Next Article in Journal
Joint Modeling of Severe Dust Storm Events in Arid and Hyper Arid Regions Based on Copula Theory: A Case Study in the Yazd Province, Iran
Previous Article in Journal
Robustness of the Link between Precipitation in North Africa and Standard Modes of Atmospheric Variability during the Last Millennium
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Future of Semi-Arid Regions: A Weak Fabric Unravels
Open AccessEditorial

Disconnect within Agriculture and Ecosystem Climate Effects, Adaptations and Policy

1
Department of Applied Economics, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322, USA
2
Agricultural Economics/College of Agriculture, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
3
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, TexasA&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
4
Center for Coffee Research and Education, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
5
Department of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Climate 2020, 8(5), 63; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8050063
Received: 30 April 2020 / Accepted: 8 May 2020 / Published: 13 May 2020

1. Introduction

Frequently, agriculture and ecosystems (AE) are seen as separate entities, causing entity specific solutions in response to threats. Anthropogenic climate change simultaneously stresses both agriculture and ecosystems along with their interactions. Induced increasing surface temperatures [1], altered precipitation [2], drought intensification [3], altered ground and surface water quantity/quality [4,5], and diminished soil moisture [6] force adaptations for AE, but these adaptations fail to be efficient when interdependencies are not considered. Additional adaptations will be necessary, as future projections anticipate even greater climate change [1].
Research has quantified many AE impacts of climate change and yet greater impacts are anticipated as climate change proceeds. Thus, understanding the implications for AE systems is crucial. AE function, health, and productivity depend heavily on climatic characteristics. Typically, agriculture gets the most attention, as it feeds the world; however, an adaptation that only considers agriculture can negatively affect ecosystems and vice versa. Failure to incorporate the overlapping effects of agriculture and ecosystems could lead to maladaptation and greater long-term damages under climate change. The papers in this issue address a number of aspects of this issue.
Table 1 is adapted from Thayer et al., 2020 [7] and it provides examples of external ecological effects of agricultural focused adaptations and vice versa. Column 1 displays the general climate stressor with Column 2 showing the particular effect that has been seen in select areas. Columns 3 and 4 show either agricultural adaptations and their unintended impact on the ecosystem [termed an externality] or an ecosystem adaptation with the unintended result on agriculture [termed externality].
The examples demonstrate how an adaptation in agriculture or ecosystems can impact the other. Another factor to keep in mind is that climate change and its effects vary across the landscape geography as does AE characteristics; thus, adaptation actions must address local AE situations and cannot be spatial uniform.
This editorial will review the collective findings in the papers that are published in the Climate Special Issue “Climate Change in Complex Systems: Effects, Adaptations, and Policy Considerations for Agriculture and Ecosystems”. We will discuss the ways the papers address climate change impacts, potential adaptations, and future policy for the continued AE prosperity. We also discuss the identified needs for research and future directions of AE interface adaptation research.

2. Comments on Effects

Regions experience differential impacts and researchers have used diverse methods to quantify climate change effects on AE due to the complex nature of climate. Every paper in the special issue clearly identifies current and future climate change impacts on their study area.
Sinay and Carter (2020) reviewed papers that focused on climate effects on coastal communities [37]. They discussed climate change as a cause of increased occurrences of flooding and fire along with the impacts to coastlines and beaches, inland areas, infrastructure, housing, natural systems, food production, fresh and drinking water availability, and community welfare.
Changes in water availability and use is expected under climate change and has been observed to have varying impacts on AE systems within the special issue. Elijah and Odiyo show that Kenyan droughts have increased the use of groundwater to sustain rainfed agriculture, which leads to increased soil salinity due to irrigation [38]. Scholes illustrates that South Africa is also experiencing land degradation, due to high solar radiation, low atmospheric humidity and rainfall, and increased seasonality and variability of rainfall, causing a shift away from animal production and potentially to energy production [39]. Scholes (2020) further highlighted that semi-arid regions will be particularly vulnerable to land degradation and an expansion of desertification. In the paper by Ngarava et al., South Africa is also struggling to increase its livestock and energy production under climatic stressors while attempting to reduce carbon dioxide emissions [40].
Further, water stress and increased temperatures were discussed in various regions in Korea and the United States. An et al. report increased insect populations as a result of rising temperatures and decreased tree health due to water stress are affecting the growth of the Korean Oak and, in turn, the country’s lumber industry [41]. In addition, Ding and McCarl show that, under increased drought, a region of Texas with competing interests in water rights is expected to experience crop losses and a shift from expensive irrigated land to grasslands [42]. Further, as groundwater pumping for municipal and industrial water increases, lower pumping limits might be imposed, which could jeopardize the ecosystems that rely on the spring levels fed by the groundwater systems.
As discussed, climate effects may have common aspects across the landscape, but their solutions will require localized attention and they are subject to available resources, magnitude and knowledge of current and future impacts, as well as the community’s response. Thus, a collection of viable adaptations must be outlined to facilitate and lessen the expected damage as a result of climate effects.

3. Comments on Adaptation

Identifying appropriate adaptations was a key goal in designing this special issue. However, few papers in this collection suggested specific AE adaptation strategies. Only Sinay and Carter exclusively focused on identifying and synthesizing the best practices in adaptation strategies [37]. Other papers were able to make adaptation suggestions specific to the system such as Scholes argument for the adoption of sustainable land use [39] or Ding and McCarl’s suggested changes to current water use [42]. However, none of the studies were able to fully discuss adaptations in the context of both ecosystems and agriculture.
Despite a lack of concrete adaptations for each system, other take-aways from the literature might be relevant when suggesting future productive directions for adaptation research. In general, Sinay and Carter suggest that adaptation strategies should be flexible and multiple strategies might need to be considered in order to respond to the magnitude of effects [37]. Identifying a range of possible adaptations or a time frame where one adaptation might be more effective could be productive. Several of the papers cited here were also able to identify adaptations that might not be useful [37,38,39,41]. While the scope of study areas and methodologies suggests that adaptations discussed in these papers are difficult to summarize, it might be helpful for future research to discuss adaptations that are likely to lead to maladaptation or worse outcomes just as much as suggest adaptations.
It is known that identifying adaptation strategies is difficult and their role to combat the effects of future changes is complex [43]. Despite this difficulty, climate change impact studies have insights into the study region, knowledge of the drivers, which impact the magnitude of effects, and an understanding of system feedbacks. These factors will be critical in estimating the magnitude of future effects and identifying best adaptation practices that benefit, or do not worsen, the agriculture and ecosystems. Thus, future research studies must extend their scope to consider adaptation strategies for the effects that they present as key findings. This could include drawing on literature from other similar study areas, as did Scholes [39], or attempting to extend the analysis and discussion to explicitly extend the findings from one system (agriculture or ecosystems) to discussing adaptations that will be necessary in other systems [7].

4. Comments on Policy

While papers that were included in this special edition fell short of providing concrete adaptation strategies that addressed AE simultaneously, studies were more successful in identifying policy recommendations to respond to current and future climate change effects; however, papers fell short of calling these policies adaptation strategies.
Policy recommendations were generally specific to the particular study area and they emphasized the need for local solutions and investments in human capital, such as the recommendation of several papers on education for success [37,38,39]. It was also clear that, if properly designed, financial incentives and economic support mechanisms could be useful in a number of study areas [40,41]. Ding and McCarl were able to point to specific policy recommendations and their impact on the community and discuss the effects of a policy on both humans and the ecosystem [42].
The contrast between authors’ ability to make policy recommendations and suggest adaptation strategies suggests a possible important disconnect in researchers’ ability and confidence in discussing the future impacts of climate change. In general, the distinction between policy recommendations and adaptations seemed to be arbitrary and only delineated by the timeframe the policy would be put in place. In many cases, policy recommendations were framed as such and not as adaptations to climate change. This might highlight the need for education of climate change researchers to adaptation scenarios and their ability to restructure research topics in order to explore adaptations. In many cases, with slight augmentation of research or extensions, policy recommendations could be easily tested as either successful or unsuccessful adaptations to climate change effects. Extending research to include a formal explanation and discussion of adaptation strategies reduces the risk to the study area and provides tested best-responses.

5. Conclusions

This special edition attracted a diverse selection of papers that were focused on climate change effects, adaptations, and policy recommendations with the goal of exploring agriculture and ecosystems impacts and interdependencies. As noted, the broad range in scope made it difficult to make concrete conclusions across each area of focus: effects, adaptations, and policy. Further, while the authors attempted to blend ecosystems and agriculture into a holistic sphere of research, largely, this remains a difficult and incomplete objective. This suggests that the field of climate change research in the AE arena needs additional support, funding, and ways to prioritize and incentivize integrated research and interdisciplinary teams in order to generate findings that will be applicable and accurate to the complex systems that define reality [7].
From the wide scope of articles included in this collection, it is clear that how humans and ecosystems respond to climate change effects will have a large influence on the eventual impact of changes. In all papers, land use changes in the coming decades, resource use, and conservation efforts, as well as energy use and efficiency efforts will define the ultimate failure or success of governmental and institutional responses to climate change as we transgress into the Anthropocene [44].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. IPCC. 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., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., et al., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  2. Van Vliet, M.T.H.; Franssen, W.H.P.; Yearsley, J.R.; Ludwig, F.; Haddeland, I.; Lettenmaier, D.P.; Kabat, P. Global river discharge and water temperature under climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. Hum. Policy Dimens. 2013, 23, 450–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Trenberth, K.; Dai, A.; van der Schrier, G.; Jones, P.H.; Barichivich, J.; Briffa, K.R.; Sheffield, J. Global warming and changes in drought. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 17–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Taylor, R.; Scanlon, B.; Döll, P.; Rodell, M.; van Beek, R.; Wada, Y.; Longuevergne, L.; Leblanc, M.; Famiglietti, J.S.; Edmunds, M.; et al. Groundwater and climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Whitehead, P.G.; Wilby, R.L.; Battarbee, R.W.; Kernan, M.; Wade, A.J. A review of the potential impacts of climate change on surface water quality. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2009, 54, 101–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Derner, J.D.; Johnson, H.B.; Kimball, B.A.; Pinter, P.J.; Polley, H.W.; Tischler, C.R.; Boutton, T.W.; LaMorte, R.L.; Wall, G.W.; Adam, N.R.; et al. Above-and below-ground responses of C3–C4 species mixtures to elevated CO2 and soil water availability. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2003, 9, 452–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Thayer, A.W.; Vargas, A.; Castellanos, A.A.; Lafon, C.W.; McCarl, B.A.; Roelke, D.L.; Winemiller, K.O.; Lacher, T.E. Integrating Agriculture and Ecosystems to Find Suitable Adaptations to Climate Change. Climate 2020, 8, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rötter, R.; Van de Geijn, S.C. Climate change effects on plant growth, crop yield and livestock. Clim. Chang. 1999, 43, 651–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Seo, S.N.; McCarl, B.A.; Mendelsohn, R.O. From beef cattle to sheep under global warming? An analysis of adaptation by livestock species choice in South America. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2486–2494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhang, Y.W.; McCarl, B.A.; Jones, J.P.H. An Overview of Mitigation and Adaptation Needs and Strategies for the Livestock Sector. Climate 2017, 5, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Seo, S.N.; Mendelsohn, R.O.; Dinar, A.; Kurukulasuriya, P. Adapting to climate change mosaically: An analysis of African livestock management by agro-ecological zones. B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 2009, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fuhlendorf, S.D.; Engle, D.M. Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: Ecosystem management based on evolutionary grazing patterns: We propose a paradigm that enhances heterogeneity instead of homogeneity to promote biological diversity and wildlife habitat on rangelands grazed by livestock. BioScience 2001, 51, 625–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Megersa, B.; Markemann, A.; Angassa, A.; Ogutu, J.O.; Piepho, H.P.; Zárate, A.V. Livestock diversification: An adaptive strategy to climate and rangeland ecosystem changes in southern Ethiopia. Hum. Ecol. 2014, 42, 509–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pequeño-Ledezma, M.; Alanís-Rodríguez, E.; Molina-Guerra, V.M.; Mora-Olivo, A.; Alcalá-Rojas, A.G.; Martínez-Ávalos, J.G.; Garza-Ocañas, F. Plant composition and structure of two post-livestock areas of Tamaulipan thornscrub, Mexico. Rev. Chil. Hist. Nat. 2018, 91, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Derner, J.; Briske, D.; Reeves, M.; Brown-Brandl, T.; Meehan, M.; Blumenthal, D.; Travis, W.; Augustine, D.; Wilmer, H.; Scasta, D.; et al. Vulnerability of grazing and confined livestock in the Northern Great Plains to projected mid-and late-twenty-first century climate. Clim. Chang. 2018, 146, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Craine, J.M.; Elmore, A.; Angerer, J.P. Long-term declines in dietary nutritional quality for North American cattle. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 044019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. 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]
  18. Cho, S.J.; McCarl, B.A. Climate change influences on crop mix shifts in the United States. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 40845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Joyce, L.A.; Briske, D.D.; Brown, J.R.; Polley, H.W.; McCarl, B.A.; Bailey, D.W. Climate change and North American rangelands: Assessment of mitigation and adaptation strategies. Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 2013, 66, 512–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Derner, J.D.; Boutton, T.W.; Briske, D.D. Grazing and ecosystem carbon storage in the North American Great Plains. Plant Soil. 2006, 280, 77–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Derner, J.D.; Schuman, G.E. Carbon sequestration and rangelands: A synthesis of land management and precipitation effects. J. Soil Water Conser. 2007, 62, 77–85. [Google Scholar]
  22. Allen, C.D.; Macalady, A.K.; Chenchouni, H.; Bachelet, D.; McDowell, N.; Vennetier, M.; Kitzberger, T.; Rigling, A.; Breshears, D.D.; Hogg, E.H.; et al. A global overview of drought and heat-induced tree mortality reveals emerging climate change risks for forests. For. Ecol. Manag. 2010, 259, 660–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Aragón-Gastélum, J.L.; Flores, J.; Yáñez-Espinosa, L.; Badano, E.; Ramírez-Tobías, H.M.; Rodas-Ortíz, J.P.; González-Salvatierra, C. Induced climate change impairs photosynthetic performance in Echinocactus platyacanthus, an especially protected Mexican cactus species. Flora 2014, 209, 499–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Geruo, A.; Velicogna, I.; Kimball, J.S.; Du, J.; Kim, Y.; Colliander, A.; Njoku, E. Satellite-observed changes in vegetation sensitivities to surface soil moisture and total water storage variations since the 2011 Texas drought. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017, 12, 054006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Schwantes, A.M.; Swenson, J.J.; González-Roglich, M.; Johnson, D.M.; Domec, J.C.; Jackson, R.B. Measuring canopy loss and climatic thresholds from an extreme drought along a fivefold precipitation gradient across Texas. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 5120–5135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. McDonald, R.I.; Girvetz, E.H. Two Challenges for U.S. Irrigation Due to Climate Change: Increasing Irrigated Area in Wet States and Increasing Irrigation Rates in Dry States. PLoS ONE 2001, 8, e65589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Rodríguez-Díaz, J.A.; Weatherhead, E.K.; Knox, J.W.; Camacho, E. Climate change impacts on irrigation water requirements in the Guadalquivir river basin in Spain. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2007, 7, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Richter, B.D. Ecologically sustainable water management: Managing river flows for ecological integrity. Ecol. Appl. 2003, 13, 206–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Perkin, J.S.; Gido, K.B.; Costigan, K.H.; Daniels, M.D.; Johnson, E.R. Fragmentation and drying ratchet down Great Plains stream fish diversity. Aquat. Conserv. Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. 2015, 25, 639–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Postel, S.; Carpenter, S. Freshwater ecosystem services. In Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems; Daily, G.C., Ed.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1997; pp. 195–214. ISBN 9781559634762. [Google Scholar]
  31. Durham, B.W.; Wilde, G.R. Influence of stream discharge on reproductive success of a prairie stream fish assemblage. Trans. Am. Fish Soc. 2006, 135, 1644–1653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mainali, K.P.; Warren, D.L.; Dhileepan, K.; McConnachie, A.; Strathie, L.; Hassan, G.; Karki, D.; Shrestha, B.B.; Parmesan, C. Projecting future expansion of invasive species: Comparing and improving methodologies for species distribution modeling. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 4464–4480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Burlakova, L.E.; Karatayev, A.Y.; Karatayev, V.A.; May, M.E.; Bennett, D.L.; Cook, M.J. Biogeography and conservation of freshwater mussels (Bivalvia: Unionidae) in Texas: Patterns of diversity and threats. Divers. Distrib. 2011, 17, 393–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wolfe, D.W.; Ziska, L.; Petzoldt, C.; Seaman, A.; Chase, L.; Hayhoe, K. Projected change in climate thresholds in the Northeastern U.S.: Implications for crops, pests, livestock, and farmers. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang. 2008, 13, 555–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Smith, R.G.; Menalled, F.D. Integrated Strategies for Managing Agricultural weeds: Making Cropping Systems Less Susceptible to Weed Colonization and Establishment Department of Land Resources and Environmental Sciences; Montana State University: Bozeman, MT, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  36. Chen, C.C.; McCarl, B.A. An investigation of the relationship between pesticide usage and climate change. Clim. Chang. 2001, 50, 475–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Sinay, L.; Carter, R.W.B. Climate Change Adaptation Options for Coastal Communities and Local Governments. Climate 2020, 8, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Elijah, V.T.; Odiyo, J.O. Perception of Environmental Spillovers across Scale in Climate Change Adaptation Planning: The Case of Small-Scale Farmers’ Irrigation Strategies, Kenya. Climate 2020, 8, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Scholes, R.J. The Future of Semi-Arid Regions: A Weak Fabric Unravels. Climate 2020, 8, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ngarava, S.; Zhou, L.; Ayuk, J.; Tatsvarei, S. Achieving Food Security in a Climate Change Environment: Considerations for Environmental Kuznets Curve Use in the South African Agricultural Sector. Climate 2019, 7, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. An, H.; Lee, S.; Cho, S.J. Climate Change Impacts on Forest Management: A Case of Korean Oak Wilt. Climate 2019, 7, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ding, J.; McCarl, B.A. Economic and Ecological Impacts of Increased Drought Frequency in the Edwards Aquifer. Climate 2020, 8, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tompkins, E.L.; Adger, W.L. Defining response capacity to enhance climate change policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 2005, 8, 562–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Lacher, T.E., Jr.; Roach, N.S. The status of biodiversity in the Anthropocene: Trends, threats, and actions. In Volume 3 (Biodiversity), the Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene; Lacher, T.E., Jr., Pyare, S., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2018; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Adaptations and externalities in response to climate stressors and effects, adapted from [7]
Table 1. Adaptations and externalities in response to climate stressors and effects, adapted from [7]
Climate StressorClimate EffectAgricultural AdaptationEcosystem Service Externality
Increased temperature and droughtIncreased livestock heat stress and reduced forage and growth [8]Diversifying livestock species [9,10,11]Altered plant biodiversity and productivity [12,13,14]
Lower crop production and quality due to increased temperatures affecting growth and nutrient content [15,16]Crop land shift to grazing [17,18,19]Increased root production in upper soil levels and carbon sequestration [20,21].
Climate StressorClimate EffectEcosystem AdaptationAgricultural System Externality
Increased drought Reduced plant growth due to changes in temperature, precipitation, or the incidence of climatic extremes [22,23]Shift in vegetation mix productivity and water retention [24,25]Altered water supply and increased demand for irrigation [26,27]
Increased temperature and altered rainfallDisruption in Hydrological environments that cycle nutrients, maintain water quality, and moderatelifecycle events such as spawning and recruitment [28,29,30,31]Shifting species distribution including pest incidence [32,33]Increased pesticide and herbicide costs [34,35,36]
Back to TopTop