ArticlePDF Available

Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany

PLOS
PLOS One
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Crop yields are increasingly affected by climate change-induced weather extremes in Germany. However, there is still little knowledge of the specific crop-climate relations and respective heat and drought stress-induced yield losses. Therefore, we configure weather indices (WIs) that differ in the timing and intensity of heat and drought stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). We construct these WIs using gridded weather and phenology time series data from 1995 to 2019 and aggregate them with Germany-wide municipality level on-farm wheat yield data. We statistically analyze the WI’s explanatory power and region-specific effect size for wheat yield using linear mixed models. We found the highest explanatory power during the stem elongation and booting phase under moderate drought stress and during the reproductive phase under moderate heat stress. Furthermore, we observed the highest average yield losses due to moderate and extreme heat stress during the reproductive phase. The highest heat and drought stress-induced yield losses were observed in Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt, and northern Bavaria, while similar heat and drought stresses cause much lower yield losses in other regions of Germany.
This content is subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought
stress determine wheat yield losses in
Germany
Ludwig RiedeselID
1
*, Markus Mo
¨ller
2
, Peter Horney
1
, Burkhard Golla
1
, Hans-
Peter Piepho
3
, Timo Kautz
4
, Til FeikeID
1
1Julius Ku¨hn Institute (JKI) Federal Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Strategies and
Technology Assessment, Kleinmachnow, Germany, 2Julius Ku¨hn Institute (JKI) Federal Research Centre
for Cultivated Plants, Institute for Crop and Soil Science, Braunschweig, Germany, 3Institute of Crop
Science, Biostatistics Unit, University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany, 4Humboldt University of Berlin,
Thaer-Institute of Agricultural and Horticultural Sciences, Berlin, Germany
*ludwig.riedesel@julius-kuehn.de
Abstract
Crop yields are increasingly affected by climate change-induced weather extremes in Ger-
many. However, there is still little knowledge of the specific crop-climate relations and
respective heat and drought stress-induced yield losses. Therefore, we configure weather
indices (WIs) that differ in the timing and intensity of heat and drought stress in wheat (Triti-
cum aestivum L.). We construct these WIs using gridded weather and phenology time series
data from 1995 to 2019 and aggregate them with Germany-wide municipality level on-farm
wheat yield data. We statistically analyze the WI’s explanatory power and region-specific
effect size for wheat yield using linear mixed models. We found the highest explanatory
power during the stem elongation and booting phase under moderate drought stress and
during the reproductive phase under moderate heat stress. Furthermore, we observed the
highest average yield losses due to moderate and extreme heat stress during the reproduc-
tive phase. The highest heat and drought stress-induced yield losses were observed in
Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt, and northern Bavaria, while similar heat and drought stresses
cause much lower yield losses in other regions of Germany.
Introduction
Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) stands out for its high-yielding varieties, high level of disease
resistance, nutritional properties, and excellent baking characteristics [1]. Consequently,
wheat covers the largest production area globally [2] and is one of the most important crops
for global food security [3]. Due to a growing world population, economic growth, and chang-
ing dietary habits, the global demand for wheat is continuously increasing [4,5]. As the second
largest wheat producer in the European Union with high yield levels in international compari-
son [2], Germany plays an important role in the global wheat supply. However, while wheat
yields have continuously increased in Germany in recent decades [6], stagnation of yields has
been observed in Western Europe, including Germany, in recent years [7]. This stagnation can
PLOS ONE
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 1 / 20
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Riedesel L, Mo¨ller M, Horney P, Golla B,
Piepho H-P, Kautz T, et al. (2023) Timing and
intensity of heat and drought stress determine
wheat yield losses in Germany. PLoS ONE 18(7):
e0288202. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0288202
Editor: Mohammed Magdy Hamed, Arab Academy
for Science Technology and Maritime Transport,
EGYPT
Received: January 9, 2023
Accepted: June 21, 2023
Published: July 25, 2023
Copyright: ©2023 Riedesel et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: The data sources on
which the results of these studies are based are
given in the References section. The yield data
from the FADN dataset are not freely available and
may be requested from the German Federal
Ministry of Food and Agriculture at the following e-
mail address 723@bmel.bund.de. All results can be
reproduced using the minimal dataset, which is
published only at the following Zenodo link: https://
doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8076295. The minimal
dataset can be freely used and does not need to be
be explained by several factors, such as a slight extensification of production [8], reduced
breeding progress [9], the expansion of winter wheat cultivation to more marginal sites [10]
and, in particular, adverse effects of global climate change [11].
Against this background, wheat yield losses due to weather extremes are increasing in Ger-
many [1215], with heat stress (high-temperature stress) and drought stress (soil water stress)
considered the most important abiotic stress factors [1523]. However, the relationships
between regional weather extremes and on-farm yield losses are still insufficiently described
for wheat in Germany [22,2426]. Hence, a better understanding of the spatiotemporal effects
of heat and drought stress on wheat yields is required [13,25].
Weather Indices (WIs) can help explain the impact of extreme weather events on crop
yields [13,2730]. WIs are based on the calculation of statistical indicators (e.g., temperature
sum) or the number of thresholds exceeded by an indicator (e.g., days with a maximum tem-
perature above 31˚C) within a reference period relevant for crop growth. A particular chal-
lenge in defining relevant WIs is the complexity and limited knowledge of the relationships
between crop yields, regional site conditions, and changing weather conditions during sensi-
tive growing periods [13,26,31]. In this regard, high quality spatiotemporal data are essential
for designing suitable WIs [29]. This challenge is particularly evident in relation to 1. the spa-
tial accuracy of yield data sets, 2. the consideration of physiologically relevant and spatiotem-
porally accurate crop growing periods and 3. the selection of suitable threshold values:
1. Some studies use yield data on a national level but at low spatial resolution [13,23,27,28],
and others examine yield data as point data for individual locations [29,31,32] or smaller
regions [15,16], but only very few studies use high-resolution on-farm yield data collected
nationwide [14,33].
2. Most studies assume fixed growing periods based on calendric days [13], ignoring regional
and temporal differences in plant development. Others follow more dynamic approaches
by calculating phenological phases using growing degree day (GDD) methods [3135].
Deriving GDD values allows a more spatiotemporally dynamic approach, but it is limited to
assumptions such as sowing date [36]. Time series of gridded phenological observation data
sets create the possibility of computing WIs within phenological phases for each year and
location, promising to better describe the crop-climate relations than static calendric
approaches [29,36]. Thus far, however, there have been hardly any studies that make use of
such data sets [14,16].
3. Determining suitable yield-effective threshold values is challenging and handled very differ-
ently in the literature [23,25,27,37]. Some studies define their thresholds according to
plant physiological reactions based on controlled experiments [38] ignoring possible spatial
and temporal differences in their occurrence out in the field [31,32,39]. Other studies, do
not take plant physiology into account and base the threshold values on the extremes of
local weather phenomena [14,23,27,40]. To the best of our knowledge, no study has com-
pared the spatial effects of moderate vs. extreme stress nationwide.
With this in mind, the aim of this study is to analyze wheat yield effects with WIs that differ
in the intensity and timing of heat and drought stress based on region-specific interpolated
weather and phenology data. Therefore, our objectives are as follows:
1. To analyze the differences in explanatory power between the timing and intensity of heat
and drought WIs
2. To evaluate the regional differences in heat and drought stress-related yield effects on win-
ter wheat
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 2 / 20
requested from the Federal Ministry of Food and
Agriculture.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific
funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
Consequently, we create WIs that differ in the intensity and timing of heat and drought
stress based on region-specific interpolated weather and phenology data. We then evaluate
these WIs for their explanatory power and region-specific effect size using mixed linear mod-
els. Based on this, we calculate and present the region-specific yield effects of the different WIs.
Material and methods
Study design
Fig 1 illustrates the study design along with the various data integration steps:
1. We compile all required data sets, including yield, weather, phenology, soil, and land use
data sets (Sec. Data sets).
2. We blend phenological data with weather data and derive a set of dynamic WIs based on
the resulting nationwide 1 ×1 km
2
grid data base (Sec. Dynamic WI configuration).
3. We merge the soil data and WI data with the land use data for each grid cell. That way, we
consider only the weather and soil data for cropland in each grid cell, excluding other land
use types (e.g., grassland, forests, and specialty crops) from the analysis. We then aggregate
the data at the municipality level, using weighted averages depending on the share of crop-
land per grid cell. Since the municipality boundaries have been changed in several munici-
pal reforms, with respect to year, we base the WI aggregation on the geometries of the
respective last reform.
4. We assign municipality-specific WIs and soil parameters from Step 3 to each farm-specific
yield data point for each year and municipality.
5. Finally, we statistically analyze the resulting data using a mixed model approach (Sec. Statis-
tical analysis).
Fig 1. Overview of the study design and respective five working steps: From 1) listing the data sets used, 2) aggregation of
spatiotemporal weather indices (WIs), 3) spatial aggregation of the soil and WI data, 4) integration of all data into one
comprehensive data set and 5) statistical analysis.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202.g001
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 3 / 20
Data sets
Yield data. The Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) provided data from
the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) for this study [41]. In the FADN, the crop-spe-
cific yield data (in dt ha
1
) and cropland size (in ha) of approximately 11,500 representative
farms were collected annually between 1995 and 2019 and analyzed anonymously. Each farm
is assigned a municipality index and a farm code so that it is possible to distinguish the farms
from each other at the municipality level without sharing their identity and exact location.
Weather data. The German Weather Service (DWD) provided daily meteorological data,
including minimum, mean and maximum temperature, cumulative precipitation, mean wind
speed, and solar radiation. Daily measures from weather stations have been available since
1993 and interpolated to a 1 ×1 km
2
grid-based resolution [42]. Furthermore, the DWD also
provided drought-related data since 1993 on the plant available water capacity (PAWC) in the
0 to 60 cm soil layer generated by the AMBAV model [43]. The model inputs include plant-
specific height, the leaf area index, rooting depth and density, and water fluxes in the soil.
Phenology data. The DWD operates a phenological network of annual and immediate
observers. Approximately 1200 observers monitor 160 phenological phases of wild and culti-
vated plants. The observations are mapped according to a standardized protocol [44]. The
PHASE model was developed to interpolate the phenological observations for the entire terri-
tory of Germany [45]. Since temperature can be considered the most crucial factor influencing
phenology in Central Europe [46], the model combines the concept of GDDs with a geostatis-
tical interpolation procedure. An essential application of the data sets is the derivation of
dynamic time windows for specific years, phases, and test sites [47], which can be defined as
growing periods between two crop-specific, consecutively observed phenological events [48].
As shown by Bucheli et al. [16], considering adverse weather conditions during specific pheno-
logical phases vs. static calendric time windows helps explain weather-yield relations.
Soil quality data. We use the Soil Quality Rating (SQR) soil map from the BGR to
describe soil quality. The SQR classifies soils globally according to their suitability for agricul-
tural land use and yield potential. This classification is available at a 250 ×250 m
2
grid-based
resolution [49].
Land use data. The ATKIS data set from the Federal Agency for Cartography and Geod-
esy (BKG) enables GIS-based area surveys. Hence, we can carry out area-wide quantification
of land use types (i.e., cropland, grassland, and specialty cropland) at the polygon level [50].
