Next Article in Journal
Assessing the Emissions Related to European Households’ Expenditures and Their Impact on Achieving Carbon Neutrality
Next Article in Special Issue
Local Context Capacity Building Needs for Climate Change Adaptation among Smallholder Farmers in Uganda: Policy and Practice Implications
Previous Article in Journal
Assessment of Climate Change Impact on Hydropower Generation: A Case Study for Três Marias Power Plant in Brazil
Previous Article in Special Issue
Risky Business: Modeling the Future of Jamaica’s Coffee Production in a Changing Climate
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change: A Scoping Review

Elena Grigorieva
Alexandra Livenets
2 and
Elena Stelmakh
Department of Geography, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin (HU), 10117 Berlin, Germany
Institute for Complex Analysis of Regional Problems, Far Eastern Branch Russian Academy of Sciences (ICARP FEB RAS), 679016 Birobidzhan, Russia
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Climate 2023, 11(10), 202;
Submission received: 5 September 2023 / Revised: 26 September 2023 / Accepted: 3 October 2023 / Published: 6 October 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Climate Adaptation Ways for Smallholder Farmers)


Since agricultural productivity is weather and climate-related and fundamentally depends on climate stability, climate change poses many diverse challenges to agricultural activities. The objective of this study is to review adaptation strategies and interventions in countries around the world proposed for implementation to reduce the impact of climate change on agricultural development and production at various spatial scales. A literature search was conducted in June–August 2023 using electronic databases Google Scholar and Scientific Electronic Library eLibrary.RU, seeking the key words “climate”, “climate change”, and “agriculture adaptation”. Sixty-five studies were identified and selected for the review. The negative impacts of climate change are expressed in terms of reduced crop yields and crop area, impacts on biotic and abiotic factors, economic losses, increased labor, and equipment costs. Strategies and actions for agricultural adaptation that can be emphasized at local and regional levels are: crop varieties and management, including land use change and innovative breeding techniques; water and soil management, including agronomic practices; farmer training and knowledge transfer; at regional and national levels: financial schemes, insurance, migration, and culture; agricultural and meteorological services; and R&D, including the development of early warning systems. Adaptation strategies depend on the local context, region, or country; limiting the discussion of options and measures to only one type of approach—"top-down” or “bottom-up”—may lead to unsatisfactory solutions for those areas most affected by climate change but with few resources to adapt to it. Biodiversity-based, or “ecologically intensive” agriculture, and climate-smart agriculture are low-impact strategies with strong ecological modernization of agriculture, aiming to sustainably increase agricultural productivity and incomes while addressing the interrelated challenges of climate change and food security. Some adaptation measures taken in response to climate change may not be sufficient and may even increase vulnerability to climate change. Future research should focus on adaptation options to explore the readiness of farmers and society to adopt new adaptation strategies and the constraints they face, as well as the main factors affecting them, in order to detect maladaptation before it occurs.

1. Introduction

Anthropogenic activities are contributing to current environmental problems such as climate change, natural resource degradation, including soil degradation and biodiversity loss, and environmental pollution. According to the World Economic Forum Global Risks Perception Survey 2021–2022, “Climate action failure” and “Extreme weather” were identified as holding the 1st and 2nd places among the most serious risks on the global scale for the next 10 years [1]. The world’s population is currently increasing and is projected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050 [2], which poses challenges for socio-economic progress and requires expanding the contributions of all resources to meet the necessities of a growing number of people [3]. Food security is one of the main problems in the 21st century, and due to the growth of the population, agricultural production, both food and non-food products, will have to increase by 60% by 2050 compared to 2005 [4].
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are a universal call for global action aimed to “protect the planet and ensure that all people enjoy peace and prosperity”. To ensure their achievement, they are all interconnected and integrated, balancing the environmental, social, and economic dimensions of sustainable development [5,6,7,8]. Seven out of 17 SDGs are related to agriculture and climate change, namely: No Poverty (SDG1), Zero Hunger (SDG2), Gender Equality (SDG5), Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG12), Climate Action (SDG13), Life Below Water (SDG14), and Life on Land (SDG15) [6,7,8,9,10,11]. To achieve the goals while addressing current climate change problems, climate-smart agriculture is needed, aimed at sustainable food production, climate adaptation, and resilience [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22].

1.1. Adaptation Strategies—Definitions for Agriculture

While mitigation means activities aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions [23,24,25,26], adaptation refers to measures aimed at increasing the ability of people and communities to adapt to climate change and related impacts that will occur in various sectors of human life [23,26,27,28,29,30]. In the light of climate change, adaptation is recognized as actions aimed at reducing vulnerability and/or benefiting opportunities resulting from current or future changes [26,31,32,33]. In this context, Adaptation Strategy (AS) can be defined as “…a general plan of action for addressing the impacts of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. It will include a mix of policies and measures with the overarching objective of reducing the country’s vulnerability. Depending on the circumstances, the strategy can be comprehensive at a national level, addressing adaptation across sectors, regions and vulnerable populations, or it can be more limited, focusing on just one or two sectors or regions” ([34], p. 186). Considering the existence of a large number of definitions of the term “strategy” [35,36], we use the above one with the addition of a local level.
Since the relevance of AS depends on the nature of incentives and the associated vulnerability, discussion of adaptation strategies should begin with an overview of climate and ongoing climate change, as well as their impact on agriculture, answering the question: What is agriculture adapting to? For example, B. Smit and coauthors [37] emphasize that “adaptation in agriculture may be in response to a sequence such as temperature and precipitation conditions, which result in drought (magnitude and/or frequency) which influences crop yield which has consequences for income” ([37], p. 230). At the same time, no country or region has the same adaptation potential, especially depending on their economic and/or social status, which is very important for developing countries, which experience more restrictions compared to developed ones [27,38].
B. Smit and M. Skinner [39] determine the distinctive characteristics of adaptation in agriculture, such as “intent and purposefulness; timing and duration; scale and responsibility; and form” ([39], p. 93). Here “intent and purposefulness” means spontaneous or specifically planned; “timing and duration” is related to anticipatory (proactive), concurrent (during), or responsive (reactive) adaptations. “Scale and responsibility” characteristics are very important in terms of decision-making and planning specific adaptation plans. “Scale” is a spatial level where adaptation occurs, such as plant, plot, field, farm, region, and nation [39]. In this context, “responsibility” means differentiation between the various actors who implement or promote adaptation in the agricultural sector, including farmers as individual producers, private enterprises integrated into agribusiness, and public institutions referring to governmental decisions [37]. Consequently, adaptation “form” refers to the diverse array of structures and procedures that vary depending on spatial and policy levels, shaped by their administrative, financial, institutional, legal, managerial, organizational, political, pragmatic, structural, and technological attributes [39]. At the same time, there are various restrictions on adaptation, or factors affecting agricultural adaptation to climate change, with their different origins: physical, environmental, technological, economic, political, institutional, psychological, or socio-cultural [28,30,40,41,42,43].

1.2. Adaptation Strategies: Scaling from National to Farmer Levels

Climate change effects on agricultural activities vary in different regions, depending on economic, social, and environmental patterns, thus calling for a diverse mix of adaptation actions across the regions [25]. They can differ depending on the scale of the system. For instance, adaptation efforts vary at different levels of scale. At the farmer’s field level, it might involve actions like planting new species or hybrids. At the farm level, strategies could include diversification or obtaining insurance coverage. On regional or national scales, adaptation may entail changes in the number of farms or adjustments to compensatory programs. On a global level, it might necessitate shifts in international food market patterns [37]. Numerous examples of adaptation plans at the regional level can be found in the national communications submitted by the governments of developing countries [44].
The impact of climate change on agriculture is felt both at the level of individual producers and at the level of the entire population [45]. Two levels of agricultural adaptation are often discussed: farm-based measures, which are built on the rational personal interests of farmers, and policy-driven adaptation with government involvement, based on collective needs [46,47]. The most severe repercussions of these changes are felt within local agricultural communities, as they directly affect employment, income sources, and agricultural production. These communities heavily rely on the agricultural sector, rendering them more susceptible to such impacts. The most vitally damaging effects are expressed in reducing food security (availability, accessibility, stability, and use); aggravating water shortages (availability and quality of freshwater); causing damage to vital infrastructure (economic damage from floods and damage to infrastructure from the melting of polar ice caps); intensifying droughts (desertification); and increasing poverty in local communities [43]. At the same time, the choice at the national level related to the national policy in the field of agriculture and development is crucial [31]. According to Stage [48], the main difference between them is that at the local level, private farms and households can take autonomous adaptation decisions, while at the regional or national level, planned adaptation decisions are made by institutional or governmental authorities [48].

1.3. Adaptation Strategies for Agricultural Development and Production at Different Levels

The literature review shows that a comprehensive discussion has unfolded in the scientific community on the global impact of climate change and adaptation to it on various aspects of human life [19,27,28,37,38,43,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56]. The multiple attempts are devoted to research involving systematic analysis, categorization and documentation of agricultural adaptation as a whole [23,25,32,39,45,57,58,59], as well some specific aspects, such as adaptation features in different countries and regions of the world, e.g.,: the Mediterranean region [60], Eastern Europe [61], Nordic countries [33], the USA [62], Canada [39], developing countries [63], low- and middle-income countries [42], Asia [64,65,66], South Asia [67], African countries [11,18,68], arid and semi-arid tropics of Asia, Africa, and Latin America [69]; in various sectors of agriculture [70], depending on the effects for various crops [71,72,73,74,75,76,77], and in different weather outcomes [16,21,58,78,79].
Despite this extensive discourse, there have been only a few studies conducted that include research from countries and regions of the world, showing adaptation actions at different levels of agricultural production, from regional and local farmers’ responses to government involvement or national level [31]. Thus, in this study, an attempt is made not to cover all the papers on the topic but more so to fill the above gap in research by compiling a scoping review of the literature. The aim of the current study is to review adaptation strategies and actions in countries around the world proposed for implementation in order to reduce the impact of climate change on their agricultural development and production at different levels. The study was completed in three stages: (i) identifying the climate diversity and climate change patterns; (ii) determining the impact of climate change on agricultural production; and (iii) recognizing adaptation strategies and actions in the agricultural sector, including at the local (farms), regional (institutions), and national (governments) levels. We believe that our results would benefit not only future research aimed at studying the development of effective strategies for the adaptation of the agricultural sector in different countries but also the influencing factors and barriers to the adjustment of agriculture to climate change.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the Materials and Methods of this study. Section 3 provides the Results of the main findings, including a table that summarizes the outputs from all the papers selected for the review. Section 4, Discussion, includes some additional aspects, such as: shortcomings and advantages that arise from climate change to agriculture, in Section 4.1; discussion of the pros and cons of the “bottom-up” and “top-down” approaches (Section 4.2); unique agricultural techniques such as intercropping are considered in Section 4.3; involvement of Indigenous Knowledge in the adaptation process is shown in Section 4.4; biodiversity-based agriculture and smart agriculture are debated in Section 4.5 and Section 4.6; and maladaptation concepts are discussed in Section 4.7. In the final Section 5, we present the main conclusions and implications of this study, including recommendations.

2. Materials and Methods

A literature search was conducted in June-August 2023 using electronic databases Google Scholar and Scientific Electronic Library eLibrary.RU, the largest Russian information and analytical portal in science, technology, medicine, and education, containing abstracts and full texts. The following questions were identified prior to the review process and subsequently taken into account when reviewing the literature: (i) What are current or future climate changes? (ii) How does climate change affect and is projected to affect agricultural production? (iii) What necessary adaptation actions (policies and measures) are noted? We were seeking the key phrases “climate change” and “agriculture adaptation measures” to search in Google Scholar and the key words “climate” and “agriculture adaptation” to search in eLibrary. We also looked for studies cited in the recognized papers.
The scoping nature of the literature review does not require full coverage of all papers on this topic, but those enveloping all climate types over different continents. The several first relevant studies were selected for the review, all of them published not earlier than 1999. The review criteria stipulated that publications eligible for inclusion should encompass countries with diverse climates, along with considerations of climate change and its associated impacts or adaptation strategies, without bias in the selection. Ultimately, our search identified 65 studies that were deemed suitable for the review, and we did not impose any restrictions on the study design.
It is important to note that challenges associated with the effects of climate change and the necessary adaptation measures are influenced not only by climatic factors but also by other biophysical variables, such as agro-climatic zones, soil types, and others. In this review, we do not classify our findings based on these specific assumptions. Instead, we seek to clarify and consolidate the relevant challenges and opportunities, taking into account a number of factors related to climate change. However, the results presented in this document can be used in conjunction with the identified prerequisites to assess the applicability of a particular task or opportunity in a particular context.

3. Results

From the reviewed papers, 59 in English and 6 in Russian were included in the table. Most of the articles were from European countries (25) [33,47,71,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102] and Asia (21) [13,17,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121], several from African countries (12) [11,68,69,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130], also South America (4) [131,132,133,134] and North America (2) [135,136], and one paper from Australia [137]. Of these papers, six [17,100,122,131,136,137] were published at the Special Issue of Climate (MDPI) “Agroecological Approaches for Climate-Smart and Biodiverse Agriculture” (, accessed on 1 September 2023), which originally inspired us to conduct this review. The studied areas include a wide range of climates, from equatorial to temperate, with various humidity variations (arid, semi-arid, humid, monsoon, Mediterranean, maritime), organized as from the temperate and subtropical climates of Europe (including Russia) to various climates in Asia, Africa, the Southern and Northern Americas, and Oceania (Australia).

3.1. Climate Change

Most of the descriptions of the climate change in different regions include increase of the mean annual or seasonal temperatures, changes in precipitation, both increase and/or decrease depending on the study area, higher frequencies of extreme weather events [33,83,84,85,89,99,133], such as heat waves, droughts and associated wild fires e.g., [71,81,82,98,101,115,122,124,137] or floods [98,101], changing rainfall patterns [43]; changes in physical and geographical zoning [93,94], changes in agroclimatic indices such as Growing Degree Days [96,97] or Temperature-Humidity Index [135], growing season length of crops [118]; the sea level rise [118]; changes in coastal zones [110,116] or alteration of permafrost and glaciers melting [47,113,116]. An increase in the frequency, duration, and intensity of droughts as the most dangerous effects of climate change on agriculture has been detailed globally, in all regions, and in many countries [47,68,69,71,80,81,82,89,99,101,102,112,115,116,122,124].
Some studies note the changes that have already happened in the last 10–30 years (e.g., in [11,80,82,89,99,109,117,129]). Others, based on different models, describe the predicted changes in the future by the years 2050–2100 according to various scenarios [71,86,87,90,98,103,105,108,119,123,128,134,135] or degrees of warming, e.g., +1 °C [93,104] or +2 °C [69]. In some papers, both current (past years) and future projections of climate change are discussed [114,125,126].

