Skip to Content
AgronomyAgronomy
  • Review
  • Open Access

26 February 2018

Climate Change Trends and Impacts on California Agriculture: A Detailed Review

,
,
,
,
and
1
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California, Merced, CA 95343, USA
2
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
3
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources—Kearney Agricultural Research and Extension Center, University of California, Parlier, CA 93648, USA
4
Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources California Institute for Water Resources, University of California, Oakland, CA 94607, USA

Abstract

California is a global leader in the agricultural sector and produces more than 400 types of commodities. The state produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of its fruits and nuts. Despite being highly productive, current and future climate change poses many challenges to the agricultural sector. This paper provides a summary of the current state of knowledge on historical and future trends in climate and their impacts on California agriculture. We present a synthesis of climate change impacts on California agriculture in the context of: (1) historic trends and projected changes in temperature, precipitation, snowpack, heat waves, drought, and flood events; and (2) consequent impacts on crop yields, chill hours, pests and diseases, and agricultural vulnerability to climate risks. Finally, we highlight important findings and directions for future research and implementation. The detailed review presented in this paper provides sufficient evidence that the climate in California has changed significantly and is expected to continue changing in the future, and justifies the urgency and importance of enhancing the adaptive capacity of agriculture and reducing vulnerability to climate change. Since agriculture in California is very diverse and each crop responds to climate differently, climate adaptation research should be locally focused along with effective stakeholder engagement and systematic outreach efforts for effective adoption and implementation. The expected readership of this paper includes local stakeholders, researchers, state and national agencies, and international communities interested in learning about climate change and California’s agriculture.

1. Introduction

California is the largest and most diverse agricultural state in the United States of America, with 77,500 farms comprising 5.7 million ha of pasture and rangeland and 3.8 million ha of irrigated cropland that generate an overall agricultural production value of $50.5 billion [1]. The state produces over a third of the country’s vegetables and two-thirds of its fruits and nuts on nearly 1.2% of the nation’s farmland. California grows over 400 different commodities, some of which are produced nowhere else in the nation. About 50% of the nuts and fruits consumed in the Unites States are grown in California, including almonds, pistachios, walnuts, grapes, citrus, apricots, dates, figs, kiwi fruit, nectarines, prunes, and olives [2]. In addition, California leads in the production of avocados, grapes, lemons, melons, peaches, plums, and strawberries. California’s top 20 crop and livestock commodities represented more than $41.1 billion in gross revenue in 2015 [1].
Agricultural production in California is highly sensitive to climate change. Changes in temperatures and in the amounts, forms, and distribution of precipitation, increased frequency and intensity of climate extremes, and water availability are a few examples of climate-related challenges to California’s agriculture sector. Irrigated agriculture produces nearly 90% of the harvested crops in California and a decrease in water availability could potentially reduce crop areas and yields [3]. Permanent crops are among the most profitable commodities in California. They are most commonly grown for more than 25 years, which makes them more vulnerable to impacts of climate change. For California, as an agricultural leader for various commodities, impacts on agricultural production due to climate change would not only translate into national food security issues but also economic impacts that could disrupt state and national commodity systems. While California farmers and ranchers have always been affected by the natural variability of weather from year to year, the increased rate and scale of climate change is beyond the realm of experience for the agricultural community [4]. Documenting the most current knowledge on climate trends and implications of climate change on the California’s agricultural sector can provide invaluable guidance for researchers and policymakers on how to prepare for and adapt to changes that may occur. The primary purpose of this review paper was to summarize the current state of knowledge on historical and future trends in climate and their impacts on California agriculture. The expected audiences are not limited to the regional or state levels but also include international communities that are interested in learning about climate change and California’s agriculture.

2. Method

In this paper, we have performed a detailed literature review to document the most current understanding on California´s climate change trends in terms of temperature, precipitation, snowpack, and extreme events such as heat waves, drought, and flooding, and their relative impacts on the state’s highly productive and diverse agricultural sector. This detailed review was obtained from credible sources such as the most recent reports from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [5], various state agency reports, and research articles focused on climate change and agriculture in California. Parameters reviewed in this study have direct or indirect impacts on California’s agricultural sector. For instance, both average and extreme temperatures and precipitation patterns influence crop yields, pests, and the length of the growing season. On the other hand, extreme events, such as heat waves, floods, and droughts, may lead to larger production losses, earlier spring arrival, and warmer winters due to temperature increases that cause increased pressure as result of diseases and pests, and shrinking amounts of snowpack that lead to greater risks related to water availability for agriculture. A detailed review on what we know so far in terms of historical and projected trends for these important variables and how they might influence California’s agriculture is described systematically in the following sections.