Dynamic WI configuration
To configure a WI, we first choose the crop (i.e., winter wheat) and weather event (i.e., heat
and drought stress), set the regional expanse (i.e., nationwide), and depict the spatial aggrega-
tion (i.e., municipality level). Second, we express the configuration conditions in setting the
parameter (i.e., daily maximum temperature, daily average plant available water capacity) and
the index (i.e., accumulated days above the threshold). Finally, we define timing and intensity
to build up the WI structure.
Timing refers to the year- and location-specific phenological development phases [15,31,
51]. We select three growing periods where heat and drought stress are of specific crop physio-
logical relevance [19,20,52]. Hence, we select the “stem elongation and booting phase” (SEB;
BBCH 31—50), “reproductive phase” (RP; BBCH 51—75), and “generative phase” (GP; BBCH
51—87). We illustrate the respective growing phases in Fig 2.
Intensity refers in our study to a fixed threshold value of a weather variable that must be
exceeded for the WIs to take effect [36]. We base the thresholds on crop physiological under-
standing, describing moderate, severe, and extreme stress intensities. We calculate the heat-
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 4 / 20
related WIs from the accumulated number of days with a maximum temperature exceeding
27, 29 or 31˚C, i.e., T
max
>[27, 29, 31]˚C [20,31,32]. We further calculate the drought-related
WIs from the accumulated number of days with plant available water (PAW) below 50, 30 and
10% of the plant available water capacity (PAWC), i.e., PAWC <[10, 30, 50]% [32,54]. We
form all timing ×intensity combinations and thus obtain 18 WIs with moderate, severe, and
extreme intensities for the three growing periods (Table 1).
Spatial aggregation
To evaluate the weather-yield relations while considering spatial differences, we utilize the 50
SCRs within Germany in our analysis according to Roßberg et al. [55]. SCRs represent regions
of similar agricultural growth conditions. SCRs were derived considering soil (i.e., the
weighted soil quality) and weather information (i.e., mean monthly temperature and mean
monthly precipitation sum for the period March–August in 1981–2000) at the municipality
level. We present the federal states and SCR within the federal states in Fig 3. Furthermore, we
list a detailed description of the individual SCRs in Table A in S1 File.
Statistical analysis
Mixed linear model. We use linear mixed models based on Bo¨necke et al. and Hadasch
et al. [31,32]. In the first part of the model, we depict the fixed regression terms (first line) and
the random main and interaction effects (second line). Our model can be expressed according
to Eq (1)
zjklm ¼mþgtjþBnlþSmþdðwSÞjlm
þMlþYjþFkl þ ðMYÞlj þ ðMFÞlk þ ðYFÞjk þejklm ð1Þ
Fig 2. Phenological phases with values according to the BBCH scale available from the PHASE model and growing
phases (colored) for winter wheat along the vegetation period.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202.g002
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 5 / 20
where z
jklm
represents the mean yield of the j-th harvesting year in the k-th farm location in
the l-th municipality of the m-th SCRs. μis the overall intercept, γt
j
represents the genetic and
nongenetic time trend where γis a fixed regression coefficient for the time trend and tj is the
continuous covariate for the j-th harvesting year. The covariate B
nl
accounts for the continuous
Table 1. List of moderate, severe, and extreme heat and drought WIs for the growing periods stem elongation and booting phase (SEB), reproductive phase (RP)
and generative phase (GP).
Name Weather event Intensity Intensity threshold Timing
H27_SEB heat moderate T
max
>27˚C BBCH 31–50
H29_SEB heat severe T
max
>29˚C BBCH 31–50
H31_SEB heat extreme T
max
>31˚C BBCH 31–50
H27_RP heat moderate T
max
>27˚C BBCH 51–75
H29_RP heat severe T
max
>29˚C BBCH 51–75
H31_RP heat extreme T
max
>31˚C BBCH 51–75
H27_GP heat moderate T
max
>27˚C BBCH 51–87
H29_GP heat severe T
max
>29˚C BBCH 51–87
H31_GP heat extreme T
max
>31˚C BBCH 51–87
D50_SEB drought moderate <50% PAWC BBCH 31–50
D30_SEB drought severe <30% PAWC BBCH 31–50
D10_SEB drought extreme <10% PAWC BBCH 31–50
D50_RP drought moderate <50% PAWC BBCH 51–75
D30_RP drought severe <30% PAWC BBCH 51–75
D10_RP drought extreme <10% PAWC BBCH 51–75
D50_GP drought moderate <50% PAWC BBCH 51–87
D30_GP drought severe <30% PAWC BBCH 51–87
D10_GP drought extreme <10% PAWC BBCH 51–87
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202.t001
Fig 3. A Federal states in Germany. BFifty Soil Climate Regions (SCRs) within the federal states of Germany. The
designation of the numbered SCRs is shown in Table A in S1 File. The maps were reprinted from [53] under a CC BY
license, with permission from [GeoBasis-DE/ BKG], original copyright [2023].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202.g003
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 6 / 20
soil quality ratings (SQRs) from 1 to 100 points, where Bis the regression coefficient, and n
l
represents the SQR value for the l-th municipality. S
m
is a categorical covariate with 50 levels
(m) considering the different SCRs. δ(wS)
jlm
is the interaction term between the WI and SCR,
where δis the fixed regression coefficient for the interaction of w
jl
and S
m
, with w
jl
represent-
ing the continuous covariate of the WI in the j-th year and l-th municipality. For the random
effects, M
l
is the main effect of the l-th municipality, Y
j
is the main effect of the j-th year, and
F
kl
is the main effect of the k-th farm within the l-th municipality. (MY)
lj
is the lj-th
municipality ×year interaction effect, (MF)
lk
is the lk-th municipality ×farm interaction effect,
(YF)
jk
is the jk-th year ×farm interaction effect and e
jklm
is a random residual.
Explanatory power. To quantify the explanatory power of the various heat and drought
WIs, we analyze the variance reduction (VR) of each WI by estimating the coefficient of deter-
mination (R
2
) for mixed models following Piepho [56]. In this regard, we analyze the variance
of the random effects (M,Eq (1)) twice—first without (Var
y(Mx
)) and second with (Var
y(M+x
))
the WI-term δ(wS)
jlm
as our variable under assessment. Next, we derive the VR (%Var
y
) of
every WI one by one by calculating the relative change () in the total variance of the random
effects between the two models as described in Eq (2).
%Vary¼VaryðMxÞVaryðMþxÞ
VaryðMxÞ100 ð2Þ
Region-specific effect size and yield effects. We analyze the region-specific effect size of
each WI in each SCR individually by deriving the estimated coefficients (δ) of the regression
term δ(wS)
jlm
. To obtain the resulting annual yield effects on municipality level, we multiply
the estimated coefficient (δ) per SCR (S
m
) with the respective WI value (w
jl
).
Selection of covariates. We again use the VR with the coefficient of determination for
mixed models after Piepho [56] to select covariates (Sec. Explanatory power). In this context,
we select a covariate when the VR of M+ 1 is at least -0.5% compared to the baseline model
given in Eq (3). below:
zjkl ¼m
þMlþYjþFkl þ ðMYÞlj þ ðMFÞlk þ ðYFÞjk þejkl ð3Þ
We also compare the models according to the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and
select the covariates if, in addition to a VR >0.5%, they have a smaller AIC value than the base-
line model [57]. To guarantee comparability with the AIC methodology, we follow Faraway
[58] and change the estimation scheme of the mixed linear models from restricted maximum
likelihood (REML) to maximum likelihood (ML). In addition, we also test the variance infla-
tion factor (VIF) to check for multicollinearity. The VIF measures how much the variance of a
regression coefficient is increased due to collinearity. If the VIF exceeds five, the multicolli-
nearity is considerably high, and we reject the covariate [59]. To apply the VIF, we need to
remove the random effects from the models. We list the covariates used in the analyses and
their VR and VIF values in Table C in S1 File.
Results
Explanatory power of heat and drought WIs
In Fig 4, we observe the highest VR for the moderate heat WI during the reproductive phase
with a T
max
above 27˚C (H27_RP, -2.10%), followed by the severe heat WI with a T
max
above
29˚C (H29_RP, -1.64%), and the extreme heat WI with a T
max
above 31˚C (H31_RP, -0.87%).
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 7 / 20
Looking at the heat WIs during the generative phase, the moderate heat WI with a T
max
above
27˚C again shows the highest VR (H27_GP, -0.92%), followed by the severe heat WI
(H29_GP, -0.65%) and the extreme heat WI (H31_GP, -0.30%). During the stem elongation
and booting phase, all heat WIs show comparatively low VR values, where the moderate WI
with a T
max
above 27˚C (H27_SEB) ranks highest (-0.35%), followed by the severe WI with a
T
max
above 29˚C (H29_SEB, 0.08%) and the extreme WI with a T
max
above 31˚C (H31_SEB,
0.02%).
In contrast to the pattern observed for heat WIs, the highest VR is observed for drought
during the stem elongation and booting phase, where the moderate drought WI with PAW
below 50% PAWC (-1.26%; D50_SEB) ranks highest, followed by the severe drought WI with
PAW below 30% PAWC (-0.96%, D30_SEB). In comparison, the extreme drought WI with
PAW below 10% PAWC shows an almost zero VR (-0.03%; D10_SEB). During the reproduc-
tive phase, the severe and extreme drought WIs at PAW below 30% PAWC (D30_GP) and
PAW below 10% PAWC show approximately double the VR (-0.76%, -0,74%) of the moderate
drought WI at PAW below 50% PAWC (D50_RP, -0.34%). For drought stress during the gen-
erative phase, the severe drought WI has the highest VR at PAW below 30% PAWC (D30_GP,
-0.69%), followed by the moderate drought WI at PAW below 50% PAWC (D50_GP,—
0.29%), while the extreme drought WI at PAW below 10% PAWC shows almost no VR
(D10_GP, -0.09%). We list the VR of every WI in Table B in S1 File.
Region-specific effect size and yield effects of heat and drought WIs
Below, we analyze the region-specific effect size and yield effect of the drought WIs during the
stem elongation and booting phase and the heat and drought WIs during the reproductive
phase. As the heat WIs during the stem elongation and booting phase and the heat and
Fig 4. Variance reduction (VR) of the analyzed heat and drought WIs. For WI abbreviations, see Table 1. VR is
calculated based on (Eq (2)).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202.g004
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 8 / 20
drought WIs during the generative phase show almost no explanatory power across all intensi-
ties, we do not further illustrate their regional yield effects. However, we list the model outputs
for all WIs in Tables D-V in S1 File. All model outputs are based on (1).
Drought effects during the stem elongation and booting phase (BBCH 31–50). The
median number of drought days during the stem elongation and booting phase ranges from
3.9 days at PAW below 50% PAWC (i.e., moderate WI) to 0.8 days at PAW below 30% PAWC
(i.e., severe WI), down to 0 days at PAW below 10% PAWC (i.e., extreme WI). Moreover, the
number of drought days is highest in Brandenburg and the northern regions of Lower Saxony
and Saxony-Anhalt, as well as Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg. At the same time, it is the
lowest in the southern regions of Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg (Fig 5A, 5C and 5G).