3.2. Changes in Agriculture Due to the Effect of Climate Change

Changes in climate can have different impacts on agriculture. Agricultural productivity is related to weather and climate, fundamentally depends on climatic stability, and, consequently, leads to challenges for food potential. Higher temperatures and reduced precipitation lead to growing aridity, water deficits, desertification, and increases in evapotranspiration, which lead to reduced yield potential, decreasing yields and the growing areas [114,125,126], deterioration of livestock conditions [17,47,69,85,126,137], and reduced reproduction and milk production [47,80]. Possible climate changes in the future may mean that some plants, such as coffee plants, will no longer be able to recover from the effects of natural disasters [131].
High temperatures and changes in precipitation also affect biotic factors, causing indirect effects such as intense weed growth, the incidence of pests and diseases, the introduction of new insects and diseases [13,47,111,112,122,131,134], or abiotic factors, such as widespread loss of nutrients [97,119]. Sea intrusion in coastal agricultural areas leads to agricultural land loss, pollutes freshwater resources, and increases salinity [11,47,109,110,112,115]. Another outcome is soil erosion and a decrease in its fertility [11,13,47,69,83,90,94,108,112,119,122]. Negative impacts are expressed in economic losses, increased labor, and equipment costs [89,137].
However, in temperate climates, yield gains are potentiated by longer growing seasons and the northward expansion of area for cereal cultivation, e.g., wheat, rice, and maize [33,80,84,88,89,92,101] or cotton [101,106], increasing pasture lands [135]. An increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations can lead to yield growth due to CO2 fertilization [91]. Some countries and regions are shown to have both a negative effect in southern areas (climate losers) and a positive impact in northern parts (climate winners) [71,93].

3.3. Adaptation Strategies and Actions

Agricultural adaptation strategies and actions (ASA) can be grouped into different categories, depending on the spatial scale of adaptation options. Of the 65 papers included in the review, 22 consider adaptation actions at the local scale, or farmer’s level; 8 at the regional scale, or institutional level; 4 at the national scale, discussing decisions and solutions at the governmental level; and 31 studies provide a comprehensive range of ASA scales, including Local-to-Region, Region-to-Nation, or Local-to-Nation strategies and actions. Additionally, two papers referred to as “Local scale” discuss the adaptation of plant species to possible climate changes [100,122].

3.3.1. Agricultural Adaptation Strategies and Actions: Local Scale

Our results show that most studies focus on the local scale (Local), involve mainly practical farmers’ decisions, and activate a vast massif of techniques and methods. Among the farm production practices are often mentioned such as: (i) use of different crops or crop varieties, and plant breeding or development of new crop varieties more suitable to the changing climate—higher temperatures and/or reduced precipitation and hence, water availability, in a given region; flood, landslides, and drought-resilient; salt water resistant; insect and pest resistant [11,13,17,33,69,81,82,86,87,88,89,91,99,100,102,103,104,106,107,108,110,112,113,116,117,118,120,121,122,123,126,128,133]; (ii) crop rotation and intercropping to improve soil quality and fertility [69,83,84,119,124]; (iii) adjustments in planting dates such as changes in harvest and sowing dates, e.g., later sowings, sowings to suit rainfall variability, etc. [13,17,47,81,102,116,118,120,123,124,126,128,129]. Technologies are (can be) introduced for water and soil management, among them: (i) the adoption of water saving technologies such as efficient and sustainable irrigation practices including drip irrigation, micro irrigation and others, and the optimization of an irrigation schedule [11,88,89,91,98,100,102,106,108,110,112,113,114,117,120,124,126,129,132,136]; (ii) waste water reuse [109]; (iii) mulching and contour plugging; the use of living barriers, which improves soil drainage and reduces water-logging; and increasing the soil capacity of moisture-holding [11,47,99,118,131].
Adaptation strategies employed by farmers can significantly increase yields [112]. The actual effects of climate change and variability largely hinge on farm characteristics such as intensity, size, and land use. These factors influence farm management and adaptation practices. Given that various farm types adapt differently, a greater diversity of farm types can mitigate the impacts of climate variability at the regional level. Nevertheless, certain farm types may still remain vulnerable.

3.3.2. Agricultural Adaptation Strategies and Actions: Regional Level

Region-scale ASAs (Region) involve mainly formal decision-makers and employ methods and tools that include the same adaptation practices as at the local level, when these strategies and options are managed by various institutions—Union Councils, private companies, NGOs—at the regional level [71,85,95,118]. These ASAs include (i) farmers’ education, knowledge transfer and management changes [103,104,107,115,118]; (ii) introduction and running of regional early warning weather systems [85,115]; (iii) using modern weather services by integrating them into various digital platforms [96]; (iv) improving agricultural consulting, insurance and credit services [85,97,107,112,115,118,129,134]; (v) reducing the agricultural dependence on chemicals and synthetic fertilizers [17,92,110,111,125]; (vi) modernization of and investments in irrigation systems [11,13,101,102,107,110,112,118,129]; (vii) use of agroforestry [13,85,111,125] and (viii) alternative agricultural techniques [121]; (ix) sequester carbon support biodiversity through habitat and green corridor creation [85,119].

3.3.3. Agricultural Adaptation Strategies and Actions: National Level

At the national level (Nation), governmental programs and insurance include the provision of information to farmers about potential climate change impacts and adaptation measures. The government support mechanism is generally response-focused. National Action Plans for Adaptation [26] or National Strategic Plans [99] and National Agricultural Policies [121] to climate change are currently being developed and implemented in many countries around the world, concerning the major vulnerabilities of each country. Weather forecasts and information on climate change trends have public-good properties of non-rival consumption and high costs of exclusion [137]. It should be supplied by the government, not the competitive market, which can lead to the information being underprovided. Government roles should also include: (i) investment in R&D [93,95,97,113,115]; (ii) provision of transport, irrigation, and other infrastructure, and provision of a safety net for those who fail to successfully adapt to climate change [80,137]. Technological developments at the national scale include (iii) the development of early warning systems for risk communication to prevent loss from natural disasters [68,113,115]. Anticipatory disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation planning are at the national level, as neither instrumental observation nor local awareness schemes alone are suitable for adaptation planning [113]. Other important adaptation strategies are (iv) selection and breeding of new drought/heat resistant/tolerant crop varieties [85,102,105]; (v) creating relevant genebanks [134]; (vi) developing agroforestry systems [69]; (vii) developing and implementing more efficient methods of irrigation [11,68]; and (viii) using renewable energy sources in modern agricultural systems [92]. Governmental support for (seasonal) migrations and alternative livelihood opportunities could help improve the sustainability of agriculture and its resistance to climate change and should be recognized as complementary to the current adaptation tactics and strategies [11,44,113,123]. National Agricultural Policy [121] also addresses the issues of environmental protection in agriculture, which, among others, implies developing farming systems and agro-technologies on a landscape basis [93] and supporting natural and agricultural biodiversity through the creation of habitat and green corridors [95]. Last but not least, Nation ASAs emphasize the importance of developing the international agricultural market, taking into account the opportunities and limitations of global change [91].
All results from the research studies mentioned above are listed in Table 1, where the papers are arranged according to continents, from Europe to Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Oceania, and inside the continents—according to the climate from temperate to equatorial climate zones, including tropical and subtropical, and all varieties of humidity. The following characteristics of studies involved in the review were extracted: study area and its climate, climate change characteristics, consequent changes in agriculture, spatial scale on which adaptation strategies and actions (ASAs) are proposed or executed, which are Local, Region, and Nation, and agricultural ASAs suggested or already used in the studied regions.

4. Discussion

Current climate change faces various challenges for the global community in all spheres of livelihood, including agricultural development and production. Climate change adaptation actions in agriculture incorporate a wide diversity of activities at different scales linked to declining agricultural exposure and vulnerability to changes, such as technological developments or changes in production practices [87].
Of the 65 papers included in the review, 48% consider adaptation measures at the whole range of ASA scales, from Local to Region and Nation, emphasizing the fact that all levels of decision-making should be involved and interconnected in the adaptation process. Developments at one level can help in the implementation of plans at another level, and vice versa, failures in the implementation of decisions at any level can lead to maladaptation as a whole. For example, several studies show the need for regional-scale measures such as investments in training and education, easier access to credits, which can help to adopt local adaptation actions, and facilitating the adjustment process among the poorest farmers at the local scale [128,130].
To describe the picture in “large strokes”, the results identify five groups of the most relevant adaptation measures stimulated by the impacts of climate change. The ASAs in agriculture that can be distinguished at the Local and Region scales are: (i) crop varieties and management, including changes in land use and innovative breeding techniques; (ii) water and soil management, including agronomic techniques; (iii) farmers’ education and knowledge transfer; at the Region and Nation scales: (iv) financial schemes, insurance, migration, and culture; (v) agricultural and weather services, R&D, including the development of early warning systems [11,99,138].
More considerations are addressed below, emphasizing additional aspects on the topic of agricultural adaptation to climate change.

4.1. Climate Change and Agriculture: Shortcomings and Advantages

Climate change has a multiplicative effect on the climate system. In recent decades, tropical Asian countries have reported increasing surface temperature trends and decreasing trends in rainfall. Even with only small changes in climate, the frequency and intensity of extreme events may change in Africa. In Latin America, the climate is affected by the El Niño-southern oscillation, and depending upon the phases of the phenomenon, there is a close relationship between the increase and decrease of precipitation. Local farmers in these regions use crop cultivation strategies such as inter- or mixed cropping. They allow minimal risks and ensure certain productivity even in lean years [69].
Droughts are one of the most dangerous consequences of climate change caused by a decrease in precipitation and/or an increase in temperature, in terms of further implications for agriculture. Drought stress leads to a water deficit, which is also caused by increases in evapotranspiration under a warming climate [139]. Related to droughts, water shortages are one of the key risks for agriculture in the future. Thus, it is essential to research the capability of crops to grow in a water deficit. As it was shown by Sperdouli with coauthors [100], some of the tomato cultivars have no difference in photochemical efficiency under 50% less water. Such research is helpful for estimating minimum irrigation levels for effective photosynthesis.
On the one hand, in the northern areas of temperate regions, climate change is anticipated to increase the food production potential and expand suitable areas for crop cultivation. As a result of prolonged growing seasons and higher CO2 concentrations, increases in net primary productivity (35–54%) are projected in northern Europe [80,140]. Expansion to the North is often considered a decision to address the problems of agriculture caused by climate change in lower-latitude countries [141]. On the other hand, there might be an increased need for plant protection, a risk of nutrient leaching and speeded decomposition in soil organic matter [33], or challenges for agricultural systems located on arable permafrost-affected soils, such as equipment problems, waterlogging of soil, damage to infrastructure, losing topsoil, and soil fertility [141]. Moreover, the reduced duration of snow cover and frost at the soil level may have a negative effect on forest production and can decrease recreational possibilities. In southern areas, climate change is predicted to bring more negative changes with limited benefits [80].

4.2. “Bottom-Up” and “Top-Down” Approaches: Pros and Cons

Generally speaking, “top-down” and “bottom-up” are two different approaches to problem solving, analysis, and decision-making in various fields, including business, psychology, and software development. The “top-down” approach starts with the big picture and breaks it down into smaller parts, while the “bottom-up” approach starts with individual components and combines them into a larger whole [142]. In environmental science, “top-down” approaches usually define critical parameters that relate to comprehensive social benefits and more detailed goals of institutions or operations and denote observations or activities planned in the context of a global, international, or national framework, often with a focus on national and international assessments and scientific research. “Bottom-up” approaches refer to surveillance or action initiatives defined and implemented at a lower level and subsequently transferred to higher-level authorities, often with an emphasis on achieving the results sought by the local communities [142].
Initially, in changing conditions, farmers adapt in their own way, mostly reactively and independently, without having the required comprehension and financial resources to operate for a long time. In order to avoid making wrong decisions, regional and national administrations must respond properly. While “bottom-up” approaches with adaptation options at the Local scale, or at the local level, are aimed at producing and realizing actions to formulate and implement policies with the interest of the local community to fight against recent past or present vulnerabilities [52], “top-down” approaches convey the policies developed by the government at the Region-to-Nation scales with the involvement of technical specialists and based on climate projections and modeled impacts [59].
In many cases, “bottom-up” approaches lag behind “top-down” approaches applied to carbon emission budgets and targets suitable for climate change mitigation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions [143]. As a rule, a “top-down” approach is preferable when the difficulties faced by “bottom-up” approaches, such as the absence of information, inducements, and resources, which are obstacles to effective policy realization, are found [144]. Adaptation actions, which were mainly carried out using a “top-down” approach, may lead to actions that do not meet the actual demands of fragile communities [54,59,144,145]. The fight against climate change is a global problem, but adaptation measures should be taken at the local scale and with the real participation of the community. “Bottom-up” approaches are likely to be a crucial element of adaptation measures at the local level, especially considering the areas’ variety, and should be implemented in accordance with their specific conditions and vulnerabilities.
“Bottom-up” approaches are seen as an effective management method and a way to ensure that local communities and marginalized groups of society have a voice in climate policy. At the community level, they may be appropriate for some climate change adaptation realities. However, for other climate change adaptation measures—for example, in the field of infrastructure, “top-down” approaches may be preferable. At the same time, some unpredictable threats from the “bottom-up” approaches can be raised. In countries with low preparedness for the present climate change risks, local and individual countermeasures can eventually increase societal disparities, lead to long-term maladaptation, and even encourage the aggravation of the climate crisis [146].
Adaptation strategies depend on local conditions, region, or country; limiting the discussion of possible options and measures to only one type of approach—"top-down” or “bottom-up”—can lead to unsatisfactory solutions for those areas that have been most affected by climate change but have insignificant resources to adjust to it [52,59].