4. Climate Change Impact on California Agriculture

4.1. Crop Climate Relationship and Yield Impacts

Global crop production needs to double by 2050 to meet the projected demand for food from rising population, diet shifts, and increasing biofuel consumption [32]. In the agriculture sector, climate change will lead to a major spatial shift and extension of croplands, which precludes a favorable environment for crop growth across different regions [33]. Most of the permanent crops in California require several years to reach maturity and profitable production. Their market value may also depend upon several quality-related factors such as size, color, chemical composition, firmness, and aesthetic features. Most of these attributes are sensitive to even relatively small temperature changes during critical development stages and/or close to harvest. An evaluation of climate change impacts on 8 out of the 20 major permanent crops grown in California showed that temperature variations of 2 °C were most closely related to yield reductions in almonds, wine grapes, strawberries, hay, walnuts, table grapes, freestone peaches, and cherries [34].
Individual crops have specific optimum temperature ranges (temperature thresholds) at which vegetative and reproductive growth thrive and exposure to extremely high temperatures during these growth stages can affect growth and yield. Acute exposure to extreme temperature may be most detrimental during the crop reproductive stages. Table 2 outlines important temperature thresholds for some vegetable crops grown in California. This table also implies that crop species differ in their cardinal temperatures, which are unique in different stages of development [35]. Research by [36] portrays the relationship of yield versus two weather variables deemed most important for each crop. Tomatoes show favorable yields during the warmer April and June months. Pistachios require temperatures of between 0 and 7 °C for about 700 h each winter, but for the past four years there have been less than 500 chill hours [37]. It is noted that influence of climate change on vine phenology and grape composition affects metabolite accumulations under extremely hot temperatures and may affect wine aroma and color [38]. A temperature sensitivity study [39] shows that the yields for wine grapes, strawberries, and walnuts are expected to be reduced due to warm winters, while warm summers improve yields. Warmer January and February weather reduces almond yield, while warm summer temperatures are detrimental to peach yields. Cherries and table grapes do not benefit at any time of the year from a warmer climate; cherries are especially harmed by warm November to February weather due to chilling hour requirements [39].
Table 2. Temperature thresholds for selected vegetable crops [35].
The impacts of climate change on annual crop yields are typically analyzed with a process-based model, in which analyses of many perennial crops typically involve statistical models [34]. The relationship between crop yield and climatic variables such as minimum temperature, maximum temperature, and precipitation for twelve major California crops (wine grapes, lettuce, almonds, strawberries, table grapes, hay, oranges, cotton, tomatoes, walnuts, avocados, and pistachios) was derived from historical records from 1980–2003 using regression models [36]. These climatic trends have mixed effects on crop yields for orange, walnut, and avocado, as compared to other crops. Figure 10 shows how climate change is expected to impact yields of almonds, walnuts, avocados, oranges, and grapes by 2050. Median projections for wine grape yields exhibited very small changes over the next century due to climate change, while the other five crops exhibited moderate to substantial yield declines. The impact of climate uncertainty on projections was substantial but not overwhelming. While uncertainties were slightly negative, the differences in climate uncertainty between crops reflect the fact that each crop responds in different ways to climate uncertainties.
Figure 10. Crop yield changes associated with future climate scenarios, with yield anomalies from 2000–2003 average yields, in percent, constrained to historical extremes. The black line shows median projections, the dark shaded area shows 90% confidence interval after accounting for climate uncertainty, and the light shaded area shows a 90% confidence interval after accounting for both climate and crop uncertainty [34].
The impacts of climate change on crop yields for different field crops such as alfalfa, cotton, maize, wither wheat, tomato, rice, and sunflower in Yolo County and throughout the Central Valley as seen in Figure 11 [40,41] were modeled using a process-based crop model named Daycent. The model provided best estimates of yields for the period from 2000 through 2050 under high- and low-emission scenarios. While alfalfa yields were predicted to increase under climate change, yields from tomato and rice remain unaffected. The effect on wine grape yield is not expected to be high; temperature increases might adversely influence fruit quality. Heat waves in May predicted yield losses of 1–10% for maize, rice, sunflower, and tomato, whereas heat waves in June affected maize and sunflower yields [41]. Overall, a 4 °C increase in temperature may reduce yields from most fruits by more than 5%, and this figure may reach up to 40% in some important regions [42].
Figure 11. Crop yield response to warming in California’s Central Valley based on higher emission scenario (A2) and lower emission scenario (B1) [40,41]. Copyright © 2006 Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

4.2. Impacts on Chill Hours

Many fruit and nut crops require cold temperatures in winter to break dormancy. This requirement defines a location’s suitability for the production of many tree crops [43,44]. These fruit and nut species adapt to temperate or cool subtropical climates where chilling each winter is needed to achieve homogeneous and simultaneous flowering and steady crop yields. Quantifying chilling requirements is crucial for the successful cultivation of such crops, and temperature records are converted into a metric of coldness. The lack of adequate chilling hours can delay pollination and foliation, reducing fruit yield and quality [45]. The effects of insufficient winter chill can vary among species. Walnuts and pistachios depend on synchronization between male and female flowering that is regulated by the number of chilling hours. For various stone fruits, a lack of winter chill results in delayed foliation, reduced fruit set, and poor fruit quality. In many cases, insufficient winter chilling hours result in reduced tree crop performance.
Figure 12 portrays historic and projected future changes in winter chill in California according to two different chilling models: chilling hours and dynamic models [44]. This research aimed at determining time-line management measures, such as the spraying of dormancy-breaking chemicals, as a predictor of crop yield potential for the season. The study reported that climatic conditions by the end of the 21st century would no longer support some of the main tree crops currently grown in California. As seen in Figure 12, winter chill hours in 1950 and those projected to occur between 2080 and 2099 will vary spatially between the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys.
Figure 12. Overview of California’s Central Valley, showing the distribution of orchards that require winter chill [44].
Figure 13 shows that around the year 1950, growers in the Central Valley could rely on having between 700 and 1200 chilling hours, depending on the location of their orchard in the valley. Information about chilling requirements is presented in Table 3 for different tree species [35]. Figure 13 suggests that winter chill conditions for cultivars requiring 200 chilling hours (almond, fig, olive, persimmon, and pomegranate) are unlikely to become critical by the end of the 21st century. For chilling requirements of 500 h (chestnut, pecan, and quince) only about 78% of the Central Valley will be suitable for production by the end of the 21st century. For cultivars that require more than 700 h (apricot, kiwifruit, peach, nectarine, plum, and walnut), only 23–46% of the valley remains suitable and only 10% will remain viable by 2080–2095. Only 4% of the area of the Central Valley was suitable in the year 2000 for species such as apples, cherries, and pears, which have chilling hour requirements of more than 1000 h. However, virtually no areas will remain suitable by 2041–2060 under any emissions scenario [44]. Among the most climate-sensitive trees and vines, walnuts require the highest number of chill hours, implying a future decline in walnut acreage within the valley [46].
Figure 13. Safe winter chill in California’s Central Valley in 1950, 2000, 2041–2060, and 2080–2095 [44].
Table 3. Chilling requirements for different fruit and nut tree species [35].