The Germany-wide median effect size increases with increasing stress intensity and ranges
from -0.18 dt ha
1
day above threshold
1
(<50% PAWC), to -0.24 dt ha
1
day above
threshold
1
(<30% PAWC), down to -2.31 dt ha
1
day above threshold
1
(<10% PAWC). The
moderate and severe WIs both show a north-south gradient in the effect size, with estimated
coefficients being significantly negative in the north and east and positive in the south. In the
west, both WIs show no significant effects in many regions (Fig 5B and 5E). The extreme WI
reveals only three regions in the center of Germany with significant effects and estimated coef-
ficients ranging up to -9.3 dt ha
1
day above threshold
1
.
Drought in the stem elongation and booting phase exhibits the most substantial yield losses
under moderate drought intensities. For the moderate WIs, we observe the highest adverse
Fig 5. Drought stress during the stem elongation and booting phase (SEB, BBCH 31–50) for moderate (<50%
PAWC), severe (<30% PAWC) and extreme (<10% PAWC) stress intensities. Mean occurrence (A, D, G) describes
the average number of days above the respective thresholds between 1995 and 2019 at the municipality level.
Estimated coefficients (B, E, H) describe the WI x SCR regression coefficients of Eq 1 for each SCR. Nonsignificant
values are given in dark gray. Significant values are given in red (negative effect) or blue (positive effect). The
regression coefficients and p-values are displayed in Tables P-R in S1 File.Mean yield effects (C, F, I) describe the
average yield change in dt ha
1
per municipality between 1995 and 2019. The median values below each map refer to
the median of all municipalities’ SCRs with significant effects on the respective index. The maps were reprinted from
[53] under a CC BY license, with permission from [GeoBasis-DE/ BKG], original copyright [2023].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202.g005
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 9 / 20
yield effects (2—5 dt ha
1
) in the north and southeast of Saxony-Anhalt and the predominant
municipalities of Brandenburg. The remaining regions with significantly adverse yield effects
show average yield losses between 0.01 and 2 dt ha
1
. In Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg, we
note yield gains between 0.01 and 2 dt ha
1
(Fig 3C). An increase in intensity from moderate
to severe drought thresholds causes a considerable reduction of the observed number of days
above the threshold (80%) but a minor increase in the effect strength (+33%). Thus, the cap-
tured yield effects are comparably low for severe drought intensities, where we observe the
highest yield losses (2—5 dt ha
1
) in a few municipalities in southwestern Brandenburg and
southeastern and northeastern Saxony-Anhalt. The remaining regions with significant nega-
tive effect strengths reveal yield losses between 0.01—2 dt ha
1
. In central Bavaria and eastern
Baden-Wuerttemberg, yield increases between 0.01—2 dt ha
1
are still prevalent (Fig 5F). As
the number of days above the threshold is zero for extreme drought intensities, yield effects are
also zero for extreme drought during the stem elongation and booting phase.
Drought effects during the reproductive phase (BBCH 51–75). The average number of
drought days during the reproductive phase ranges from 0 to 39. The Germany-wide median
decreases with increasing drought intensities from 14.1 days at PAW below 50% PAWC (i.e.,
moderate WI) to 6.7 days at PAW below 30% PAWC (i.e., severe WI), and down to 1.5 days at
PAW below 10% PAWC (i.e., extreme WI). Most drought days occur in northeastern Ger-
many and the northern regions of Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg, and the fewest drought
days occur in southern Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg (Fig 6A, 6C, 6G).
Fig 6. Drought stress during the reproductive phase (RP, BBCH 51–75) for moderate (<50% PAWC), severe
(<30% PAWC) and extreme (<10% PAWC) intensities. Mean occurrence (A, D, G) describes the average number
of days above the respective thresholds between 1995 and 2019 at the municipality level. Estimated coefficients (B, E,
H) describe the WI x SCR regression coefficients of Eq 1 for each SCR. Nonsignificant values are given in dark gray.
Significant values are given in red (negative effect) or blue (positive effect). The regression coefficients and p values are
displayed in Tables M-O in S1 File.Mean yield effects (C, F, I) describe the average yield change in dt ha
1
per
municipality between 1995 and 2019. The median values below each map refer to the median of all municipalities’
SCRs with significant effects on the respective index. The maps were reprinted from [53] under a CC BY license, with
permission from [GeoBasis-DE/ BKG], original copyright [2023].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202.g006
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 10 / 20
The median effect size increases with increasing intensity (i.e., decreasing PAWC) from
0.09 dt ha
1
day above threshold
1
at PAW below 50% PAWC to 0.19 dt ha
1
day above
threshold
1
at PAW below 30% PAWC and up to 0.36 dt ha
1
day above threshold
1
at PAW
below 10% PAWC. All drought WIs show a similar pattern of region-specific effect size, where
significant adverse yield effects are predominantly seen in the north, east, and southwest (Fig
6A and 6C). The number of regions with significant adverse yield effects increases in the west
and south with increasing intensity. The moderate WI reveals regions with positive effect size
in the south and the northwest. Positive effect sizes with PAW below 10% PAWC occur only in
southern Bavaria (Fig 6H).
In the period from 1995 to 2019, the median yield effects of the moderate and severe
drought WIs are at a similar level (0.4 dt ha
1
) across Germany, while the captured median
yield effect for the extreme WI is 50% lower (0.2 dt ha
1
). Shifting the thresholds from mod-
erate to severe intensity, a decrease in the observed number of days above the threshold
(52%) and a substantial increase in the effect size (+111%) are evident. However, a further
increase from moderate to extreme intensity reduces the number of days above the threshold
(90%), displaying an approximately 50% lower yield loss than moderate or severe stress. In
particular, Saxony-Anhalt, northwestern Bavaria, northeastern Baden-Wuerttemberg, almost
all municipalities in Brandenburg, and parts of Mecklenburg-Western-Pomerania show the
highest average yield losses (-2 to -5 dt ha
1
). The few municipalities with positive yield effects
display yield gains in the range of 24 dt ha
1
for the moderate WI, 0.012 dt ha
1
for the
severe WI and 0 dt ha
1
for the extreme WI.
Heat effects during the reproductive phase (BBCH 51–75). Germany’s mean annual
number of heat days during the reproductive phase ranged from 0 to 9.7 days between 1995
and 2019. The Germany-wide median decreases with increasing heat stress intensity (i.e.,
increasing daily maximum temperature, T
max
) from 4.5 days at T
max
>27˚C (i.e. moderate
WI) to 2.3 days at T
max
>29˚C (i.e., severe WI), and down to 0.8 days at T
max
>31˚C (i.e.,
extreme WI). During the reproductive phase, most heat days occur in eastern and southern
Germany, and the fewest heat days occur along the northern coastline in Schleswig-Holstein
and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (Fig 7A, 7C and 7G).
The median effect sizes increase with increasing intensity from 0.39 dt ha
1
day above
threshold
1
at T
max
>27˚C to 0.73 dt ha
1
day above threshold
1
at T
max
>29˚C and up to
1.1 dt ha
1
day above threshold
1
at T
max
>31˚C. At all heat intensities, the negative effect
size is highest in the northeast and east and is lowest in the southern Germany. With increas-
ing intensity, the regions with significant negative effect sizes increase in the south and west
and decrease in the north. Consequently, the moderate WI reveals regions with nonsignificant
or positive effect sizes in the south and west. In contrast, the severe and extreme WIs show pos-
itive and nonsignificant effect sizes in the north along the coastline (Fig 7B, 7E and 7H).
The median yield effects are strongest for the moderate WI (2.2 dt ha
1
), followed by the
extreme WI (2.0 dt ha
1
), and are lowest for the severe WI (1.4 dt ha
1
). In that regard, a
shift from moderate to severe intensities leads to a subtle drop in the observed number of days
above the threshold (48%) and an increase in the effect size (+87%), whereas a shift from
moderate to extreme intensities leads to a substantial drop in days above the threshold (82%)
and an increase in the effect size (+182%). For all intensities, the largest yield losses appear in
almost all parts of Saxony-Anhalt and Brandenburg (Fig 7C, 7F and 7I). In these regions aver-
age yield losses are greater than 8 dt ha
1
for moderate intensities, between -5 and -8 dt ha
1
for extreme intensities and between 2 and 5 dt ha
1
for severe intensities. The second high-
est yield losses are observed area-wide in Mecklenburg-Western-Pomerania (except on the
coasts), in the northeastern and southern parts of Lower Saxony, in Saxony, and in northwest-
ern Bavaria (2 to 5 dt ha
1
) for the moderate WI. In contrast to the north, large parts of the
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 11 / 20
south (i.e., Bavaria and Baden-Wuerttemberg) show just significantly negative yield effects
with severe (0.1 to 2 dt ha
1
) and extreme (2 to 5 dt ha
1
) intensities.
Discussion
This study investigates the effects of the timing and intensity of heat and drought stress on
wheat yields in Germany using WIs. For this purpose, we first study the VR of all 18 WIs to
determine differences in explanatory power. Second, we analyze the region-specific effect sizes
of the various WIs and identify local yield effects at the municipality level.
Differences in explanatory power due to timing and intensity
During the reproductive phase, heat WIs generally help better explain wheat yields than
drought WIs. However, this pattern is reversed during the stem elongation and booting phase,
which is consistent with the findings of previous studies [20,31,52]. For heat WIs during the
reproductive phase, a moderate stress intensity helps to explain heat-induced yield changes
better than severe and extreme stress intensities. In contrast, several studies report especially
strong yield effects caused by short-term, extremely high temperature stress [22,6064]. Nev-
ertheless, the findings of Ben-Ari et al. [27] and Bucheli et al. [16] confirm that moderate but
long-lasting and spatially uniform heat stress helps explain wheat yields in France and eastern
Germany better than short-lived regional extremes.
Fig 7. Heat stress during the reproductive phase (RP, BBCH 51–75) for moderate (T
max
>27˚C), severe (T
max
>
29˚C) and extreme (T
max
>31˚C) intensities. Mean occurrence (A, D, G) describes the average number of days
above the respective thresholds between 1995 and 2019 at the municipality level. Estimated coefficients (B, E, H)
describe the WI x SCR regression coefficients of Eq 1 for each SCR. Nonsignificant values are given in dark gray.
Significant values are given in red (negative effect) or blue (positive effect). The regression coefficients and p values are
displayed in Tables G-I in S1 File.Mean yield effects (C, F, I) describe the average yield change in dt ha
1
per
municipality between 1995 and 2019. The median values below each map refer to the median of all municipalities’
SCRs with significant effects of the respective index. The maps were reprinted from [53] under a CC BY license, with
permission from [GeoBasis-DE/ BKG], original copyright [2023].
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202.g007
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 12 / 20
Furthermore, during the stem elongation and booting phase, drought WIs have the highest
explanatory power at moderate intensities. However, during the reproductive phase, severe
and extreme drought have the highest explanatory power, which is in line with te results of
previous studies [31,6567]. Hence, we confirm the findings from Le Gouis et al. [7] and
Makinen et al. [66], which emphasize early-season droughts as particularly harmful in central
Europe, where the intensity is already moderate. We also confirm the findings of Sarto et al.
[68] and Schmitt et al. [14] who reported anthesis and grain filling as the most sensitive phases
to heat and drought, as stress intensities increase during these phases.
