial melting, the river systems are expected to experience
higher seasonal flow and more flooding (Bellagio Meeting
Statement, 2007). The realization of the potential beneficial
effects of increased CO2 in the field remains uncertain due
primarily to potential, yet still undocumented, interactions
with nutrients, water, weeds, pests and other stresses. If the
climate change effects dominate, world crop yields are likely
to be more negatively affected, as all scenarios project
negative results (–9% to –22%), especially the A1 and A2
scenarios (-16% to -22%) (Parry et al., 2004). More frequent
extreme events may lower long-term yields by directly
damaging crops at specific developmental stages, such as
temperature thresholds during flowering, or by making the
timing of field applications more difficult, thus reducing the
efficiency of farm inputs (Porter and Semenov, 2005; Antle
et al., 2004).
The elements of modern agriculture were introduced in
Western Europe and North America in the nineteenth century.
Technological developments in this era included chemical
fertilizers, mechanization, increased possibilities of irrigation
and chemical control of pests and diseases. This coincided
with a better understanding of genetics, which provided the
basis for scientific plant breeding. These developments led
to increasing possibilities to control the diversity of
environmental and other conditions affecting plant growth
(soil fertility, water requirement, pests and diseases),
adapting the environment to the requirements of specific
crops and to individual varieties. This represented the
beginning of a dramatic change in agriculture. While
previously crops and cropping systems were adapted to local
and diverse environments, environments started to be
adapted to the requirements of individual crops and even
specific varieties, a process that continues even today
(Hardon, 2004). Mechanization entailed a shift to mono-
cropping, which was reasonable remuneration for those who
could afford the requisite expanses. Unfortunately, such a
strategy was more vulnerable to economic and climatic
‘shocks’ than the poly-cropping that it replaced (Uphoff,
2007). The world must produce 40% more food, with limited
land and water, using less energy, fertilizer and pesticide by
2030 and at the same time reducing sharply the level of
greenhouse gases emitted globally (Beddington, 2010).
There is a need to develop new techniques that will keep
agriculture both profitable for the farmer and make it
sustainable for the future (Thuzar et al., 2010). In the present
study, the impact of climate change on agriculture and
various strategies to mitigate the impact through farm
management have been described.
Agriculture Situation and Food Security in Different
Regions
Climate change affects agriculture and food production
in complex ways. It affects food production directly through
changes in agro-ecological conditions and indirectly by
affecting growth and distribution of incomes (Schmidhuber
and Tubiello, 2007). The six most widely grown crops in
the world are wheat, rice, maize, soybeans, barley and
sorghum. Production of these crops accounts for over 40%
of the global cropland area, 55% of non-meat calories and
over 70% of animal feed (FAO, 2006). Major impacts of
climate change will be on rain-fed crops including pulses
that account for nearly 60% of the cropland area. A
temperature increase of 3-4°C could cause crop yields to
decrease by 15-35% in Africa and west Asia and by 25–
35% in the Middle East according to an FAO report released
in March 2008 (FAO, 2008). In the recent past, Europe
experienced a particularly extreme climate event during the
summer of 2003, with temperatures up to 6°C above long-
term means and precipitation deficits up to 300 mm. A record
crop yield drop of 36% occurred in Italy for corn grown in
the Po valley where extremely high temperatures prevailed
(Ciais et al., 2005).
Asian rice yields will decrease dramatically due to
higher nighttime temperatures. A study by the International
Rice Research Institute (IRRI) reports that rice yields are
declining by 10% for each centigrade increase in nighttime
temperatures (IRRI press release, 2004). Recent temperature
changes have been particularly marked, such that the
warming trend in the last 50 years has been 0.13°C per
decade, nearly twice that of the preceding 100 years. The
yield of wheat declined by 5–8% (Wheeler et al., 1996) and
by 10% (Mitchell et al., 1993) per 1°C rise in mean seasonal
temperature. Agriculture and food systems in the southern
countries, especially in South Asia and Southern Africa, will
be the first and most negatively affected. Extreme climate
events (especially hotter, drier conditions in semi-arid
regions) are likely to slash yields for maize, wheat, rice and
other primary food crops. A temperature increase of 3–4°C
could cause crop yields to fall by 15–35% in Africa and
west Asia and by 25–35% in the Middle East according to
an FAO report released in March 2008 (FAO, 2008). In Latin
America, losses for rain-fed maize production will be far
higher than for irrigated production; some models predict
losses of up to 60% for Mexico, where around 2 million
smallholder farmers depend on rain-fed maize cultivation
(UNDP, 2007/2008). Today, nearly two-thirds of the world’s
undernourished live in the Asia/Pacific region, and a number
of these countries are placed at “serious” or “alarming”
55
Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
severity levels in the 2009 Global Hunger Index
(vonGrebmer et al., 2009). With the projected 15–50% loss
in agricultural productivity by 2080 due to climate change
(Nellemann et al., 2009); the region faces severe threat of
food insufficiency and hunger. The possible likely impact
of climate change on farm productivity and ecosystems as
indicated by Abrol (2009) is mentioned in Table 1.
Impact of Climate Change on Economies
Ninety million people per year are affected by drought,
106 million people per year are affected by flooding and
around 900 million ha of soil are affected by salinity (Bruins,
2009). The IPCC report indicated that an overall increase of
2°C in temperature and 7% in rainfall would lead to an almost
8% loss in farm-level net revenue. Auffhammer et al. (2006)
described the role of brown clouds, known as ‘‘Atmospheric
brown clouds’’ (ABC), over the Indian subcontinent. ABC-
attributed harvest reductions alone are estimated to have
grown from H≈4% during the 1970s to >10% during 1985–
1998. Among a larger set of weather variables tested, June–
September rainfall and October–November minimum
temperatures were found to have significant influence on
rice yield. As expected, higher rainfall ensured both larger
areas to be cultivated and higher yield, whereas higher
nighttime temperatures reduced yield (Peng et al., 2004).
Even a small change in climate may result in high social
vulnerability, for at least two reasons: first, many crops rely
on the regular return of monsoon rainfall (Krishna et al.,
2004), a system that has fluctuated widely in the past, and,
second, the economic potential to adapt is very low for most
Indian farmers (Luo and Lin, 1999). Recent warming (–
0.44°C since 1930) has impacted crop yields through several
mechanisms associated with direct temperature as well as
changes in water availability (Peng et al., 2004). In India,
the effects of global warming are likely to be more severe,
causing concern for food security. For every 2°C rise in
temperature, the reduction in gross domestic product (GDP)
is 5% and for the next 6°C it would be 15–16%. South Asia’s
prime wheat-growing land – the vast Indo-Gangetic plain,
which produces about 15% of the world’s wheat crop – will
shrink by 51% by 2050 due to hotter, drier weather and
diminished yields, a loss that will place at least 200 million
people at greater risk of hunger (CGIAR, 2006). Although
Stern (2007) projected that a 2°C increase in average
temperatures would reduce world GDP by roughly 1%, the
2010 World Development Report of the World Bank (2009)
focuses on developing countries and estimates that without
offsetting innovations, climate change will ultimately cause
a decrease in annual GDP of 4% in Africa and 5% in India
(Lybbert and Sumner, 2010). Regional disparities around
the global average impact are substantial. India and Africa
are projected to see reductions of agricultural output by 30%
or more (Cline, 2007). As temperatures rise and rainfall
patterns change, additional losses of maize grain may
approach 10 million tons/year, currently worth almost US$5
billion. In a global analysis of crop yields from 1981 to 2002,
there was a negative response of wheat, maize and barley
yields to rising temperature, costing an estimated $5 billion/
year (Lobell and Field, 2007). Sixty-five countries in the
south, mostly in Africa, risk losing 280 million tonnes of
potential cereal production, valued at $56 billion, as a result
of climate change (FAO, 2005). Latin America and Africa
will see a 10% decline in maize productivity by 2055 –
equivalent to crop losses worth US $2 billion/year (CGIAR,
2007).
Table 1 Projected Climate Changes and Its Impact Various Crop Yield dynamics
S.N. Climate-Related Changes Likely Impact
1. Warmer and fewer cold days and nights: warmer and Decreased yields in warmer and increased yields in colder regions:
more frequent hot days and nights over most land increased pest incidence
areas
2. Warm spells and heat waves increasing in frequency Reduced crop yields due to heat stress, adverse impact on health and
over most land areas productivity of livestock, increased danger of wild fires
3. Increased frequency of heavy precipitation events Damages of crops increased soil erosion: increased problem at time of
over most areas cultivation due to water logging and so on
4. Area affected by frequent drought will increase Reduced crop yields from crop damage and failures, increased livestock
deaths, accelerated land degradation/soil erosion, reduced arable land,
migration
5. Intense tropical cyclone activity increase Damage to crops/trees/coastal ecology
6. Increase in incidence of high sea level Salinization of estuaries and freshwater systems, loss of arable land,
increased migration
Source: Abrol (2009); IPCC (2007)
56 Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
Climate Change Effect on Geographical Crop
Distribution
Abiotic stress is the primary cause of crop loss
worldwide, reducing average yields for most major crop
plants by more than 50% (Bray et al., 2000). In drier areas,
climate models predict increased evapotranspiration and
lower soil moisture levels, resulting in some cultivated areas
becoming unsuitable for cropping and some tropical
grasslands becoming increasingly arid (IPCC, 2007).
Climatic zones (and thus ecosystems and agricultural zones)
could shift towards the poles by 150–550 km by 2100. Many
ecosystems may decline or fragment and individual species
may become extinct (Agrawal, 2011). In temperate latitudes,
higher temperatures are expected to bring predominantly
benefits to agriculture, the areas potentially suitable for
cropping will expand, the length of the growing period will
increase and crop yields may rise. These gains have to be
set against an increased frequency of extreme events
(Rosenweig et al., 2002). Twenty-three crops are projected
to suffer decreases in a suitable area, on average, while some
20 crops will gain suitable area. Overall, suitable area for
crop cultivation is projected to increase. The biggest gains
are in areas suitable for pearl millet (31%), sunflower (18%),
common millet (16%), chick pea (15%) and soya bean
(14%), although many of the gains in suitable areas occur in
regions where these crops are currently not an integral
component of food security (Lane and Jarvis, 2007). Land
area suitable for pearl millet is projected to increase by over
10% in Europe and the Caribbean (Lane and Jarvis, 2007).
By region, Europe is projected to experience the largest gain
in suitable areas for cultivation (3.7%). Olesen and Grevsen
(1993) predicted that, for field-grown vegetable crops in
Europe; increasing temperature will generally be beneficial,
permitting an expansion of production beyond the presently
cultivated areas. Antarctica and North America will also gain
suitable areas of 3.2% and 2.2%, respectively. Sub-Saharan
Africa and the Caribbean are projected to suffer a decline in
land area suitable for cultivation by –2.6% and –2.2%,
respectively. Both models demonstrate a general trend of
loss in the suitable area in the Sahel belt, parts of Southern
Africa, India and northern Australia, and gains in the northern
USA, Canada and most of Europe (Lane and Jarvis, 2007).
Eutrophication
It has been predicted that a doubling of food production
between 2000 and 2050 could be associated with two to
three times more eutrophication of marine and freshwater
ecosystems, driven by increased levels of nitrogen and
phosphorus. Agriculture has been cited as one factor behind
the most recent high rate of species extinction, which for
the past few hundred years has been as much as 1000 times
the background rate (Beddington, 2010). Phosphorus is a
commonly applied agricultural fertilizer. The major
environmental consequence of phosphorus addition is
eutrophication of surface waters, particularly freshwater
lakes and streams (Carpenter et al., 1998). Nitrogen is
another factor that may limit crop yields. Nitrogen may
become less available as the cost of fertilizer rises and the
continued growth of eutrophic dead zones and nitrous oxide
emissions lead to changes in the way fertilizer is used
(Donner and Kucharik, 2008). For nitrogen, consequences
include eutrophication of estuaries and coastal seas, loss of
biodiversity and changes in species compositions in
terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, groundwater pollution
with nitrate and nitrite, increases in the greenhouse gas N2O,
increases in NOx and resulting tropospheric smog and ozone,
and acidification of soils and sensitive freshwaters (Tilman
et al., 2001). Eutrophication is the biggest pollution problem
in most coastal waters (NRC, 2000b) and, with overfishing
and aquaculture (Naylor et al., 2000), is a major threat to
marine biodiversity. Agricultural nutrient pollution has led
to increased blooms of toxic algae in many coastal systems
and to the large hypoxic (“dead”) zone in the Gulf of Mexico
(Bouwman et al., 1997; Downing et al., 1999). In total,
projected increases in nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization
and irrigation would cause significant losses of biodiversity,
as well as marked changes in the composition and
functioning of both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems (NRC,
2000a, b). Soil and water systems can continue to absorb
higher levels of inorganic (i.e., reactive) nitrogen without
serious ecological damage. Uphoff (2011) has described the
rising use of nitrogen fertilizer as the third major threat to
our planet, after biodiversity loss and climate change,
referring to the impacts of reactive nitrogen on water quality
and aquatic ecosystems.