4.3. Impacts on Plants, Pesst, and Diseases

Climate change may have impact on the incidence and severity of plant disease and influence the further co-evolution of plants and their pathogens [47]. Climate change may affect pathogen development and survival rates, modify host susceptibility, and result in a spread of diseases such as sudden oak death to the forests of Coastal California and Southwestern Oregon [48,49]. Moreover, plant diseases could be used as indicators of climate change in which the environment can move from being disease-suppressive to disease-conducive, or vice versa [50,51].
Plant diseases, insects, and invasive weeds are mostly caused by temperature-related climate factors, with the invasion of previously uninhabitable areas, for example, Yolo County [52]. For instance, while milder winters help many frost-sensitive insects to survive, and increased temperature may help promote more rapid reproduction in other insects [53]. Crop diseases including animal, fungal, bacterial, or viral pathogens are often spread through an insect vector, wind, or anthropogenic activities. In Yolo County, it was noted that soybean rust spread throughout the world due to increases in severe weather events such as hurricanes [52]. Recently, stem nematode has been reported in alfalfa in Yolo County, which can spread in various ways including through waterways and irrigation runoff, contaminated farm equipment, and other anthropogenic means. Statewide integrated pest management (IPM) involves listing common diseases and insects, and allows us to elucidate potential plant disease and manage all kinds of pests elsewhere within the state [54].

4.4. California Agricultural Vulnerability to Climate Risks

Volatility in agricultural markets and cost of energy, fertilizers, and other inputs can have a multitude of unpredictable biophysical and social consequences [41,55]. In order to reflect the aspects of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity to climate risks, agricultural vulnerability indices are often assessed by examining biophysical and social indicators over time and space. Among various indices, the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) is used to explore vulnerability to environmental hazards [56]. To date, there is no single data point to measure crop vulnerability across the landscape. Merging coupled crop and economic models may provide a better picture of specialty crop vulnerability [55].
The Agricultural Vulnerability Index (AVI) for California integrates a broad set of biophysical and social indicators relevant to state and local efforts to adapt to changes in climate, land use, and economic forces. As such, the California AVI is meant to be a starting point for “place-based” adaptation planning throughout California. The AVI assigns each variable to one of four sub-indices: climate vulnerability, crop vulnerability, land use vulnerability, and socioeconomic vulnerability based on an a priori judgment and spatial resolution [56].
Figure 14 establishes some of the most vulnerable agricultural regions to climate change from multiple perspectives. The Salinas Valley and the San Joaquin Valley are identified as two of the most vulnerable agricultural regions [56]. While agriculture in the Imperial Valley and the corridor between Fresno and Merced are found to be very vulnerable to climate change, northern regions of the state may provide hospitable environments for fruits (wine grapes) and vegetables.
Figure 14. The Agriculture Vulnerability Index for California that integrates indices for climate, crop, land use, and socioeconomic vulnerability based on standard deviation (SD) as published in vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in California agriculture, 2012, by California Energy Commission [56].
It is also useful to note how Southern California shrub lands could move to higher elevations as a response to cooler climates and greater precipitation because of rising temperatures and reduced precipitation in their current environments. As noted, non-native grasslands could be converted into shrub lands and consequently exhibit reduced range and proficiency [57]. Various model scenarios suggested that forage production for cattle grazing might decline because of decreases in annual precipitation [58]. Forest diseases such as pitch canker are vulnerable to warmer winter temperatures and affect the root and stem-base of a wide range of broad-leaved and coniferous species [59]. The grassland habitat in the Sacramento Valley may decline by 1–20% by 2070 due to warmer winter temperatures and variable precipitation [60]. The eastern edge of the Central Valley might become climatically unsuitable for grassland habitats including valley oak under drier conditions and the northern Central Valley to a large degree may become unsuitable for such habitats under wetter conditions [61]. It is estimated that 24–59% of current California foothill, valley forests, and woodlands will not be climatically suitable for oak woodlands by the end of the century.

5. Important Findings and Directions for Future Research and Implementation

The range of studies on trends and impacts of climate change on California agriculture presented in this review paper justifies the importance of enhancing the adaptive capacity of agriculture to reduce vulnerability to climate change and gain substantial benefits. This section summarizes important findings on climate change impacts for California agriculture and relevant adaptation research efforts for research and implementation. While the list is extensive and reflects information based on what is known now, it is important to note that in the long term, state and national priorities should reflect the expected impacts of climate change. Table 4 summarizes important findings from this paper and relevant adaptation strategies, followed by a section discussing future directions for research and implementation in detail.
Table 4. Summary of key findings and potential adaptation strategies for California agriculture with respect to changing climate [10,15,18,21,23,26,41,44,47,53,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89].