4.3. Intercropping as a Cultivation Technique

Adapting a crop system to weather variability and climate change is crucial for sustainable and durable food production. Resistance to unexpected weather conditions depends, among other circumstances, on the intercropping or alternation of crops with the inventive cultivation of many interacting crop species or genotypes together in time and space, which enriches the diversity of the farming fields and landscapes [72,113,125]. It can serve as a means of solving the problems of crop cultivation in northern agriculture caused by climate change [84,102]. In a qualitative study in Finland, it was revealed that intercropping leads to increased yield, self-sufficiency in nutrients and proteins, preservation and care of soil, reduction of pathogen pressure, and regulation of water dynamics [84]. The most notable intermediate crops are: nitrogen-fixing legumes; deep-rooted species, e.g., Lucerne (Medicago sativa L.); special crops, e.g., herbs in feed mixtures; as well as winter oilseeds and cereals sown in autumn [84].
Local crop varieties, or crop landraces, are heterogeneous mixtures of genotypes that give plant phenotypes with small but important differences in field conditions [147]. The genetic variety of such mixtures allows agricultural crops to adapt to drought, heat, saline soil, or other extreme environmental conditions. Landraces with their high heterogeneity can help mitigate such problems as crop failures, reduced yields, loss of quality, and an increase in the number of problems with insects and disease, which can worsen under climate change conditions [122]. The genetic diversity contained in landrace populations is an important part of the global diversity of crops and is considered of primary significance for future international agricultural production [69,122]. Thus, small landholders can use landraces as a means of adaptation to changing climates [133].
Other multiple-purpose farming systems and strategies to combine a variety of crops and animals will make more effective applications of natural resources, involving frameworks and approaches to land management such as agroforestry, alley cropping, and permaculture. Future systems will be spatially diverse and adjusted to certain local environmental conditions and will include ecological design based on whole-system ecologically based thinking.

4.4. Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge

Adaptation measures are most effective when they correspond to local conditions and their incentives, opportunities, and resources, including the use of traditional knowledge and community participation. Traditional knowledge (TK) is determined as the local knowledge of a cultural group or a society, as opposed to the global, widespread knowledge acquired by researchers at universities and private institutions [148]. TK is a complex experience of local farmers collected over thousands of years and described by high production capacity, conservation of biodiversity, low energy consumption, and mitigation of climate change. It can serve as a guide in the development of sustainable farming systems [119,149]. Traditional agriculture is usually located on small farms that integrate crops and livestock, thus reducing their reliance on external inputs such as fossil fuels, fertilizers, and pesticides [69,149,150]. Having experience farming in different extreme weather events, traditional farms are also resistant to environmental changeability with minimal external influences [151,152].
Traditional agriculture includes such practices as agroforestry, crop rotation, intercropping, traditional organic composting, cover cropping, and integrated crop-animal farming, which can be accepted as the model methods for climate-smart agriculture. These practices enhance agricultural sustainability and help in mitigating climate change [153]. Highly productive traditional farming in marginal regions, for example, intercropping integrated into animal husbandry and/or agroforestry, constitutes the potentially effective farming skills of traditional farmers based on a deep appreciation of the natural environment laws [154]. Sharing the experience gained by local producers and integrating local knowledge into regional and national adaptation policies will help develop more effective adaptation strategies to decrease vulnerability to climate change [131].
Looking further and deeper into TK practices, Indigenous TK describes ways of learning and a comprehensive approach to living off the land and learning from it [10]. Indigenous peoples’ knowledge and adaptation are collective information and expertise in the field of biodiversity, controlled by the community and improved from generation to generation, performing a key role in the management of natural resources via traditional practices [154]. In the current unfavorable environmental scenarios, Indigenous TK developed for generations in the process of a long interactive assimilation of Indigenous peoples with their local environments after several trials and errors and is recognized as scientific and consistent knowledge [119]. For example, in the Sakha Republic, Russia, local Indigenous people have for centuries effectively used permafrost landscapes such as alases (pools of a thaw lake) for hay production [155]. According to Shaffril and colleagues [65], traditional Indigenous knowledge should be integrated into current adaptation strategies as follows: (1) promote the recognition of TK and the role of Indigenous peoples in policy design and formulation; (2) develop a strategic adaptation scheme that meets the requirements, capabilities, and concerns of Indigenous peoples; and (3) announce particular spheres and study content that future research should be focused on [65].

4.5. Biodiversity-Based Agriculture

Agricultural ecosystems, like other ecosystems, depend on biodiversity, and species of animals and plants depend on sustainable agricultural landscapes [85]. But in the last decades, due to intensive monoculture farming, agrobiodiversity has reduced, with the main sown crops being corn, wheat, rice, soyabean, and others [156,157,158]. It is estimated that in the 20th century, 75% of the world’s food crop diversity was lost due to the replacement of local varieties by genetically uniform, high-yielding varieties [12].
Biodiversity-based, or “ecologically intensive agriculture”, is a strong ecological modernization of agriculture that relies on high biological diversification of farming systems [159] and intensification of ecological interactions between components of the biophysical system that contribute to productivity, fertility, and resistance to external perturbations [160]. Biodiversity-based agriculture, as a way of adapting to current climate change, addresses several agricultural aspects of the current climate crisis; it supports ecosystem services and reduces the use of chemicals. Its inherent complexities are only a little understood, which leads to a little awareness that can be used as an indication supporting its regulation [85,119,161].
Providing the world with food depends on protecting our valuable ecosystems and their biodiversity. Environmental protection actions in agriculture should be addressed in existing NAPs [121]. In food production, preference should be given to ecosystem rehabilitation and conservation, which requires a far-sighted rational management strategy and fundamental changes in models and practices of economic development, products, and production. Food systems must be restructured in such a way as to have a neutral and positive impact on the environment, as well as to ensure healthy nutrition and food safety, and strategies with a low impact on the environment should become a priority task [21].

4.6. Climate Smart Agriculture

To better adapt to climate change, farmers must develop or transform their agricultural systems by replacing old procedures and practices with climate-smart agricultural practices [162,163]. Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) is an integrated agricultural approach to agricultural management aimed at sustainable growth of agricultural productivity and incomes, solving the interrelated problems of food security and climate change, reorienting agricultural development for achieving mitigation and adaptation goals, and effectively controlling agricultural growth [17,22,124,164,165]. CSA includes a range of adaptations and climate change mitigation practices aimed at sustainably increasing productivity (food, fiber, and fuel production), reducing GHG emissions, improving resilience, and promoting national food security and development goals [12,22,124,166]. CSA considers not only environmental but social and economic scope as well, to expand advantages and diminish compromises, consequently involving institutional, policy, and technological practices [165]. CSA activities are a combination of technologies and practices implemented in the agricultural system at various scales [15,165]. They include both long-existing traditional practices and innovative agricultural technologies known and promoted extensively, such as agroforestry, conservation agriculture, biodiversity-based agriculture, water management, and sustainable land management practices or technologies [16,18,165]. At the farm level, the implementation of CSA practices depends on the social-economic environment, which is influenced by institutional patterns, resource accessibility, and climatic conditions. The use of a combination of methods allows farmers to expand the synergy between CSA practices and technologies, increasing farms’ productivity in the face of intersecting challenges [18,124,167].
While it is desirable to reach all the goals, in the real world of agriculture, trade-offs will be necessary to find a compromise between the goals of productivity, sustainability, and mitigation. Today, CSA is a key concept for many organizations working at the nexus of climate change adaptation and agriculture. CSA is a set of guidelines that can be used to identify successful agricultural production models among different methods. Any agricultural technology compared to standard existing practices can ameliorate the objectives of CSA and be indicated as climate-smart [168].
Just a decade ago, it was argued that the concept of CSA was vague and with no firm criteria, with “no specific direction, no new science agenda, no ability to negotiate and prioritize contentious, conflicting agendas, and no compelling reason to increase or shift investment” [169]. Nowadays, we can justify the main directions of the future development of the CSA as follows: (i) involvement of advanced Internet technologies to provide the information security of agriculture; (ii) improvement of the crop structure and management methods; (iii) provision of “Internet + weather” services; (iv) enhancement of the agricultural service quality; and (v) development and use of agricultural weather insurance [22]. These ideas and strategies will consolidate ecological conservation, stimulate sustainable advancements in agriculture, and extenuate the effects of climate change.

4.7. Catching Maladaptation before It Happens

The adaptation of farmers to climate change is facing many challenges of various origins, such as physical, environmental, economic, institutional, technological, socio-cultural, psychological, or political [28,30,41,42,43,114,130]. Some adaptation measures taken in response to climate change may be insufficient and even elevate vulnerability to it. New areas of concern arise, particularly maladaptation—a concept widely used to denote the negative effects of adaptation to climate change [26], in farmers’ programs, and at regional or national adaptation policies [58,170]. The term “maladaptation” is defined as “changes in natural or human systems that inadvertently increase vulnerability to climatic stimuli; an adaptation that does not succeed in reducing vulnerability but increases it instead” ([171], p. 378). Some adaptation practices can serve short-term goals but involve future costs for society from a long-term perspective, causing unpredictable negative changes. At the same time, the review study conducted in South Asian countries shows that short-term adaptation options, such as improved agricultural technologies, may fail without long-term investments in institutional changes [67].
The bad tidings comprise the point that there is a dramatic ambiguity in the climate forecasts themselves. The mysteries of uncertainty arise from knowing what future climate to expect before communicating planned decisions. The solution may be to apply sensitivity analysis, which can show areas with high sensitivity to climate change and the degree of their potential impact [172]. These assumptions about the likely success of adaptation can be made based on a very small amount of research. The potential for achieving some degree of success on a global scale, even if entirely warranted, likely conceals noteworthy variations at the regional level in terms of their effects, adaptability, and the underlying assumptions regarding vulnerability. Exposure to multiple stresses and impacts leads to growing uncertainties and higher vulnerabilities [6,103]. In short, it is not easy to find the right solution anyway, and unfortunately, there will be winners and losers [31,172].
The general assumption is that some incursions unintentionally exacerbate, reallocate, or even generate new resources of vulnerability, which are caused by (i) superficial comprehension of “sensitivity” and “vulnerability” concepts; (ii) uneven involvement of the interested participants in the development and fulfillment of the adaptation programs; (iii) inclusion of adaptation strategies and actions into already operating development projects; and (iv) lack of critical attitude to how to define an “adaptation success” [55]. Three types of maladaptive consequences can be grouped as (i) restoring vulnerability; (ii) changing vulnerability; and (iii) undermining sustainable development [173].
Future research should focus on adaptation options to examine farmers’ and societal readiness and the difficulties they face in adopting new adaptation strategies, as well as their essential influencing factors, to catch maladaptation before it happens [174].

5. Conclusions and Recommendations

The objective of this study is to review adaptation strategies and interventions in countries around the world proposed for implementation to reduce the impact of climate change on agricultural development and production at various levels. The attempt is not so much to cover all works on the topic but rather to fill a gap in studies showing adaptation actions at different levels of agricultural production, ranging from regional and local farmer responses to government involvement or national level, by compiling a scoping review of the literature. The study was completed in three stages: (i) identifying the climate diversity and climate change patterns; (ii) determining the impact of climate change on agricultural production; and (iii) recognizing adaptation strategies and actions in the agricultural sector, including at the local (farms), regional (institutions), and national (governments) levels. The search identified 65 studies that were selected for the review. The studied areas include a wide range of climates, from equatorial to temperate, with various humidity variations (arid, semi-arid, humid, monsoon, Mediterranean, maritime). Most descriptions of climate change in different regions include increases in mean annual or seasonal temperatures, changes in precipitation, both upward and downward, depending on the study area, and increases in the duration, frequency, and intensity of extreme weather events, including heat waves and droughts. The negative impacts of climate change are expressed in terms of reduced crop yields and crop area; impacts on biotic and abiotic factors; economic losses, increased labor, and equipment costs. However, there are positive impacts in temperate climates, which are reflected in increased crop yields, enhanced by longer growing seasons and the northward expansion of crops such as wheat, rice, and maize.
Recommended strategies and actions for agricultural adaptation that can be emphasized at local and regional levels are crop varieties and management, including land use change and innovative breeding techniques; water and soil management, including agronomic practices; farmer training and knowledge transfer; at regional and national levels, financial schemes, insurance, migration, and culture; agricultural and meteorological services; and R&D, including the development of early warning systems.
In many cases, measures to adapt agriculture to climate change are currently represented by guidelines based on administrative boundaries (Nation or Region scale). On the contrary, it is necessary to develop recommendations based on climate realities that are acceptable not for the country(ies) as a whole but for agricultural units (Local scale) located in a certain climate. It is not entirely obvious whether the future climate will present mainly challenges or opportunities, so the recommended measures may even oppose one another. The adaptation choices are not easily made since they may lead to unknown or even negative outcomes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, E.G. and E.S.; writing—original draft preparation, E.G. and A.L.; writing—review and editing, E.G. and E.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research was funded within the framework of the State Task of ICARP FEB RAS No. AAAA-A21-121011390018-3.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.