Climate Change Effect on Different Component of Crop
Production Crop Phenology
Abrol and Ingram (1996) emphasized that increased
temperature would affect the crop calendar in tropical
regions. In the tropics, however, global warming is likely to
reduce the duration of the effective growing season,
particularly where more than one crop per year is grown.
Sustained temperature increases over the season will change
the duration of the crop (Roberts and Summerfield, 1987),
whereas short episodes of high temperature at critical stages
of crop development can impact yield independent of any
substantial changes in mean temperature (McKeown et al.,
2005). Record high daytime and nighttime temperatures over
most of the summer growing season reduced grain-filling
development of key crops such as maize, fruit trees and
vineyards, accelerated crop ripening and maturity by 10–20
days and resulted in reduced soil moisture and increased
water consumption in agriculture (Easterling et al., 2007).
57
Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
Kudo et al. (2004) reported that high temperatures can
change a plant’s phenology – the annual timing of bud break,
flowering, seed production and other things linked to
seasonal climate change. It can also alter the number, size
and orientation of the leaves and it might change the depth
of plant roots. High temperatures are likely to shorten the
growing cycle of many crop species and, during some
developmental stages, such as the reproductive phase, most
crops are only able to tolerate narrow temperature changes,
which, if exceeded, can reduce seed set and thus yield (Porter,
2005). Indeterminate crops (peanut, cowpea, pea, canola,
Brassica napus L. and dry bean) undergo floral initiation
over a longer period of time and floral development and
events coinciding during nonstress or lower stress periods
can compensate for inhibited development during the periods
of higher stress (Prasad et al., 2008).
Phenology is a sensitive biosphere indicator of climate
change (Walther et al., 2002). Plant phenology has been
reported to advance by 2–3 days in spring and delayed by
0.3–1.6 days in autumn per decade (Parmesan and Yohe,
2003; Root et al., 2003). In Germany, the phenology of 78
agri-horticultural events between 1951 and 2004 was, on
average, 1.1–1.3 days earlier per decade (Estrella et al.,
2007). Chmielewski et al. (2004) found that in Germany,
for the period 1961–1990, the beginning of the growing
season advanced by 2.3 days per decade, following increases
in mean annual air temperature of 0.36°C per decade. Over
the same period, warmer temperatures advanced the
beginning of stem elongation in rye by 2.9 days per decade,
the beginning of cherry tree blossom by 2 days per decade
and the beginning of apple tree blossom by 2.2 days per
decade. Because the flowering and fruiting phenology of
plants is very sensitive to environmental cues such as
temperature, moisture and photoperiod (Rathcke and Lacey,
1985), phenological differences in reproductive events
among species over the growing season may reduce
competition by spreading primary resource use over different
temporal pools (Henry et al., 2001). Differential changes in
phenology and growth between species in response to climate
change could lead to new patterns of species coexistence
during reproduction, potentially affecting competitive
interactions and, ultimately, the species composition of the
community (Chuine and Beaubien, 2001; Post et al., 2001).
Effect of Climate Change on Pest Population Dynamics
and Emergence of New Pests
According to FAO data, the current annual loss
worldwide due to pathogens is estimated at US$85 billion
and to insect at US$45 billion (Bruins, 2009). Climate change
can affect pathogen and pest dynamics in multiple ways.
For airborne pathogen and pest organisms, higher
temperatures may lead to faster disease cycles (Bouma,
2008). Price (2002) estimated that globally there are 360,000
insect species, which mainly survive on plant material.
Pimentel (2009) estimates that globally 70,000 pest species,
including 9,000 insect and mites, 50,000 plant pathogens
and 8,000 species of weed exist. About 10% of these 70,000
are considered major pests. Invasions by pests and pathogens
have a huge impact on agriculture. Temperature is the single
most important factor affecting insect ecology, epidemiology
and distribution, whereas plant pathogens will be highly
responsive to humidity and rainfall, as well as temperature
(Coakley et al., 1999). The relative importance of mean and
extremes of temperature varies geographically. It has been
estimated that with a 2°C temperature increase, insects might
experience one to five additional lifecycles per season
(Yamamura and Kiritani, 1998). In general, higher
temperatures increase the rate of development with less time
between generations. Warmer winters will increase survival
and possibly increased insect populations in the subsequent
growing season (Gutierrez, 2000).
Porter et al. (1991) studied the effects of temperature
upon insects, including limitation of geographical range,
over-wintering, population growth rates, number of
generations per annum, crop pest synchronization, dispersal
and migration. The temperature increases associated with
climatic changes could impact crop insect pest populations
in several complex ways like (a) extension of geographical
range; (b) increased over-wintering; (c) changes in
population growth rate; (d) increased number of generations;
(e) extension of development season; (f) changes in crop
pest synchrony; (g) changes in interspecific interactions; (h)
increased risks of invasions by migrant pests; and (i)
introduction of alternative hosts and over-hosts (Babu, 2011).
Temperature may change gender ratios of some pest species
such as thrips potentially affecting reproduction rates. Lower
winter mortality of insects due to warmer winter temperatures
could be important in increasing the insect population
(Harrington et al., 2001). Higher average temperature might
result in some crops being able to be grown in regions further
north – it is likely that at least some of the insect pests of
those crops will follow the expanded crop areas. Insect
species diversity per area tends to decrease with higher
latitude and altitude (Gaston and Williams, 1996; Andrew
and Hughes, 2005).
Climate Change Effect on Disease Development
Temperature, rainfall, humidity, radiation or dew can
affect the growth and spread of fungi and bacteria (Patterson
et al., 1999). Other important factors influencing plant
diseases are air pollution, particularly ozone and UV-B
radiation (Manning and von Tiedemann, 1995) as well as
nutrient (especially nitrogen) availability (Thompson et al.,
1993). Elevated CO2 may increase C3 plant canopy size and
58 Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
density, resulting in a greater biomass with a much higher
microclimate relative humidity. This is likely to promote
plant diseases such as rusts, powdery mildews, leaf spots
and blights (Manning and von Tiedemann, 1995). Research
on rice leaf blast and rice sheath blight in the temperate
climes of Japan showed that elevated CO2 increased the
potential risks for infection from leaf blast and epidemics of
sheath blight (Neumeister, 2010). Climate conditions also
influence post-harvest pest damage. Beneficial and harmful
insects, microbes and other organisms in the environment
will also be responding to changes in CO2 and climate (Goho,
2004). Host plants such as wheat and oats become more
susceptible to rust diseases with increased temperature;
however, some forage species become more resistant to fungi
with increased temperature (Coakley et al., 1999). In 1999,
a new strain of wheat stem rust appeared in eastern Africa
that is able to overcome the resistance of many of the world’s
most widely sown wheat varieties. Increase in temperature
accompanied by changing vapour pressure deficits (VPDs)
that result in altered RH in the canopy region of the crop
enables the creation of conditions favourable for the insect–
pest and disease causing pathogens to parasitize on the crop
at a frequency and intensity higher than normal. An example
of such a scenario is the epidemic-like situation of yellow
rust severity on wheat variety PBW343 in Punjab in February
2009 and unprecedented infestation by brown plant hopper
on rice varieties in Kharif 2008 in Punjab and Haryana. Such
an adaptation by a race of yellow rust was never noticed at
such temperature situations before. Such consequences are
unpredictable and likely to occur with many other pathogens
and pests (Gupta, 2009).
Climate Change Effect on C3/C4 Crops and Crop Weed
Interactions
According to FAO data, the current annual loss
worldwide to weeds is a staggering US$95 billion. Of this,
around US$70 billion is lost in developing countries, which
is equivalent to a loss of 380 million tonnes of wheat (Bruins,
2009). The effect of climate change varies on different crop
species, while some will have more pronounced effects
compared with others. C4 plants account for a small fraction
of the total number of plant species (fewer than 1,000 out of
250,000; Elmore and Paul, 1983). According to Holm et al.
(1977), 14 of the world’s worst weeds are C4 plants, whereas
around 76% of the harvested crop area in 2000 was grown
with C3 crops (Monfreda et al., 2008). Optimal temperatures
for growth in C4 plants are generally higher than optimal
temperatures for C3 plants (Flint and Patterson, 1983), but
with higher CO2 the optimum temperature of many C3 plants
also increases (Bunce and Ziska, 2000). The benefit of
elevated CO2 under sufficient water condition will lead to
higher C3 weed competitiveness in C4 crops (Neumeister,
2010). However, C4 crops might outcompete better growing
C3 weeds in drought situations, and at higher temperatures
utilizing mycorrhiza (Tang et al., 2009). Although both C3
crops and C3 weeds benefit from elevated CO2, it seems that
the magnitude varies. Since all C4 plants (weeds and crops)
have the same photosynthesis path, they may react to changes
in the same ecosystem in a similar manner.
Temperature and precipitation changes in future decades
will also modify, and potentially limit, direct CO2 effects on
plants (IPCC, 2007). The benefit of elevated CO2 under
sufficient water condition will lead to higher C3 weed
competitiveness in C4 crops. Ziska (2003) observed that most
C3 weeds benefit more than C3 crop species from elevated
CO2. Many weeds respond more positively to increasing CO2
than most cash crops, particularly C3- “invasive” weeds that
reproduce by vegetative means (roots, stolons, etc.) (Ziska
and George, 2004). Although many weed species have the
C4 photosynthetic pathway, and therefore show a smaller
response to atmospheric CO2 relative to C3 crops, in most
agronomic situations crops are in competition with a mix of
both C3 and C4 weeds. For all weed/crop competition studies
where the photosynthetic pathway is the same, weed growth
is favoured as CO2 is increased (Ziska and Runion, 2006).
On average across several species and under unstressed
conditions, crop yields are expected to increase in the range
of 10–20% for C3 crops and 0–10% for C4 crops (Ainsworth
et al., 2004; Gifford, 2004). The CO2–temperature
interactions are recognized as a key factor determining plant
damage from pests in future decades; CO2–precipitation
interactions will be likewise important (Zvereva and Kozlov,
2006). Increases in the concentration of atmospheric CO2
will likely stimulate the growth of weeds. Some weeds
respond more positively to increasing CO2 than most cash
crops, particularly C3-“invasive” weeds that reproduce by
vegetative means (Ziska and George, 2004).
Mitigating the Effect of Climate Change through Farm
Management
Drought- and heat-tolerant crops will play an
increasingly important part in adapting to changes in the
climatic variation and to the long-term underlying trends
towards hotter and probably drier production environments.
As a rough rule of thumb, it has been estimated that 25% of
losses due to drought can be eliminated by genetic
improvement in drought tolerance, and a further 25% by
application of water-conserving, agronomic practices,
leaving the remaining 50% that can only be met by irrigation
(Edmeades, 2010). Various measures to mitigate the negative
impact of climate change and farm management in response
to the same are described in the sections that follow:
59
Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
Conservation Agriculture and Integrated Farming
Conservation agriculture (CA) constitutes an integrative
approach to address multiple challenges facing the
agriculture and environmental sectors – enhancing
productivity in the face of acute and widespread problems
of resource degradation (soil erosion, declining water
availability and quality, declining diversity) and increasingly
stressed ecosystems and climate change. It is apparent that
CA-based practices when adopted in an integrated manner
and over a period of time hold a significant potential to
mitigate GHG emissions and at the same time offer
opportunities as an adaptive strategy to cope up with climate
change-related challenges increasingly facing the
agricultural sector (Abrol, 2009). CA results in social and
economic benefits gained from combining production and
protecting the environment, including reduced input and
labour costs, which are greater than those resulting from
production alone. CA employs all modern technologies that
enhance the quality and ecological integrity of the soil, but
the application of these is tempered with traditional
knowledge of soil husbandry gained from generations of
successful farmers. About 47% of the 95 million ha of zero
tillage is practiced in South America, 39% in North America,
9% in Australia and 3.9% in Europe, Asia and Africa
(Dumanski et al., 2006). In a review of 286 projects in 57
countries, farmers were found to have increased agricultural
productivity by an average of 79%, by adopting “resource-
conserving” or ecological agriculture (Pretty et al., 2006).
A variety of resource-conserving technologies and practices
can be used, such as integrated pest management (IPM),
integrated nutrient management (INM), conservation tillage,
agroforestry, water harvesting in dry land areas and livestock
and aquaculture integration into farming systems. These
practices not only increased yields but also reduced adverse
effects on the environment and contributed to important
environmental goods and services (e.g., climate change
mitigation), as evidenced by increased water use efficiency
and carbon sequestration and reduced pesticide use (Ching,
2009).
In parts of Africa, there is a system of planting trees
alongside crops –called agroforestry – that might include
shade coffee and cacao, or leguminous trees. The trees send
their roots considerably deeper than the crops, allowing them
to survive a drought that might damage the grain crop. The
tree roots will also pump water into the upper soil layers
where crops can tap it. Trees improve the soil, their roots
create spaces for water flow and their leaves decompose into
compost. Farmers in central Kenya are using a mix of coffee,
macadamia nuts and cereals that results in as many as three
marketable crops in a good year. Of course, in any one year,
the monoculture will yield more money, but farmers need to
work on many years. It will be important to devise more
resilient agricultural production systems that can absorb and
survive more variability (Halweil, 2005). Some crops are
more ‘resource-conserving’ than others. Manioc (Manihot
esculenta Crantz) is prized for its ability to produce viable
yields even under marginal conditions of water and nutrient
availability. In resource-poor environments, maintaining
yield requires resource-conserving traits and some of these,
such as chemical defence, has been retained, and possibly
even enhanced (McKey and Beckerman, 1993).
Ecological Agriculture
In developing countries, where irrigation facilities are
not available and agriculture depends mainly on rainfall, low-
input practices are opted. In such subsistence conditions,
agriculture is organic by default. Some areas can be
converted into organic agriculture by adopting certification
standards and cultural norms to obtain optimum price of the
organic produce. The most critical aspect of ecological/
organic farming is the protection of crops from insects, pests
and other diseases. To accomplish this, a multi-prong
approach was used, which includes the use of biopesticides,
biofertilizers, herbal and plant-based preparations,
pheromones, animal dung and urine-based products along
with the use of resistant crops. Badgley et al. (2007)
examined a global dataset of 293 examples and estimated
the average yield ratio (organic: nonorganic) of different food
categories for the developed and developing world. For most
of the food categories examined, it was found that the average
yield ratio was slightly less than 1.0 for studies in the
developed world, but more than 1.0 for studies carried out
in developing countries. On average, in developed countries,
organic systems produce 92% of the yield produced by
conventional agriculture. In developing countries, however,
organic systems produce 80% more than conventional farms.
The comparative analysis of fuel- and fertilizer-based
modern agriculture and organic agriculture made by LaSalle
and Hepperly (2008) is shown in Table 2.
Diversity Farming
Diversity farming is the single most important modern
technology to achieve food security in a changing climate.
The diversity provides a natural insurance policy against
major ecosystem changes, be it in the wild or in agriculture
(Diaz et al., 2006). It is now predicted that genetic diversity
will be most crucial in highly variable environments and
those under rapid human-induced climate change (Hajjar et
al., 2008, Hughes et al., 2008). In a unique cooperation
project among Chinese scientists and farmers in Yunnan
during 1998-1999, researchers observed the effect of
diversity on the severity of rice blast, the major disease of
rice (Zhu et al., 2000). They demonstrated, on a large scale,
that simple agronomic measures such as mixing varieties
60 Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
Table 2 Main element of regenerative organic farming (carbon focused) and commercial agriculture (commodity focused)
Carbon focused Commodity focused
Improves crop biodiversity – Rewarding all farmers, regardless Limits crops – Limiting financial incentives to commodity crops
of crops and acreage, for carbon stored will stimulate a variety – corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, cotton – directs farmers to choose
of crops, rather than traditional commodity crops. Crop rotations the same small number of crops. Growing single crops each year
also allow soil to replenish itself. also depletes nutrients from the soil.
Rewards “green” practices – Regenerative methods reduce Environmentally harmful – Petroleum-based inputs release
greenhouse gas emissions, avoid waterway pollution, limit greenhouse gases, leach nitrogen and phosphorus into the water
erosion and improve soil health. and deplete naturally occurring soil nutrients, making it more
dependent on chemical fertilizers.
Economically independent – By creating an integrated system Petroleum-industry dependent – Farmers’ profits are tied to
that does not depend on artificial inputs tied to historically increases in petroleum-based fertilizer and pesticide prices,
increasing petroleum prices, farmers are more economically creating a cycle of dependency
independent.
Long-term strategic land use – More perennial crops, including Short-term field focus – Annual crops (tilled and non-tilled) are
pasture and trees, focused on land stewardship to create a holistic the main focus on a year-to-year basis.
farm plan.
Reduces Erosion – More acres covered with growing crops for Erosion prone – Current systems that leave fields fallow for
more months of the year reduce the risk of soil erosion. large portions of the year are much more vulnerable to soil loss.
Energy saving – Energy saving reduces or eliminates petroleum- High energy use – It continues and increases use of petroleum-
dependent chemical fertilizer and pesticide inputs. Integrated dependent chemical fertilizer and pesticide inputs that take a
systems reduce the need for artificial inputs with high-energy great deal of energy to produce and transport.
costs.
Spurs independent, entrepreneurial seed production – It Generates dependence on monopolistic seed and input
increases demand for a broader range of crop seeds with carbon companies – It continues the concentration of seed production
benefits, spurring new growth in regional and entrepreneurial focused on high-input varieties that trap farmers into a cycle of
seed companies that are often independent of input producers. dependency with a few large companies producing a small
variety of crops.
Opens marketplace – It creates non-traditional opportunities Discourages new farmers and innovative crop production –
to enter commercial markets, meeting surging demand for local Commodity programs include strong disincentives that
and regional production in the Midwest and the East; Also allows discourage commodity crop farmers from diversifying.
more diverse farmers into the market.
Source: LaSalle and Hepperly (2008).
reduced rice blast severity by 94% and increased yield by
89% and reported that disease-susceptible rice varieties
planted with resistant varieties had an 89% greater yield than
when they were grown in a monoculture. Mixed varieties of
rice produced more grain per hectare than their
corresponding monocultures in all cases. Moreover, the
fungicidal sprays were no longer applied by the end of the
two-year programme. The practice expanded to more than
40,000 ha in 2000, and now includes some varieties that
were formerly locally extinct (Zhu et al., 2003). This is
especially remarkable as the yield gains were in addition to
the already high average yields in the region, at nearly 10
tonnes/ha among the highest in the world (Zhu et al., 2000).
This shows that greater rice diversity indicates lower rates
of plant disease and greater yields while conserving genetic
diversity, all at minimal cost for farmers and the environment
(Cotter and Tirado, 2008). Nevertheless, in Italy, a high level
of genetic diversity within wheat fields on non-irrigated
farms reduces risk of crop failure during dry conditions. A
scenario where rainfall declines by 20%, the wheat yield
would fall sharply, but with diversity, yield is increased by
2% (Di Falco and Chavas, 2006, 2008). Similarly,
agronomists in the United States compared corn yields
between fields planted as monocultures and those with
various levels of intercropping in Michigan over 3 years.
They found the yields in fields with the highest diversity
(three crops, plus three cover crops) were over 100% higher
than in continuous monocultures. Crop diversity improved
soil fertility, reducing the need to use chemical inputs while
maintaining high yields (Smith et al., 2008).
Genetic diversity within a field provides not only a
buffer against losses caused by environmental change, pests
and diseases but also the resilience needed for reliable and
stable long-term food production (Diaz et al., 2006). In
addition to enhancing food security and climate resilience,
diversity in the field also delivers important ecosystem
services. Variety mixtures that are tolerant to drought and
flood not only increase productivity but also prevent soil
61
Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
erosion and desertification, increase soil organic matter and
help stabilize slopes (Hajjar et al., 2008). Benefits for farmers
include reducing the need for costly pesticides, receiving
price premiums for valued traditional varieties and improving
their dietary diversity and health (Hajjar et al., 2008). Many
traditional farmers plant diverse crops not only to maximize
productivity in a given year but also to decrease the chances
of crop failure in a bad year (Altieri, 1990). Species diversity
also reduces the probability of outbreaks by ‘pest’ species
by diluting the availability of their hosts. This decreases host-
specific diseases, plant-feeding nematodes (Wasilewaska,
1995) and consumption of preferred plant species (Bertness
and Leonard, 1997). In soils, microbial diversity decreases
fungal diseases owing to competition and interference among
microbes (Nitta, 1991).
Resilient of Crop/Varieties/Traits
If farming communities are to adapt successfully to
climate change, they need crop varieties with greater
tolerance to stresses such as drought and heat. One important
adaptation strategy for farmers is to switch from highly
vulnerable to less-vulnerable crops (Lobell et al., 2008).
Different varieties of crop plants may also occupy different
positions along the resource conservation/acquisition
continuum. For example in manioc, ‘sweet’ varieties with
non-toxic roots may have higher yields than bitter varieties
in rich soils, or if herbivores and pathogens are absent,
whereas ‘bitter’ varieties with toxic roots produce higher
yields than sweet varieties in poor soils (McKey and
Beckerman, 1993; Wilson, 2008), especially if potential pests
are abundant. Ecological strategies show variation even
among bitter manioc varieties: ‘fraca’ varieties characterized
by rapid production are adapted to richer alluvial and terra
preta soils, whereas ‘forte’ varieties, slower to produce but
more resistant, are adapted to the poorest soils (Fraser and
Clement, 2008). There are crop varieties of moth bean
(legume) that can mature in 65 days and are ideally suited
for semi-arid and arid regions. Duration of the varieties in
soybean has been reduced from 120 days to 85 days, pearl
millet from 130 to 70 days and so on (Samra, 2009).
Porter et al. (2007) predict that if global temperatures
do not increase more than 4°C over the next century, arable
agricultural production can probably adapt to changes in
mean global temperature using breeding, selection and
management. Adapting crop varieties to local ecological
conditions will reduce risk due to climate change; however,
varieties improved for cultivation in one region could be
adopted for cultivation elsewhere, where they would face
the same abiotic and biotic stresses. Rice varieties that were
initially bred for resistance to chilling temperatures in Nepal,
for example, were successfully adopted in Bangladesh
(Sthapit and Wilson, 1992). South Asia and Southern Africa
are two regions that, without sufficient adaptation measures,
will likely suffer negative impacts on several crops that are
important to large food-insecure human populations (Lobell
et al., 2008). In some regions, such as the semi-arid Sahel
region of Africa, resource availability to crops varies
dramatically among years. In at least two crops of this region,
pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum [L.] R. Br.) and sorghum’s
(Sorghum bicolor [L.] Moench) continued gene flow with
wild relatives (Mariac et al., 2006; Barnaud et al., 2009)
generate variation that may help farmers adapt to such
unpredictability. The impact of climate change on the major
cereal crops wheat, rice and maize, representing a wide range
of agroclimatic zones and management options, results in
the benefits of adaptation that vary with crop (wheat vs. rice
vs. maize) and with temperature and rainfall changes. The
benefits for rice and maize are lesser than those for wheat,
with a 10% yield benefit compared with yields when no
adaptation is used (Easterling et al., 2007).