5.1. Climate Change Is Intensifying Challenges for the Agriculture Sector in California

The detailed literature study on climate change in California clearly reveals that temperatures are increasing at significant rates. Both daytime and nighttime heat waves are expected to become more frequent and intense. Precipitation is becoming highly variable, which increases the risks of frequent and intense droughts and floods in the state. Snowpack has reduced considerably and is projected to shrink further in the future climate. These changes in climate are placing increasing pressure on agricultural production systems in California. Reduced numbers of chill hours, increased pest pressure, increased water demand and water-induced stress, as well as variable and unreliable water supply, are examples of factors that are projected to adversely impact the yield and quality of various crops grown in California. Given that California is a world leader in the production of many important specialty crops, without timely and effective actions, negative climate change impacts may further intensify the challenges to meet local and global food demands. Climate change is also contributing to resource variability and constraints beyond food security, such as periodic water shortages alternating with intense precipitation and flood events, water and soil degradation, and increasing pressure from existing and new pest species. As resource limitations and food security challenges emerge, the urgency of addressing these issues has become critically important.

5.2. Need for Localized Agricultural Adaptation Research to Minimize the Risks Due to Increased Temperatures and Extreme Heat Waves

Temperature increases and extreme heat waves have direct impacts on agricultural production. There are several possible adaptation options available, which mostly concern variations of existing climate-risk management practices. For crops that are sensitive to extreme heat, research to breed and test new plant varieties that are heat-tolerant or better adapt to water stress is of high priority. Several California fruit and nut crops are losing yield and decreasing in acreage due to reduced chill hour accumulations as a direct consequence of increased winter and nighttime temperatures. Along with breeding programs to produce low chill requiring varieties, management practices that can extend crops’ winter dormancy periods should be investigated and documented for implementation. Since different crops react to temperature changes differently, research efforts on climate adaptation should be crop-specific and related to local environmental conditions for successful adoption.
Due to increased temperatures, the impact of pests, diseases, and weeds is increasing substantially, with their altered growth cycles possibly becoming concentrated and impacting crop harvests. In this regard, research efforts should focus on documenting crop-specific potential threats due to existing and new pests and diseases. Research should also target the development and validation of new models to simulate pest growth cycles and formulate effective counter-measures, such as earlier harvesting windows or timely pest control treatments. Adaptation should not only be based on climatic stimuli alone, but also consider non-climatic forces such as economic conditions, politics, environment, society, and technology, which have significant implications for agricultural policy- and decision-making.

5.3. Increased Research Efforts on Expanding Adaptation to Water Shortages in Agriculture

As explained in this paper, increased variability in precipitation patterns, reduced snowpack, and groundwater depletion due to recurring and prolonged droughts have added further pressure to the existing strain of the state’s agricultural water supply. Weather-related variability and changes have indirect effects on agricultural production through uncertain agricultural water supply and demand that will all make farmers increasingly vulnerable to vagaries and uncertainties in the near future. There is a broad range of options to cope with water shortages in agriculture, which could help in buffering agricultural production risks. Generally speaking, they can be divided between supply enhancement and demand management options, and can be deployed at different levels along the agricultural water supply continuum, from the water source to farmers and beyond, to the consumers of agricultural goods.
Supply enhancement refers to increasing access to conventional water resources and as such can be done at different scales. At the river basin scale, efforts include enhancement of water storage in dams and reservoirs, rainwater harvest, and inter-basin water transfers. At this scale, further research efforts should target improved accuracy in predicting significant rain events and linking these predictions to dynamic operation of dams and reservoirs to optimize water storage and flood protection. Artificial groundwater recharge and re-use of municipal wastewater are both priority options at irrigation scheme level. In this regard, additional research is needed to better characterize the benefits and risks of artificial groundwater recharge with storm water through agricultural fields during crop dormancy. At the farm and field scales, the adoption of agricultural practices that capture rainwater and reduce runoff, such as establishing winter cover crops, no tillage and minimum tillage, and incorporation of crop residues can strongly contribute to increase infiltration and soil water storage. In this context, applied research should better determine the economic and ecologic trade-offs of such practices to address growers’ concerns and inform decisions. At the same time, research efforts are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and potential of safe on-farm drainage water recycling.
Demand management entails a set of measures that can be deployed at different levels of the agricultural water use chain, to control water demand either by raising the overall economic efficiency of its use or by re-allocating water resources. At the river basin and irrigation scheme levels, a major goal is to improve the efficiency of water use by reducing water losses in the process of agricultural production. This can be achieved by decreasing the non-beneficial use of water through reduction of leakages and evaporative losses in water conveyance and distribution systems. Canal lining, conversion from gravity-fed to pipe conveyance, and enhanced irrigation delivery services through pressurized distribution networks are improvement measures towards better controlled, more flexible, and reliable water delivery that could also support a transformation from low-return to high-return agriculture. Precise water application through micro-irrigation systems, improved irrigation scheduling, and soil moisture monitoring are viable options for reducing water losses at the farm and field scales. At the farm and field levels, increasing agricultural water productivity is probably the most valuable avenue for managing water demand in agriculture. In general, obtaining higher crop yields and reducing the volume of applied water while maintaining acceptable production levels are the most important factors in crop-water productivity increase. Reductions of applied water could be pursued through deficit irrigation, which allows farmers to apply less water than the full crop water requirements, thus aiming at an economic optimum between crop water use and crop yields under water shortage conditions. In this regard, research efforts should target a better knowledge of the crop response to water deficits in the different growth stages to schedule irrigation in a way that maximizes water savings while minimizing yield losses. Crop simulation models could also be properly parameterized for local conditions with data resulting from field experiments, and then be utilized to formulate viable and effective strategies for optimizing crop performances under limited water supply.

5.4. Stakeholder Engagement and Extending Knowledge

Climate information and adaptation research offer much potential to enhance agricultural resilience to climate risks through improved agricultural decision making, such as through preparing for expected adverse conditions or taking advantage of expected favorable conditions. To help growers manage risks, it is important to develop locally relevant, need-based decision support tools that are viable and aligned with growers’ economic objectives. Coordinated efforts are needed to engage agricultural stakeholders in climate adaptation discussions, understanding their needs and barriers to climate change adaptations. Since each crop responds to changes differently, dialogue with stakeholders about adaptation may also vary. Research only has value if it leads to informed decision-making at the local scale. Climate change has been traditionally viewed as a global issue and translating its implications at local, farm, and field scales with adverse impacts facing farmers has been often challenging. Cooperative extension can play a major role in developing educational programs on agriculture and climate change at local and regional scales, to help stakeholders translate the science into actionable strategies. Increased dialogue is needed for agricultural professionals to address communication challenges related to climate change and agriculture.

6. Conclusions

This detailed review provides sufficient evidence that climate in California has changed significantly, and this change can be expected to continue in the future. Increased minimum and maximum temperatures, highly variable and shifting precipitation patterns, reduced amount of snowpack in the Sierras, and increased frequency and intensity of weather extremes such as heat waves and drought are examples of climate change indicators for the state. These trends are negatively influencing California’s highly productive agricultural industry. Impacts on agriculture include low chill hour accumulations, crop yield declines, increased pest and disease pressure, increased crop water demands, altered phenology of annual and perennial cropping systems, and uncertain future sustainability of some highly vulnerable crops. The detailed reviews on trends and impacts of climate change on California agriculture justify the importance and urgency for a stronger focus on enhancing the adaptive capabilities of agriculture to reduce vulnerability to climate change and gain substantial benefits. California agriculture is very diverse and since each crop responds to climate differently, climate adaptation research should be locally focused along with effective stakeholder engagement and systematic outreach efforts for more effective adoption and implementation.

Acknowledgments

This paper was supported by the University of California Office of the President, supported Carbon Neutrality Initiative funding and by the University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resource (UC ANR).