  1. McLennan, M. The Global Risks Report, 17th ed.; World Economic Forum: Cologny/Geneva, Switzerland, 2022; 116p. [Google Scholar]
  2. Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zeifman, L.; Hertog, S.; Kantorova, V.; Wilmoth, J. A World of 8 Billion; Policy Brief No140; UN DESA: New York City, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050; ESA Working Paper No. 12-03; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  5. Resolution A/RES/70/1. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In Proceedings of the Seventieth United Nations General Assembly, New York, NY, USA, 25 September 2015; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2015. Available online: (accessed on 12 August 2023).
  6. Pradhan, P.; Costa, L.; Rybski, D.; Lucht, W.; Kropp, J.P. A Systematic Study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Interactions. Earths Future 2017, 5, 1169–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Soergel, B.; Kriegler, E.; Weindl, I.; Rauner, S.; Dirnaichner, A.; Ruhe, C.; Hofmann, M.; Bayer, N.; Bertram, C.; Bodirsky, B.L.; et al. A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2021, 11, 656–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fuldauer, L.I.; Thacker, S.; Haggis, R.A.; Fuso-Nerini, F.; Nicholls, R.J.; Hall, J.W. Targeting climate adaptation to safeguard and advance the Sustainable Development Goals. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 3579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Lal, R. Advancing climate change mitigation in agriculture while meeting global sustainable development goals. In Soil and Water Conservation: A Celebration of 75 Years; Soil and Water Conservation Society: Ankeny, IA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  10. Shahmohamadloo, R.S.; Febria, C.M.; Fraser, E.D.G.; Sibley, P.K. The sustainable agriculture imperative: A perspective on the need for an agrosystem approach to meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals by 2030. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2022, 18, 1199–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Magesa, B.A.; Mohan, G.; Matsuda, H.; Melts, I.; Kefi, M.; Fukushi, K. Understanding the farmers’ choices and adoption of adaptation strategies, and plans to climate change impact in Africa: A systematic review. Clim. Serv. 2023, 30, 100362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Policies, Practices and Financing for Food Security, Adaptation and Mitigation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010.
  13. Tripathi, A.; Mishra, A.K. Knowledge and passive adaptation to climate change: An example from Indian farmers. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 195–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gosnell, H.; Gill, N.; Voyer, M. Transformational adaptation on the farm: Processes of change and persistence in transitions to ‘climate-smart’ regenerative agriculture. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 59, 101965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Amadu, F.O.; McNamara, P.E.; Miller, D.C. Understanding the adoption of climate-smart agriculture: A farm-level typology with empirical evidence from southern Malawi. World Dev. 2020, 126, 104692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Arif, M.; Jan, T.; Munir, H.; Rasul, F.; Riaz, M.; Fahad, S.; Adnan, M.; Mian, I.A.; Amanullah. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Assessment and Adaptation Strategies in Changing Climate. In Global Climate Change and Environmental Policy; Venkatramanan, V., Shah, S., Prasad, R., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gairhe, J.J.; Adhikari, M.; Ghimire, D.; Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Panday, D. Intervention of Climate-Smart Practices in Wheat under Rice-Wheat Cropping System in Nepal. Climate 2021, 9, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ariom, T.O.; Dimon, E.; Nambeye, E.; Diouf, N.S.; Adelusi, O.O.; Boudalia, S. Climate-Smart Agriculture in African Countries: A Review of Strategies and Impacts on Smallholder Farmers. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Azadi, H.; Siamian, N.; Burkart, S.; Moghaddam, S.M.; Goli, I.; Dogot, T.; Lebailly, P.; Teklemariam, D.; Miceikienė, A.; Van Passel, S. Climate smart agriculture: Mitigation and adaptation strategies at the global scale. In Climate-Induced Innovation: Mitigation and Adaptation to Climate Change; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 81–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bazzana, D.; Foltz, J.; Zhang, Y. Impact of climate smart agriculture on food security: An agent-based analysis. Food Policy 2022, 111, 102304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Çakmakçı, R.; Salık, M.A.; Çakmakçı, S. Assessment and Principles of Environmentally Sustainable Food and Agriculture Systems. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhao, J.; Liu, D.; Huang, R. A Review of Climate-Smart Agriculture: Recent Advancements, Challenges, and Future Directions. Sustainability 2023, 15, 3404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Smith, P.; Olesen, J. Synergies between the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change in agriculture. J. Agric. Sci. 2010, 148, 543–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2021. Available online: (accessed on 10 August 2023).
  25. Malhi, G.S.; Kaur, M.; Kaushik, P. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Its Mitigation Strategies: A Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Orlove, B. The Concept of Adaptation. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2022, 47, 535–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Abbass, K.; Qasim, M.Z.; Song, H.; Murshed, M.; Mahmood, H.; Younis, I. A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 42539–42559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Goonesekera, S.M.; Olazabal, M. Climate adaptation indicators and metrics: State of local policy practice. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 145, 109657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Schoenefeld, J.J.; Schulze, K.; Bruch, N. The diffusion of climate change adaptation policy. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2022, 13, e775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Singh, C.; Iyer, S.; New, M.G.; Few, R.; Kuchimanchi, B.; Segnon, A.C.; Morchain, D. Interrogating ‘effectiveness’ in climate change adaptation: 11 guiding principles for adaptation research and practice. Clim. Dev. 2022, 14, 650–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Burton, I.; Lim, B. Achieving Adequate Adaptation in Agriculture. Clim. Chang. 2005, 70, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Howden, S.M.; Soussana, J.-F.; Tubiello, F.N.; Chhetri, N.; Dunlop, M.; Meinke, H. Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 19691–19696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wiréhn, L. Nordic agriculture under climate change: A systematic review of challenges, opportunities and adaptation strategies for crop production. Land Use Policy 2018, 77, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Niang-Diop, I.; Bosch, H. Formulating an adaptation strategy. In Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures; Lim, B., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Huq, S., Malone, E.L., Burton, I., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005; pp. 185–204. [Google Scholar]
  35. Burton, I.; Malone, E.L.; Huq, S. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change. Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  36. Biesbroek, G.R.; Swart, R.J.; Carter, T.R.; Cowan, C.; Henrichs, T.; Mela, H.; Morecroft, M.D.; Rey, D. Europe adapts to climate change: Comparing national adaptation strategies. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 440–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Smit, B.; Burton, I.; Klein, R.J.T.; Wandel, J. An Anatomy of Adaptation to Climate Change and Variability. In Societal Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change; Kane, S.M., Yohe, G.W., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Iancu, T.; Tudor, V.C.; Dumitru, E.A.; Sterie, C.M.; Micu, M.M.; Smedescu, D.; Marcuta, L.; Tonea, E.; Stoicea, P.; Vintu, C.; et al. A Scientometric Analysis of Climate Change Adaptation Studies. Sustainability 2022, 14, 12945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Smit, B.; Skinner, M. Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: A typology. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2002, 7, 85–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. Available online: (accessed on 12 August 2023).
  41. Dang, H.L.; Li, E.; Nuberg, I.; Bruwer, J. Factors influencing the adaptation of farmers in response to climate change: A review. Clim. Dev. 2019, 11, 765–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Acevedo, M.; Pixley, K.; Zinyengere, N.; Meng, S.; Tufan, H.; Cichy, K.; Bizikova, L.; Isaacs, K.; Ghezzi-Kopel, K.; Porciello, J. A scoping review of adoption of climate-resilient crops by small-scale producers in low- and middle-income countries. Nat. Plants 2020, 6, 1231–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Karimi, V.; Valizadeh, N.; Rahmani, S.; Bijani, M.; Karimi, M. Beyond Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation Strategies, and Influencing Factors. In Climate Chang.; Bandh, S.A., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 49–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Government of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Second National Communication of the Republic of Uzbekistan under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; Centre of Hydrometeorological Service under the Cabinet of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan: Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 2009; 189p.
  45. Sterie, C.M.; Dragomir, V. Global trends on research towards agriculture adaptation to climate change. Sci. Pap. Ser. Manag. Econ. Eng. Agric. Rural Dev. 2023, 23, 759–766. [Google Scholar]
  46. Iglesias, A.; Garrote, L.; Quiroga, S.; Moneo, M. Impacts of Climate Change in Agriculture in Europe; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxembourg, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Iglesias, A.; Garrote, L.; Quiroga, S.; Moneo, M. From climate change impacts to the development of adaptation strategies: Challenges for agriculture in Europe. Clim. Chang. 2012, 112, 143–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Stage, J. Economic valuation of climate change adaptation in developing countries. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1185, 150–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Füssel, H.M. Adaptation planning for climate change: Concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustain. Sci. 2007, 2, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Dasgupta, P.; Morton, J.F.; Dodman, D.; Karapinar, B.; Meza, F.; Rivera-Ferre, A.; Sarr, T.; Vincent, K.E. Rural areas. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects; Contribution of Working Group. II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2014; pp. 613–657. Available online: (accessed on 1 September 2023).
  51. Castells-Quintana, D.; del Pilar Lopez-Uribe, M.; McDermott, T.K. Adaptation to climate change: A review through a development economics lens. World Dev. 2018, 104, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Conway, D.; Nicholls, R.J.; Brown, S.; Tebboth, M.G.L.; Adger, W.N.; Ahmad, B.; Biemans, H.; Crick, F.; Lutz, A.F.; De Campos, R.S.; et al. The need for bottom-up assessments of climate risks and adaptation in climate-sensitive regions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2019, 9, 503–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hügel, S.; Davies, A.R. Public participation, engagement, and climate change adaptation: A review of the research literature. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2020, 11, e645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Berrang-Ford, L.; Siders, A.R.; Lesnikowski, A.; Fischer, A.P.; Callaghan, M.W.; Haddaway, N.R.; Mach, K.J.; Araos, M.; Shah, M.A.R.; Wannewitz, M.; et al. A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2021, 11, 989–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Eriksen, S.; Schipper, E.L.F.; Scoville-Simonds, M.; Vincent, K.; Adam, H.N.; Brooks, N.; Harding, B.; Khatri, D.; Lenaerts, L.; Liverman, D.; et al. Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance? World Dev. 2021, 141, 105383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nightingale, A.J.; Gonda, N.; Eriksen, S.H. Affective adaptation = effective transformation? Shifting the politics of climate change adaptation and transformation from the status quo. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2022, 13, e740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ricart, S.; Castelletti, A.; Gandolfi, C. On farmers’ perceptions of climate change and its nexus with climate data and adaptive capacity. A comprehensive review. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022, 17, 083002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Karimi, V.; Bijani, M.; Hallaj, Z.; Valizadeh, N.; Fallah Haghighi, N.; Karimi, M. Adaptation and Maladaptation to Climate Change: Farmers’ Perceptions. In Strategizing Agricultural Management for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation; Bandh, S.A., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Marques, F.; Alves, F.; Castro, P. Climate Change Perceptions and Adaptation Strategies in Vulnerable and Rural Territories. In Climate Change Strategies: Handling the Challenges of Adapting to a Changing Climate. Climate Change Management; Leal Filho, W., Kovaleva, M., Alves, F., Abubakar, I.R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 427–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Aguilera, E.; Diaz-Gaona, C.; Garcia-Laureano, R.; Reyes-Palomo, C.; Guzmán, G.I.; Ortolani, L.; Sánchez-Rodríguez, M.; Rodríguez-Estévez, V. Agroecology for adaptation to climate change and resource depletion in the Mediterranean region. A review. Agric. Syst. 2020, 181, 102809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gaeva, D.V.; Barinova, G.M.; Krasnov, E.V. Adaptation of Eastern Europe Regional Agriculture to Climate Change: Risks and Management. In Climate Change Adaptation in Eastern Europe. Climate Change Management; Leal Filho, W., Trbic, G., Filipovic, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ishtiaque, A. US farmers’ adaptations to climate change: A systematic review of the adaptation-focused studies in the US agriculture context. Environ. Res: Clim. 2023, 2, 022001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mertz, O.; Halsnæs, K.; Olesen, J.E.; Rasmussen, K. Adaptation to Climate Change in Developing Countries. Environ. Manag. 2009, 43, 743–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Shaffril, H.A.M.; Krauss, S.E.; Samsuddin, S.F. A systematic review on Asian’s farmers’ adaptation practices towards climate change. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 644, 683–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Shaffril, H.A.M.; Ahmad, N.; Samsuddin, S.F.; Samah, A.A.; Hamdan, M.E. Systematic literature review on adaptation towards climate change impacts among indigenous people in the Asia Pacific regions. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 258, 120595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Nguyen, T.-H.; Sahin, O.; Howes, M. Climate Change Adaptation Influences and Barriers Impacting the Asian Agricultural Industry. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Aryal, J.P.; Sapkota, T.B.; Khurana, R.; Khatri-Chhetri, A.; Rahut, D.B.; Jat, M.L. Climate change and agriculture in South Asia: Adaptation options in smallholder production systems. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 22, 5045–5075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Muchuru, S.; Nhamo, G. A review of climate change adaptation measures in the African crop sector. Clim. Dev. 2019, 11, 873–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Sivakumar, M.V.K.; Das, H.P.; Brunini, O. Impacts of Present and Future Climate Variability and Change on Agriculture and Forestry in the Arid and Semi-Arid Tropics. Clim. Chang. 2005, 70, 31–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Naulleau, A.; Gary, C.; Prévot, L.; Hossard, L. Evaluating Strategies for Adaptation to Climate Change in Grapevine Production—A Systematic Review. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 11, 607859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Georgopoulou, E.; Mirasgedis, S.; Sarafidis, Y.; Vitaliotou, M.; Lalas, D.P.; Theloudis, I.; Giannoulaki, K.-D.; Dimopoulos, D.; Zavras, V. Climate change impacts and adaptation options for the Greek agriculture in 2021–2050: A monetary assessment. Clim. Risk Manag. 2017, 16, 164–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Francis, C.A. Crop Production Resilience through Biodiversity for Adaptation to Climate Change. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Fatima, Z.; Ahmed, M.; Hussain, M.; Abbas, G.; Ul-Allah, S.; Ahmad, S.; Ahmed, N.; Ali, M.A.; Sarwar, G.; ul Haque, E.; et al. The fingerprints of climate warming on cereal crops phenology and adaptation options. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 18013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Sloat, L.L.; Davis, S.J.; Gerber, J.S.; Moore, F.C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; Mueller, N.D. Climate adaptation by crop migration. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Khan, A.; Ahmad, M.; Ahmed, M.; Iftikhar Hussain, M. Rising Atmospheric Temperature Impact on Wheat and Thermotolerance Strategies. Plants 2021, 10, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Minoli, S.; Jägermeyr, J.; Asseng, S.; Urfels, A.; Müller, C. Global crop yields can be lifted by timely adaptation of growing periods to climate change. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 7079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Yadav, M.R.; Choudhary, M.; Singh, J.; Lal, M.K.; Jha, P.K.; Udawat, P.; Gupta, N.K.; Rajput, V.D.; Garg, N.K.; Maheshwari, C.; et al. Impacts, Tolerance, Adaptation, and Mitigation of Heat Stress on Wheat under Changing Climates. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 2838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Auffhammer, M.; Schlenker, W. Empirical studies on agricultural impacts and adaptation. Energy Econ. 2014, 46, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Iglesias, A.; Garrote, L. Adaptation strategies for agricultural water management under climate change in Europe. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 155, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Maracchi, G.; Sirotenko, O.; Bindi, M. Impacts of Present and Future Climate Variability on Agriculture and Forestry in the Temperate Regions: Europe. Clim. Chang. 2005, 70, 117–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Olesen, J.E.; Trnka, M.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Skjelvåg, A.O.; Seguin, B.; Peltonen-Sainio, P.; Rossi, F.; Kozyra, J.; Micale, F. Impacts and adaptation of European crop production systems to climate change. Eur. J. Agron. 2011, 34, 96–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Reidsma, P.; Ewert, F.; Lansink, A.O.; Leemans, R. Adaptation to climate change and climate variability in European agriculture: The importance of farm level responses. Eur. J. Agron. 2010, 32, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Faye, B.; Webber, H.; Gaiser, T.; Müller, C.; Zhang, Y.; Stella, T.; Latka, C.; Reckling, M.; Heckelei, T.; Helming, K.; et al. Climate change impacts on European arable crop yields: Sensitivity to assumptions about rotations and residue management. Eur. J. Agron. 2023, 142, 126670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Himanen, S.J.; Mäkinen, H.; Rimhanen, K.; Savikko, R. Farmers in Climate Change Adaptation Planning: Assessing Intercropping as a Means to Support Farm Adaptive Capacity. Agriculture 2016, 6, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Jenkins, B.; Avis, K.; Willcocks, J.; Martin, G.; Wiltshire, J.; Peters, E. Adapting Scottish Agriculture to a Changing Climate-Assessing Options for Action; Ricardo Energy & Environment: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Reidsma, P.; Wolf, J.; Kanellopoulos, A.; Schaap, B.F.; Mandryk, M.; Verhagen, J.; van Ittersum, M.K. Climate change impact and adaptation research requires integrated assessment and farming systems analysis: A case study in the Netherlands. Environ. Res. Lett. 2015, 10, 045004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mandryk, M.; Reidsma, P.; van Ittersum, M.K. Crop and farm level adaptation under future climate challenges: An exploratory study considering multiple objectives for Flevoland, the Netherlands. Agric. Syst. 2017, 152, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. De Frutos Cachorro, J.; Gobin, A.; Buysse, J. Farm-level adaptation to climate change: The case of the Loam region in Belgium. Agric. Syst. 2018, 165, 164–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Morel, K.; Cartau, K. Adaptation of organic vegetable farmers to climate change: An exploratory study in the Paris region. Agric. Syst. 2023, 210, 103703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Klein, T.; Holzkämper, A.; Calanca, P.; Seppelt, R.; Fuhrer, J. Adapting agricultural land management to climate change: A regional multi-objective optimization approach. Landsc. Ecol. 2013, 28, 2029–2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Martin, S.; Mitter, H.; Schmid, E.; Heinrich, G.; Gobiet, A. Integrated Analysis of Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Measures in Austrian Agriculture. Ger. J. Agric. Econ. 2014, 3, 156–176. [Google Scholar]
  92. Shaitura, S.V.; Sumzina, L.V.; Tomashevskaya, N.G.; Filimonov, S.L.; Minitaeva, A.M. The agricultural sector in the context of global climate change. Bull. Kursk. State Agric. Acad. 2021, 4, 18–24. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  93. Ivanov, A.L. Global climate change and its impact on agriculture in Russia. Agriculture 2009, 1, 3–5. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  94. Gordeev, A.V.; Kleshchenko, A.D.; Chernyakov, B.A. Bioclimatic Potential of Russia: Adaptation Measures in a Changing Climate; Ministry of Agriculture of the Russian Federation: Moscow, Russia, 2008; 278p. (In Russian)
  95. Nemtsev, S.N.; Sharipova, R.B. Problems of increasing the sustainability of agriculture in the Ulyanovsk region in terms of adaptation to modern climate change. Proc. Samara SC RAS 2018, 20, 363–369. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  96. Kipriyanov, F.A.; Savinykh, P.A. Territorial and climatic zoning of the Vologda region and prospects of its use in agriculture. Perm. Agrar. Bull. 2019, 2, 64–71. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  97. Surovtsev, V.N.; Ponomarev, M.A.; Nikulina, Y.N.; Payurova, E.N. Risk Assessment and Directions of Adaptation of Agriculture in the North-West of Russia under Climate Change. Reg. Ecol. 2015, 6, 13–21. Available online: (accessed on 15 August 2023). (In Russian).
  98. Iglesias, A.; Mougou, R.; Moneo, M.; Quiroga, S. Towards adaptation of agriculture to climate change in the Mediterranean. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2011, 11, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. De Leo, S.; Di Fonzo, A.; Giuca, S.; Gaito, M.; Bonati, G. Economic Implications for Farmers in Adopting Climate Adaptation Measures in Italian Agriculture. Land 2023, 12, 906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Sperdouli, I.; Mellidou, I.; Moustakas, M. Harnessing Chlorophyll Fluorescence for Phenotyping Analysis of Wild and Cultivated Tomato for High Photochemical Efficiency under Water Deficit for Climate Change Resilience. Climate 2021, 9, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kourgialas, N.N. A critical review of water resources in Greece: The key role of agricultural adaptation to climate-water effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 775, 145857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Markou, M.; Moraiti, C.A.; Stylianou, A.; Papadavid, G. Addressing Climate Change Impacts on Agriculture: Adaptation Measures For Six Crops in Cyprus. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Fujisawa, M.; Kobayashi, K.; Johnston, P.; New, M. What Drives Farmers to Make Top-Down or Bottom-Up Adaptation to Climate Change and Fluctuations? A Comparative Study on 3 Cases of Apple Farming in Japan and South Africa. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Mizina, S.V.; Smith, J.B.; Gossen, E.; Spiecker, K.F.; Witkowski, S.L. An evaluation of adaptation options for climate change impacts on agriculture in Kazakhstan. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 1999, 4, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Erda, L.; Yinlong, X.; Shaohong, W. China’s national assessment report on climate change (II): Climate change impacts and adaptation. Adv. Clim. Chang. Res. 2007, 3, 6. [Google Scholar]
  106. Wang, J.X.; Huang, J.K.; Jun, Y. Overview of impacts of climate change and adaptation in China’s agriculture. J. Integr. Agric. 2014, 13, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Jianjun, J.; Yiwei, G.; Xiaomin, W.; Nam, P.K. Farmers’ risk preferences and their climate change adaptation strategies in the Yongqiao District, China. Land Use Policy 2015, 47, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Dai, C.; Qin, X.S.; Lu, W.T.; Huang, Y. Assessing Adaptation Measures on Agricultural Water Productivity under Climate Change: A Case Study of Huai River Basin, China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 721, 137777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Trinh, L.T.; Duong, C.C.; Van Der Steen, P.; Lens, P.N. Exploring the Potential for Wastewater Reuse in Agriculture as a Climate Change Adaptation Measure for Can Tho City, Vietnam. Agric. Water Manag. 2013, 128, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Nhung, T.T.; Le Vo, P.; Van Nghi, V.; Bang, H.Q. Salt Intrusion Adaptation Measures for Sustainable Agricultural Development under Climate Change Effects: A Case of Ca Mau Peninsula, Vietnam. Clim. Risk Manag. 2019, 23, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Sumaryanto; Nurfatria, F.; Astana, S.; Erwidodo. Perception and adaptation of agroforestry farmers in Upper Citarum Watershed to climate change. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 917, 012020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Khanal, U.; Wilson, C.; Hoang, V.N.; Lee, B. Farmers’ adaptation to climate change, its determinants and impacts on rice yield in Nepal. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 144, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Shrestha, R.; Rakhal, B.; Adhikari, T.R.; Ghimire, G.R.; Talchabhadel, R.; Tamang, D.; KC, R.; Sharma, S. Farmers’ Perception of Climate Change and Its Impacts on Agriculture. Hydrology 2022, 9, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Esham, M.; Garforth, C. Agricultural adaptation to climate change: Insights from a farming community in Sri Lanka. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2013, 18, 535–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Moayedi, M.; Hayati, D. Identifying strategies for adaptation of rural women to climate variability in water scarce areas. Front. Water 2023, 5, 1177684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ullah, W.; Nafees, M.; Khurshid, M.; Nihei, T. Assessing farmers’ perspectives on climate change for effective farm-level adaptation measures in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2019, 191, 547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Abid, M.; Scheffran, J.; Schneider, U.A.; Elahi, E. Farmer Perceptions of Climate Change, Observed Trends and Adaptation of Agriculture in Pakistan. Environ. Manag. 2019, 63, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Mustafa, G.; Alotaibi, B.A.; Nayak, R.K. Linking Climate Change Awareness, Climate Change Perceptions and Subsequent Adaptation Options among Farmers. Agronomy 2023, 13, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Srivastava, P.; Singh, R.; Tripathi, S.; Raghubanshi, A.S. An urgent need for sustainable thinking in agriculture—An Indian scenario. Ecol. Indic. 2016, 67, 611–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Taraz, V. Can farmers adapt to higher temperatures? Evidence from India. World Dev. 2018, 112, 205–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Moniruzzaman, S. Crop choice as climate change adaptation: Evidence from Bangladesh. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 118, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Walters, S.A.; Abdelaziz, M.; Bouharroud, R. Local Melon and Watermelon Crop Populations to Moderate Yield Responses to Climate Change in North Africa. Climate 2021, 9, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Bryan, E.; Ringler, C.; Okoba, B.; Roncoli, C.; Silvestri, S.; Herrero, M. Adapting agriculture to climate change in Kenya: Household strategies and determinants. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 114, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Kangogo, D.; Dentoni, D.; Bijman, J. Adoption of climate-smart agriculture among smallholder farmers: Does farmer entrepreneurship matter? Land Use Policy 2021, 109, 105666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Onyeneke, R.U.; Nwajiuba, C.A.; Emenekwe, C.C.; Nwajiuba, A.; Onyeneke, C.J.; Ohalete, P.; Uwazie, U.I. Climate change adaptation in Nigerian agricultural sector: A systematic review and resilience check of adaptation measures. AIMS Agric. Food 2019, 4, 967–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Apata, T.G. Factors influencing the perception and choice of adaptation measures to climate change among farmers in Nigeria. Evidence from farming households in Southwest Nigeria. Environ. Econ. 2011, 2, 74–83. [Google Scholar]
  127. Ozor, N.; Nnaji, C. The role of extension in agricultural adaptation to climate change in Enugu State, Nigeria. J. Agric. Ext. Rural. Dev. 2011, 3, 42–50. [Google Scholar]
  128. Fosu-Mensah, B.Y.; Vlek, P.L.G.; MacCarthy, D.S. Farmers’ perception and adaptation to climate change: A case study of Sekyedumase district in Ghana. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2012, 14, 495–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Maponya, P.; Mpandeli, S. Climate change and agricultural production in South Africa: Impacts and adaptation options. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 4, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Bryan, E.; Deressa, T.T.; Gbetibouo, G.A.; Ringler, C. Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South Africa: Options and constraints. Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 12, 413–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Ruiz-García, P.; Conde-Álvarez, C.; Gómez-Díaz, J.D.; Monterroso-Rivas, A.I. Projections of Local Knowledge-Based Adaptation Strategies of Mexican Coffee Farmers. Climate 2021, 9, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Conde, C.; Ferrer, R.; Orozco, S. Climate change and climate variability impacts on rainfed agricultural activities and possible adaptation measures. A Mexican case study. Atmósfera 2006, 19, 181–194. [Google Scholar]
  133. Vasconcelos, A.C.F.; Bonatti, M.; Schlindwein, S.L.; D’Agostini, L.R.; Homem, L.R.; Nelson, R. Landraces as an adaptation strategy to climate change for smallholders in Santa Catarina, Southern Brazil. Land Use Policy 2013, 34, 250–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Salazar, M.; Jarvis, A.; Navarro-Racines, C.E. A way forward on adaptation to climate change in Colombian agriculture: Perspectives towards 2050. Clim. Chang. 2012, 115, 611–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Mu, J.E.; McCarl, B.A.; Wein, A.M. Adaptation to climate change: Changes in farmland use and stocking rate in the U.S. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2013, 18, 713–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Walters, S.A.; Gajewski, C.; Sadeghpour, A.; Groninger, J.W. Mitigation of Climate Change for Urban Agriculture: Water Management of Culinary Herbs Grown in an Extensive Green Roof Environment. Climate 2022, 10, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Freebairn, J. Adaptation to Climate Change by Australian Farmers. Climate 2021, 9, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Ricart, S.; Gandolfi, C.; Castelletti, A. Climate change awareness, perceived impacts, and adaptation from farmers’ experience and behavior: A triple-loop review. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2023, 23, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Bouabdelli, S.; Zeroual, A.; Meddi, M.; Assani, A. Impact of temperature on agricultural drought occurrence under the effects of climate change. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2022, 148, 191–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Olesen, J.E.; Carter, T.R.; Díaz-Ambrona, C.H.; Fronzek, S.; Heidmann, T.; Hickler, T.; Holt, T.; Minguez, M.I.; Morales, P.; Palutikof, J.P.; et al. Uncertainties in projected impacts of climate change on European agriculture and terrestrial ecosystems based on scenarios from regional climate models. Clim. Chang. 2007, 81, 123–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Ward Jones, M.K.; Schwoerer, T.; Gannon, G.M.; Jones, B.M.; Kanevskiy, M.Z.; Sutton, I.; Pierre, B.S.; Pierre, C.S.; Russell, J.; Russell, D. Climate-driven expansion of northern agriculture must consider permafrost. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2022, 12, 699–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Eicken, H.; Danielsen, F.; Sam, J.M.; Fidel, M.; Johnson, N.; Poulsen, M.K. Connecting Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches in Environmental Observing. BioScience 2021, 71, 467–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Carter, J.G. Climate change adaptation in European cities. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011, 3, 193–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. McNamara, K.E.; Buggy, L. Community-based climate change adaptation: A review of academic literature. Local Environ. 2017, 22, 443–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Fenton, A.; Gallagher, D.; Wright, H.; Huq, S.; Nyandiga, C. Up-scaling finance for community-based adaptation. Clim. Dev. 2014, 6, 388–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Qamar, M.U.; Archfield, S.A. Consider the risks of bottom-up approaches for climate change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2023, 13, 2–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Walters, S.A. Essential Role of Crop Landraces for World Food Security. Mod. Concepts Dev. Agron. 2018, 1, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Pulido, J.S.; Gerardo, B. The Traditional Farming System of a Mexican Indigenous Community: The Case of Nuevo San Juan Parangaricutiro, Michoacán, Mexico. Geoderma 2003, 111, 249–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Anex, R.P.; Lynd, L.R.; Laser, M.S.; Heggenstaller, A.H.; Liebman, M. Potential for Enhanced Nutrient Cycling through Coupling of Agricultural and Bioenergy Systems. Crop Sci. 2007, 47, 1327–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Schiere, H.; Loes, K. Mixed Crop-Livestock Farming: A Review of Traditional Technologies Based on Literature and Field Experiences; FAO Animal Production and Health Paper 152; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  151. Altieri, M.A.; Nicholls, C.I.; Henao, A.; Lana, M.A. Agroecology and the design of climate change-resilient farming systems. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 869–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Denevan, W.M. 2 Prehistoric agricultural methods as models for sustainability. Adv. Plant Pathol. 1995, 11, 21–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Singh, R.; Singh, G.S. Traditional agriculture: A climate-smart approach for sustainable food production. Energy Ecol. Environ. 2017, 2, 296–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Rai, S. Traditional ecological knowledge and community-based natural resource management in northeast India. J. Mt. Sci. 2007, 4, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Crate, S.; Ulrich, M.; Habeck, J.O.; Desyatkin, A.R.; Desyatkin, R.V.; Fedorov, A.N.; Hiyama, T.; Iijima, Y.; Ksenofontov, S.; Mészáros, C.; et al. Permafrost livelihoods: A transdisciplinary review and analysis of thermokarst-based systems of indigenous land use. Anthropocene 2017, 18, 89–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Sardaro, R.; Girone, S.; Acciani, C.; Bozzo, F.; Petrontino, A.; Fucilli, V. Agro-biodiversity of Mediterranean crops: Farmers’ preferences in support of a conservation programme for olive landraces. Biol. Conserv. 2016, 201, 210–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Evenson, R.E.; Gollin, D. Assessing the Impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 2003, 300, 758–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Matson, P.A.; Parton, W.J.; Power, A.G.; Swift, M.J. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science 1997, 277, 504–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Kremen, C.; Iles, A.; Bacon, C. Diversified farming systems: An agroecological, systems-based alternative to modern industrial agriculture. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Malézieux, E. Designing Cropping Systems from Nature. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Duru, M.; Therond, O.; Martin, G.; Martin-Clouaire, R.; Magne, M.-A.; Justes, E.; Journet, E.-P.; Aubertot, J.-N.; Savary, S.; Bergez, J.-E.; et al. How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 35, 1259–1281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Shackleton, S.; Ziervogel, G.; Sallu, S.; Gill, T.; Tschakert, P. Why is socially-just climate change adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa so challenging? A review of barriers identified from empirical cases. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2015, 6, 321–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Rippke, U.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Jarvis, A.; Vermeulen, S.J.; Parker, L.; Mer, F.; Diekkrüger, B.; Challinor, A.J.; Howden, M. Timescales of transformational climate change adaptation in sub-Saharan African agriculture. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 605–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Ogisi, O.D.; Begho, T. Adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices in sub-Saharan Africa: A review of the progress, barriers, gender differences and recommendations. Farming Syst. 2023, 1, 100019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Teklu, A.; Simane, B.; Bezabih, M. Multiple adoption of climate-smart agriculture innovation for agricultural sustainability: Empirical evidence from the Upper Blue Nile Highlands of Ethiopia. Clim. Risk Manag. 2023, 39, 100477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Steenwerth, K.L.; Hodson, A.K.; Bloom, A.J.; Carter, M.R.; Cattaneo, A.; Chartres, C.J.; Hatfield, J.L.; Henry, K.; Hopmans, J.W.; Horwath, W.R.; et al. Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: Scientific basis for action. Agric. Food Secur. 2014, 3, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Zilberman, D.; Goetz, R.; Garrido, A.; Lipper, L.; Mccarthy, N.; Asfaw, S.; Editors, G.B. Identifying Strategies to Enhance the Resilience of Smallholder Farming Systems: Evidence from Zambia. In Climate-Smart Agriculture—Building Resilience to Climate Change; Lipper, L., McCarthy, N., Zilberman, D., Asfaw, S., Branca, G., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 425–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Taylor, M. Climate-Smart Agriculture: What Is It Good For? J. Peasant. Stud. 2018, 45, 89–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Neufeldt, H.; Jahn, M.; Campbell, B.M.; Beddington, J.R.; DeClerck, F.; De Pinto, A.; Gulledge, J.; Hellin, J.; Herrero, M.; Jarvis, A.; et al. Beyond Climate-Smart Agriculture: Toward Safe Operating Spaces for Global Food Systems. Agric. Food Secur. 2013, 2, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  170. Juhola, S.; Käyhkö, J. Maladaptation as a concept and a metric in national adaptation policy—Should we, would we, could we? PLos Clim. 2023, 2, e0000213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Houghton, J.T.; Ding, Y.; Griggs, D.J.; Noguer, M.; van der Linden, P.J. (Eds.) Climate Change 2001: Mitigation of Climate Change; The Scientific Basis: Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  172. Grigorieva, E. Evaluating the Sensitivity of Growing Degree Days as an Agro-Climatic Indicator of the Climate Change Impact: A Case Study of the Russian Far East. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Juhola, S.; Glaas, E.; Linnér, B.O.; Neset, T.S. Redefining maladaptation. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Schipper, E.L.F. Catching maladaptation before it happens. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2022, 12, 617–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Climate change and Agricultural Adaptation Strategies and Actions (ASAs). The periods are underlined for which the assessment of climatic changes was conducted.
Table 1. Climate change and Agricultural Adaptation Strategies and Actions (ASAs). The periods are underlined for which the assessment of climatic changes was conducted.
##StudyStudy AreaClimateClimate ChangeEffect on AgricultureASAs ScaleAgricultural Adaptation Strategies and Actions
1[80]EuropeTemperate20th century: increase in surface air temperature (0.8 °C), precipitation (10–40%), drought in southern Europe (20%); reduced summer precipitationArea of cereal cultivation expands northward; reduced reproduction and milk production in dairy cows; for cooler regions: reduced feed requirements, increased survival, lower energy costs; lower yields due to limited moisture supplyNationLater sowings in northern Europe; shorter rotations and regular thinning in the forests; soil management and planting techniques for the continental and Mediterranean forests
2[81]EuropeTemperate-to-SubtropicalCurrent and projected (by 2050) changes: increased incidents of heat waves and droughtsNegative effects on the continental climate in the Pannonian zone (Hungary, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania)LocalChanging the timing of cultivation; selecting other crop species and cultivars
3[82]EuropeTemperate-to-Subtropical Mediterranean1990 to 2003: increase in temperatures, water shortage, the incidence of heatwaves and related droughtsReduction of crop yields and the area for cropping; generally lower yields in warmer climatesLocal-to-RegionChanging crop rotations and inputs; irrigation management; fertilizer-intensive farmers; and higher exposure to extreme conditions stimulate adaptation
4[47]EuropeBoreal, Atlantic-to-Temperate-to-Alpine, MediterraneanFour climate change scenarios for 2080s: increased temperature and precipitation (rainfall); increased risk of floods, drought and water scarcity; loss of glaciers and alteration of permafrostDisruption of zoning areas and decreased crop productivity; increased area with the need for supplemental irrigation; deterioration of water quality; deterioration of soil quality and desertification; sea level rise intrusion in coastal agricultural areas; increased risk of agricultural pests, diseases, and weeds; deterioration of livestock conditions; improvement in livestock productivityLocalChanging crop sowing days; growing heat-resistant cultivars; improving soil structure; contour plugging to improve soil drainage and reduce waterlogging; increasing the water-holding capacity of soils; increasing the collection of winter rainwater to increase the supply for subsequent irrigation; pests and diseases: the introduction of resistant or less-susceptible varieties; vaccination as a measure of adaptation to livestock diseases
5[83]EuropeTemperateScenario period 2040–2065 relative to baseline 1980–2005: warmer temperatures and more frequent extreme weather events2040–2065: Yield losses for current crop varieties; decrease in spring-sown crops due to shortened growth duration and intensified drought; soil organic carbon decreaseRegionCrop rotations; crop residue management; re-initialization
6[33]Europe, Nordic countriesTemperateDifferences between 2071–2100 compared to 1961–1990: temperature increase 1–3 °C during spring, summer and autumn; stable or increased precipitation, with 30% increase in northern Sweden during spring; warmer and wetter conditions; more frequent extreme weather eventsThe vegetation period starts 10–50 days earlier and ends 5–50 days later, increasing agricultural production potentialLocalNorthward expansion of crops; introduction of “new” crops and varieties; crop-, soil-, and water management; chemical plant protection; plant breeding
7[84]FinlandTemperateThe end of the 21st century: warming and lengthening of growing season; reduced time with snow cover; higher precipitation; potential increase in weather variability and extremes (windiness, heavy rains, warm spells)Potential impact on crop yields; increasing pest risks; yield gains potentiated by longer growing seasonsLocalIntercropping: mixing of forage crops (grasses and legumes) and under-sowing cereals with perennial grasses; multi-species or cultivar-rich forage mixtures; maintaining and improving soil quality and fertility via intercropping
8[85]Great Britain (Scotland)TemperateProjections up to 2030, 2050, and 2100: wetter and warmer winters, drier and warmer summers, a higher frequency of extreme eventsHotter, drier summers impact the current crop growth; opportunities for new types of crops in the future; the negative impact of flooding and severe storms; wetter and warmer weather increases grass growth, supporting the livestock industry in the west and northern regions; extreme heat provides challenges for crops and livestockRegion-to-NationAdjusting planting and harvesting dates, selecting resilient crop types to withstand extreme weather, altering pasture and soil management practices, facilitating knowledge transfer, implementing management changes such as providing advice, establishing early weather warning systems, and promoting farmer cooperatives. Additionally, adaptations involve changes in fertilizer application frequency to enhance both inorganic and organic fertilizer efficiency, improved soil management techniques to respond better to wetter and drier conditions, which can support carbon sequestration and retention, as well as the utilization of agroforestry to sequester carbon, stabilize at-risk soils, provide shade and shelter to livestock, create diverse income sources, and support biodiversity by establishing habitats and green corridors; and the provision of transport, irrigation, and other infrastructure
9[86,87]Netherlands Flevoland ProvinceTemperate maritimeBy 2050: 2 °C increase in global temperature, including changes in air circulation resulting in drier summers; 1 °C increase in global temperature, without changes in air circulationAverage climate change improves farm performance in terms of farm economic results; extreme events reverse the positive impacts of average climate change and pose large risksLocalCombination of crop and farm level adaptation: shift to (more) winter wheat in systems dominated by root crops
10[88]Belgium, Loam RegionTemperate maritimeThe end of the 21st century: a shift in climate conditions to drier summers and wetter wintersThe positive impact of warmer temperatures on some crops, such as winter wheat, and the expected increase in extreme events such as heatwaves and longer drought periods will negatively affect summer crop yields, particularly sugar beet and potatoesLocalLand-use changes: expanding the area dedicated to less susceptible crops like winter wheat; reducing the portion of land allocated to barley, sugar beet, potatoes, and grain maize; farming practices to mitigate crop stress: irrigation and techniques for conserving soil and water, such as drip irrigation for potatoes; the cost-effectiveness of irrigation practices may not be justified due to the significant financial burdens they would impose on farmers
11[89]France, ParisTemperateCurrent climate change in seasonal patterns (e.g., temperature, frost, wind) and in extreme events (e.g., droughts, heat waves)Negative impacts on (i) vegetables (e.g., increased pressure from arthropods, metabolic disorders, decrease in crop yield and quality), (ii) farm management (e.g., increased and more difficult labor, more complex crop planning), and (iii) profitability (e.g., production losses, increased labor, and equipment costs); positive impacts (e.g., potential to extend the growing season or grow tunnel crops outside)LocalUse of cover crops, mulching, agroforestry, and diversification; alterations in crop planning; implementation of equipment to regulate or ameliorate climatic conditions in enclosed environments like tunnels and efficient irrigation systems
12[90]Switzerland, Swiss Central PlateauTemperate2050:
model ETHZ-CLM: strong climate change signal in summer with +3.5 °C and −24% in seasonal precipitation;
model SMHIRCA-HadCM3Q3: moderate changes for the summer season with +1.3 °C and −11% in seasonal precipitation, but an important increase of +21% in seasonal precipitation during the fall
2050: a decrease in productivity by 0–10 %, an increase in soil loss by 25–35 %, and an increase in N-leaching by 30–45 %RegionAdjustments in crop distribution, including an increase in the proportion of early-harvested winter cereals at the expense of irrigated spring crops; reduced tillage practices; irrigated areas should be directed toward soils with lower water retention capacity at lower elevations; some pre-alpine grasslands may also be converted into croplands
13[91]AustriaTemperatePast 40 years: increase in annual temperature (0.8–1.8 °C); changes in precipitation (−2.2% … +6.2%)Increasing forage yields; likely benefits for grassland from higher temperatures and CO2 fertilizationLocal-to-NationDevelopment of the National Adaptation Strategy for Agriculture: Robust adaptation measures should be (i) founded on integrative systems perspectives considering interplay between soil, plants, and water; (ii) sustainability considerations involving farming inputs and natural production factors are essential; (iii) incorporation of global change dynamics, including international market developments.
Farmers: adopting irrigation systems, reducing tillage, implementing winter cover crop planting
14[92]Russia, European partTemperateBy 2030 (compared to 1990–2020): sharp fluctuations in temperature; heavy rains in the central part; the onset of drought and dehydration of rivers in the south; southern part: increase of water resources shortageIn the central strip, yields will improve due to longer insolation, making it possible to grow agricultural plants that were previously cultivated only in the southRegionReducing the agricultural dependence on chemicals and synthetic fertilizers; creating incentives to promote the use of renewable energy sources in all modern agricultural systems