Apparent differences between heat and drought stress are visible when comparing the
effects of stress timing, i.e., during the generative vs. reproductive phase. The late growth
phase from milk ripening to hard dough, which is excluded from the reproductive phase but
included in the generative phase, is of limited relevance for yield formation. Drought stress
can contribute to the ripening process in this late phenological phase and hence has no adverse
yield effects. Thus, the explanatory power of the stress WI is higher during the reproductive
phase than during the generative phase. Also, for the heat WIs during the generative phase, the
explanatory power is two to three times higher when we restrict the observed period to the
reproductive phase. Various studies confirm these findings and explicitly find a yield effect
only during the reproductive phase [17,20,52]. Hadasch et al. [32] even found positive yield
effects due to drought toward the end of the growth period for wheat in Germany.
The explanatory power of all tested WIs is small, with a maximum VR of -2.1%. In compari-
son, in Bo¨necke et al. [31], similar WIs displayed a VR of up to 25%. The difference from our
study is that Bo¨necke et al. [31] analyze experimental data from 43 German experimental sites
obtained between 1953 and 2006. Compared to our on-farm data at the municipality level,
these experimental data can better reduce external effects that influence variance for two rea-
sons: First, the point-based yield data can be linked with the respective weather and soil data
with higher local resolution. Second, experimental data are obtained under rather constant
and standardized management conditions. Hence, experimental data can better isolate the
individual effect of WIs than our on-farm yield data from more than 10,000 practical farms,
which are influenced by unknown factors related to local agronomic practices [26,33].
Regional yield impacts of timing and intensity
At the national level, our results reveal higher adverse yield effects due to heat than due to
drought. This is confirmed by the findings of Lu¨ttger & Feike, Trnka et al. and Zampieri et al.
[13,23,69], who underline that heat plays a more substantial role than drought in the late
growing period in Germany and Central Europe. Additionally, Semenov & Shewry [70]
reported a higher risk due to heat than drought during flowering in northern Europe, as wheat
matures earlier with climate change, avoiding extreme drought stress. In contrast, Schmitt
et al. [14] described extreme drought as the main driver of yield losses in Germany during the
reproductive phase, whereas the effect of extreme heat was not significant in their analysis.
However, Schmitt et al. [14] considered only very extreme heat stress events, while we investi-
gated moderate, severe and extreme WIs for each SCRs individually. Our approach reveals
great regional differences regarding heat- and drought-related yield effects.
In that regard, the heat and drought stress-induced yield effects in our study are a function
of the number of days above the threshold and the statistical effect size (i.e., estimated coeffi-
cient) of the SCR. The analysis reveals that the municipalities in Brandenburg, Saxony-Anhalt,
and in northwestern Bavaria consistently show the most days above the threshold and the
highest effect size per day above the threshold. Consequently, these regions display the highest
yield losses with heat and drought stress off all intensities and timings, which is also in line
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 13 / 20
with the findings of other studies [13,14]. Our analysis reveals that a higher stress intensity
generally accompanies (1) fewer days above the threshold and (2) a larger effect size per day
above the threshold. However, there are considerable variations in the response of these two
parameters. Hence, an increase in intensity leads to regionally very distinct yield effects. For
example, for heat in the reproductive phase, we see almost twice as many days above the
threshold in the south compared with the north at all intensities. However, we still observe
much stronger adverse yield effects in the north and the east than in the south. Several studies
also confirm regional variations in heat-induced yield effects. In that regard, Zampieri et al.
[23] found varying yield effects for similar heat intensities at national and global levels. Addi-
tionally, Dreccer et al. [28] show that low temperatures reduce yields in western Australia,
while the opposite trend dominates in norther and southern Australia.
For drought in the reproductive phase, we find relatively linear relationships between
the number of days above the threshold, effect size, and yield loss. As a result, a few days
above the threshold, such as in the south and west, is associated with the smallest effect size
and yield losses, while in the north and east, a large number of days above the threshold
accompanies large effect sizes and the highest yield losses. However, during the stem elon-
gation and booting phase, we can see considerable regional differences in the magnitude of
the effect size and yield effect. Thus, we observe a few days above the threshold and a large
effect size in the north but not in the south. Lu¨ttger & Feike [13] also revealed spatial differ-
ences in drought-induced yield effects and showed that drought stress increases yield vari-
ability in northeastern and eastern Germany. In contrast, southern Germany is consistently
spared from yield-altering drought stress. Additionally, Ben-Ari et al. [27] illustrate how
identical heat and drought WIs show opposite effects in France compared to Spain. They
highlight that heat and drought effects differ significantly at global, national, and subna-
tional levels.
There are several explanations regarding the regionally differing yield effects due to similar
WI occurrences. First, there are reasons for natural region-specific differences in resistance to
heat and drought stress that are associated with soil properties. While the simulated soil mois-
ture data consider soil texture for deriving current plant available water, Mueller et al. and
Trnka et al. [71,72] highlight that during drought, light soils and the associated low soil water
storage capacity exacerbate water stress-induced yield variations, while heavy soils may better
buffer against drought stress. Furthermore, regarding heat effects, soil temperature is decisive
for the yield formation of the plant [73]. Soil temperature alters the rate of organic matter
decomposition and mineralization of different organic materials and soil water content, con-
ductivity, and availability to plants [73,74]. Soil temperature, in turn, is influenced by a wide
variety of local parameters such as soil color, vegetative cover, soil mulch, the slope of the land
surface, organic matter content, evaporation, solar radiation, and their interactions, and can
therefore vary considerably by region [25,74].
For the interpretation of our results, additional aspects may be considered. For example,
Siebert et al. [25] discuss how the above described regionally differing yield effects of the same
WI is challenging to explain from a crop physiological perspective. They emphasize that the
effect of a specific WI may be influenced by (i.e., correlated with) other variables not consid-
ered in the regression analysis. This is highlighted by our results on the positive yield effects of
moderate drought conditions in southern Germany. Here, the drought WI represents a proxy
for a season that is not too wet, leading to drought-related yield increases in the south. In that
regard, Schmitt et al. [14] show that heavy rainfall and water excess are yield-limiting factors
in southern Germany, while excessively wet conditions hardly occur in northern Germany.
Additionally, the heat WIs comprise other weather conditions such as drier conditions with
higher incident radiation. This is supported by findings from Rezaei et al. [75], who found no
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 14 / 20
heat-related yield changes in wheat, when drought stress was fully controlled. In addition,
weather conditions during the growing season before or after the timing of the WIs may influ-
ence their yield effect. For example, Siebert et al. [25] and Taraz [64] emphasize that moderate
stress can be (ultimately) compensated for, especially in early growth phases, if growth condi-
tions are favorable over the rest of the growing season. In contrast, compensation in later
growth phases around flowering is no longer possible in wheat, and the individual weather
effect carries a more substantial weight. Additionally, compound weather events impacted spa-
tial differences in our study, as dry and hot conditions often co-occur. For instance, the
extreme 2003, 2010, and 2018 heatwaves accompanied strong drought events in central Europe
[76]. Many studies highlight that the compound effects between heat and drought lead to
more substantial yield losses than their isolated effects [23,26,7681]. Hence, compound
effects might occur only in some regions, whereas in other regions, only the isolated weather
event effect shows an impact. Furthermore, individual farm management practices, which
impact weather-yield relations, could not be considered in our analysis due to the lack of
related data. Jones et al. [82] highlight the lack of precise knowledge of farm management prac-
tices influencing the effects of heat and drought stress, and Albers et al. and Bo¨necke et al. [31,
33] stress that individual farm management practices affect yield variation by more than 50%.
In that regard, Macholdt & Honermeier [83] emphasize nitrate fertilization, crop rotation, and
weather extremes as the most important factors influencing yield variations. Furthermore, sev-
eral studies have identified plant breeding as having a primary influence on heat and drought
stress-induced yield losses [26,32,66]. Breeding progress alters the timing of crop develop-
mental phases [84], resource use efficiency, including water use efficiency [85], and resistance
levels against biotic [9] and abiotic stress [72]. However, Albers et al. [33] highlight that
detailed information on inputs would rarely alter the results in a qualitative manner, but most
likely quantitatively. Finally [86] stress that interpolated weather data carry the risk of spatial
autocorrelation, as errors might propagate from one grid cell to the next, resulting in signifi-
cantly larger standard errors, which might affect the WI’s effect sizes. Thus, Mo¨ller et al. [29]
suggest the considering local accuracy metrics, which enable a spatiotemporal quantification
of interpolation errors.
Conclusion
Building on a vast on-farm yield data set, we analyzed the effects of heat and drought on wheat
yields in Germany. We specifically analyzed i) differences in explanatory power between the
timing and intensity of heat and drought WIs and ii) regional differences in heat- and
drought-related yield effects of winter wheat. In that regard, our mixed linear model analysis
reveals the highest explanatory power for moderate heat WIs during the reproductive phase
and for moderate drought WIs during the stem elongation and booting phase. Heat stress
shows only limited relevance during the stem elongation and booting phase. Moreover, we
find higher explanatory power when the yield-sensitive periods are defined more precisely
(i.e., reproductive phase vs. generative phase). In addition, we find large regional differences in
heat and drought stress-related yield effects in winter wheat. Across all WIs, we identify the
strongest heat- and drought-related yield losses in the northeast and east. However, similar
occurrences of heat and drought stress intensities caused much lower yield losses in other
regions. Potential reasons for this finding include region- or farm-specific impacts such as
genetic (G) differences (e.g., different crop varieties), environmental (E) influences (e.g., soil
type) and differences in crop management (M) (e.g., sowing date). Therefore, further studies
should specifically analyze G x E x M effects and respective regional interactions when analyz-
ing crop–climate relations.
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 15 / 20
Supporting information
S1 File.
(DOCX)
S1 Data.
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
We thank the German Weather Service (DWD) for providing the weather station and soil
moisture data.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Ludwig Riedesel, Markus Mo¨ller, Til Feike.
Data curation: Ludwig Riedesel.
Formal analysis: Ludwig Riedesel.
Investigation: Ludwig Riedesel.
Methodology: Ludwig Riedesel, Hans-Peter Piepho.
Project administration: Til Feike.
Software: Peter Horney.
Supervision: Burkhard Golla, Timo Kautz, Til Feike.
Visualization: Ludwig Riedesel.
Writing original draft: Ludwig Riedesel.
Writing review & editing: Ludwig Riedesel, Markus Mo¨ller, Burkhard Golla, Hans-Peter
Piepho, Timo Kautz, Til Feike.
References
1. Biel W, Kazimierska K, Bashutska U. Nutritional value of wheat, triticale, barley and oat grains. Acta
Scientiarum Polonorum Zootechnica. 2020; 19(2):19–28. https://doi.org/10.21005/asp.2020.19.2.03
2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAOSTAT Database: Crops and live-
stock products; 2022. Available from: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL.
3. Shiferaw B, Smale M, Braun HJ, Duveiller E, Reynolds M, Muricho G. Crops that feed the world 10.
Past successes and future challenges to the role played by wheat in global food security. Food Security.
2013; 5(3):291–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-013-0263-y
4. Bennetzen EH, Smith P, Porter JR. Decoupling of greenhouse gas emissions from global agricultural
production: 1970-2050. Global change biology. 2016; 22(2):763–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.
13120 PMID: 26451699
5. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Food and Agriculture Organi-
zation of the United Nations (FAO). OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2021-2030; 2021. Available from:
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/publication/19428846-en.
6. Riedesel L, Laidig F, Hadasch S, Rentel D, Hackauf B, Piepho HP, et al. Breeding progress reduces
carbon footprints of wheat and rye. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2022; 377:134326. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134326
7. Le Gouis J, Oury FX, Charmet G. How changes in climate and agricultural practices influenced wheat
production in Western Europe. Journal of Cereal Science. 2020; 93:102960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcs.2020.102960
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 16 / 20
8. Brisson N, Gate P, Gouache D, Charmet G, Oury FX, Huard F. Why are wheat yields stagnating in
Europe? A comprehensive data analysis for France. Field Crops Research. 2010; 119(1):201–212.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2010.07.012
9. Laidig F, Feike T, Klocke B, Macholdt J, Miedaner T, Rentel D, et al. Long-term breeding progress of
yield, yield-related, and disease resistance traits in five cereal crops of German variety trials. TAG Theo-
retical and Applied Genetics Theoretische Und Angewandte Genetik. 2021; 134(12):3805–3827.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-021-03929-5 PMID: 34652455
10. Zetzsche H, Friedt W, Ordon F. Breeding progress for pathogen resistance is a second major driver for
yield increase in German winter wheat at contrasting N levels. Scientific Reports. 2020; 10(1):20374.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77200-0 PMID: 33230232
11. Agnolucci P, de Lipsis V. Long-run trend in agricultural yield and climatic factors in Europe. Climatic
Change. 2020; 159(3):385–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02622-3
12. Gornott C, Wechsung F. Statistical regression models for assessing climate impacts on crop yields: A
validation study for winter wheat and silage maize in Germany. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology.
2016; 217:89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2015.10.005
13. Lu¨ttger AB, Feike T. Development of heat and drought related extreme weather events and their effect
on winter wheat yields in Germany. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 2018; 132(1-2):15–29. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00704-017-2076-y
14. Schmitt J, Offermann F, So
¨der M, Fru¨hauf C, Finger R. Extreme weather events cause significant crop
yield losses at the farm level in German agriculture. Food Policy. 2022; 112:102359. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.foodpol.2022.102359
15. Vroege W, Bucheli J, Dalhaus T, Hirschi M, Finger R. Insuring crops from space: the potential of satel-
lite-retrieved soil moisture to reduce farmers’ drought risk exposure. European Review of Agricultural
Economics. 2021; 48(2):266–314. https://doi.org/10.1093/erae/jbab010
16. Bucheli J, Dalhaus T, Finger R. Temperature effects on crop yields in heat index insurance. Food Pol-
icy. 2022; 107:102214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102214
17. Farooq M, Bramley H, Palta JA, Siddique KHM. Heat Stress in Wheat during Reproductive and Grain-
Filling Phases. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 2011; 30(6):491–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/
07352689.2011.615687
18. Farooq M, Hussain M, Siddique KHM. Drought Stress in Wheat during Flowering and Grain-filling Peri-
ods. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences. 2014; 33(4):331–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2014.
875291
19. Hlavinka P, Trnka M, Semera
´dova
´D, Dubrovsky
´M, Z
ˇalud Z, Moz
ˇny
´M. Effect of drought on yield vari-
ability of key crops in Czech Republic. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2009; 149(3-4):431–442.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2008.09.004
20. Hlava
´čova
´M, Klem K, Rapantova
´B, Novotna
´K, Urban O, Hlavinka P, et al. Interactive effects of high
temperature and drought stress during stem elongation, anthesis and early grain filling on the yield for-
mation and photosynthesis of winter wheat. Field Crops Research. 2018; 221:182–195. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.fcr.2018.02.022
21. Lobell DB, Hammer GL, Chenu K, Zheng B, McLean G, Chapman SC. The shifting influence of drought
and heat stress for crops in northeast Australia. Global change biology. 2015; 21(11):4115–4127.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13022 PMID: 26152643
22. Luo Q. Temperature thresholds and crop production: a review. Climatic Change. 2011; 109(3-4):583–
598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0028-6
23. Zampieri M, Ceglar A, Dentener F, Toreti A. Wheat yield loss attributable to heat waves, drought and
water excess at the global, national and subnational scales. Environmental Research Letters. 2017; 12
(6). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa723b
24. Simpson NP, Mach KJ, Constable A, Hess J, Hogarth R, Howden M, et al. A framework for complex cli-
mate change risk assessment. One Earth. 2021; 4(4):489–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.
03.005
25. Siebert S, Webber H, Rezaei EE. Weather impacts on crop yields—searching for simple answers to a
complex problem. Environmental Research Letters. 2017; 12(8):081001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-
9326/aa7f15
26. Zampieri M, Ceglar A, Dentener F, Toreti A. Understanding and reproducing regional diversity of climate
impacts on wheat yields: current approaches, challenges and data driven limitations. 1748-9326. 2018;
13(2):021001.
27. Ben-Ari T, Adrian J, Klein T, Calanca P, van der Velde M, Makowski D. Identifying indicators for extreme
wheat and maize yield losses. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2016; 220:130–140. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.01.009
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 17 / 20
28. Dreccer MF, Fainges J, Whish J, Ogbonnaya FC, Sadras VO. Comparison of sensitive stages of wheat,
barley, canola, chickpea and field pea to temperature and water stress across Australia. Agricultural
and Forest Meteorology. 2018; 248:275–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2017.10.006
29. Mo
¨ller M, Doms J, Gerstmann H, Feike T. A framework for standardized calculation of weather indices
in Germany. Theoretical and Applied Climatology. 2019; 136(1-2):377–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00704-018-2473-x
30. Vogel E, Donat MG, Alexander LV, Meinshausen M, Ray DK, Karoly D, et al. The effects of climate
extremes on global agricultural yields. 1748-9326. 2019; 14(5):054010.
31. Bo
¨necke E, Breitsameter L, Bru¨ggemann N, Chen TW, Feike T, Kage H, et al. Decoupling of impact fac-
tors reveals the response of German winter wheat yields to climatic changes. Global change biology.
2020; 26(6):3601–3626. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15073 PMID: 32154969
32. Hadasch S, Laidig F, Macholdt J, Bo
¨necke E, Piepho HP. Trends in mean performance and stability of
winter wheat and winter rye yields in a long-term series of variety trials. Field Crops Research. 2020;
252:107792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2020.107792
33. Albers H, Gornott C, Hu¨ttel S. How do inputs and weather drive wheat yield volatility? The example of
Germany. Food Policy. 2017; 70:50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2017.05.001
34. Conradt S, Finger R, Spo¨rri M. Flexible weather index-based insurance design. Climate Risk Manage-
ment. 2015; 10:106–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2015.06.003
35. Kapphan I, Calanca P, Holzkaemper A. Climate Change, Weather Insurance Design and Hedging
Effectiveness. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice. 2012; 37(2):286–317.
https://doi.org/10.1057/gpp.2012.8
36. Dalhaus T, Musshoff O, Finger R. Phenology Information Contributes to Reduce Temporal Basis Risk
in Agricultural Weather Index Insurance. Scientific reports. 2018; 8(1):46. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-017-18656-5 PMID: 29311587
37. Beillouin D, Schauberger B, Bastos A, Ciais P, Makowski D. Impact of extreme weather conditions on
European crop production in 2018. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B,
Biological sciences. 2020; 375(1810):20190510. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0510 PMID:
32892735
38. Tricker PJ, ElHabti A, Schmidt J, Fleury D. The physiological and genetic basis of combined drought
and heat tolerance in wheat. Journal of Experimental Botany. 2018; 69(13):3195–3210. https://doi.org/
10.1093/jxb/ery081 PMID: 29562265
39. Ray DK, Gerber JS, MacDonald GK, West PC. Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield var-
iability. Nature communications. 2015; 6:5989. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms6989 PMID: 25609225
40. Ben-Ari T, Boe
´J, Ciais P, Lecerf R, van der Velde M, Makowski D. Causes and implications of the
unforeseen 2016 extreme yield loss in the breadbasket of France. Nature Communications. 2018; 9
(1):1627. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04087-x PMID: 29691405
41. Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL). Buchfu¨hrung der Testbetriebe: Grundlagen zur BMEL
—Testbetriebsbuchfu¨hrung; 2018. Available from: https://www.bmel-statistik.de/fileadmin/daten/BFB-
0114001-2018.pdf.
42. German Weather Service (DWD). Historische ta¨gliche Stationsbeobachtungen: (Temperatur, Druck,
Niederschlag, Sonnenscheindauer, etc.) fu¨rDeutschland; 2021. Available from: cdc.dwd.de/portal.
43. German Weather Service (DWD). Dokumentation AMBAV 2.0; 2021. Available from: https://www.dwd.
de/DE/fachnutzer/landwirtschaft/dokumentationen/allgemein/ambav-20_doku.html?nn=732680.
44. Kaspar F, Zimmermann K, Polte-Rudolf C. An overview of the phenological observation network and
the phenological database of Germany’s national meteorological service (Deutscher Wetterdienst). In:
Advances in Science and Research. Copernicus GmbH; 2015. p. 93–99. Available from: https://asr.
copernicus.org/articles/11/93/2014/.
45. Gerstmann H, Doktor D, Gla
¨ßer C, Mo
¨ller M. PHASE: A geostatistical model for the Kriging-based spa-
tial prediction of crop phenology using public phenological and climatological observations. Computers
and Electronics in Agriculture. 2016; 127:726–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2016.07.032
46. Siebert S, Ewert F. Spatio-temporal patterns of phenological development in Germany in relation to
temperature and day length. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2012; 152:44–57. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agrformet.2011.08.007
47. Mo
¨ller M, Boutarfa L, Strassemeyer J. PhenoWin—An R Shiny application for visualization and extrac-
tion of phenological windows in Germany. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 2020; 175:105534.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105534
48. Mo
¨ller M, Gerstmann H, Gao F, Dahms TC, Fo
¨rster M. Coupling of phenological information and simu-
lated vegetation index time series: Limitations and potentials for the assessment and monitoring of soil
erosion risk. CATENA. 2017; 150:192–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2016.11.016
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 18 / 20
49. Federal Institute for Geosciences and Natural Resources (BGR). Nutzungsdifferenzierte Bodenu¨ber-
sichtskarte der Bundesrepublik Deutschland: BU
¨K 1000 N; 2007. Available from: https://www.bgr.bund.
de/DE/Themen/Boden/Informationsgrundlagen/Bodenkundliche_Karten_Datenbanken/BUEK1000/
buek1000_node.html.
50. Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy (BKG). Dokumentation: Digitaes Basis-Landschaftsmo-
dell: ATKIS-Objektartenkatalog Basis-DLM; 2018.
51. Dalhaus T, Finger R. Can Gridded Precipitation Data and Phenological Observations Reduce Basis
Risk of Weather Index–Based Insurance? Weather, Climate, and Society. 2016; 8(4):409–419. https://
doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-16-0020.1
52. Wollenweber B, Porter JR, Schellberg J. Lack of Interaction between Extreme High-Temperature
Events at Vegetative and Reproductive Growth Stages in Wheat. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Sci-
ence. 2003; 189(3):142–150. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-037X.2003.00025.x
53. Federal Agency for Cartography and Geodesy (BKG). NUTS-Gebiete: NUTS5000; 2023. Available
from: https://gdz.bkg.bund.de/index.php/default/open-data/nuts-gebiete-1-5-000-000-stand-31-12-
nuts5000-31-12.html.
54. Steduto P, Hsiao TC, Raes D, Fereres E. AquaCrop—The FAO Crop Model to Simulate Yield
Response to Water: I. Concepts and Underlying Principles. Agronomy Journal. 2009; 101(3):426–437.
https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj2008.0139s
55. Roßberg D, Michel V, Graf R, Neukampf R. Definition von Boden-Klima-Ra
¨umen fu¨r die Bundesrepu-
blik Deutschland; 2007. Available from: https://www.openagrar.de/receive/openagrar_mods_
00056830.
56. Piepho HP. A coefficient of determination (R2) for generalized linear mixed models. Biometrical journal
Biometrische Zeitschrift. 2019; 61(4):860–872. PMID: 30957911
57. Akaike Htrotugu. Maximum likelihood identification of Gaussian autoregressive moving average mod-
els. Biometrika. 1973; 60(2):255–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/60.2.255
58. Faraway JJ. Extending the linear model with R: generalized linear, mixed effects and nonparametric
regression models. Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2016.
59. Sheather S. A Modern Approach to Regression with R. SpringerLink Bu¨cher. New York, NY: Springer
New York; 2009.
60. Asseng S, Foster IAN, Turner NC. The impact of temperature variability on wheat yields. Global change
biology. 2011; 17(2):997–1012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02262.x
61. Dias AS, Lidon FC. Evaluation of Grain Filling Rate and Duration in Bread and Durum Wheat, under
Heat Stress after Anthesis. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 2009; 195(2):137–147. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2008.00347.x
62. Ferris R. Effect of High Temperature Stress at Anthesis on Grain Yield and Biomass of Field-grown
Crops of Wheat. Annals of Botany. 1998; 82(5):631–639. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1998.0740
63. Tashiro T, Wardlaw IF. The Response to High Temperature Shock and Humidity Changes Prior to and
During the Early Stages of Grain Development in Wheat. Functional Plant Biology. 1990; 17(5):551.
https://doi.org/10.1071/PP9900551
64. Taraz V. Can farmers adapt to higher temperatures? Evidence from India. World Development. 2018;
112:205–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.08.006
65. Kato Y, Kamoshita A, Yamagishi J. Preflowering Abortion Reduces Spikelet Number in Upland Rice
(Oryza sativa L.) under Water Stress. Crop Science. 2008; 48(6):2389–2395. https://doi.org/10.2135/
cropsci2007.11.0627
66. Ma
¨kinen H, Kaseva J, Trnka M, Balek J, Kersebaum KC, Nendel C, et al. Sensitivity of European wheat
to extreme weather. Field Crops Research. 2018; 222:209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.11.
008
67. Varga B, Vida G, Varga-La
´szlo
´E, Bencze S, Veisz O. Effect of Simulating Drought in Various Pheno-
phases on the Water Use Efficiency of Winter Wheat. Journal of Agronomy and Crop Science. 2015;
201(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12087
68. Sarto MVM, Sarto JRW, Rampim L, Rosset JS, Bassegio D, da Costa PF, et al. Wheat phenology and
yield under drought: a review. Australian Journal of Crop Science. 2017; 11(8):941–946. https://doi.org/
10.21475/ajcs.17.11.08.pne351
69. Trnka M, Bra
´zdil R, Olesen JE, Eitzinger J, Zahradnı
´ček P, Kocma
´nkova
´E, et al. Could the changes in
regional crop yields be a pointer of climatic change? Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. 2012; 166-
167:62–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.05.020
70. Semenov MA, Shewry PR. Modelling predicts that heat stress, not drought, will increase vulnerability
of wheat in Europe. Scientific Reports. 2011; 1(1):66. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00066 PMID:
22355585
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 19 / 20
71. Mueller L, Schindler U, Shepherd T, Ball B, Smolentseva E, Pachikin K, et al. In: Mueller L, Saparov A,
Lischeid G, editors. The Muencheberg Soil Quality Rating for assessing the quality of global farmland.
Springer International; 2014. p. 235–248.
72. Trnka M, Ro
¨tter RP, Ruiz-Ramos M, Kersebaum KC, Olesen JE, Z
ˇalud Z, et al. Adverse weather condi-
tions for European wheat production will become more frequent with climate change. Nature Climate
Change. 2014; 4(7):637–643. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2242
73. Mondal S, Ghosal S, Barua R. Impact of elevated soil and air temperature on plants growth, yield and
physiological interaction: a critical review. Scientia Agriculturae. 2016; 14(3).
74. Onwuka BM. Effects of soil temperature on some soil properties and plant growth. Scholarly Journal of
Agricultural Science. 2016; 6(3):89–93.
75. Rezaei EE, Siebert S, Manderscheid R, Mu¨ller J, Mahrookashani A, Ehrenpfordt B, et al. Quantifying
the response of wheat yields to heat stress: The role of the experimental setup. Field Crops Research.
2018; 217:93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.12.015
76. Ribeiro AFS, Russo A, Gouveia CM, Pa
´scoa P, Zscheischler J. Risk of crop failure due to compound
dry and hot extremes estimated with nested copulas. Biogeosciences. 2020; 17(19):4815–4830.
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-17-4815-2020
77. Lesk C, Coffel E, Winter J, Ray D, Zscheischler J, Seneviratne SI, et al. Stronger temperature–moisture
couplings exacerbate the impact of climate warming on global crop yields. Nature Food. 2021; 2
(9):683–691. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00341-6 PMID: 37117467
78. Lobell DB, Ba
¨nziger M, Magorokosho C, Vivek B. Nonlinear heat effects on African maize as evidenced
by historical yield trials. Nature Climate Change. 2011; 1(1):42–45. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nclimate1043
79. Lobell DB, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Sci-
ence (New York, NY). 2011; 333(6042):616–620. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204531 PMID:
21551030
80. Lobell DB, Sibley A, Ivan Ortiz-Monasterio J. Extreme heat effects on wheat senescence in India.
Nature Climate Change. 2012; 2(3):186–189. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1356
81. Zscheischler J, Westra S, van den Hurk BJJM, Seneviratne SI, Ward PJ, Pitman A, et al. Future climate
risk from compound events. Nature Climate Change. 2018; 8(6):469–477. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41558-018-0156-3
82. Jones JW, Antle JM, Basso B, Boote KJ, Conant RT, Foster I, et al. Toward a new generation of agricul-
tural system data, models, and knowledge products: State of agricultural systems science. Agricultural
Systems. 2017; 155:269–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.09.021 PMID: 28701818
83. Macholdt J, Honermeier B. Stability analysis for grain yield of winter wheat in a long-term field experi-
ment. Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science. 2019; 65(5):686–699. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03650340.2018.1520979
84. Olesen JE, Børgesen CD, Elsgaard L, Palosuo T, Ro
¨tter RP, Skjelvåg AO, et al. Changes in time of
sowing, flowering and maturity of cereals in Europe under climate change. Food additives & contami-
nants Part A, Chemistry, analysis, control, exposure & risk assessment. 2012; 29(10):1527–1542.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2012.712060 PMID: 22934894
85. Snowdon RJ, Wittkop B, Chen TW, Stahl A. Crop adaptation to climate change as a consequence of
long-term breeding. TAG Theoretical and Applied Genetics Theoretische Und Angewandte Genetik.
2021; 134(6):1613–1623. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-020-03729-3 PMID: 33221941
86. Auffhammer M, Hsiang SM, Schlenker W, Sobel A. Using Weather Data and Climate Model Output in
Economic Analyses of Climate Change. 2013;(19087).
PLOS ONE
Timing and intensity of heat and drought stress determine wheat yield losses in Germany
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288202 July 25, 2023 20 / 20
... The inclusion of the duration of the four stages as independent variables in the RF3 model ( Fig. 1) aims to capture the influence of stress duration (water stress or high temperature) in each stage (Hu et al., 2023;Ge et al., 2012). The important aspects of water and/or temperature stress include intensity of stress, timing of stress, and duration of stress (Riedesel et al., 2023;Cavus et al., 2023). The intensity can be captured by rainfall data combined with radiation, temperature, and soil depth, all of which are included in the training of the RF3. ...
Article
Context: Accurately projecting crop yields under climate change is essential for understanding potential impacts and planning of agricultural adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Crop growth models and machine learning (ML) are often used, but their effectiveness is limited by data availability, precision, and geographic coverage in SSA. Objective: This study aimed to integrate ML with a process-based crop model to produce geographically continuous gridded crop yield projections while reducing uncertainties associated with standalone ML or crop growth models. As a case study, we implemented it to project the climate change impact on water-limited po�tential yield of maize across SSA. Methods: We developed an integrated system that combines ML with eco-physiological processes to estimate sowing dates and thermal times, ensuring that crop phenology is accounted for, thus improving potential rainfed yield simulations under varying environmental conditions. Random Forest and crop model-based algorithms are integrated in three steps: (i) RF1, a Random Forest model integrated with a sowing algorithm, designed to es�timate the sowing window and sowing date; (ii) RF2, a Random Forest model combined with a crop model algorithm to estimate cumulative thermal time during the growing season, used to determine the timing of phenological stages; and (iii) RF3, another Random Forest model, trained based on eco-physiological principles applied in phases (i) and (ii), employed to simulate water-limited potential yield. The outcomes of the different steps of the framework under historical conditions were tested against reported data across SSA. Results and conclusions: For maize and historical climatic conditions, the framework delivers yields which differ less than 20 % of those simulated with a crop model with high-quality inputs, in 95 % of the cases. Our approach thus shows value for generating crop yield projections in data-scarce regions under historical climate, and under future climatic conditions which already feature today somewhere in SSA and for which the framework has been trained. Significance: Our approach can also be applied to other major food crops in SSA, under both current and climate change conditions. It allows testing the effect of adaptation of crop cultivars in terms of maturity group. Thus, it can be used for different crops and with far less data requirements compared to process-based crop models. It has the potential for significant applications in assessing climate change impacts, guiding adaptation strategies, and supporting crop breeding programmes and policymaking efforts in SSA.
... The impacts of SM droughts vary significantly with duration, intensity and timing within the year (Riedesel et al., 2023;Sippel et al., 2018). Furthermore, impacts of SM droughts depend on the considered soil depth, leading to different effects on shallow-rooted vegetation compared to deep-rooted vegetation (grasslands and agricultural land vs. forests) (Fu et al., 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Global warming is altering soil moisture (SM) droughts in Europe with a strong drying trend projected in the Mediterranean and wetting trends projected in Scandinavia. Central Europe, including Germany, lies in a transitional zone showing weaker and diverging change signals exposing the region to uncertainties. The recent extreme drought years in Germany, which resulted in multi‐sectoral impacts accounting to combined drought and heat damages of 35 billion Euros and large scale forest losses, underline the relevance of studying future changes in SM droughts. To analyze the projected SM drought changes and associated uncertainties in Germany, we utilize a large ensemble of 57 bias‐adjusted and spatially disaggregated regional climate model simulations to run the hydrologic model mHM at a high spatial resolution of approximately 1.2 km. We show that projections of future changes in soil moisture droughts over Germany depend on the emission scenario, the soil depth and the timing during the vegetation growing period. Most robust and widespread increases in soil moisture drought intensities are projected for upper soil layers in the late growing season (July–September) under the high emission scenario. There are greater uncertainties in the changes in soil moisture droughts in the early vegetation growing period (April–June). We find stronger imprints of changes in meteorological drivers controlling the spatial disparities of SM droughts than regional diversity in physio‐geographic landscape properties. Our study provides nuanced insights into SM drought changes for an important climatic transition zone and is therefore relevant for regions with similar transitions.
... The higher volatility of combined crop yields in North-Eastern and Eastern Germany compared with other regions agrees with other studies (Albers et al 2017, Lüttger andFeike 2018). It has been related to comparatively high levels of drought and heat stress and their interaction with regional soil characteristics, i.e. the dominance of light sandy soils with low water holding capacity (Webber et al 2020, Schmitt et al 2022, Riedesel et al 2023. The relatively high area share of rapeseed (supplementary material figure A3(C)), which had a higher yield variance compared to wheat or barley (supplementary material figure A1(C)), likely contributed to the higher yield volatilities (Rondanini et al 2012). ...
Article
Full-text available
Recent evidence suggests a stabilizing effect of crop diversity on agricultural production. However, different methods are used for assessing these effects and there is little systematic quantitative evidence on diversification benefits. The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between volatility of combined crop yields (denoted as standard deviation) and diversity (denoted as Shannon’s Evenness Index SEI) for standardized yield data of major crop species grown in Germany between 1977 and 2018 (winter wheat, winter barley, silage maize and winter rapeseed) at the county level. Portfolio theory was used to estimate the optimal crop area share for minimizing yield volatility. On average, results indicated a weak negative relationship between volatility and the SEI during the past decades for the case of Germany. Optimizing crop area shares for minimizing volatility reduced yield variance on average by 24% but was associated with a decrease in SEI for most counties. This was related to the finding that the stability of individual species, i.e., barley and wheat, was more effective in reducing the volatility of combined yields than the asynchronous variation in annual yields among crops. Future studies might include an increased number of crop species and consider temporal diversification effects for a more realistic assessment of the relation between yield volatility and crop diversity and test the relationship in other regions and production conditions.
... Due to its high importance, vegetation phenology has been the focus of interest in various research domains. This concerns crop-related applications in particular, where accurate estimates of crop physiological growth phases or phenophases are crucial for many agronomic practices, such as irrigation and fertilization scheduling, agricultural weather or biodiversity index derivation, soil erosion, crop condition monitoring, and yield estimation or integrated pest management [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]. Crop phenophases were traditionally recorded by manual field observations and surveys, e.g., [10]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Operational crop monitoring applications, including crop type mapping, condition monitoring, and yield estimation, would benefit from the ability to robustly detect and map crop phenology measures related to the crop calendar and management activities like emergence, stem elongation, and harvest timing. However, this has proven to be challenging due to two main issues: first, the lack of optimised approaches for accurate crop phenology retrievals, and second, the cloud cover during the crop growth period, which hampers the use of optical data. Hence, in the current study, we outline a novel calibration procedure that optimises the settings to produce high-quality NDVI time series as well as the thresholds for retrieving the start of the season (SOS) and end of the season (EOS) of different crops, making them more comparable and related to ground crop phenological measures. As a first step, we introduce a new method, termed UE-WS, to reconstruct high-quality NDVI time series data by integrating a robust upper envelope detection technique with the Whittaker smoothing filter. The experimental results demonstrate that the new method can achieve satisfactory performance in reducing noise in the original NDVI time series and producing high-quality NDVI profiles. As a second step, a threshold optimisation approach was carried out for each phenophase of three crops (winter wheat, corn, and sugarbeet) using an optimisation framework, primarily leveraging the state-of-the-art hyperparameter optimization method (Optuna) by first narrowing down the search space for the threshold parameter and then applying a grid search to pinpoint the optimal value within this refined range. This process focused on minimising the error between the satellite-derived and observed days of the year (DOY) based on data from the German Meteorological Service (DWD) covering two years (2019–2020) and three federal states in Germany. The results of the calculation of the median of the temporal difference between the DOY observations of DWD phenology held out from a separate year (2021) and those derived from satellite data reveal that it typically ranged within ±10 days for almost all phenological phases. The validation results of the detection of dates of phenological phases against separate field-based phenological observations resulted in an RMSE of less than 10 days and an R-squared value of approximately 0.9 or greater. The findings demonstrate how optimising the thresholds required for deriving crop-specific phenophases using high-quality NDVI time series data could produce timely and spatially explicit phenological information at the field and crop levels.
Preprint
Full-text available
Understanding how environmental variability shapes crop biomass is essential for improving yield stability and guiding climate-resilient agriculture. To shed more light on this relationship, biomass estimates derived from a semi-empirical light use efficiency (LUE) model are compared against those predicted using a machine learning–remote sensing approach that incorporates environmental variables. Specifically, we combined a light use efficiency (LUE) model with a random forest (RF) approach to predict the mean crop biomass across the years 2001–2019 for winter wheat (WW) and oilseed rape (OSR) across the entire region of Bavaria, Germany. Using a 5 km² hexagon-based spatial framework, we integrated LUE-derived biomass with spatial predictors—including the Shannon Diversity Index (SHDI) of land cover diversity, small woody features (SWF), elevation, slope angle, aspect, and soil potential—and spatio-temporal climate variables, specifically the seasonal (growing-season) mean and standard deviation (SD) of temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation from 2001 to 2019. The RF model, trained on LUE biomass and validated against district-level yields and test-set LUE data, outperformed the LUE model alone - achieving R² = 0.87 and RMSE = 2.85 dt ha⁻¹ for WW, and R² = 0.86 and RMSE = 1.24 dt ha⁻¹ for OSR, with particularly strong improvements for WW. Model interpretation using variable importance, SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), and partial dependence plots (PDPs) revealed that WW biomass was primarily driven by landscape and topographic variables, while OSR was more sensitive to solar radiation and soil potential. For analytical purposes, Bavaria was divided into six agricultural regions. SHDI and SWF appeared to promote biomass production in Franconia and the Tertiary Hills Region, while topographic and climatic limitations were more pronounced in alpine and hill regions. Both crops showed biomass gains in landscapes where SHDI exceeded 0.80, indicating moderate to high land-cover diversity—and where SWF cover approached 7% of the hexagon area, suggesting benefits from moderate structural complexity. However, reductions in biomass were observed under high landscape variability, particularly in SHDI. Climatic thresholds differed between crops: WW biomass declined beyond a mean growing-season temperature of 21°C, while OSR declined beyond 12°C, reflecting crop-specific thermal tolerances. By combining the LUE model's mechanistic strengths with RF's flexible, non-linear learning capabilities, and incorporating spatial and temporal environmental conditions, this study presents a scalable framework for biomass prediction and analyzing factors influencing its variability in space. The findings provide valuable insights into region- and crop-specific environmental responses, supporting agri-environmental planning and land management under increasing climate variability.
Article
Full-text available
High temperatures significantly impair plant growth and development by restricting maize grain filling; however, the molecular mechanisms underlying heat stress remain poorly understood. In this study, 350 maize inbred lines were evaluated under field conditions, leading to the identification of heat-tolerant Zheng58 and heat-sensitive Qi319. The two inbred lines were exposed to controlled conditions of 30°C/20°C (optimal) and 42°C/30°C (heat stress) during the grain filling period. Heat stress significantly reduced thousand-kernel weight and seed setting rates, with Qi319 experiencing more pronounced declines. In contrast, Zheng58 showed superior performance, with a grain filling rate 48% higher and seed setting rate 57% greater than Qi319. Transcriptome analysis showed that heat stress disrupted starch biosynthesis and hormonal homeostasis, notably affecting abscisic acid and auxin pathways. Additionally, photosynthetic and transpiration rates in panicle leaves were reduced due to the downregulation of genes related to light-harvesting complexes, photosystem I subunits, and water transport. These findings highlight the critical roles of starch metabolism, hormonal regulation, and photosynthetic efficiency in heat tolerance, offering valuable insights for developing heat-resilient maize varieties to mitigate yield losses under high-temperature conditions.
Preprint
Full-text available
Empirical data is key to anticipate the impact of climate change on cropping systems and develop land management strategies that are sustainable while ensuring food security. Here, the combined effects of projected increases in temperature, atmospheric CO 2 -concentrations, solar irradiation and altered precipitation patterns on winter wheat cropping systems were investigated using an Ecotron. Experimental plant-soil systems were subjected to three different climatic conditions representing a gradient of ongoing climate change implementing the weather patterns of the years 2013, 2068, and 2085 respectively. The wheat plants were grown in two differentially manged agricultural soil types: one with long-term low organic matter (OM) inputs and the other one with long-term high OM inputs. In the low OM system, the risk for plant diseases and nitrate leaching was increased, but it outperformed the high OM system with higher yields and lower CO 2 -emissions. Developing high-yielding cropping systems leveraging the CO 2 -fertilisation effect without sacrificing environmental health will therefore require further refined of management practices to improve nutrient cycling and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. One possibility is adapting crop rotations and cover crops to the shorter wheat cycle observed in the future climates to replenish soil nutrients and break disease cycles. Further, in both here studied soil types the wheat plants developed natural coping mechanisms against environmental stressors, such as enhanced root growth and increased levels of proline and silicon. Unravelling the molecular mechanisms that trigger such inherent plant defences is a further interesting target for breeding future crops. Graphical abstract
Article
The Crop Water Stress Index (CWSI) is a widely used method for quantifying crop water status and predicting yield. However, its evaluation across different irrigation methods and its stage‐specific response to crop yield is rarely evaluated. In this study, controlled field experiments were conducted on winter wheat using drip irrigation (DI) and flood irrigation (FI) during the 2021–2022 and 2022–2023 seasons in western Uttar Pradesh, India. The irrigation treatments included 50% MAD (maximum allowable depletion) (DI), 55% MAD (DI), 60% MAD (DI), 50% MAD (FI), local farmer's field replication (FI), rain‐fed, and well‐watered treatment (DI). The derived mean CWSI values for the irrigation treatments ranged from 0.03 to 0.66 in season 1 and 0.06 to 0.57 in season 2 across treatments. The seasonal mean CWSI for 50% MAD (DI) was 0.12 (season 1) and 0.11 (season 2), while 50% MAD (FI) yielded higher mean CWSI values of 0.29 (season 1) and 0.22 (season 2). The 50% MAD (DI) treatment produced the highest grain yield and water use efficiency in both seasons. A comprehensive analysis of stage‐specific CWSI values and grain yields revealed that grain yield was more sensitive to post‐heading CWSI as compared to pre‐heading CWSI values. Among the growth stages, CWSI values during the flowering stage were the most critical for predicting wheat yield. The study recommends that the CWSI values in the flowering and post‐heading stages are more relevant in predicting wheat yield accurately as compared to the pre‐heading and seasonal mean CWSI.
Article
Full-text available
Climate change is a global problem facing all aspects of the agricultural sector. Heat stress due to increasing atmospheric temperature is one of the most common climate change impacts on agriculture. Heat stress has direct effects on crop production, along with indirect effects through associated problems such as drought, salinity, and pathogenic stresses. Approaches reported to be effective to mitigate heat stress include nano-management. Nano-agrochemicals such as nanofertilizers and nanopesticides are emerging approaches that have shown promise against heat stress, particularly biogenic nano-sources. Nanomaterials are favorable for crop production due to their low toxicity and eco-friendly action. This review focuses on the different stresses associated with heat stress and their impacts on crop production. Nano-management of crops under heat stress, including the application of biogenic nanofertilizers and nanopesticides, are discussed. The potential and limitations of these biogenic nano-agrochemicals are reviewed. Potential nanotoxicity problems need more investigation at the local, national, and global levels, as well as additional studies into biogenic nano-agrochemicals and their effects on soil, plant, and microbial properties and processes.