Author Contributions

T.B.P. and D.Z. conceived this review paper. M.L.M. collected and reviewed the available literature relevant to climate change and agriculture, under the supervision and with contributions from T.B.P. and D.Z. T.B.P. and D.Z. conceptually defined the contents of this manuscript. T.B.P. and M.L.M. filtered the relevant information from the comprehensive literature collections. T.B.P., M.L.M., J.A.D., F.K., K.M.B., and D.Z. revised the manuscript multiple times providing detailed feedback that led to this final version. T.B.P., M.L.M., and D.Z. conducted the final proofreading of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture). California Agricultural Statistics Review 2015–2016. Available online: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/statistics/PDFs/2016Report.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2017).
  2. Johnson, R.; Cody, B.A. California Agricultural Production and Irrigated Water Use. Congressional Research Service Report, (R44093), 2015. Available online: http://aquadoc.typepad.com-/files/crs_ca_ag_production_30june2015.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2017).
  3. Tanaka, S.K.; Zhu, T.; Lund, J.R.; Howitt, R.E.; Jenkins, M.W.; Pulido, M.A.; Tauber, M.; Ritzema, R.S.; Ferreira, I.C. Climate warming and water management adaptation for California. Clim. Chang. 2006, 76, 361–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Natural Resources Agency. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk an Update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. Available online: http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/-Final_Safeguarding_CA_Plan_July_31_2014.pdf (accessed on 30 June 2017).
  5. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007; p. 104. [Google Scholar]
  6. Rasul, G.; Chaudhry, Q.Z.; Mahmood, A.; Hyder, W. Effect of temperature rise on crop growth and productivity. Pak. J. Meteorol. 2011, 8, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
  7. GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis. Available online: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ (accessed on 29 June 2017).
  8. Hydroclimate Report Water Year 2015; DWR (California Department of Water Resources): Sacramento, CA, USA, 2015.
  9. Hansen, J.; Ruedy, R.; Sato, M.; Lo, K. Global surface temperature change. Rev. Geophys. 2010, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). California Climate Tracker. Western Regional Climate Center. Available online: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/monitor/cal-mon/index.html (accessed on 20 July 2017).
  11. Ladochy, S.; Ramirez, P.; Killam, D.; Bui, A.; Patzert, W.; Willis, J. American Meteorological Society. Temperature and Precipitation Trends in California: Global Warming and Pacific Ocean Influences. Available online: http://www.climatesignals.org/node/5370 (accessed on 5 July 2017).
  12. Enloe, E.S.J. National Centers for Environmental Information. State Annual and Seasonal Time Series. State Temperatures|Temperature, Precipitation, and Drought. Available online: https://www.ncdc.-noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/state-temps/ (accessed on 19 June 2017).
  13. Cal-Adapt. Exploring California’s Climate Change Research. Available online: http://cal-adapt.org/tools/annual-averages/#climatevar-=tasmax&scenario=rcp45&lat=38.59375&lng=121.46875&bo-undary=locagrid&units=fahrenheit (accessed on 5 October 2012).
  14. Blunden, J.; Arndt, D.S. State of the climate in 2015. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2016, 97, S1–S275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Centers for Environmental Information). Climate at a Glance: Time Series. Available online: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/4/0/pdsi/3/2/1895-2017?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=20-00&trend=true&tre-nd_base=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2017 (accessed on 3 July 2017).
  16. Dettinger, M.D.; Ralph, F.M.; Das, T.; Neiman, P.J.; Cayan, D.R. Atmospheric rivers, floods and the water resources of California. Water 2011, 3, 445–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Climate Change Indicators: U.S. and Global Precipitation. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-and-global-precipitation (accessed on 10 July 2017).
  18. Killam, D.; Bui, A.; LaDochy, S.; Ramirez, P.; Willis, J.; Patzer, W. California Getting Wetter to the North, Drier to the South: Natural Variability or Climate Change? Climate 2014, 2, 168–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ault, T.R.; St. George, S. The Magnitude of Decadal and Multidecadal Variability in North American Precipitation. J. Clim. 2010, 23, 842–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ogburn, S.P. Climate Change Is Altering Rainfall Patterns Worldwide. Available online: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-is-altering-rainfall-patterns-worldwide/ (accessed on 13 June 2017).
  21. DWR (California Department of Water Resources). California Climate Science and Data for Water Resources Management. Available online: http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/docs/CA_-Climate_Science_and_Data_Final_Release_June_2015.pdf (accessed on 19 June 2017).
  22. Bloom, T. California’s Current Snowpack Is Larger than the Previous 4 Years Combined, NASA Says. Available online: http://ktla.com/2017/04/19/californias-current-snowpack-is-larger-than-the-previo-us-4-years-combined-nasa-says/ (accessed on 9 June 2017).
  23. Ashfaq, M.; Ghosh, S.; Kao, S.; Bowling, L.C.; Mote, P.; Touma, D.; Rauscher, S.A.; Diffenbaugh, N.S. Near-term acceleration of hydroclimatic change in the Western U.S. J. Geophys. Res. 2013, 118, 676–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Reid, C.E.; O’Neill, M.S.; Gronlund, C.J.; Brines, S.J.; Brown, D.G.; Diez-Roux, A.V.; Schwartz, J. Mapping community determinants of heat vulnerability. Environ. Health Perspect. 2009, 117, 1730–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Guirguis, K.; Gershunov, A.; Tardy, A.; Basu, R. The impact of recent heat waves on human health in California. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 2014, 53, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gershunov, A.; Guirguis, K. California heat waves in the present and future. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2012, 39, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gershunov, A.; Cayan, D.R.; Lacobellis, S.F. The Great 2006 Heat Wave over California and Nevada: Signal of an Increasing Trend. J. Clim. 2009, 22, 6181–6203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zargar, A.; Sadiq, R.; Naser, B.; Khan, F.I. A review of drought indices. Environ. Rev. 2011, 19, 333–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Westerling, A.L.; Hidalgo, H.G.; Cayan, D.R.; Swetnam, T.W. Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science 2006, 313, 940–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Sommer, L. With Climate Change, California Is Likely to See More Extreme Flooding. 2017. Available online: http://www.npr.org/2017/02/28/517495739/with-climate-change-california-is-likely-to-see-mo-re-extreme-flooding (accessed on 19 June 2017).