In addition to increasing productivity generally, several
new varieties and traits offer farmers greater flexibility in
adapting to climate change, including traits that confer
tolerance to drought and heat, tolerance to salinity (e.g., due
to rising sea levels in coastal areas) and early maturation to
shorten the growing season and reduce farmers’ exposure
to risk of extreme weather events. In many places, new traits
and varieties for the crops farmers have traditionally
cultivated will confer sufficient scope for adaptation. In other
places, shifting to a totally different mix of crops will be
required to cope with dramatic changes in rainfall or
temperature, and cropping systems will fundamentally
change as a result. Crops, varieties and traits that are resistant
to pests and diseases will improve producers’ ability to adapt
to climate change. To the extent that these varieties reduce
the need for pesticides, they also reduce carbon emissions
by decreasing pesticide demand as well as the number of in-
field applications.
Management of Resources
Exploiting the full potential of rain-fed agriculture will
require investment in water-harvesting technologies, crop
breeding and extension services, as well as good access to
markets, credit and supplies. Water-harvesting and
conservation techniques are particularly promising for the
semi-arid tropics of Asia and Africa, where agricultural
growth has been less than 1% in recent years. The
management of precious resources is described to maintain
sustainability at the farm level in the sections that follow.
Land and Water Management
Land management for food production is a fundamental
human activity. Of the H≈14 billion ha of ice-free land on
earth, H≈10% are used for crop cultivation, whereas an
62 Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
additional 25% of land is used for pasture. Although irrigated
land is only 17% of the total arable land, irrigated crops
supply a significant portion of total production (H≈40% in
the case of cereals) consuming >2,500 billion m3 water, or
75% of the total freshwater resources consumed annually.
Total land and total prime land would remain virtually
unchanged at the current levels of 2,600 million and 2,000
million ha, respectively. However, there are more
pronounced regional shifts, with a considerable increase in
suitable cropland at higher latitudes (developed countries:
+160 million ha) and a corresponding decline of potential
cropland at lower latitudes (developing countries: –110
million ha) (Rosengrant and Sarah, 2003). Around 1,600
million ha of land are currently cultivated for crops (FAO,
2008a). The FAO estimates that, ignoring impacts on
biodiversity and the carbon cycle, about 2,400 million ha of
land globally would be at least moderately suitable for wheat,
rice and grain maize cultivation, which is around 18% of
the total world land area (FAO/IIASA, 2000). Other studies
have variously suggested between 50 and 1,600 million ha
of land to be suitable for agricultural expansion (Delft, 2008).
Future population and economic growth will require a
doubling of current food production, including an increase
from 2 billion to >4 billion tonnes of grains annually.
Considering that current growth trends in crop yields
continue into the future, increased supply may, in fact, be
achieved without significantly increasing the current arable
land. Some land expansion will take place in developing
countries, most of it in sub-Saharan Africa and Latin
America, whereas crop yields will continue to increase; for
instance, cereal yields in developing countries are projected
to increase from 2.7 tonne/ha today to 3.8 tonne/ha in 2050
(Tubiello et al., 2007).
Increasing Water and Fertilizer Use Efficiency
In the midst of increasing urban and environmental
demands on water, agriculture must improve water use
efficiency generally. The IPCC projects that changes in water
quantity and quality due to climate change are expected to
affect food availability, stability, access and utilization
(OECD-FAO, 2009). Where crops are grown near their
maximum temperature tolerance and where dry land, non-
irrigated agriculture predominates, the challenge of climate
change could be overwhelming, especially on the livelihoods
of subsistence farmers and pastoral people, who are weakly
coupled to markets (Parry, 2007). With hotter temperatures
and changing precipitation patterns, controlling water
supplies and improving irrigation access and efficiency will
become increasingly important. Doll (2002) estimated an
increase of net crop irrigation requirements (i.e., net of
transpiration losses) of +5% to +8% globally by 2070, with
larger regional signals, e.g., +15% in Southeast Asia. Climate
changes will burden currently irrigated areas and may even
outstrip current irrigation capacity due to general water
shortages, but farmers with no access to irrigation are clearly
most vulnerable to precipitation volatility. Africa only
irrigates 6% (13.6 million ha) of its arable land in contrast
to 20% worldwide. In places with limited access to irrigation,
well-timed ‘deficit irrigation’ can make a substantial
difference in productivity. With dwindling water supplies,
such deficit irrigation techniques will become increasingly
important. In non-irrigated areas, water conservation and
water-harvesting techniques may be farmers’ only alternative
to abandoning cultivation agriculture all together. Adopting
such practices may not be technology intensive, but will
almost certainly require investments in capacity building and
agricultural extension (Lybbert and Sumner, 2010).
Nitrogen use efficiency, defined as the amount of crop
produced per unit of input, has steadily improved in the
United States since the 1980s (Frink et al., 1999); however,
it is declining in developing countries. More precise nitrogen
applications and genetic improvements in crops are likely
to sustain improvements in nitrogen-use efficiency, although
there is a limit to how far nitrogen application can be reduced.
While several measures are required to reverse the trend and
make agriculture an effective instrument of development in
the region (FAO, Oct. 2009), improving agriculture
productivity and nutritional quality of food in an
environmentally sustainable manner through application of
appropriate technologies is an important solution (Karihallo
and Perera, 2010). Since a substantial proportion of the
GHGs produced by agriculture is attributable to the
production and application of nitrogen fertilizer alone (Stern,
2007), breakthroughs in nitrogen use efficiency could
substantially mitigate emissions in agriculture.
Farm Management
The impact of climate change on the production of
various crops varies markedly depending mainly on the
region, growing season, the crops and their temperature
thresholds. Cereals, oilseed and protein crops depend on
temperature and, in many cases, day length, to reach maturity.
Temperature increase may reduce the duration of the growing
period of the crops and, in the absence of compensatory
management responses, reduce yields (Porter and Gawith
1999; Tubiello et al., 2000) and change the area of cultivation
by rendering unsuitable some currently cultivated areas and
rendering suitable others not currently cultivated (Lane and
Jarvis, 2007). Cropping rotations, integrated pest
management, soil conservation and fallow techniques are
all examples of management practices that contribute to
stability of farm production and income (Rosenzweig and
Tubiello, 2007). The approach used to mitigate risks
associated with seasonal climate variability focuses primarily
63
Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
on techniques such as shifting planting dates, changing crop
varieties and cultural practices (Fraisse et al., 2009). Often
integrated combinations of technologies/practices serve
farmers’ needs. For instance, integrated water management
through genetic drought resistance and agronomic practices
will reduce drought risk (Erenstein, 2010).
Adaptation to weather conditions has always been part
of farm management and, to some extent; adaptation to
climate change follows the same principles as adaptation to
short-term oscillations. Adaptation of agronomic techniques
and farm strategies is already happening. In the coming
decades, however, the magnitude of climatic changes may
exceed the adaptation capacity of many farmers. Existing
agroecological conditions and the experience in dealing with
changing conditions influence farmers’ adaptive capacity.
The combination of changes in the agricultural production
potential in different world regions and increased incidence
of extreme events could lead to greater variability of
production, contributing to increased volatility of prices and
changes in trade flows. Constant evolution of crop patterns,
farm management practices and land use are observed across
the European Union, partly in response to climatic variation.
Such farm-level adaptations aim at increasing productivity
and dealing with existing climatic conditions, and draw on
farmers’ current knowledge and experience. Over the next
decades, adaptation may need to go beyond mere adjustments
of current practice (CSWD, 2009). The main drivers of
agricultural responses to climate change are biophysical
effects and socioeconomic factors. Crop production is
affected biophysically by meteorological variables, including
rising temperatures, changing precipitation regimes and
increased atmospheric CO2 levels. In most cases, the SRES
scenarios exerted a slight to moderate (0% to –5%) negative
impact on simulated world crop yields, even with beneficial
direct effects of CO2 and farm-level adaptations taken into
account (Parry et al., 2004).
Farm Mechanization
Farm mechanization level mainly depends on the size
of operational holding, land topography, cropping pattern,
credit availability and closeness to market, which in turn
control the cropping intensity and productivity of the region.
For example, in India, there are large variations in farm
power availability varying from 0.6 KW/ha in Orissa to 3.5
KW/ha in Punjab. Application of farm mechanization is
useful to manage timely operations related to crop raising
and post-harvest operations. A delay of one week in the
sowing of wheat has been shown to bring down the yield by
as much as 400–500 kg/ha in experiments carried out in
Punjab. Similar conclusions have been drawn for other crops
as well. It is also known that the farm operations such as
weeding, irrigation, harvesting and threshing need to be
carried out timely to avoid losses due to shattering, quality
and deterioration, resulting in improved income from the
sale of produce. In India, improved agricultural tools and
equipment are estimated to contribute to food and agricultural
production by reducing costs associated with seeds (15–
20%), fertilizers (15–20%), time (20–30%) and labour (20–
30%) and also by increasing cropping intensity (5–20%) and
productivity (10–15%) (Pandey, 2011).
Reduction in Post-Harvest Losses
Post-harvest losses represent one of the single greatest
sources of inefficiencies in food production worldwide and
therefore one of the best opportunities for effectively
improving crop productivity. These losses, which are due to
poorly timed or executed harvesting, exposure to rain,
humidity and heat, contamination by microorganisms and a
host of other sources of damage and deterioration, often
receive far less attention than they deserve. Half or more of
the total harvest of some crops can be lost post-harvest.
Investments in improved harvesting, processing, storage,
distribution and logistics technology and necessary training
investments can pay off as well as improved crop yields in
terms of gains to consumers and the climate. As climates
become hotter and precipitation more erratic, the potential
for post-harvest losses may increase and thus improved
transport and storage become even more important (Lybbert
and Sumner, 2010).
Adaptation
“Ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change”
ensure that “food production is not threatened” and enable
“economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner”
(Smith et al., 2009). Adaptation to future changes may
require an attention to stability and resilience of production,
rather than to improving its absolute levels. Adaptation is a
key factor that will shape the future severity of climate
change impacts on food production (Easterling et al., 2007).
The development and adoption of better ‘temperature-
adapted’ varieties, together with improved management
practices, could result in the almost complete mitigation of
the negative impact of temperature increases. Adaptation to
climate change is not just about seeds – it is about farming
systems. Farmers can adapt to changing climate by shifting
planting dates, choosing varieties with different growth
durations, changing crop rotations, diversifying crops, using
new irrigation systems, and so on. Farmers cultivate early-
and late-maturing varieties of the same crops to increase the
period of food availability and to spread out the amount of
labour required at harvest time (ETC group, 2008). Climate
change is likely to make matters worse, with increases in
rainfall variability in the semi-arid tropics (SAT) being
predicted (Cooper et al., 2009). The SAT are defined as
64 Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
regions where the average LGP is between 75 and 180 days,
and the mean monthly temperature of all months, corrected
to sea level, is greater than 18°C, with daily mean
temperatures during the growing period being greater than
20°C (TAC, 1992). Increasing temperatures enhance the rate
of crop development and result in corresponding declines
in crop yield in pigeon pea, sorghum, pearl millet, groundnut
and maize (Cooper et al., 2009). For wheat, maize and barley,
negative yield impacts for the 1980s and 1990–2002 indicate
that recent climate trends have, unless addressed through
adaptation measures, suppressed global yield progress for
these three crops (Lobell and Field, 2007). If each additional
ppm of CO2 results in ~0.1% yield increase for C3 crops
(Long et al., 2006), then the ~35 ppm increase since 1981
corresponds to a roughly 3.5% yield increase, about the same
as the 3% decrease in wheat yield due to climate trends over
this period. Thus, the effects of CO2 and climate trends have
likely largely cancelled each other over the past two decades,
with a small net effect on yields. This conclusion, although
tempered by the substantial uncertainty in yield response to
CO2, challenges model assessments that suggest global CO2
benefits will exceed temperature-related losses up to ~2°C
warming (IPCC, 2001).
In the light of the impact that increased temperature has
in reducing time (days) to maturity and subsequent lower
crop yields, in a warmer world, there will be a need to re-
deploy germplasm that would, under current climatic
condition, be considered to be too long a maturity type for
any given location. For example, in a warmer world, a
currently defined ‘medium-duration type’ will become a
‘short-duration type’ (Cooper et al., 2009). Even in temperate
regions, farmers will need to adapt to changing temperature
and rainfall patterns, and the increased likelihood of extreme
events such as floods and droughts. The impact of changing
temperatures on the range of pests and diseases is uncertain,
but this too cannot be ignored (Diffenbaugh et al., 2008).
The likely impact of climatic change on agriculture and
possible adaptive strategies as suggested by Abrol (2009) is
provided in Table 3.
Adoption of New Strategies, Technologies and Education
System of Rice Intensification (SRI) represents a
paradigm shift for the agricultural sector, from an external
input-dependent approach, revolving around genetic
improvements or modifications, to more of an ecological
perspective and strategy. By 2011, the number of countries
where SRI methods have been validated has reached 42.
SRI has been shown to work in tropical, subtropical and
temperate environments and across dry, sub-humid and
humid moisture climates. The impacts of SRI management
have been reviewed by various studies and a number of
advantages have been recorded, e.g. it increases yield (50–
100%), water saving (25–50%), cost of production reduced
(10–20%), resistance to biotic stresses (pests and diseases),
abiotic stresses (drought, storms, heat spells, cold snaps) and
higher milling outturn (10–15%). Evidence from SRI
experience over the past decade suggests that making certain
changes in crop management can greatly enhance the
productivity of available land, labour, water, nutrient and
capital. It is noteworthy that the principles and practices of
SRI are now being adapted to a variety of other field crops
such as wheat, sugarcane, millet, maize and even some
legumes and vegetables (Uphoff, 2011).
Use of biofertilizers: Natural fixation of nitrogen should
be encouraged with the use of microorganisms. Similarly,
blue green algae (BGA) and Azolla have been found effective
in certain rice-growing areas. Biofertilizers are associated
with the liberation of growth substances, which promote
germination and plant growth. In case of phosphorus, several
phosphorus-solubilizing bacteria are known to mobilize the
significant quantities of soil phosphates that would otherwise
not be available to the plant; however, their effectiveness is
Table 3 Adaptation Strategies to Cope with Climate Change
Likely impact on agriculture Possible adaptive strategy
Greater vulnerability of production systems through:
•Direct impact increased temperature •Promote agro-biodiversity (plant and animal) including agroforestry
that can import greater resilience to changing environmental
conditions and stresses
•Indirect impacts on water availability resulting from •Develop and promote adoption of draught-resistant/flood and
increased incidence of draughts and higher-intensity salinity-resistant crops, and livestock breeds with greater ability to
rains withstand stressed environments
•Develop, adopt and promote soil, crop and water management
practices aimed at efficient use of water available from water
resources in a watershed; to enhance use efficiency of nutrients
Develop and promote practices for improved livestock nutrition and
management to cope with stress
Source: Abrol (2009).
65
Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
variable and not predictable. However, unlike mineral
fertilizer, use of the biofertilizer is crop and location specific
due to competition with native soil microbes, poor aeration,
increased temperature, soil moisture, acidity, salinity and
alkalinity, presence of toxic elements, and so on. It also
requires careful handling and storage.
Use of FYM, compost/biocompost, vermicompost/
biofertilizers, biopesticides/biofungicides, and so on: The
substitution of fertilizer nitrogen requirement to 50% by
FYM has produced yield levels nearly similar to those
obtained with complete fertilization. The application of FYM
not only increases the nitrogen use efficiency of urea but
also increases the fertility status of the soil. FYM and
vermicompost are helpful to recoup the soil health. Use of
vermicompost can help combat the ill effects of chemical
fertilizers to the soil health (Ranwa and Singh, 1999).
Vermicomposting reduces the C: N ratio substantially over
normal composting. A part of nutrient demand of crops
should be made available through FYM, compost, green
manure and biofertilizers. For effective nutrient
management, the use of biofertilizers, enriched biocompost,
multi microbial combination of biofertilizers and
biofungicides (microbial consortia of nitrogen fixation,
phosphorus solubilizing, biofungicides) and growth
enhancers (amino acids, micronutrients, sea-weed extracts,
growth promoters, growth hormones, etc.) and agrowaste
decomposer and enriched biocompost should be encouraged.
Biological control has emerged as an alternative choice to
mitigate the side-effects of the chemical intensive approach.
This method basically comprises live sources for the
management of plant problems. These living entities are
diverse, ranging from microorganisms (viruses, bacteria,
fungi, bacterial agents, etc.) to plants (neem, turmeric, garlic,
etc.), which in one form or the other helps in reducing the
population of pests; in addition, botanical extracts and
combinations should be encouraged (Mehta, 2009).
Pretty et al. (2006), for example, showed how education
influences pesticide use. The researchers investigated 61
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) projects in 21 developing
countries. In five projects, pesticide use was declined by
93.3% (±6.7%), but yields declined only by 4.2% (±5%); in
47 projects, pesticide use declined by 70.8% (±3.9) and
yields increased by 41.6% (±10.5). In 10 projects, mainly
zero-tillage and conservation agriculture projects, pesticide
use as well as yields increased. In those IPM projects, where
pesticide use was considerably reduced, pests, weeds and
diseases did not simply disappear, but the management
changed from a pesticide-based to a knowledge-based
system, making many pesticide applications redundant.
Crop Diversification
Joshi et al. (2003) defined that the diversification as an
adjustment of farm enterprise patterns to increase farm
incomes, or to reduce income vulnerability, and accordingly,
diversification here means (i) a larger mix of diverse and
complementary activities within agriculture; (ii) a movement
of resources from low-value agriculture to high-value
agriculture; and (iii) a shift of resources from farm to nonfarm
activities. Such changes to traditional forms of agriculture
can be pathways out of poverty because they contribute to
increasing rural incomes and employment opportunities.
Even if adaptation does not imply an entirely new mix
of crops, many producers will benefit from new crops and
varieties as they diversify their production portfolios as a
means of stabilizing their revenue or local production of
basic foods in the face of more volatile conditions. In India,
maize is grown round the year for different purposes. Single
cross hybrids (SCHs) can offer solution to lowering the water
table, rising temperature, vagaries of monsoon, weed
menace, and so on. Owing to scarcity of water and delayed
monsoon rice seedling becoming overage, farmers have
shifted from rice to maize. In West Bengal, farmers are
producing maize SCH seed instead of rice during the Rabi
season due to shortage of water in February–March. Income
of West Bengal farmers increased three times than rice
cultivation and also facilitated advancing the sowing of jute
in maize standing crop (Dass, 2010). Crop diversification
must also include under-utilized species that offer natural
tolerance to environmental stresses such as heat, drought,
cold, and so on.
However, climate risks are only one aspect influencing
farmers’ decisions, which involve many other socioeconomic
and market considerations. Diversifying farm activities and
income sources with fundamental changes in farm structures
and, in some cases, additional investments – may become
necessary.
Employment Opportunities through High-Value Agri-
horticultural Crops
The horticulture sector can contribute to poverty
reduction by providing employment and wages to labourers.
Diversification of agriculture can affect both the structure
and the level of employment. The production of horticultural
products offers opportunities for poverty alleviation because
it is usually more labour intensive than the production of
staple crops. Often, it requires twice as much, sometimes up
to four times as much labour than the production of cereal
crops. Horticultural production can be made highly
profitable, increase employment opportunities and bring
about increasing commercialization of the rural sector. The
first Millennium Development Goal, to eradicate extreme
poverty and hunger in particular, depends on raising the
productivity of agriculture (von Braun et al., 2004). Fruit
and vegetable production is usually lucrative compared with
staple crops. Horticultural produce has high value-add and
66 Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
income generation potential, and due to a relative lack of
economics of scale (compared to grain production and
livestock), their production is attractive, especially for small
farmers. The production of fruit and vegetables has a
comparative advantage, particularly under conditions where
arable land is scarce, labour abundant and markets accessible.
In India, horticultural products account for approximately
10% of the total agri-exports and more than 19% of the labour
force (Gajanana and Hegde, 2009).
Greater employment opportunities result in greater
incomes for poor households. Labour demands also arise in
the post-harvest sector, since sorting, grading, cleaning,
packing and transports are all labour-intensive activities
(Weinberger and Genova, 2005). In Africa, Asia and Latin
America, high-value crop exports are women-oriented
industries, with women dominating most aspects of
production and processing. The relative profitability of
horticultural crops compared to cereals has been shown to
be a determining factor for crop diversification into
horticultural production in India (Joshi et al., 2003).
Vegetable production is most profitable compared to rice
production in terms of cropping days, since the growing
period of vegetables is usually less than rice. For instance,
in Bangladesh, farmers on average sell 96% of their
vegetable products but only 19% of their cereal output. The
average number of labour days per hectare for production
of cereals and vegetables in selected countries is given in
Table 4.
Table 4 Average number of labour days per hectare for production
of cereals and vegetables in Asia
Country Cereals Vegetables
Cambodia 81 437
Laos 101 227
South Vietnam 111 297
North Vietnam 216 468
Philippines 93 185
Bangladesh 133 338
India 80 124
Source: Weinberger and Lumpkin (2007)
In India, the villagers of a peri-urban village diversified
from agricultural crops to horticultural crops in a period of
10 years. Altering the cropping pattern, on the one hand,
helped the growers to improve their income and diffuse risk
and, on the other hand, provided more alternatives of food
items to the consumers. Engaging in diversified crop
cultivation ensured full-time employment for all the family
members in the village. Diversification had stopped the
migrational tendencies in addition to ensuring food and
nutritional security along with environmental enrichment
(Ponnusamy et al., 2005). Small farmers are adopting high-
value crop diversification more compared with medium and
large farmers. The small farmers are more affected by crop
failures and fluctuations of net return. They are also more
vulnerable to distress as they do not have enough financial
support. The resource-constrained farmers are averse to
diversifying, particularly if the high-value crop in question
is perishable in nature, risky and whose price is subject to
high degree of fluctuations (Sen and Raju, 2006).
Pollination Management
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) in 2005
assessed that out of the 24 ecosystem services, 15 are
considered to be seriously degraded. Climate change may
potentially be one of the most severe threats to pollinator
biodiversity (Kerr, 2001). The consequences of pollinator
declines are likely to impact the production and costs of
vitamin-rich crops such as fruits and vegetables, leading to
increasingly unbalanced diets and health problems. To
manage farm, such as soil, water and nutrients, pollination
is also a limiting factor in crop productivity. The declining
agricultural productivity can be attributed to a number of
factors but crop failures due to inadequate pollination, caused
by several factors, the most important of which include the
lack of adequate number of pollinators as a result of decline
in pollinator populations and diversity due to several factors
such as decline in wilderness and loss of habitat.
Approximately 80% of all flowering plant species are
specialized for pollination by animals, mostly insects. In
canola seed production in northern Canada, fields near
uncultivated areas produce greater yields due to greater
pollination services from a more diverse and abundant wild
bee community. Resilience is built in agro-ecosystems
through biodiversity. Different pollinators become most
active at different times of the day or under different weather
conditions, and even between years the most abundant and
effective pollinators of a crop may shift from one pollinator
to another (Kremen et al., 2002). The “insurance” provided
by a diversity of pollinators ensures that there are effective
pollinators not just for current conditions, but for future
conditions as well. Morandin and Winston (2006) reported
that farmers could maximize profits by retiring up to 30%
of the field area from production, to receive higher yields
on the remaining 70%. Well-pollinated crops can be of
noticeably better quality, and consumers and markets are
sensitive to quality considerations: in Canada, good
pollination in apple orchards resulted in about one extra seed
per apple, which produced larger and more symmetrical
apples. These improved apples were estimated to provide
marginal returns of about 5-6%, or about Can. $250/ha
compared with orchards with insufficient pollination (Kevan,
1997). In Himachal Pradesh and the north-western Indian
67
Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
Himalayas, where honeybees are being used for apple
pollination, some farmers keep their own honeybee colonies
while others rent them. The fees for renting bee colonies
either Apis cerana or A. mellifera is Indian rupees 800 (US$
16) per colony for two weeks. This includes Rs. 500 (US$10)
as refundable security deposit and Rs. 300 (US$6) per colony
per two weeks of rent. Apis mellifera is the main bee species
made available to farmers from government institution and
private beekeepers for pollination purpose (Partap, 1998).
Estimates of increased seed set due to pollinators have
been made in different parts of the world; assured pollination
has been variously responsible for increases in seed yield of
22–100% (radish), 100–300% (cabbage), 100–125%
(turnip), 91–135% (carrot) and 350–9000% (onion).
Furthermore, the yield response was due to animal
pollination (bees, birds and bats), which affect 35% of the
world’s crop production, increasing outputs of 87 of the
leading food crops worldwide (FAO, 2009). Bee pollination
also improves the yield and quality of other vegetable crops
such as asparagus, carrots, onion, turnips and several other
crops (Deodikar and Suryanarayana, 1977). In the northeast
Himalayan region, honeybee pollination does not only
increase fruit set in rapeseed mustard and sunflower but also
increases the oil contents in these oilseed crops (Singh et
al., 2000).
Reduction in Yield Gap
The average cereal yield varies in the different regions
of the world; it was reported to be 5.5 tonne/ha in developed
countries, 4.5 tonne/ha in East Asia and Pacific region, 3.3
tonne/ha in Latin America and Caribbean regions, 2.5 tonne/
ha in South Asia and just 1.2 tonne/ha in sub-Saharan African
region (Lybbert and Sumner, 2010). Given that average
global yields of wheat are less than 3 metric tonne/ha and
given there are many areas with yields as high as 10 metric
tonne/ha, the majority of land cropped to wheat delivers
yields below 3 metric tonne/ha. Therefore, by virtue of the
much larger areas of low-yielding land globally, low-yielding
environments offer the greatest opportunity for substantial
increases in global food production. Increasing yield by 1
metric tonne/ha in a low-yielding area produces a much
higher relative increase than does the same increase in high-
yielding environments. This increase can be achieved by
considering major limitations on yield in poor environments
(termed “yield stability”); for example, by protecting plants
and yield from factors such as salinity and heat or drought
periods (Tester and Langridge, 2010). A list of various
biophysical and socioeconomic factors responsible for yield
losses in farmers’ field as summarized by Lobell et al. (2009)
is given in Table 5.
The many irrigated cropping systems have yields that
have plateaued at 80% of yield potential. This implies that
yield gains in these regions will be small in the near future,
and yields may even decline if yield potential is reduced
because of climate change. Many rain-fed cropping systems,
in contrast, appear to have relatively large yield gaps that
could be closed with existing technologies but persist largely
for economic reasons. Increasing average yields above 80%
of yield potential appears possible but only with technologies
that either substantially reduces the uncertainties farmers
face in assessing soil and climatic conditions or dynamically
respond to changes in these conditions (e.g., sensor-based
nutrient and water management). Although these tools are
more often discussed because of their ability to reduce costs
and environmental impacts, their role in improving future
crop yields may be just as important (Lobell et al., 2009).
Table 5 Common factors that contribute to yield losses in farmers’ fields
Biophysical factors Socioeconomic factors
Nutrient deficiencies and imbalances (nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, zinc and other Profit maximization
essential nutrients)
Water stress Risk aversion
Flooding Inability to secure credit
Suboptimal planting (timing or density) Limited time devoted to activities
Soil problems (salinity, alkalinity, acidity, iron, aluminium or boron toxicities, compaction, Lack of knowledge on best practices
and others)
Weed pressures -
Insect damage -
Diseases (head, stem, foliar, root) -
Lodging (from wind, rain, snow or hail)a-
Inferior seed quality
Note: One goal of yield gap analysis is to quantify the percentage of total losses attributable to each factor.
aThe crop fell over because the stems broke or because it became too top heavy.
Source: Lobell et al. (2009)
68 Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
The impact of temperature increases alone on the yields
under current low-input agricultural practice is likely to be
relatively small as other factors will continue to provide the
overriding constraints to crop growth and yield. Significant
reductions in rainfall amounts, however, would modify this
conclusion (Cooper et al., 2009).
Strengthening of Weather Forecasting System
As farmers face with changes in climate due to more
variability in weather, history becomes a less reliable guide
in helping make production decisions. Under these
conditions, there is greater payoff to improvements to
forecasts of weather events and inter-seasonal weather
probabilities. Farmers with prior knowledge of such events
can respond by planting more appropriate crops or varieties
(say barley rather than maize if a dry year is expected). Such
improved forecasts would also affect planting even in regions
unaffected by the weather events in response to price
expectations and opportunities for trade. Thus, major
innovations in response to climate variability will take the
form of improved information through global monitoring
and forecasting (Hallstrom and Sumner, 2000). These
improved interpolations could lead to improved short-term
forecasts, which could be disseminated via SMS using
rapidly spreading cell-phone networks. Lastly, better and
more timely information can also help forecast impending
‘slow onset’ weather events such as drought more effectively,
thereby improving response times and adaptation (Lybbert
and Sumner, 2010).
Forecasting climate change is imperfect, complex,
important and often controversial. Stemming from these two
primary dimensions of climate change (higher averages and
more volatility) are melting glaciers and ice caps, rising sea
levels and more frequent and more severe extreme weather
events. For agriculturally important agroecological zones,
higher-level forecasting of daily weather extremes (frosts,
the intensity and form of precipitation, extreme temperature,
etc.) is crucial but even more demanding (Lybbert and
Sumner, 2010). The detrimental effects of climate crisis are
not just a matter of geographic vulnerability but also depend
on a region’s ability to pay for adaptation measures. For
poor countries, there is no climate safety net. Even the most
basic resources are scarce. Africa currently has one
meteorological station for every 25,460 km2 – one-eighth
the minimum level recommended by the World
Meteorological Organization. In contrast, the Netherlands
has one weather station for every 716 km2 (ETC, 2008).
Acknowledgement
Part of this effort was funded by the USDA UV-B
program, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. This
article has been approved for publication as Journal Article
No. J-12193 of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry
Experiment Station, Mississippi State University.
References
Abrol IP (2009). Conservation Agriculture as an Adaptive and
Mitigation Strategy to Combat Climate Change. Brainstorming
Workshop on Climate Change, Soil Quality and Food Security.
56-63.
Abrol YP and Ingram KT (1996). Effects of higher day and night
temperatures on growth and yields of some crop plants. In
‘‘Global Climate Change and Agricultural Production. Direct
and Indirect Effects of Changing Hydrological, Pedological and
Plant Physiological Processes’’ (F.A. Bazzaz and W.G. Sombroek,
Eds.), pp. 1–19. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester, West Sussex,
England.
Agrawal PK (2011). Climate change and its impact on agriculture. In:
Souvenier-Indian Seed Congress, Feb. 22nd-23rd, Hyderabad, 67-
76.
Ainsworth EA, Rogers A, Nelson R and Long SP (2004). Testing the
source-sink hypothesis of down-regulation of photosynthesis in
elevated CO2 in the field with single gene substitutions in Glycine
max. Agric. For. Meteorol. 122: 85-94.
Altieri MA (1990). Why study traditional agriculture? In: Carroll CR.,
Vandermeer JH and Rosset PM (Eds), Agroecology, pp. 551–
564. New York: McGraw-Hill. 641 pp.
Andrew NR and Hughes L (2005). Diversity and assemblage structure
of phytophagous Hemiptera along a latitudinal gradient:
predicting the potential impacts of climate change. Global Ecol.
Biogeogr. 14: 249-262.
Antle JM, Capalbo SM, Elliott ET and Paustian KH (2004). Adaptation,
spatial heterogeneity, and the vulnerability of agricultural systems
to climate change and CO2 fertilization: an integrated assessment
approach. Cli. Change 64: 289-315.
Auffhammer M, Ramanathan V and Vincent JR (2006) Integrated
model shows that atmospheric brown clouds and greenhouse
gases have reduced rice harvests in India. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 103: 19668-19672.
Babu TR (2011). Changing insect pest scenario in field crops. In:
Souvenir-Indian Seed Congress, Feb. 22nd-23rd, Hyderabad. pp
7-90.
Badgley C, Moghtader J, Quintero E, Zakem E, Chappell MJ, Avilés-
Vázquez, K, Samulon A and Perfecto I (2007) Organic agriculture
and the global food supply. Renew. Agric. Food Sys. 22, 86-108.
Barnaud A, Deu M, Garine E, Chantereau J, Bolteu J, Koïda EO,
McKey D, and Joly HI (2009) A weed-crop complex in sorghum:
the dynamics of genetic diversity in a traditional farming system.
Am. J. Bot. 96: 1869-1879.
Beddington J (2010). Food security: contributions from science to a
new and greener revolution. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. B. 365: 61-
71.
Bellagio Meeting Statement (2007). The conservation of global crop
genetic resources in the face of climate change.
www.croptrust.org/documents/WebPDF/ Bellagio_final1.pdf.
Bertness MD and Leonard GH (1997). The role of positive interactions
in communities: lessons from intertidal habitats. Ecology 78:
1976-1989.
Bouma E (2008). Weather and climate change in relation to crop
protection. Cited as: www.knpv.org/.../Pests%20and%20
climate%20change/ABSTRACTS_Pests_and_
climate_change.pdf.
Bray EA, Bailey-Serres J and Weretilnyk E (2000). Responses to
abiotic stress. In: Gruissem W, Buchannan B, Jones R (eds)
Biochemistry and molecular biology of plants. ASPP Symp P,
Rockwill, MD. 1158-1249.
69
Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
Bruins M (2009). The evolution and contribution of plant breeding to
global agriculture. In: Proceedings of the second world seed
conference. Responding to the challenges of a changing world:
The role of new plant varieties and high quality seed in
agriculture. FAO, Rome, Sept. 8-10, 18-31.
Bunce JA and Ziska LH (2000). Crop Ecosystem Responses to Climatic
Change: Crop/Weed Interactions. In Climate Change and Global
Crop Productivity. CAB International.
Carpenter SR, Caraco NF, Correll DL, Howarth RW, Sharpley AN,
and Smith CH (1998) Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with
phosphorus and nitrogen. Ecol. Appl. 8: 559-568.
CGIAR (2006). Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research, News Release, “Intensified Research Effort Yields
Climate-Resilient Agriculture To Blunt Impact of Global
Warming, Prevent Widespread Hunger,” 4 December 2006. On
the Internet: http://www.cgiar.org/pdf/agm06/
AGM06PressReleaseFINAL.pdf, The title of the forthcoming
study is, “Can Wheat Beat the Heat?
CGIAR (2007). Global Climate Change: Cane Agriculture Cope.
Online Briefing Dossier, 2007. On the Internet: http//
www.cgiar.org/impact/global/ cc_mappingthemenaec.html.
Ching LL (2009). Is ecological agriculture productive? Twin, Briefing
Paper, 52. available at www.twnside.org.sg.
Chmielewski FM, Muller A and Bruns E (2004). Climate changes and
trends in phenology of fruit trees and field crops in Germany,
1961-2000. Agric. For. Meteorol. 121: 69-78.
Chuine I and Beaubien EG (2001). Phenology is a major determinant
of tree species range. Ecol. Lett. 4: 500-510, and correction (2002)
5: 316.
Ciais, P, Reichstein M, Viovy N, Granier A, Oge´e J, Allard V, Aubinet
M, Buchmann N, Bernhofer C, and Carrara A (2005). Europe-
wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat and
drought in 2003. Nature 437: 529-533.
Cline WR (2007). Global warming and agriculture: impact estimates
by country. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development:
Peterson Institute for International Economics.
Coakley SM, Scherm H and Chakraborty S (1999). Climate change
and plant disease management. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol. 37: 399-
426.
Cooper P, Rao KPC, Singh P, Dimes J, Traore PS, Rao K, Dixit P and
Twomlow SJ (2009). Farming with current and future climate
risk: Advancing a ‘Hypothesis of Hope’ for rainfed agriculture
in the semi-arid tropics. SAT eJournal. 7: 1-19.
Cotter J and Tirado R (2008). Food security and climate change: The
answer is biodiversity. Cited as: www.greenpeace.org/raw/
content/.../food-security-and-climate-change.pdf.
CSWD (2009). Commission Staff working document. Adapting to
climate change: Towards a European framework for action.
Dass S (2010). Maize improvement: status, strategies towards
achievement of future breeding goals. In: National Seed
Association of India, 2010. Indian Seed Plan. Mat. 3: 15-23.
Delft CE (2008). Report to AEA for the RFA review indirect effects
of biofuels, Renewable Fuels Agency, East Sussex, UK. Published
on RFA website http://www. renewablefuelsagency.org.
Deodikar GB and Suryanarayana MC (1977). Pollination in the
services of increasing farm production in India. In P.K.K. Nair
(ed) Advances in Pollen Spore Research, pp 60-82. New Delhi:
Today and Tomorrow Printers and Publishers.
Di Falco S and Chavas JP (2006). Crop genetic diversity, farm
productivity and the management of environmental risk in rainfed
agriculture. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 33: 289-314.
Di Falco S and Chavas JP (2008). Rainfall shocks, resilience, and the
effects of crop biodiversity on agroecosystem productivity. Land
Econ. 84: 83-96.
Diaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS and Tilman D (2006) Biodiversity loss
threatens human well-being. PLoS Biol. 4: 1300-1306.
Diffenbaugh NS, Krupke CH, White MA and Alexander CE (2008).
Global warming presents new challenges for maize pest
management. Environ. Res. Lett. 3: 044007 (9pp).
Doll P (2002). Impact of climate change and variability on irrigation
requirements: A global perspective. Cli. Change 54: 269-293.
Donner SD and Kucharik CJ (2008). Corn-based ethanol production
compromises goal of reducing nitrogen export by the Mississippi
River. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 4513-4518.
Downing JA, Osenberg CW and Sarnelle O (1999). Meta-analysis of
marine nutrient-enrichment experiments: variation in the
magnitude of nutrient limitation. Ecology 80: 76-85.
Dumanski J, Peiretti R, Benites JR, McGarry D and Pieri C (2006).
The paradigm of conservation agriculture. Proceedings of World
Association of Soil and Water Conservation Paper, No. P1-7.
Easterling WE, Aggarwal PK, Batima P, Brander KM, Erda L, Howden
SM, Kirilenko A, Morton J, Soussana JF and Schmidhuber J
(2007). Food, fibre and forest products. In S Solomon, D Qin, M
Manning, Z Chen, M Marquis, KB Averyt, M Tignor, HL Miller,
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, UK, and New York, 273-313.
Edmeades GO (2010). Drought tolerance in maize: An emerging reality.
In: National Seed Association of India, 2010. Indian Seed Plant.
Mat. 3: 26-33.
Elmore CD and Paul RN (1983). Composite List of C4 weeds. Weed
Sci. 31: 686-692.
Erenstein O (2010). The evolving maize sector in Asia: Challenges
and opportunities. In: National Seed Association of India, 2010.
Indian Seed Plan. Mat. 3: 4-14.
Estrella N, Sparks T and Menzel A (2007). Trends and temperature
response in the phenology of crops in Germany. Glob. Change
Biol. 13: 1737-1747.
ETC Group Communique (2008). Patenting the “Climate Genes”...
and Capturing the Climate Agenda. Issues 99, May/June 2008,
p. 30.
Falkenmark M and Rockstrom J (2004). Balancing Water for Humans
and Nature: the New Approach in Ecohydrology. Earthscan,
London, UK. FAO.
FAO (2006). The State of Food Insecurity in the World: Eradicating
World Hunger—Taking Stock Ten Years after the World Food
Summit, available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/ 009/a0750e/
a0750e00.pdf.
FAO (2008). A contribution to the international initiative for the
conservation and sustainable use of pollinators rapid assessment
of pollinators’ status. FAO, January, 2008. http://www.cbd.int/
doc/case-studies/agr/cs-agr-fao.pdf.
FAO (2008a). Statistics Division: Resource STAT. Rome, Italy: FAO.
http://faostat.fao.org/site/405/default.aspx, access date 30/12/08.
FAO (2009). How to feed the world in 2050. Paper presented at the
High Level Expert Forum, Rome 12-13 October 2009. Available
at: http://www.fao.org/wsfs/forum2050/wsfs-background-
documents/hlef-issues-briefs/en/
FAO (2005). Special event on impact of climate change, pests and
diseases on food security and poverty reduction. Background
document. In 31st session of the Committee on World Food
Security. Rome, Italy: FAO. See ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/
meeting/009/j5411e.pdf, accessed 30/12/08.
FAO/IIASA (2000). Global agro-ecological zones. Rome, Italy: FAO.
Flint EF and Patterson DT (1983) Interference and Temperature Effects
on Growth in Soybean (Glycine max) and Associated C3 and C4
Weeds. Weed Sci. 31: 193-199.
70 Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
Fraisse CW, Breuer NE, Zierden D and Ingram KT (2009). From
climate variability to climate change: Challenges and
opportunities to extension. J. Ext. 47: 1-10.
Fraser JA and Clement CR (2008). Dark earths and manioc cultivation
in Central Amazonia: a window on pre-Columbian agricultural
systems? Boletim Museu Paraense Emílio Goeldi. Ciências
Humanas, Belém. 3: 175-194.
Frink CR, Waggoner PE and Ausubel JH (1999). Nitrogen fertilizer:
retrospect and prospect. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96: 1175-
1180.
Gajanana TM and Hegde MR (2009). Marketing, value addition and
export of horticulture and processed products-problems and
prospects. Agriculture Year Book, 2009, 48-53.
Gaston KJ and Williams PH (1996). Spatial patterns in taxonomic
diversity. In: Biodiversity 202-229, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Gifford RM (2004). The CO2 fertilizing effect-Does it occur in the
real world? New Phytol. 163: 221-225.
Goho A (2004). Gardeners anticipate climate change. Am. Gardener
83: 36-41.
Gupta HS (2009). Genetic Enhancement for Adaptation to Climate
Change and Abiotic Stresses. In: Brainstorming Workshop on
Climate Change, Soil Quality and Food Security, Proceeding
and Recommendations. Aug. 11, 2009, 72-87.
Gutierrez AP (2000). Crop ecosystem responses to climatic changes:
pests and population dynamics. pp. 353-374. In: Climate change
and global crop productivity. Reddy KR, Hodges HF (eds).CABI
Publishing, New York, USA.
Hajjar R, Jarvis DI and Gemmill-Herren B (2008). The utility of crop
genetic diversity in maintaining ecosystem services. Agric.
Ecosys. Environ. 123: 261-270.
Hallstrom DG and Sumner DA (2000). Agricultural economic
responses to forecasted variation: Crop Diversification, storage
and Trade. Palisades, New York, Instituted for Climate Prediction
285-261.
Halweil B (2005). The Irony of Climate. World Watch. Vision for a
sustainable world. Cited as: www.worldwatch.org.
Hardon JJ (2004). Plant patents beyond control: Biotechnology, farmer
seed systems and intellectual property rights. Agromisa
Foundation, Wageningen.
Harrington R, Fleming R and Woiwood IP (2001). Climate change
impacts on insect management and conservation in temperate
regions: can they be predicted? Agric. For. Entomol. 3: 233-240.
Henry M, Stevens H and Carson WP (2001). Phenological
complementarity, species diversity and ecosystem function.
Oikos, 92: 291-296.
Holm LG, Plucknett DL, Pancho, JV and Herberger JP (1977). The
World’s Worst Weeds- Distribution and Biology, University of
Hawaii Press, Honolulu.
Hughes AR, Inouye BD, Johnson MTJ, Underwood N and Vellend M
(2008) Ecological consequences of genetic diversity. Ecol. Lett
11: 609-623.
IFAD (2001). Rural Poverty Report 2001: The Challenge of Ending
Rural Poverty, International Fund for Agricultural Development,
Rome.
IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and
Vulnerability IPCC Working Group 2.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Working
Group I. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.
IRRI, Press Release, “Rice harvests more affected than first thought
by global warming,” 29 June 2004, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India.
Joshi PK, Gulati A, Birthal PS and Tewari L (2003). Agriculture
diversification in South Asia: Patterns, determinants, and policy
implications. MSSD Discussion Paper No. 57, IFPRI Washington
DC.
Karihallo JL and Perera O (2010). Agricultural biotechnologies in
developing countries: Options and opportunities in crops, forestry,
livestock, fisheries and agro-industry to face the challenges of
food insecurity and climate change (ABDC-10), Guadalajara,
Mexico, 1-4 March 2010. APAARI Issue Paper: Harnessing
biotechnologies for food security in the Asia-Pacific region.
Kerr JT (2001). Butterfly species richness patterns in Canada: energy,
heterogeneity, and the potential consequences of climate change.
Conservation Ecology 5: 10. [online] URL: http://
www.consecol.org/vol5/iss1/art10.
Kevan PG (1997). Honeybees for better apples and much higher yields:
study shows pollination services pay dividends. Can. Fruit Gro.
14: 16.
Kremen C, Williams NM, and Thorp RW (2002). Crop pollination
from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification. Pro.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 99: 16812-16816.
Krishna Kumar K, Rupa Kumar K, Ashrit RG, Deshpande NR, Hansen
JW (2004). Climate impacts on Indian agriculture. Int. J.
Climatology 24, 1375-1393.
Kudo G, Nishikawa Y, Kasagi T and Kosuge S (2004) Does seed
production of spring ephemerals decrease when spring comes
early? Ecol. Res, 19: 255-259.
Lane A and Jarvis A (2007) Changes in climate will modify that
geography of crop suitability: Agricultural Biodiversity can help
with Adaptation, An open Access Journal published by ICRISAT.
4: 1.
LaSalle and Hepperly P (2008). Regenerative organic farming: A
solution to global warming. Rodale Institute, 9.
Lobell DB, Burke MB, Tebaldi C, Mastrandrea MD, Falcon WP and
Naylor RL (2008). Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs
for food security in 2030. Science 319: 607-610.
Lobell DB and Field CB (2007). Global scale climate-crop yield
relationships and the impacts of recent warming. Environ Res.
Lett. 2: 014002 (7p).
Lobell DB, Burke MB, Tebald C, Mastrandrea M, Falcon WP and
Naylor RL (2008). Prioritizing climate change adaptation needs
for food security in 2030. Science 319: 607-610.
Lobell DB, Cassman KG and Field CB (2009) Crop yield gaps: Their
importance, magnitudes, and causes. Energy Sciences Research,
Nebraska Center for NCESR Publications and Research. Ann.
Rev. Environ. Resoucr. 34: 179-204.
Long SP, Ainsworth EA, Leakey ADB, Nosberger J and Ort DR (2006).
Food for thought: Lower-than-expected crop yield simulation with
rising CO2 concentrations. Science 312: 1918-1921.
Luo Q and Lin E (1999). Agricultural vulnerability and adoption in
developing countries: The Asia Pacific Region, Cli. Change 43:
729-743.
Lybbert T and Sumner D (2010). Agricultural Technologies for Climate
change mitigation and adaptation in developing countries: Policy
options for innovation and technology diffusion. ICTSD-IPC
Platform on climate change, Agriculture and Trade, Issue Brief
No. 6, International centre for Trade and Sustainable
Development, Geneva, Switzerland and International Food and
Agricultural Trade Policy Council, Washington DC, USA.
Manning WJ and von Tiedemann A (1995). Climate Change: Potential
effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and Ozone
and ultraviolet-B (UV-B). Environ Pollut. 88: 219-245.
Allinne C, Remigereau MS, Luxereau A, Tidjani M, Seyni O, Bezancon
G, Pham JM, and Sarr A (2006). Genetic diversity and gene among
pearl millet crop/weed complex: a case study. Theor. Appl. Genet.
113, 1003-1014.
71
Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
McKeown A, Warland J and McDonald MR (2005). Long-term
marketable yields of horticultural crops in southern Ontario in
relation to seasonal climate. Can. J. Plant Sci. 85: 431-438.
McKey D and Beckerman S (1993). Chemical ecology, plant evolution
and traditional manioc cultivation systems. In: Tropical Forests,
People and Food. Biocultural Interactions and Applications to
Development (eds. Hladik CM, Hladik A, Linares OF, Pagezy
H, Semple A, Hadley M), number 8 in Man and the Biosphere
Series, pp. 83-112. UNESCO, Paris, France, and Parthenon,
Canforth, UK.
Mehta MH (2009). The 20-20 model: Higher farm production with
lower input cost. Agriculture Year Book - 2009. 138-139.
Mitchell RAC, Mitchell V, Driscioll SP, Franklin J and Lawlor DW
(1993). Effects of increased CO2 concentration and temperature
on growth and yield of winter wheat at two levels of nitrogen
application. Plant Cell Environ. 16: 521-529.
Monfreda C, Ramankutty N and Foley JA (2008) Farming the planet:
2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological
types, and net primary production in the year 2000, Global
Biogeochem. Cycles 22: GB1022.
Morandin L and Winston M (2006). Pollinators provide economic
incentive to preserve natural land. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 116:
289-292.