Article
Full-text available
Crop breeding has boosted global agricultural productivity over recent decades, but little is known about its contribution to climate change mitigation. Here we assess greenhouse gas emissions per unit land (GHGL) and greenhouse gas emissions per unit harvest product, i.e. carbon footprint (CFP) of winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) and winter rye (Secale cereale) from official German variety trials in the period 1983 to 2019. We assess the life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and analyze the data using mixed effects models. We find that breeding progress led to slightly increased GHGL, amounting to ∼4–10%, but to strongly decreasing CFP, amounting to ∼13–23% in wheat and rye since 1983. With a ∼20% lower GHGL and ∼8% lower CFP in rye compared to wheat, the extension of rye production offers viable climate change mitigation potential. Finally, we find that lower CFP are associated with hybrid breeding, chemical plant protection and larger farms. We conclude that with increasing global food demand and limited cropland, breeding progress contributes considerably to climate change mitigation through reduced CFP.
Article
Full-text available
Extreme weather events frequently cause severe crop yield losses, affecting food security and farmers’ incomes. In this paper, we aim to provide a holistic assessment of these impacts across various extreme weather events and multiple crops. More specifically, we estimate and compare the impact of frost, heat, drought and waterlogging on yields of winter wheat, winter barley, winter rapeseed and grain maize production in Germany. We analyse 423,815 farm-level yield observations between 1995 and 2019, and account for extreme weather conditions within critical phenological phases. Furthermore, we monetarize historical yield losses due to extreme weather events on a spatially disaggregated level. We find that drought is a main driver for farm-level grain yield and monetary losses in German agriculture. For instance, a single drought day can reduce winter wheat yields by up to 0.36%. It is estimated that during the period 1995–2019, summer drought led to yield losses in winter wheat, which, on average, caused annual revenues to sink by over 23 million Euro across Germany. We find that the impacts of extreme weather events vary considerably across space and time. For example, only the most important winter rapeseed production region in the North of Germany was prone to winter rapeseed yield losses due to heat during flowering. Moreover, waterlogging and frost are generally less relevant from an economic point of view, but can nevertheless cause crop- and regional-specific damage. Our analysis provides stakeholders with information for weather-related risk management and adaptation strategies.
Article
Full-text available
Heat can cause substantial yield losses in crop production and climate change is increasing the risk of this kind of damage. Weather index insurance can help to reduce the financial losses resulting from heat exposure. This paper introduces crop-specific payout functions based on restricted cubic splines in heat index insurance. The use of restricted cubic splines is a cutting-edge method to reflect empirically estimated temperature effects on crop yields and to estimate temperature-related yield losses. The integration of these temperature effects in payout functions facilitates insurance design and allows hourly temperatures to be used as the underlying index. An empirical analysis is used to assess heat stress effects for a panel of East German winter wheat and winter rapeseed producers, to calibrate insurance contracts accordingly and simulate the resulting risk reducing capacities. We find that the insurance scheme introduced here leads to statistically and economically significant out-of-sample risk reducing capacities for farmers, i.e. risk premiums are reduced by up to approximately 20% at the median, in comparison to the uninsured status and at the actuarially fair premium. Moreover, we highlight that policy-makers can support the cost-efficient provision of market-based weather index insurance by fostering data collection and data provision.
Article
Full-text available
Key message Considerable breeding progress in cereal and disease resistances, but not in stem stability was found. Ageing effects decreased yield and increased disease susceptibility indicating that new varieties are constantly needed. Abstract Plant breeding and improved crop management generated considerable progress in cereal performance over the last decades. Climate change, as well as the political and social demand for more environmentally friendly production, require ongoing breeding progress. This study quantified long-term trends for breeding progress and ageing effects of yield, yield-related traits, and disease resistance traits from German variety trials for five cereal crops with a broad spectrum of genotypes. The varieties were grown over a wide range of environmental conditions during 1988–2019 under two intensity levels, without (I1) and with (I2) fungicides and growth regulators. Breeding progress regarding yield increase was the highest in winter barley followed by winter rye hybrid and the lowest in winter rye population varieties. Yield gaps between I2 and I1 widened for barleys, while they shrank for the other crops. A notable decrease in stem stability became apparent in I1 in most crops, while for diseases generally a decrasing susceptibility was found, especially for mildew, brown rust, scald, and dwarf leaf rust. The reduction in disease susceptibility in I2 (treated) was considerably higher than in I1. Our results revealed that yield performance and disease resistance of varieties were subject to considerable ageing effects, reducing yield and increasing disease susceptibility. Nevertheless, we quantified notable achievements in breeding progress for most disease resistances. This study indicated an urgent and continues need for new improved varieties, not only to combat ageing effects and generate higher yield potential, but also to offset future reduction in plant protection intensity.
Article
Full-text available
Rising air temperatures are a leading risk to global crop production. Recent research has emphasized the critical role of moisture availability in regulating crop responses to heat and the importance of temperature–moisture couplings in driving concurrent heat and drought. Here, we demonstrate that the heat sensitivity of key global crops depends on the local strength of couplings between temperature and moisture in the climate system. Over 1970–2013, maize and soy yields dropped more during hotter growing seasons in places where decreased precipitation and evapotranspiration more strongly accompanied higher temperatures, suggestive of compound heat–drought impacts on crops. On the basis of this historical pattern and a suite of climate model projections, we show that changes in temperature–moisture couplings in response to warming could enhance the heat sensitivity of these crops as temperatures rise, worsening the impact of warming by −5% (−17 to 11% across climate models) on global average. However, these changes will benefit crops where couplings weaken, including much of Asia, and projected impacts are highly uncertain in some regions. Our results demonstrate that climate change will impact crops not only through warming but also through changing drivers of compound heat–moisture stresses, which may alter the sensitivity of crop yields to heat as warming proceeds. Robust adaptation of cropping systems will need to consider this underappreciated risk to food production from climate change.
Article
Full-text available
Real-world experience underscores the complexity of interactions among multiple drivers of climate change risk and of how multiple risks compound or cascade. However, a holistic framework for assessing such complex climate change risks has not yet been achieved. Clarity is needed regarding the interactions that generate risk, including the role of adaptation and mitigation responses. In this perspective, we present a framework for three categories of increasingly complex climate change risk that focus on interactions among the multiple drivers of risk, as well as among multiple risks. A significant innovation is recognizing that risks can arise both from potential impacts due to climate change and from responses to climate change. This approach encourages thinking that traverses sectoral and regional boundaries and links physical and socio-economic drivers of risk. Advancing climate change risk assessment in these ways is essential for more informed decision making that reduces negative climate change impacts.
Article
Full-text available
Crop producers face significant and increasing drought risks. We evaluate whether insurances based on globally and freely available satellite-retrieved soil moisture data can reduce farms’ financial drought risk exposure. We design farm individual soil moisture index insurances for wheat, maize and rapeseed production using a case study for Eastern Germany. We find that the satellite-retrieved soil moisture index insurances significantly decrease risk exposure for these crops compared to the situation where production is not insured. The satellite-retrieved index also outperforms one based on soil moisture estimates derived from meteorological measurements at ground stations. Important implications for insurers and policy makers are that they could and should develop better suited insurances. Available satellite-retrieved data can be used to increase farmers’ resilience in a changing climate.
Article
Full-text available
Breeding has substantially increased the genetic yield potential, but fungal pathogens are still major constraints for wheat production. Therefore, breeding success for resistance and its impact on yield were analyzed on a large panel of winter wheat cultivars, representing breeding progress in Germany during the last decades, in large scale field trials under different fungicide and nitrogen treatments. Results revealed a highly significant effect of genotype (G) and year (Y) on resistances and G × Y interactions were significant for all pathogens tested, i.e. leaf rust, strip rust, powdery mildew and Fusarium head blight. N-fertilization significantly increased the susceptibility to biotrophic and hemibiotrophic pathogens. Resistance was significantly improved over time but at different rates for the pathogens. Although the average progress of resistance against each pathogen was higher at the elevated N level in absolute terms, it was very similar at both N levels on a relative basis. Grain yield was increased significantly over time under all treatments but was considerably higher without fungicides particularly at high N-input. Our results strongly indicate that wheat breeding resulted in a substantial increase of grain yield along with a constant improvement of resistance to fungal pathogens, thereby contributing to an environment-friendly and sustainable wheat production.
Article
Full-text available
Major global crops in high-yielding, temperate cropping regions are facing increasing threats from the impact of climate change, particularly from drought and heat at critical developmental timepoints during the crop lifecycle. Research to address this concern is frequently focused on attempts to identify exotic genetic diversity showing pronounced stress tolerance or avoidance, to elucidate and introgress the responsible genetic factors or to discover underlying genes as a basis for targeted genetic modification. Although such approaches are occasionally successful in imparting a positive effect on performance in specific stress environments, for example through modulation of root depth, major-gene modifications of plant architecture or function tend to be highly context-dependent. In contrast, long-term genetic gain through conventional breeding has incrementally increased yields of modern crops through accumulation of beneficial, small-effect variants which also confer yield stability via stress adaptation. Here we reflect on retrospective breeding progress in major crops and the impact of long-term, conventional breeding on climate adaptation and yield stability under abiotic stress constraints. Looking forward, we outline how new approaches might complement conventional breeding to maintain and accelerate breeding progress, despite the challenges of climate change, as a prerequisite to sustainable future crop productivity.
Article
Full-text available
The interaction between co-occurring drought and hot conditions is often particularly damaging to crop's health and may cause crop failure. Climate change exacerbates such risks due to an increase in the intensity and frequency of dry and hot events in many land regions. Hence, here we model the trivariate dependence between spring maximum temperature and spring precipitation and wheat and barley yields over two province regions in Spain with nested copulas. Based on the full trivariate joint distribution, we (i) estimate the impact of compound hot and dry conditions on wheat and barley loss and (ii) estimate the additional impact due to compound hazards compared to individual hazards. We find that crop loss increases when drought or heat stress is aggravated to form compound dry and hot conditions and that an increase in the severity of compound conditions leads to larger damage. For instance, compared to moderate drought only, moderate compound dry and hot conditions increase the likelihood of crop loss by 8 % to 11 %, while when starting with moderate heat, the increase is between 19 % to 29 % (depending on the cereal and region). These findings suggest that the likelihood of crop loss is driven primarily by drought stress rather than by heat stress, suggesting that drought plays the dominant role in the compound event; that is, drought stress is not required to be as extreme as heat stress to cause similar damage. Furthermore, when compound dry and hot conditions aggravate stress from moderate to severe or extreme levels, crop loss probabilities increase 5 % to 6 % and 6 % to 8 %, respectively (depending on the cereal and region). Our results highlight the additional value of a trivariate approach for estimating the compounding effects of dry and hot extremes on crop failure risk. Therefore, this approach can effectively contribute to design management options and guide the decision-making process in agricultural practices.