  31. Butzen, S. Flooding Impact on Crops. Available online: https://www.pioneer.com/home/site-/us/agronomy/crop-management/adverse-weather-disease/flood-impact (accessed on 13 July 2017).
  32. Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Yield trends are insufficient to double crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Olesen, J.E.; Bindi, M. Consequences of climate change for European agricultural productivity, land use and policy. Eur. J. Agron. 2002, 16, 239262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lobell, D.B.; Field, C.B.; Cahill, K.N.; Bonfils, C. Impacts of Future Climate Change on California Perennial Crop Yields: Model Projections with Climate and Crop Uncertainties. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2006, 141, 208–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hatfield, J.; Boote, K.; Fay, P.; Hahn, L.; Izaurralde, C.; Kimball, B.A.; Mader, T.; Morgan, J.; Ort, D.; Polley, W.; et al. Agriculture. In The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water Resources, and Biodiversity; Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research; United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 2008; pp. 21–74. [Google Scholar]
  36. Lobell, D.B.; Cahill, K.N.; Field, C.B. Historical effects of temperature and precipitation on California crop yields. Clim. Chang. 2007, 81, 187–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Warnert, J.E. Climate Change Is Impacting California Tree Crop Farms. Available online: http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=23004 (accessed on 21 June 2017).
  38. De Orduna, R.M. Climate change associated effects on grape and wine quality and production. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 1844–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lobell, D.B.; Field, C.B. California perennial crops in a changing climate. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 317–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lee, J.; De Gryze, S.; Six, J. Effect of climate change on field crop production in California’s Central Valley. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 335–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hatfield, J.; Takle, G.; Grotjahn, R.; Holden, R.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Mader, T.; Marshall, E.; Liverman, D. Chapter 6: Agriculture. In Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third National Climate Assessment; Melillo, J.M., Richmond, T.C., Yohe, G.W., Eds.; United States Global Change Research Program: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; pp. 150–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Zilberman, D.; Kaplan, S. Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics, University of California. An Overview of California’s Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change. Available online: https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/giannini_public/73/c8/73c82d70-b296-4424-82f6-2c04c7859aa4/v18n1-_6.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2017).
  43. Luedeling, E.; Zhang, M.; Luedeling, V.; Girvetz, E.H. Sensitivity of winter chill models for fruit and nut trees to climatic changes expected in California’s Central Valley. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 133, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Luedeling, E.; Zhang, M.; Girvetz, E.H. Climatic changes lead to declining winter chill for fruit and nut trees in California during 1950–2099. PLoS ONE 2009, 4, e6166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Agadapt. Climate Change Effects on Chilling Hours for Yolo County’s Fruit and Nut Trees. Available online: http://agadapt.ucdavis.edu/chillhours/ (accessed on 29 June 2017).
  46. Kan-Rice, P. How Is Climate Change Affecting Agriculture? University of California. UCANR. Available online: https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/how-climate-change-affecting-agriculture (accessed on 28 June 2017).
  47. Elad, Y.; Pertot, I. Climate change impacts on plant pathogens and plant diseases. J. Crop Improv. 2014, 28, 99–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Prospero, S.; Grünwald, N.J.; Winton, L.M.; Hansen, E.M. Migration patterns of the emerging plant pathogen Phytophthora ramorum on the west coast of the United States of America. Phytopathology 2009, 99, 739–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Ahanger, R.A.; Bhat, H.A.; Bhat, T.A.; Ganie, S.A.; Lone, A.A.; Wani, I.A.; Ganai, S.A.; Haq, S.; Khan, O.A.; Junaid, J.M.; et al. Impact of climate change on plant diseases. Int. J. Mod. Plant Anim. Sci. 2013, 1, 105–115. [Google Scholar]
  50. Pautasso, M.; Döring, T.F.; Garbelotto, M.; Pellis, L.; Jeger, M.J. Impacts of climate change on plant diseases—Opinions and trends. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2012, 133, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Haroldsen, V.; Paulino, G.; Chi-ham, C.; Bennett, A. Research and adoption of biotechnology strategies could improve California fruit and nut crops. Calif. Agric. 2012, 66, 62–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Agadapt (Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change in Yolo County). How Does Climate Change Affect Agricultural Pests and Disease? Retrieved 15 July 2017. Available online: http://agadapt.ucdavis.edu/pestsdiseases/ (accessed on 29 June 2017).
  53. Bale, J.S.; Masters, G.J.; Hodkinson, I.D.; Awmack, C.; Bezemer, T.M.; Brown, V.K.; Butterfield, J.; Buse, A.; Coulson, J.C.; Farrar, J.; et al. Herbivory in global climate change research: Direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2002, 8, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. UCANR (University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources). All Plant Diseases. Available online: http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/diseases/diseaseslist.html (accessed on 15 July 2017).
  55. Kerr, A.; Dialesandro, J.; Steenwerth, K.; Lopez-Brody, N.; Elias, E. Vulnerability of California specialty crops to projected mid-century temperature changes. Clim. Chang. 2017, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. CEC (California Energy Commission). Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Change in California Agriculture. Available online: http://www.energy.ca.gov/2012publications/CEC-500-2012-031/CEC-500-2012-031.pdf (accessed on 26 June 2017).
  57. Schramm, A.; Loehman, R. Understanding the Science of Climate Change: Talking Points-Impacts to the Pacific Coast; Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/CCRP/NRR—2011/287; National Park Service: Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  58. Shaw, M.R.; Pendleton, L.; Cameron, D.R.; Morris, B.; Bachelet, D.; Klausmeyer, K.; MacKenzie, J.; Conklin, D.R.; Bratman, G.N.; Lenihan, J.; et al. The impact of climate change on California’s ecosystem services. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 465–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kliejunas, J.T.; Geils, B.W.; Glaeser, J.M.; Goheen, E.M.; Hennon, P.; Kim, M.-S.; Kope, H.; Jeff, S.; Sturrock, R.; Frankel, S.J. Review of Literature on Climate Change and Forest Diseases of Western North America. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Statio: Redding, CA, USA, 2009; pp. 1–60. [Google Scholar]