Naylor RL, Goldburg RJ, Primavera JH, Kautsky N, Beveridge MCM,
Clay J, Folke C, Lubchenco J, Mooney H and Troell M (2000).
Effect of aquaculture on world fish supplies. Nature 405: 1017-
1024.
Nellemann C, Mac Devette M, Manders T, Eickhout B, Svihus B,
Prinis AG and Kaltenborn BP (Eds.) (2009). The Environmental
Food Crisis-The Environments’ Role in Averting Future Food
Crisis. A UNEP rapid response assessment. United Nations
Environment Programme, GRID-Arendal.
Neumeister L (2010). Climate Change and Crop Protection: Anything
can happen. PAN Asia and the Pacific, 42.
Nitta T (1991). Diversity of root fungal floras: its implications for
soil-borne diseases and crop growth. Jap. Agric. Res. Quart. 25:
6-11.
NRC (2000a). National Research Council, Global Change Ecosystems
Research (National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
NRC (2000b). National Research Council, Clean Coastal Waters:
Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution
(National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook (2009-2018). www.agri-outlook.org.
Olesen JE and Grevsen K (1993). Simulated effects of climate change
on summer cauliflower production in Europe. Eur. J. Agron. 2:
313-323.
Pandey MM (2011). Current status and future outlook of farm
mechanization in Indian agriculture. Indian Seed Congress, 2011,
pp. 79-82.
Parmesan C and Yohe G (2003). A globally coherent fingerprint of
climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421: 37-
42.
Parry M (2007). The implications of climate change for crop yields,
global food supply and risk of hunger. E-journal, ICRISAT: 4(1)
pp. 44.
Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Livermore M and Fischer G
(2004). Effects of climate change on global food production under
SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Sci. Tech. 14:
53-67.
Partap U (1998). Successful pollination of apples in Himachal Pradesh.
Beekeeping Development. 48: 6-7.
Patterson DT, Westbrook JK, Joyce RJV and Rogasik J (1999) Weeds,
insects, and diseases. Cli. Change 43: 711-727.
Peng S, Huang J, Sheehy JE, Laza R, Visperas RM, Zhong X, Centeno
GS, Khush G and Cassman KG (2004). Rice yields decline with
higher night temperature from global warming. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci. (USA). 101: 9971-9975.
Pimentel (2009). Pesticides and Pest Control. In: Integrated Pest
Management: Innovation - Development Process, Vol. 1 (eds: R.
Peshin and A.K. Dhawan), Springer, Netherlands. Pp. 83-89.
Ponnusamy K and Gupta J (2005). Village development through crop
diversification in a Peri Urban setting. IASSI Quarterly 23: 58-
65.
Porter JH, Parry ML and Carter TR (1991). The potential effects of
climatic change on agricultural insect pests. Agric. For. Meteorol.
57: 221-240.
Porter JR (2005). Rising temperatures are likely to reduce crop yields.
Nature 436: 174.
Porter JR and Gawith M (1999). Temperature and the growth and
development of wheat: A review. Eur. J. Agron. 10: 23-36.
Porter JR and Semenov MA (2005). Crop response to climatic
variation. Philos. Trans. Royal Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 360: 2021-
2035.
Post E, Forchhammer MC, Stenseth NC and Callaghan TV (2001)
The timing of life history events in a changing climate. Proc.
Royal Soc. Lond. B. 268: 15-23.
Prasad PVV, Staggenborg SA and Ristic Z (2008). Impacts of drought
and/or heat stress on physiological, developmental, growth, and
yield processes of crop plants. Cited as: www-personal.ksu.edu/
~vara/prasad-pvv-aasm-chapter11.pdf.
Pretty JN, Noble AD, Bossio D, Dixon J, Hine RH. Penning deVries
FWT and Morison JIKL (2006). Resource-conserving agriculture
increases yields in developing countries. Environ Sci. Technol.
40: 1114-1119.
Price PW (2002). Resource-driven terrestrial interaction webs. Ecol.
Res. 17: 241-247.
Ranwa RS and Singh KP (1999). Effect of integrated nutrient
management with vermicompost on productivity of wheat. Ind.
J. Agron. 44: 554-559.
Rathcke B and Lacey EP (1985). Phenological patterns of terrestrial
plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 16: 179-214.
Reddy KR, Kakani VG and Singh RP (2008). Climate Change and
Crop Productivity: Challenges and opportunities. In: Souvenir,
National Seminar on Designing Crops for the Climate Change,
Organized by Indian Society of Genetics and Plant Breeding,
New Delhi and BAU, Ranchi, Jharkhand, 30-31 Oct. 2009, 14-
17.
Roberts EH and Summerfield RJ (1987). Measurement and prediction
of flowering in annual crops. In: Atherton, J.G. (Ed.),
Manipulation of Flowering. Butterworth, London, pp. 17-50.
Root TL, Price JT, Hall KR, Schneider SH, Rosenzweig C and Pounds
JA (2003). Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and
plants. Nature 241: 57-60.
Rosengrant MW and Sarah AC (2003). Global food security:
Challenges and policies. Science 302: 1917-1919.
Rosenzweig C and Tubiello FN (2007). Adaptation and mitigation
strategies in agriculture: an analysis of potential synergies. Mitig.
Adapt. Strat. Glob. Change 12: 855-873.
Samra JS (2009). Climatic Changes, Disasters and Their Management
in India. Climate Change. In: Brainstorming Workshop on
Climate Change, Soil Quality and Food Security, Proceeding and
Recommendations. Aug. 11, 2009, 45-55.
Schmidhuber J and Tubiello FN (2007). Global food security under
climate change. Pro. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104, 50, 19703-19708.
Sen S and Raju S (2006). Globalisation and Expanding Markets For
Cut-Flowers: Who Benefits? Econ. Polit. Weekly 41, 2725-2730.
72 Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability (April 2013) 1(1): 53-72
Singh MP, Singh KI, and Devi CS (2000). Role of Apis cerana
pollination on yield and quality of rapeseed and sunflower crops.
In (M. Matsuka, L.R. Verma, S. Wongsiri, K.K. Shrestha and
Uma Partap (eds.) Asian Bees and Beekeeping in Asia: Progress
of Research and Development. Proceedings of the Fourth AAA
International Conference 23-28 March 1998, Kathmandu. Oxford
and IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi, 274.
Smith JB, Schneider SH, Oppenheimer M, Yohe GW, Hare W,
Mastrandrea MD, Patwardhan, Burton I, Corfee-Morlot J,
Magadza CHD, Fussel, HM, Pittock AB, Rahman A, Suarez A
and van Ypersele JP (2009) Assessing dangerous climate change
through an update of the intergovernmental panel on climate
change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”. Pro. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA,
106, 11, 4133-4137.
Smith RG, Gross KL and Robertson GP (2008). Effects of crop diversity
on agroecosystem function: crop yield response. Ecosystems 11:
355-366.
Stern N (2007). Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. 692.
Sthapit BR and Wilson JM (1992). Chilling tolerance in February
seeded Chaite rices (Oryza sativa) of Nepal. Ann. Appl. Biol.
121: 189-197.
TAC (1992). A review of the CGIAR priorities and strategies draft.
Rome, Italy: TAC Secretariat, Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nation.
Tang J, Xu L, Chen X and Hu S (2009). Interaction between C4
barnyard grass and C3 upland rice under elevated CO2: Impact of
mycorrhizae. Acta Ooecol. 35: 227-235.
Thompson GB, Brown JKM and Woodward FI (1993). The effects of
host carbon dioxide, nitrogen and water supply on the infection
of wheat by powdery mildew and aphids. Plant Cell Environ.
16: 687-694.
Thuzar M, Puteh AB, Abdullah NAP, Lassim MBM and Jusoff K
(2010). The Effects of Temperature Stress on the Quality and
Yield of Soya Bean [(Glycine max L.) Merrill.]. J. Agric. Sci. 2,
172-179.
Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, D’Antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth R,
Schindler D, Schlesinger WH, Simberloff D and Swackhamer D
(2001). Forecasting Agriculturally Driven Global Environmental
Change. Science 292: 281-284.
Tubiello FN, Donatelli M, Rosenzweig C and Stockle CO (2000).
Effects of climate change and elevated CO2 on cropping systems:
model predictions at two Italian locations. Eur. J. Agron. 13: 179-
189.
Tubiello FN, Soussana JF and Howden SM (2007). Crop and pasture
response to climate change. Pro. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104:
19686-19690.
UNDP, Human Development Report 2007/2008, 94.
Uphoff N (2007). Envisioning ‘Post-Modern Agriculture’ A Thematic
Research Paper. www.wassan.org/sri/.../Post_Modern_
Agriculture_March07.pdf,
Uphoff N (2011). The System of Rice Intensifica-tion: An Alternate
Civil Society Innovation. Technikfolgenabschätzung – Theorie
und Praxis 20. Jg., Heft 2, July 2011.
von Braun J, Swaminathan MS and Rosegrant M (2004). Agriculture,
food security, nutrition and the millennium development goals.
Essay reprinted from IFPRI’S 2003-2004 Annual Report, 2004.
Washington, DC: IFPRI.
von Grebmer K, Nestorova B, Quisumbing A, Fertilizers R, Fritschel
H, Pandiya-Lorch R and Yohannes Y (2009). 2009 Global Hunger
Index. Wet hunger hilfe, Bonn; IFPRI, Washington D. C.; Concern
Worldwide, Bonn.
Walther GR, Post E, Convey P, Menzel A, Parmesan C, Beebee TRC,
Fromentin J-M, Hoegh-Guldberg O and Bairlein F (2002). Nature
416: 389-395.
Wasilewska L (1995). Differences in development of soil nematode
communities in single- and multispecies grass experimental
treatments. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2: 53-64.
Weinberger K and Genova C (2005). Vegetable production in
Bangladesh: Commercialization and rural livelihoods. Technical
Bulletin No. 33, 2005. Shanhua: AVRDC.
Weinberger K and Lumpkin TA (2007). Diversification into horticulture
and poverty reduction: A research agenda. World Develop. 35:
1464-1480.
Westrich P (1989). Die Wildbienen Baden-Württembergs. 2 Bände,
972 S., 496 Farbfotos; Stuttgart (E. Ulmer). [1990 2., verb.
Auflage].
Wheeler TR, Batts GR, Ellis RH, Hadley P and Morison JIL (1996).
Growth and yield of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) crops in
response to CO2 and temperature. J. Agric. Sci, Cambridge, 127:
37-48.
Wilson WM (2008). Soils utilized for gardens by Tukanoans in
northwestern Amazonia and their impact on cassava (Manihot
esculenta Crantz) cultivar selection. Culture and Agriculture. 24:
20-30.
World Bank (2009). Development and Climate Change. The World
Bank, Washington, DC.
Yamamura K and Kiritani K (1998). A simple method to estimate the
potential increase in the number of generations under global
warming in temperate zones. Appl. Ent. Zool. 33: 289-298.
Zhu Y, Chen H, Fan J, Wang Y, Li Y, Chen J, Fan J, Yang S, Hu L,
Leung H, Mew TW, Teng PS, Wang Z and Mundt CC (2000).
Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Nature 406: 718-
722.
Zhu YY, Wang YY, Chen HR and Lu BR (2003). Conserving traditional
rice varieties through management for crop diversity. Bioscience
53: 158-162.
Ziska LH (2003). Evaluation of yield loss in field sorghum from a C3
and C4 weed with increasing CO2. Weed Sci. 51: 914-918.
Ziska LH and George K (2004). Rising carbon dioxide and invasive,
noxious plants: potential threats and consequences. World
Resource Rev. 16: 427-447.
Ziska LH and Runion GB (2006). Future weed, pest and disease
problems for plants. In: Newton P., A. Carman, G. Edwards, P.
Niklaus (eds.) Agroecosystems in a Changing Climate. CRC. New
York. Chapter 11, 262-287.
Zvereva EL and Kozlov MV (2006). Consequences of simultaneous
elevation of carbon dioxide and temperature for plant–herbivore
interactions: a metaanalysis. Global Change Biol. 12: 27-41.
Indianjournals.com (A Product of Diva Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.)
B-9, A-Block, L.S.C., Naraina Vihar, New Delhi-110028, India.
Email :- subscription@indianjournals.com
Ph :- 45055500, Fax :- 25778876
