4.6 Article

Development of an Improved Model to Evaluate Vulnerability in Spring Wheat under Climate Change in Inner Mongolia

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 10, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su10124581

Keywords

climate change; vulnerability; APSIM-wheat model; spring wheat

Funding

  1. national key R&D program of China [2018YFA0606303]
  2. Public Welfare Industry (Meteorological) Research Project [GYHY201506001]
  3. Non-profit Research Foundation for Meteorology of China [GYHY201506016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Climate change has had a significant impact on agricultural production. It is important to evaluate the vulnerability of agricultural production to climate change. The previous methods for evaluating vulnerability are inconsiderate and unrealistic. This paper proposes an improved vulnerability assessment method, introduces the Agricultural Production System Simulator (APSIM)-wheat model to evaluate vulnerability, and uses spring wheat, in Inner Mongolia, China, as an example for evaluating the vulnerability of spring wheat under climate change. The results show that, from 1996 to 2015, the adaptability to climate change of spring wheat production, in Inner Mongolia, increased, and its sensitivity to climate change decreased. That is to say, that climatic conditions have a negative impact on spring wheat, and adaptation measures have a positive impact on spring wheat. From 1996 to 2009, the vulnerability of spring wheat production in Inner Mongolia showed a very significant increasing trend, while showing a significant downward trend during 2009-2015, which is consistent with the actual situation. The improved vulnerability assessment method can reflect the actual impact of climatic conditions on agricultural production. We expect that the new vulnerability assessment method can provide a theoretical basis for studying the impact of climate change on agricultural production.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available