15[93]RussiaTemperate+1 °C warming: precipitation increase in the north and decrease in the south; changes in physical and geographical zoningThe growth of aridity in the south of the country.
In the northern part, the thermal regime is expected to improve.
In the whole country, climate change will not significantly affect the agricultural sector.
NationInventory and reassessment of agricultural resources and the assortment of cultivated plants; revision of the principles of environmental protection measures; formation of the ecological framework of natural zones due to new agricultural technologies; developing farming systems and agro-technologies on a landscape basis
16[94]RussiaTemperateCurrent: changes in the annual and seasonal amplitudes of temperature and humidity, contributing to the displacement of the boundaries of bioclimatic zones to the northSoil degradation, strengthening of erosion processes, and decrease in farmland fertilityRegion-to-NationExpanding the cultivation of drought-resistant crop varieties and hybrids; undertaking land reclamation; transitioning to minimal or zero tillage technologies to prevent soil erosion; enhancing moisture retention; increasing use of fertilizers and plant protection products
17[95]Russia, Ulyanovsk RegionTemperate1961–2010: higher temperatures and droughts; increase in climate change amplitudesDecrease in the yield of grain crops; reduction of the area of grain and fodder cropsRegion-to-NationExpanding crops of later-ripening and higher-yielding varieties of cereals and legumes, soybeans, and late-ripening varieties of forage crops; investing in R&D to develop crops that are more resistant to changing climatic conditions, especially high temperatures and droughts
18[96]Russia, Vologda RegionTemperateCurrent: strengthening of regional differentiation in Growing Degree Days, distribution of frost-free periods, precipitationReducing the efficiency of the present system of agricultural production RegionUsing modern weather services by integrating them into various digital platforms for farming and performing mechanized work to increase the efficiency of agricultural production
19[97]Russia, Leningrad RegionTemperateBy 2030, compared to current: increasing air and water temperature; duration of the frost-free period; Growing Degree Days, precipitation, frequency, and intensity of natural anomaliesIntensive phosphorus and nitrogen leaching from agricultural lands causes a widespread loss of nutrientsRegion-to-NationImproving state support for agricultural insurance, land reclamation, seed production, and the development of biotechnologies that ensure the effectiveness of budgetary support and accelerate the pace of adaptation of agricultural production to climate change
20[98]Europe, MediterraneanSubtropicalChanges by the 2050s compared to 1961–1990: 1.5 °C temperature increase; up to 40% decrease in precipitation; increased evaporation; reduced soil moisture; changes in the annual precipitation patternsCrop productivity decrease caused by shortening of the growing period; subsequent negative effects on grain filling; in some regions, reduced water quality due to higher water temperatures and lower levels of runoffLocalConservation tillage; irrigation management
21[99]ItalySubtropicalCurrent: drought; wind; hail; flood events; late frost; damage by extreme maximum and minimum temperatures; intense precipitation; loss of suitability of the territory; saltwater intrusion; erosion; phytosanitary damageEvery year, potential damage to Italian crops from all climate events = 10–40% of production (yield and income, in quantity and value);
2009–2018 extreme events cost the agricultural sector EUR 14 billion: damage to structures, infrastructure, and production
LocalEight thematic groups: soil management; soil conditioners and fertilizers; agronomic techniques; crop protection; water resources management; engineering, digitization, and training; innovative breeding techniques and animal welfare; winemaking techniques
22[100]GreeceSubtropicalCurrent: below-normal precipitation; warmer temperaturesDrought stress caused by water scarcity and increased evapotranspiration; plant damage; increased risk of wildfiresLocalReduced irrigation; pruning; grafting; de-leafing; fertilization
23[71]GreeceSubtropicalBy 2050: temperature increase; increase in duration and intensity of droughts, accompanied by significant reductions in summer soil moistureCrops for which the effect of climate change is mostly negative (tomato, pepper, potato, olive trees); mostly benefited (cabbage, tobacco); with mixed regional effects (barley, grapevine, cucumber); northern and central Greece and Sterea Ellada and Attiki are climate winners, west and southern Greece are climate losersRegionAdjustment of sowing dates to help plants avoid extreme temperatures; additional irrigation water through increased irrigation rates or high-efficiency irrigation systems; increased N-fertilization necessary to address nutrient deficiencies resulting from reduced precipitation; vineyards: changes in cultivation and management practices or relocation
24[101]GreeceSubtropical2010–2099: increase in annual mean and maximum summer temperatures; increase in evapotranspiration; decrease in annual precipitation; more intensive summer droughts, floods, and soil erosionWater cycle intensification, crop yield reduction, soil losses, declining water resources, increase in irrigation needs, a decrease in yield for some crops (maize, sunflower, and beans); a mostly negative effect for tomato, potato, and olive trees; increase in yield of rice, wheat, cotton, peach, and orange treesRegion-to-NationModernizing irrigation systems; maintaining irrigation networks; recycling treated water for irrigation; selecting heritage crop varieties that exhibit drought and salt tolerance; suitable summer pruning; incorporation of shredded tree branches to enrich the soil surface
25[102]CyprusSubtropical2031–2060: continual, gradual, and relatively strong warming; prolonged droughts; reduction of annual precipitationYield loss up to 9%; increase of the early winter sowing season (14–18%); tomato yield decrease (20–30%); almost stable olive yield; higher yield losses (24–38%) for late-matured grape varietiesLocal-to-NationGreen manure for vegetables; deficit irrigation strategies (regulated reduced irrigation) in olive groves; zero tillage and early sowing in wheat/barley crops; organic mulching for olive groves; artificial shading of vineyards; integrated pest management; intercropping with legumes; breeding drought/heat-resistant/tolerant crop varieties
26[103]Japan (Kazuno, Nagano), South Africa (Elgin)Temperate humid (Kazuno)
Subtropical humid (Nagano, Elgin)
By 2060: temperature increaseApple (Malus pumila var. domestica) farming in:
  • Kazuno: climatically well suited and will be so in 2060;
  • Nagano: negative effects of high temperatures, such as paler color and softening of fruits;
  • Elgin: the climate is already close to the warmer margin with insufficient winter chill units; further warming will push this region beyond the critical threshold, with apple production no longer being commercially viable
Local-to-RegionFarm: Kazuno: drastic change by introducing peaches (Prunus persica var. vulgaris), a species better suited to a warm climate than apples;
Nagano: adopting technical remedies against the poor coloring and changing cultivars to those with lower chill unit requirements and higher tolerance against sunburn;
Elgin: maintaining apple production by changing cultivars
27[104]KazakhstanTemperateDifferent warming scenarios: (1) GFDL, (2) and (3) incremental; increase in:
+4.9 °C annual air temperature, +24% precipitation
+3 °C annual air temperature, +20% precipitation
+3 °C annual air temperature, no change in precipitation
Dramatically change in spring wheat yields:
Significant drying of soils: increased evapotranspiration from the higher temperatures outweighs the increased precipitation; the wheat cultivating area could decrease by >10%
Soil moisture increase
Soil moisture decrease; reduce the area suitable for wheat cultivation by more than 50%
Local-to-NationSnow reserving; choice of planting date; forecasts on agricultural pest and disease outbreaks; informing farmers about coping with climate change; regular local workshops on different techniques for growing wheat; sustainable seed banks with wide varieties available; change land management to reduce soil erosion; incorporating results into Kazakhstan’s National Action Plan
28[105]ChinaTropical in the far south, Subarctic in the far north, Alpine in Tibetan PlateauB2 scenario, RCM projections by 2020s, 2050s, and 2080s: mean temperature increase by 1.2, 2.2, and 3.2; precipitation increase by 4%, 7%, and 10%, respectivelyIncreased instability in agricultural production since the 1980s; more severe droughts and heat waves in some places; increased crop damage from spring frost; northward and westward movement of winter wheat plantations in Northeast China; decrease (95%–10%) of crop productivity by 2030NationStrengthening agricultural infrastructure; breeding stress-resistant crop varieties; developing new agricultural technologies (including biotechnology); promoting the large-scale planting of superior crop varieties in suitable areas for bolstering the agricultural sector’s resilience to disasters
29[106]ChinaTropical in the far south
Subarctic in the far north
Alpine in Tibetan Plateau
Current: temperature increase, precipitation decreaseNext 20–80 years: drop in rainfed yields of rice, wheat, and maize (20–36%); increase in cotton yieldsLocal-to-NationNation: focus on smaller-scale irrigation and drainage projects; construction of water storage facilities; optimization of water utilization; encouraging research into seed varieties resistant to drought, waterlogging, high temperatures, diseases, and pests.
Local (farm): choosing more adaptive, multi-functional, and high-yield crops; embracing water-saving technologies like plastic sheeting, drought-resistant varieties, stubble retention, low-till methods, and surface-level plastic irrigation pipes
30[107]China, Yongqiao DistrictSubtropical humid, dry winterCurrent: temperature increase, precipitation decreaseFuture crop loss, heat waves during the crop’s flowering phase in July/August, and rainfall shortages affect stable crop harvests; more risky situations in the futureLocal-to RegionPlanting new crop varieties and adopting new technologies; increasing investments in irrigation systems; education and insurance adaptation practices
31[108]China, Huai River BasinTemperate semi-humid and monsoon2035s, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 scenarios: mean temperatures increase by 1.34 and 1.65 °C; ensemble mean precipitation increases by 3.79% and 5.65%, respectivelyHigher evapotranspiration from soil and plants leads to a higher magnitude of blue water footprint; lower precipitation increases the effect of temperature on blue water consumptionLocal-to-RegionSwitching to a more efficient irrigation technique (e.g., drip irrigation); switching to plant crops that require the least amount of water but produce the highest yields
32[109]Vietnam, Can Tho CityTropical1999–2008: air temperature increase (0.2 °C); solar radiation increase (by 200 h); air humidity decrease (5%); precipitation decrease (200 mm year−1)Saline water invasion in inland areas is polluting freshwater resources and limiting agricultural production, particularly monocrop rice cultivationLocal-to-RegionWastewater reuse
33[110]Vietnam, Ca Mau PeninsulaTropicalBy 2030: rise of sea levels: risk of further penetration of salt water with more severe intensity in coastal areasEffect on tree growth: trees are stunted, and the yield is low depending on the salt concentrationLocal-to-RegionLand use planning; transforming the agricultural model by selecting rice varieties tolerant to salt; augmenting salt tolerance by introducing rich Ca2+ fertilizers; adopting the alternate wetting and drying technique to optimize irrigation water usage and enhance the irrigation system; conversion of paddy land into aquaculture areas or the implementation of a rice-shrimp rotation model
34[111]Indonesia, West JavaEquatorialCurrent: changes in rainfall patterns, especially the onset of the dry season and its durationDecrease in productivity and quality of crop yields; indirect effects: increasing pests and diseasesRegionExpanding the arable land area through social forestry practices’ intensifying pesticide use and employing more inorganic fertilizers. Alternatively, focus on increasing organic farming or transitioning to the cultivation of perennial crops
35[112]NepalTropical savannaCurrent: increased temperature; change in the timing of rainfall, including the late start of monsoons; decreased availability of surface and ground water; long-spell drought; less frequent but heavy rainfall causing floods and landslidesReduction in the rice area planted, grain quality and yield; increased evapotranspiration thus require more irrigation; more infestation of insects and diseases; introduction of new insects and diseases; poor germination; water stress causing less tiller number, delay panicle initiation, reduce grain and panicle number; delay in transplantation; shortage of irrigation water; loss of crop due to heavy rainfall/hailstorm; destruction of water resources and irrigation canal; soil erosion; degradation of soil qualityLocal-to-RegionCultivating short-duration varieties; opting for insect and pest-resistant varieties; altering the planting locations of these varieties; improving irrigation methods; increasing weed control efforts; employing additional pesticides; implementing soil conservation techniques; reducing tillage; practicing seed priming; adjusting sowing/planting/harvesting dates; adopting direct-seeded rice cultivation; raising seed rates; growing drought-tolerant varieties; enhancing the use of chemical fertilizers; increasing the application of farmyard manure; establishing waterways to manage heavy rainfall; cultivating flood-tolerant varieties; transitioning to non-rice crops
36[17]Nepal, TeraiTropical savannaCurrent: abnormal changes in temperature and precipitation; the occurrence of extreme events: a decrease in the number of rainy days and an increase in the intensity of monsoon precipitation, floods, and landslide occurrencesDecline in production of cereal crops, attributed to increasing water stress that resulted from rising temperatures and reduced rainy days; decline in agricultural production; and direct loss of agricultural land and livestock due to the increased incidence and severity of climate-induced hazardsLocal-to-RegionClimate-smart practices for grain yield improvement: no tillage; fertilizer (based on crop sensor readings); residue; green manuring
37[113]Western NepalTemperate-to-TropicalCurrent: rapid glacier melt and snowpack loss, extreme precipitation and temperature events, and alteration of water availabilityNegative impacts on water resource availability and agricultural productivityLocal-to-NationPromotion of crop varieties resilient to flood, landslides, and drought: transition to flood-resistant hybrid types of rice and sugar cane plantations in the flood-prone fields; use of bio-dams to mitigate the effect of floods and deforestation; methods of row spacing (intercropping) and agroforestry; provision of sustainable irrigation facilities; reliable services for dissemination of agricultural information; introduction of rainwater harvesting; spread of flood- and drought-resistant types of crops; support for alternative livelihood opportunities; development of reliable early warning systems to inform about risks
38[114]Sri LankaTropical monsoonRatnapura:
1901–2000: mean annual temperature increase by 0.5 °C
By 2050s: rainfall decrease (9%–17%)
Temperature rise leads to increased evapotranspiration, soil moisture loss, and crop physiology; disturbance to the normal cropping calendar; frequent crop failure and yield lossLocalFive groups of adaptation measures: crop management, land management, irrigation management, income diversification, and rituals; transition of planting time to suit rainfall variability; implementation of micro irrigation; reduction of irrigation depth; and crop diversification
39[115]Iran, Fars ProvinceTemperate-to-TropicalCurrent: severe droughtsReduced quality and quantity of agricultural water resources (saltiness and bitterness)Local-to-NationCost management; development and diversification of income sources; social capital management (including use of facilities and loans); environmental stress management; use of educational and consulting services; additional: general and governmental adaptation interventions such as infrastructure development, removal of organizational barriers, creation of information and dissemination infrastructures