  60. Gardali, T.; Seavy, N.E.; DiGaudio, R.T.; Comrack, L.A. A climate change vulnerability assessment of California’s at-risk birds. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e29507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Thorne, K.M.; MacDonald, G.M.; Ambrose, R.F.; Buffington, K.J.; Freeman, C.M.; Janousek, C.N.; Brown, L.N.; Holmquist, J.R.; Guntenspergen, G.R.; Powelson, K.W.; et al. Effects of Climate Change on Tidal Marshes along a Latitudinal Gradient in California (2016–1125); U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  62. CDFA (California Department of Food and Agriculture). Climate Change Consortium for Specialty Crops—Impacts and Strategies for Resilience. Available online: https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/environmentalstewardship/pdfs/ccc-report.pdf (accessed on 16 July 2017).
  63. Susan, M.S.; Franco, G.; Pittiglio, S.; Chou, W.; Cayan, D. The Future Is Now: An Update on Climate Change Science Impacts and Response Options for California. Reference Guide CEC-500-2008-071, Vol-4. CA Water Plan Update 2009, Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) California Energy Commission. Available online: http://www.waterplan.water.ca.gov/docs/cwpu2009/0310final/v4c02a15_cwp2009.pdf (accessed on 24 June 2017).
  64. Duffy, P.B.; Bonfils, C.; Lobell, D. Interpreting recent temperature trends in California. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union 2007, 88, 409–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Cayan, D.R.; Maurer, E.P.; Dettinger, M.D.; Tyree, M.; Hayhoe, K. Climate change scenarios for the California region. Clim. Chang. 2008, 87, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Ackerman, F.; Stanton, E.A. Climate Affects Agriculture: A Challenge to Complacency; Tufts University: Medford, MA, USA, 2012; Available online: http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/publications/working_papers/index.html (accessed on 06 August 2017).
  67. Cahill, K.N.; Lobell, D.B.; Field, C.B.; Bonfils, C.; Hayhoe, K. Modeling Climate Change Impacts on Wine Grape Yields and Quality in California. Available online: https://chaireunesco-vinetculture.u-bourgogne.fr/colloques/actes_clima/Actes/Article_Pdf/Cahill.pdf (accessed on 09 November 2017).
  68. Raza, A.; Friedel, J.K.; Bodner, G. Improving water use efficiency for sustainable agriculture. In Agroecology and Strategies for Climate Change, Sustainable Agriculture Reviews; Lichtfouse, E., Ed.; Springer Science Business Media: Dordecht, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 167–211. [Google Scholar]
  69. Ameden, H.; Just, D.R. Pests and agricultural production under climate change. Presented at American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Chicago, IL, USA, 5–8 August 2001. [Google Scholar]
  70. CalEPA (California Environment Protection Agency). Climate Change Research Plan for California, 2015. Available online: http://climatechange.ca.gov/climate_action_team/reports/CAT_research_plan_2015.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2018).
  71. CLIMATE-ADAPT (European Climate Adaptation Platform). Improved Water Retention in Agricultural Areas (2015). Available online: http://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/metadata/adaptation-options/improved-water-retention-in-agricultural-areas (accessed on 31 January 2018).
  72. Battany, M. Climate Change in CA: Vineyard Cultural Practices; California Department of Food and Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Consortium: Modesto, CA, USA, 2012.
  73. Hayhoe, K.; Cayan, D.; Field, C.B.; Frumhoff, P.C.; Maurer, E.P.; Miller, N.L.; Moser, S.C.; Schneider, S.H.; Cahill, K.N.; Cleland, E.E.; et al. Emissions Pathways, Climate Change, and Impacts on California, 2004. Available online: http://www.pnas.org/content/101/34/12422.short (accessed on 5 February 2018).
  74. Pope, K.S. Climate Change Adaptation: Temperate Perennial Crops; California Department of Food and Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Consortium: Modesto, CA, USA, 2012.
  75. Jackson, L.; Haden, V.R. What Are Agriculture’s Best Strategies for Coping with Climate Change? Available online: http://calclimateag.org/wp-content/up-loads/2011/05/Louise%20Jackson%20-Adaptation%20.pdf (accessed on 31 January 2018).
  76. SS (Southern States). The End Row Blog—SouthernStates.com Blog. Available online: https://www.southe-rnstates.com/Blog/index.aspx?topic=How-Can-Heavy-Rainfall-Impact-Crop-Production%3F (accessed on 31 January 2018).
  77. Kang, Y.; Khan, S.; Ma, X. Climate change impacts on crop yield, crop water productivity and food security—A review. Prog. Nat. Sci. 2009, 19, 1665–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Weiser, M. Heavy Rain Means New Challenges for California Farmers. Available online: https://www-.newsdeeply.com/water/community/2017/03/28/heavy-rain-means-new-challenges-for-california-farmers (accessed on 31 January 2018).
  79. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Perspective, Framework and Priorities. Available online: http://www.fao.org/nr/climpag/pub-/adaptation_to_climate_change_2007.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2018).
  80. Allahyari, M.S.; Ghavami, S.; Daghighi Masuleh, Z.; Michailidis, A.; Nastis, S.A. Understanding Farmers’ Perceptions and Adaptations to Precipitation and Temperature Variability: Evidence from Northern Iran. Climate 2016, 4, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cayan, D.R.; Das, T.; Pierce, D.W.; Barnett, T.P.; Tyree, M.; Gershunov, A. Future Dryness in the Southwest US and the Hydrology of the Early 21st Century Drought. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Fake, C. Drought Impacts and Mitigation Strategies for Annual & Perennial Crops. Available online: http://ucanr.edu/sites/placernevadasmallfarms/files-/203321.pdf (accessed on 1 February 2018).
  83. Chang, H.; Bonnette, M.R. Climate change and water-related ecosystem services: Impacts of drought in California, USA. Ecosyst. Health Sustain. 2016, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Burt, C. Irrigation Techniques and Agricultural Water Use Efficiency; California Department of Food and Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Consortium: Monterey, CA, USA, 2013.
  85. Gleick, P.H.; Christian-Smith, J.; Cooley, H. Water-use Efficiency and Productivity: Rethinking the Basin Approach. Water Int. 2011, 36, 784–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lipiec, J.; Doussan, C.; Nosalewicz, A.; Kondracka, K. Effect of drought and heat stresses on plant growth and yield: A review. Int. Agrophys. 2013, 27, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Lobell, D.B.; Torney, A.; Field, C.B. Climate Extremes in California Agriculture. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 355–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Das, T.; Dettinger, M.D.; Cayan, D.R.; Hidalgo, H.G. Potential Increase in Floods in California’s Sierra Nevada Under Future Climate Projections. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 71–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Fruit Growers News. California Growers Monitor Storms’ Impact on Crops. Available online: https://fruit-growersnews.com/news/california-growers-monitor-storms-impact-crops/ (accessed on 5 February 2018).

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.