40[116]Pakistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa ProvinceSubtropical-to-Temperate, monsoon, semiaridCurrent: temperature increase; prolonged summer seasons and short winters; fluctuating rainfall patterns, frequent floods, severe droughts, intense heat waves, melting of glaciers, and rise in sea level; unpredicted rainfall, disastrous floods, severe droughts, and stormsGreat agricultural losses result in remarkable differences in expected crop yieldsLocalChange crop type, variety, and planting dates; plant Eucalyptus on lands around the river to reduce soil erosion as a result of floods; change fertilizers, seed quality, and shaded trees; change the variety of crops
41[117]PakistanSubtropical-to-Temperate, semiarid1980–2013: Significant increase in the summer and winter temperatures; rainfall: (1) slight increase in both summer and winter rainfall; (2) significant decrease in both winter and summer rainfall; (3) slight decrease in winter rainfall and an insignificant increase in summer rainfall, with large fluctuations over the yearsB2 and A2 scenarios, decrease in productivity of main staple crops, wheat and rice, by 6–8% and 16–19%, respectivelyLocalDevelopment of heat-resistant and drought-resistant varieties; irrigation and soil conservation measures; and crop insurance schemes informing and training farmers on adequate strategies for adaptation to climate change; changing crop varieties, resource use, adaptation of planting dates, and planting shady trees
42[118]Pakistan, southern and central PunjabSubtropical desertPast 10 years: decreased winter and summer rainfall; increased temperature; the growing season length of crops; the sea level riseReductions in wheat yields; negative impact on productivity of cotton; severe adverse impact of GSL reduction on wheat and riceLocal-to-RegionChanging crop variety and type; planting dates; planting trees; increasing and/or replacing fertilizer; rational use of soil and water; income from non-agricultural activities; and diversification
43[119]IndiaTropical-to-Sub-equatorialProjected climate change: increased variability in summer monsoon precipitationLand degradation due to soil erosion and nutrient depletionLocal-to-NationConservation agriculture: reasonable disturbance of soil cover; contiguous crop rotation; conservation tillage, or without tillage; preservation of plant residues; organic farming; green manure application; mixed crop-livestock systems; biodiversity conservation approach
44[13]India, Uttar PradeshSubtropical humid with a dry winterCurrent warming; increasing the incidence of strong winds; longer summers and shorter wintersEffect on agricultural productivity through physiological changes in crops and reduce grain quality; effect on other factors of production agriculture, such as water availability, soil fertility, and pestsLocal-to-RegionChanges in agricultural and farming practices as a passive response: transition of sowing and harvesting dates, cultivation of short-duration varieties, inter-cropping, changes in the structure of crops, investment in irrigation and agroforestry
45[120]IndiaTropical-to-Sub-equatorialProjected increase in temperaturesDamage to crops, with greater challenge to wheat; lower heat-induced yield lossesLocalAdaptation between crops: types of crops, e.g., for growing more heat-resistant varieties of rice; cultivation of sorghum and maize, more resistant to heat than rice; transition to wheat as a crop that grows in cooler seasons; intra-crop adaptations: investments in irrigation to protect against heat and drought stress; transition of sowing dates to avoid heat stress; application of fertilizer or other agricultural resources for heat control; shading trees and planting to protect crops from high temperatures
46[121]BangladeshSubtropical monsoonProjected temperature increaseUpset about rainfed rice crop choicesLocal-to-NationChange the choice of crop in favor of irrigation-based Boro, Aus, and other crops; cultivate climate change-tolerant crop varieties, e.g., from the traditional rain-fed Aman variety to the irrigation-dependent Boro rice; use alternative farming practices (integrated farming, floating gardens)
47[11]AfricaEquatorial-to-Temperate semi-aridLast 50–100 years: increased warming trend of 0.5 °C or more; increased heat; extreme weather events; droughts; more rapid minimum temperature warming than maximum temperature; annual precipitation has decreased in the eastern and western Sahelian regions; there has been an increase and intensification of droughts due to reduced precipitation; there has been increased evapotranspiration in Eastern and Southern Africa; and heavy precipitation events have increased in East AfricaFood crises due to droughts, crop pests (i.e., desert locusts), poor soil fertility, high salinity, and increased crop diseases and pestsLocal-to-NationVariations and management of crops; water and soil management; financial schemes; migration, insurance, and culture; agricultural and weather services. Dominant strategies: crop diversification (51.5%), planting drought-tolerant varieties (45%), changing planting dates (42%), planting early-maturing crops (22%). Building more infrastructure for irrigation, water, and soil management; promotion of crop insurance; use of improved varieties; expansion of opportunities for diversification of livelihood, in addition to the established adaptation practices
48[122]Southwestern Morocco, AgadirSubtropical-to Temperate arid, semi-arid, dry sub-humidCurrent: enhanced drought periods; increased temperaturesDirect or indirect influence on vegetable crop production: water availability, temperature extremes during production cycles, soil fertility, pest populationsLocalUse of local crop varieties to mitigate the effects of drought due to fluctuations in water supplies
49[69]Asia, Africa, and Latin AmericaTropical arid and semi-arid+2 °C warming scenario: increasing surface temperature; increase in frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events; higher drought frequenciesReduced grain yields; effect on forest distribution, productivity, and health; a northward shift of tropical wet forests into areas currently occupied by tropical dry forests; soil erosion and sedimentation in mountain regions; negative impacts on sheep breeding and lamb wool productivityLocal-to-NationUtilization and processing of agricultural and secondary products and waste; cultivation of crops resistant to saltwater; adoption of practices that integrate crops and livestock; adjustment of crop varieties in response to shifting climate conditions; implementation of agro-forestry techniques; adoption of minimum or zero-tillage methods; utilization of traditional agro-silvi-pastoral systems; selection of appropriate crop varieties; practice of intercropping or relay cropping of grains with legumes; establishment of mixed systems combining trees, grasses, and crops; crop rotation; use of organic fertilizers with limited synthetic fertilizer application; effective utilization of crop residues
50[68]Sub-Saharan AfricaEquatorial-to-TropicalCurrent: increasing temperatures; variable rainfall trends; increased droughts and flood frequencies; prevalence of storms and forest fires2050: effect on crop production 10–20%, up to 50%NationChanging crop dates; dam, well, and irrigation scheme construction; conservation agriculture; application of optimum fertilizer; harvesting of rainwater; crop diversification; management of disease and pests; water, irrigation, and flood management; insurance based on weather index; information and early-warning systems
51[123]KenyaTropical-to Temperate Humid-to-Semi-aridEnd of the 21st century: median temperature increase to 34 °C2050: significant yield losses (8–22%) of key staple cropsLocal-to-RegionAlterations in agricultural practices: modifications in field selection, adjustments to planting dates, alterations in planting density, diversification of crop varieties; enhancements in livestock handling techniques, such as livestock selection, feeding methods, and animal health protection; changes in timing and location of cattle herding; improvements in land utilization strategies, including fallow land treatment, tree planting or safeguarding, irrigation, and water harvesting; conservation measures for soil and water resources; soil tillage practices; soil fertility management; livelihood strategies, encompassing the combination of cultivated crops and livestock production; blend of agricultural and non-farm activities; temporary or permanent migration
52[124]KenyaTropical-to Temperate Humid-to-Semi-aridCurrent: frequent droughts, periodic floods, and unpredictable rainfall patternsThreats to food and livelihood securityLocalClimate-smart agriculture: irrigation, changes in cultivation calendar; using certified seed; crop rotation; soil testing
53[125]NigeriaTropical-to-Temperate1971–2000: air temperatures increase with a faster increase in minimum temperatures (0.8℃)
Future: no specific trend in rainfall deviations
Agricultural productivity declinationLocal-to-RegionMixed cropping or intercropping practices; minimum or zero tillage methods; mixed farming and agroforestry; mixed crop-livestock-agroforestry system; integrated soil nutrient management; conservation tillage and slow-forming terraces; mulching; using vaccines, antibiotics, and anti-stress agents; planting trees for shade and to serve as windbreakers; proper water treatment; use of feed with a high nutrient content, crossing animals, and improving grazing areas; reduce the size of the herd to ensure adequate ventilation and improve the livestock-keeping system
54[126]NigeriaTropicalPast 30 years: increase in average minimum and maximum temperatures by about 0.25 °C and 0.15 °C, respectively; very high variability of rainfalls.
Future: temperatures will continue to increase
Influence on crop and livestock production, hydrologic balances, input supplies, and other components of agricultural systemsLocalTree planting; mixed farming; mixed cropping; soil conservation; using different crop varieties; transition of planting dates and irrigation; mulching; zero tillage; making ridges; early or late planting operations
55[127]Nigeria, Enugu StateTropical wet and dry (savannah)Projections for humid regions of southern Nigeria: increases in rainfall, cloudiness, and rainfall intensity.
Projections for the savannah areas of northern Nigeria: temperature increase; reductions in rainfall; and soil moisture availability
Increased temperatures and a decrease in water availability reduce the length of growing seasons and yield potential; proliferation of pests and diseases; agricultural land loss due to a rise in the sea levelLocalUsing resistant crop and animal varieties/species; using organic manure; mixed farming; diversifying crop production enterprises
56[128]Ghana, Sekyedumase DistrictTropical Sub-humidBy 2050: temperature increase by 1.3–1.6; increase in inter-annual rainfall variability; increase in the intensity of rainfall events; decrease in the number of rainy daysLong drought periods during the reproductive (particularly grain filling) stage of crops affect grain size, weight, and hence yieldLocalDiversification of crops; transition of crop planting dates
57[129]South Africa, Limpopo ProvinceSubtropical-to-TemperatePast four decades: increase in average minimum and maximum monthly temperatures; increase in the number of warmer days; decrease in the number of cooler days; increase in average rainfall; increased frequency and intensity of floods and droughtsFloods destroy crops, infrastructure, and the harvesting periodLocal-to-RegionEfficient management of irrigation systems; water-efficient crop cultivation; optimization of irrigation scheduling; implementation of management approaches to minimize water wastage; insurance and subsidies; resizing of land holdings; transitioning from crop cultivation to livestock rearing; shortening of crop growing period
58[130]South Africa and EthiopiaSubtropicalProjections: warming is expected to be greater than the global average; temperature increases mostly in the summer; precipitation decreasesGreat threats to food and water securityLocalUsing different crops or crop varieties; shade tree planting; soil conservation; transition of planting dates; irrigation; changing the area of cultivated land; animal feed supplementing
59[131]South-central MexicoSubtropical-to-TemperateCurrent: temperature increase; increase of warm nights and extreme minimum temperatures; decrease in cold periods, cold nights, and cool days; changes in the quantity and distribution of precipitation. The rainfall pattern is more irregular, with more stormy eventsCoffee yield decreased by up to 34% due to changes in coffee growth, flowering, and fruiting. Increases in the incidence rates of pests and diseases (rust and coffee berry borer). Damage to coffee plants from natural disastersLocalUse of coffee agroforestry systems with diversified species of multipurpose trees and shrubs; use of shade cover to avoid water stress during heatwave periods; slowing down the speed of downstream runoff water to reduce soil loss due to water erosion by using living barriers
60[132]Mexico, State TlaxcalaSubtropical-to-TemperateClimate change scenarios for the years 2020 and 2050 compared to 1961–1990: increase in minimum temperature; reduction of frost threats; severe droughtsDecrease in maize yields (Ceres-Maize model)LocalGreenhouse construction; compost use; dripping irrigation
61[133]BrazilSubtropical Temperate humidCurrent: increase in extreme temperatures; decrease in average precipitation; more frequent intense precipitation; intensification of extreme weather eventsMore frequent heat stress; scarcity of drinking water; damage to agricultural production and rural properties by increased floodingLocalUse of landraces tolerant to drought and other climate extremes
62[134]ColombiaTropicalBy 2050s: increase in annual mean temperature by 2.5 °C, with a maximum of 2.7 °C in the Arauca department and a minimum of 2 °C in Chocó and Nariño; precipitation increase by 2.5%, with a minimum change of −1.4% in Cesar and a maximum of 5.6% in Huila. The driest periods throughout the year are likely less dry, while the wettest periods are projected to become wetterLoss of plant genetic resources, desertification and salinization of agricultural lands, reductions in rice yield, loss of coffee growing environments; increases in incidence of coffee berry borer; increase in the risk of Fusarium head blight in wheat; change in soil water availability, enhancing drought in some regions and flooding risks in others; change in precipitation affects biotic factors (pests, diseases, weeds); increased pest and disease prevalenceRegion-to-NationPostponement of harvesting and sowing dates; construction of walls and barriers to prevent salinization and protect coastal ecosystems; adaptation subsidies and an agricultural insurance system for producers on mountain slopes and in dry areas; placement of heat-resistant varieties in appropriate genebanks
63[135]USATemperate-to-TropicalThree periods: 2010–2039, 2040–2069, and 2070–2099: temperature and summer temperature-humidity index increase; annual precipitation increases; summer precipitation decreasesReducing crop land and increasing pasture landRegion-to-NationShift of land use from cropping to grazing; decrease of crop land and increase of pasture land
64[136]USA, IL, CarbondaleSubtropical humidCurrent: hotter and drier growing seasonDrought is one of the most limiting factors in extensive green roof systems; water deficiency leads to a decrease in herb productivity but improves essential oils and antioxidant potentialLocalImprovement of roof materials, water-retaining gels, mulching, and subsurface irrigation systems to enhance the management of extensive green roofs for food production; supplemental irrigation to maximize quality and yield
65[137]AustraliaTropical-to-Temperate Semi-aridCurrent:
Southwest and southeast farming regions: average rainfall is falling and more variable.
North: rainfall increase, increase in the severity of cyclones.
South: higher temperatures, less rainfall, more frequent and longer drought periods, higher risks of bush fires
Changes in growth rates of different plant and animal species; output responses to different plant and animal production methods; changes to the best times for planting and harvesting; effects on comfort and productivity of farm animals; decreased suitability of farm labor working conditions in many northern regionsLocal-to-NationContributions from the government; changes in personal subsidiary farms
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Grigorieva, E.; Livenets, A.; Stelmakh, E. Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change: A Scoping Review. Climate 2023, 11, 202.

AMA Style

Grigorieva E, Livenets A, Stelmakh E. Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change: A Scoping Review. Climate. 2023; 11(10):202.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Grigorieva, Elena, Alexandra Livenets, and Elena Stelmakh. 2023. "Adaptation of Agriculture to Climate Change: A Scoping Review" Climate 11, no. 10: 202.

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop