Agricultural and Food Science in Finland, Vol.10 (2001):175 –196 175 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 10 (2001): 175–196. © Agricultural and Food Science in Finland Manuscript received April 2001 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 10 (2001): 175–196. Simulation of spring wheat responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature by using CERES-wheat crop model Heikki Laurila MTT Agrifood Research Finland, Plant Production Research, FIN-31600 Jokioinen, Finland, e-mail: heikki.laurila@helsinki.fi The CERES-wheat crop simulation model was used to estimate the changes in phenological develop- ment and yield production of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L., cv. Polkka) under different temper- ature and CO 2 growing conditions. The effects of elevated temperature (3–4°C) and CO 2 concentra- tion (700 ppm) as expected for Finland in 2100 were simulated. The model was calibrated for long- day growing conditions in Finland. The CERES-wheat genetic coefficients for cv. Polkka were cali- brated by using the MTT Agrifood Research Finland (MTT) official variety trial data (1985–1990). Crop phenological development and yield measurements from open-top chamber experiments with ambient and elevated temperature and CO 2 treatments were used to validate the model. Simulated mean grain yield under ambient temperature and CO 2 conditions was 6.16 t ha–1 for potential growth (4.49 t ha–1 non-potential) and 5.47 t ha–1 for the observed average yield (1992– 1994) in ambient open-top chamber conditions. The simulated potential grain yield increased under elevated CO 2 (700 ppm) to 142% (167% non-potential) from the simulated reference yield (100%, ambient temperature and CO 2 350 ppm). Simulations for current sowing date and elevated tempera- ture (3°C) indicate accelerated anthesis and full maturity. According to the model estimations, poten- tial yield decreased on average to 80.4% (76.8% non-potential) due to temperature increase from the simulated reference. When modelling the concurrent elevated temperature and CO 2 interaction, the increase in grain yield due to elevated CO 2 was reduced by the elevated temperature. The combined CO 2 and temperature effect increased the grain yield to 106% for potential growth (122% non-potential) compared to the reference. Simulating the effects of earlier sowing, the potential grain yield in- creased under elevated temperature and CO 2 conditions to 178% (15 days earlier sowing from 15 May, 700 ppm CO 2 , 3°C) from the reference. Simulation results suggest that earlier sowing will substantially increase grain yields under elevat- ed CO 2 growing conditions with genotypes currently cultivated in Finland, and will mitigate the de- crease due to elevated temperature. A longer growing period due to climate change will potentially enable cultivation of new cultivars adapted to a longer growing period. Finally, adaptation strategies for the crop production under elevated temperature and CO 2 growing conditions are presented. Key words: CERES-wheat model, spring wheat, climate change, CO 2 , temperature, Finland, simula- tion, open-top chamber, early sowing mailto:heikki.laurila@helsinki.fi 176 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Laurila, H. Simulation of spring wheat responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature Introduction Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that the atmospheric CO 2 concentration will double from current ambient concentration (355 ppm) and the mean tempera- ture will increase between 1.48°C and 5.8°C by the year 2100 (IPCC/WGI 1996). The conse- quences of potential climate change in northern latitudes will involve changes in agro-ecosys- tems: Mean temperature will increase during late winter, spring and autumn. In Finland the “SIL- MU scenario” (The Finnish Research Program on Climate Change, SILMU 1992–1995) esti- mates that the atmospheric CO 2 concentration will increase from current ambient 355 ppm to 523 ppm and the mean temperature will increase with 2.4°C by the year 2050 and respectively to 733 ppm and with 4.4°C by the end of 2100 (Carter 1996, 1998). In Finland the increase of one degree in mean temperature will expand the growing season for 10 days and move the bor- der of cereal cultivation 100–200 km to the north. In Finland a longer growing season for crops (10–33 d) is estimated: sowing will happen ca. 10–15 days earlier (Carter 1992). Earlier sow- ing will cause changes in growing conditions especially during vegetative phase, with poten- tial changes in plant phenological development (Saarikko and Carter 1996, Saarikko 1999). It has been estimated that C 3 -metabolic pathway plants will increase yield potential between 20 and 53% when current CO 2 concentration will double to 600–700 ppm (Goudriaan et al. 1985, Cure and Acock 1986, Goudriaan et al. 1990). The IGBP (International Geosphere-Bio- sphere Programme) Wheat Network validated several crop models with the same genotype and weather datasets (IGBP/GCTE 1993). The spring wheat cv. Katepwa grown in Minnesota (USA) was used in the validation. The grain yield vari- ation was significant between all models under ambient temperature and CO 2 conditions. The SUCROS model (Spitters et al. 1989) grain yield estimate for cv. Katepwa was 4.4 t ha–1 and re- spectively AFRCWHEAT2 (Porter et al. 1993) 4.6 t ha–1 and CERES-wheat 3.5 t ha–1 (Godwing et al. 1989, Hanks and Ritchie 1991). Porter et a l . ( 1 9 9 3 ) v a l i d a t e d t h e A F R C W H E AT 2 , CERES-wheat and SWHEAT crop models un- der non-limiting growing conditions. The mod- elling results with AFRCWHEAT2 model (Se- menov et al. 1993) indicated a general increase of 25–30 % on winter wheat yield and biomass levels under elevated CO 2 (700 ppm) and with different nitrogen application. However, the el- evated temperature (2–4°C) decreased the grain yield because of accelerated phenological devel- opment in generative phase and thus shorter grain filling period. When the condition of both effects, the elevated temperature and CO 2 was simulated, the grain yield remained the same as for current ambient conditions. In Finland Lau- rila (1995) validated the CERES-wheat for Finn- ish growing conditions with Swedish and Ger- man wheat cultivars. Rosenzweig and Parry (1994) simulated with CERES-models linked with General Circulation Models (GCM) the world cereal trade and production for elevated CO 2 concentration and temperature during cli- mate change by the end of year 2060. The simu- lation results suggest that without the net effect of increased CO 2 (555 ppm), the world cereal production will decrease by 11 to 20 per cent. With the inclusion of elevated CO 2 effect, the world cereal production will decrease by 1 to 8 per cent. The overall objective of the present study was to estimate the effects of elevated CO 2 , temper- ature and earlier sowing on spring wheat (cv. Polkka) phenology and grain yield production by using the CERES-wheat model. The specific objectives of the present study consisted of fol- lowing procedures: (i) Parameterisation of the CERES-wheat model, consisting of (i.1) calibra- tion of the model for Finnish long-day growing conditions under current temperature and CO 2 , (i.2) validation of the model with independent wheat data conducted under ambient and elevat- ed temperature and CO 2 , (i.3) sensitivity analy- sis: the sensitivity of grain yield on CO 2 and tem- perature changes both in the potential and non- potential models and (ii) impact assessment for 177 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 10 (2001): 175–196. elevated CO 2 , temperature and earlier sowing ef- fects on spring wheat phenological development and grain yield potential under potential and non- potential growing conditions by using the cali- brated and validated model. Material and methods Both the calibration and validation procedures for the CERES-wheat model were accomplished by using independent data sets from different data sources according to Thornley and Johnson (1990). During the validation procedure, the model was used to simulate the phenological development and grain yield responses of cv. Polkka to different elevated CO 2 and tempera- ture conditions. Moreover, the effects of earlier sowing dates were simulated. Both the poten- tial (i.e. without stress factors reducing the yield potential) and non-potential growth under Finnish long-day growing conditions were sim- ulated. Experimental data Calibration data MTT Agrifood Research Finland official varie- ty trial data (1985–1990) for cv. Polkka (Svalöf, Sweden) was used in the calibration of the CERES-wheat model for the ambient CO 2 and temperature levels and Finnish long day grow- ing conditions (Järvi et al. 2000, Kangas et al. 2001). The mean ambient temperature is between 10–15°C during the growing season in Southern Finland (Hakala 1998a). The Finnish Meteoro- logical Institute provided the required weather data (global radiation, precipitation, diurnal maximum and minimum temperatures) for the CERES-wheat model. Validation data During 1992–1994 the cv. Polkka was grown inside open-top chambers (OTC) under elevat- ed (700 ppm) and ambient (350 ppm) CO 2 con- centrations and under ambient and elevated (+3°C, inside greenhouse) temperature growing conditions. The average nitrogen fertilization was 120 kg N ha–1 in the experiment (1992– 1994). The open-top chamber experimental de- sign is described by Hakala (1998a). The cv. Polkka was sown 2–3 weeks earlier in the ele- vated OTC experiment (+3°C) in order to simu- late future conditions with elevated temperature (3°C), and with a growing season 10–33 days longer than at present (Carter 1992, Hakala 1998a, b). The cv. Polkka photosynthesis and Ru- bisco kinetics measurements with elevated CO 2 and increased temperatures are published by Hakala et al. (1999). The plant physiological measurements were used in the validation of the CERES-wheat model. The observed values were compared with the corresponding estimates of potential and non-potential models. CERES-wheat model description The dynamic and mechanistic CERES-wheat (Crop Estimation through Resource and Envi- ronment Synthesis) crop simulation model (v. 2.10) (Ritchie and Otter 1985, Godwing et al. 1989, Hanks and Ritchie 1991, Hodges 1991) was selected for this study because the model was well validated and tested against data from different winter and spring wheat experiments (IGBP/GCTE 1993). For the latest version of the CERES-wheat model refer to DSSAT (Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer) web-site http://www.icasanet.org or http:// agrss.sherman.hawaii.edu/dssat/dssat/info.htm. The CERES-wheat model can be used for po- tential (potential model) and for non-potential simulations (non-potential model). In the poten- tial model, the wheat plant is growing under fa- vourable environment. In the non-potential mod- el, subroutines controlling soil water balance and use of nutrients simulate the effect of water and nutrient stress limiting grain yield (Hanks and Ritchie 1991, Hodges 1991). The phenology sub- model (PHENOL) simulates plant physiological 178 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Laurila, H. Simulation of spring wheat responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature processes controlling vernalization, photoperi- odism and phenological development (Ritchie and Otter 1985). The CERES-wheat model con- tains nine growth stages (Table 1). The growth stage classification resembles Feeke’s (Large 1954) and Zadok’s (Zadoks et al. 1974) grow- ing scales describing both vegetative and gener- ative growth. The genetic coefficients In the CERES-wheat model the genetic coeffi- cients define the phenological development and biomass and yield potential for different spring and winter wheat genotypes (Ritchie and Otter 1985). The phenological genetic coefficients used in the model are PHINT (Phyllochron in- terval or leaf appearance rate), P1V (Vernaliza- tion coefficient), P1D (Photoperiodism coeffi- cient) and P5 (Grain filling period). The phyllochron interval (PHINT) defines the appearance rate of leaves and tillers. It var- ies with cultivar, latitude and time of planting; a general average value is ca. 95.0 dd (Tables 2 and 3). The P1V coefficient controls sensitivity to vernalization. The P1D coefficient controls sensitivity to photoperiod. The photoperiodic effect on wheat phenological development is modelled assuming daylengths shorter than 20 hours/day can delay development in stage 1 (Ta- ble 1). Mean photoperiod and sunshine hours in MTT experimental sites are presented in Table 4. A threshold daylength of 18 hours has been identified for genotypes adapted to Finnish long day growing conditions (Kontturi 1979, Saarik- ko and Carter 1996). Daylengths below the threshold delay vegetative phase from sowing to heading. The thermal time controls the pheno- logical development in generative phase from heading to full maturity. The mean photoperiod (1992–1994) in the OTC experiment from sow- ing to anthesis was between 19 and 20 h. Ac- cording to Hakala (1989a), the photoperiod was long enough not to affect the phenological de- velopment in the vegetative stage. The yield component coefficients in the mod- el are G1, G2 and G3 (Table 2). The G1 coeffi- cient affects the grains/ear (GPP) and grains/m2 (GPSM) yield components. The G2 coefficient affects the 1000-seed weight (SKERWT). The G3 coefficient (Spike number) affects the later- al tiller production (TPSM). Table 3 demon- strates default genetic coefficients for spring and winter wheat genotypes grown in different con- tinents (Ritchie and Otter 1985, Godwin et al. 1989, Hanks and Ritchie 1991, Hodges 1991). The CERES-wheat genetic coefficients for cv. Table 1. Growth stages and corresponding threshold temperatures in the CERES-wheat model (Godwin et al. 1989). Growth stage Phase T b (°C) 7. End of previous crop to planting in crop rotation 1.0 Vegetative phase 8. Planting to germination 9. Germination to emergence 2.0 1. Emergence to floral initiation 0.0 Generative phase 2. From floral initiation to begin of ear growth (double ridge phase, terminal spikelet) 0.0 3. From begin of ear growth to anthesis 0.0 4. Anthesis to begin of grain fill 0.0 5. Grain filling period 1.0 6. Full maturity*1) 1.0 *1) Full maturity of cv. Polkka occurs ca. five days after the yellow ripening stage (Järvi et al. 2000). T b = threshold temperature (°C). 179 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 10 (2001): 175–196. Polkka governing the phenological development and the yielding capacity were calibrated by us- ing the MTT official variety trial data (Järvi et al. 2000). The effects of elevated temperature on wheat phenological development The phenological development of cereals is cor- related with the cumulative thermal time (i.e. temperature sum) during growing season. The accumulation of daily thermal time (DTT) is the driving variable in the CERES-wheat phenolog- ical submodel (Ritchie and Otter 1985). Model calculates the cumulating DTT units from the base threshold temperature (T b ) (Table 1). In Fin- land, several previous studies (Kontturi 1979, Kleemola 1991, 1997, Saarikko 1999) have es- timated the optimum threshold temperature for different cereals in northern long day growing conditions. According to Kontturi (1979) the spring wheat threshold temperature (T b ) in Fin- land should be lower in vegetative (T b = +4.0°C) phase versus generative phase (T b = +8.0°C). Based on +5°C threshold temperature (general- ly used in Finland), the thermal time requirement from sowing to yellow ripening stage for spring wheat should be 1050° ± 30° degree-days (dd). The effects of elevated CO 2 on wheat photosynthesis In the CERES-wheat crop model (v. 1.9), the effect of elevated CO 2 response on wheat photo- synthesis is considered by simulating the per- formance of the stomata. The atmospheric CO 2 concentration modifies the leaf stomatal con- ductance, which in turn modifies the rate of plant transpiration. The stomata release concurrently the water vapour into atmosphere as the CO 2 molecules diffuse into stomatal cavity (Ritchie and Otter 1985). Table 2. The genetic coefficients in the CERES-wheat model (Godwin et al. 1989). Submodel Genetic Description, process or yield component Range Unit coefficients affected Phenological development PHINT Phyllochron interval, leaf appearance rate <100 dd P1V Vernalization 0–9 – P1D Photoperiodism 1–5 – P5 Grain filling duration 1–5 – Yield component G1 Grains/ear (GPP), Grains/m2 (GPSM) 1–5 – G2 1000-seed weight 1–5 – G3 Spike number, affects lateral tiller production (TPSM) 1–5 – Table 3. Default genetic coefficients for spring (Sw) and winter wheat (Ww) genotypes (Godwin et al. 1989). Genotype & Location PHINT P1V P1D P5 G1 G2 G3 Sw/Northern Europe 95.0 0.5 3.5 2.5 4.0 3.0 2.0 Sw/North America 95.0 0.5 3.0 2.5 3.5 3.5 2.0 Ww/ America/N. Plains 95.0 6.0 2.5 2.0 4.0 2.0 1.5 Ww/ West Europe 95.0 6.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 Ww/ East Europe 95.0 6.0 3.0 5.0 4.5 3.0 2.0 PHINT = phyllochron interval, leaf appearance rate, P1V = vernalization, P1D = photoperiodism, P5 = grain filling dura- tion, G1 = grains/ear (GPP), grains/m2 (GPSM), G2 = 1000-seed weight, G3 = spike number, affects lateral tiller production (TPSM). 180 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Laurila, H. Simulation of spring wheat responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature Model calibration The CERES-wheat genetic coefficients govern- ing the phenological development (PHINT, P1V, P1D, P5) and yield potential (G1, G2, G3) for cv. Polkka (Table 2) were calibrated with the RMSD algorithm (Root Mean Square Differ- ence). The genetic coefficients were calibrated for the cv. Polkka by minimizing the RMSD be- tween the simulated and the observed values (Table 4). The RMSD was calculated according to Eq. 1 between the observed and simulated dates (DOY, Day of Year) for phenological de- velopment and between the observed and simu- lated grain yields (t ha–1). The cv. Polkka record- ed anthesis and maturity dates and measured grain yield levels from the MTT official variety trials (1985–1990) were used as calibration data (Järvi et al. 2000). n RMSD = √ ((Σ (d2))/n–1) (1) i =1 where √ is square-root, d is difference (observed- simulated) in days from sowing to anthesis and from sowing to full maturity in the calibration of phenological coefficients (PHINT, P1V, P1D and P5). Parameter d is also used as the grain yield difference (observed-simulated) (t ha–1, 15% moisture content) in the calibration of yield potential coefficients (G1, G2 and G3). Parame- ter n is the number of experimental sites* years (35 total) including 4 MTT testing sites: Anjala, Kokemäki, Mietoinen, Pälkäne and Salo (Sugar Beet Research Centre) and Tuusula (Hankkija Plant Breeding Institute) and 6 experiment years (1985–1990, except Tuusula only 5 years) (Ta- ble 4). The calibrated coefficients are presented in Tables 5–6. The CERES-wheat non-potential model was calibrated with the MTT soil data (1985–1990) for clay, sand, silt and organic soils (Table 4). The non-potential model was used to simulate the effects of water and nutrient deficiency (ni- trogen) stresses during the growing season. Ritchie (1989) has described the modelling of water stress during growing period in the CERES-wheat soil submodel. Hanks and Ritch- ie (1991) have presented detailed nitrogen dy- namics between soil and plants. Sensitivity analysis Sensitivity analysis has been widely applied in optimization theory and operation research (Fi- acco 1983, Gal and Greenberg 1996). In crop models the sensitivity analysis has been applied Table 4. MTT experimental sites used in the CERES-wheat genetic coefficient calibration with geographical coordinates, altitude (m), Temp = mean May–September air temperature (°C), Prec = precipitation (mm) 1970–1990, Phot = photoperiod and sunshine hours (h) at the nearest meteorological stations next to each MTT experimental site. Site Location Altitude Temp Prec Phot Soil type (m) (°C) (mm) (h) Anttila1) 60° 25'N, 24° 50'E 45 13.5 195 18.3 Sandy clay Anjala 60° 30'N, 26° 50'E 33 13.2 302 18.4 Sandy clay, mould2) Jokioinen 60° 49'N, 23° 30'E 104 12.7 319 18.5 Heavy clay Kokemäki 61° 16'N, 22° 15'E 38 12.7 297 18.7 Coarse sand, fine sand Mietoinen 60° 40'N, 21° 50'E 13 13.1 308 18.4 Pure clay, sandy clay Pälkäne 61° 25'N, 24° 20'E 103 13.1 319 18.7 Silt2) Salo 60° 22'N, 23° 06'E 3 13.6 316 18.3 Sandy clay, silty clay Tammisto1) 60° 16'N, 24° 50'E 45 13.5 295 18.3 Sandy clay 1) Hankkija Plant Breeding Institute experimental sites in Tuusula (data for cv. Ruso) 2) Few field observations for silt and organic soil (peat and mould) types 181 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 10 (2001): 175–196. to study the sensitivity of a response variable (e.g. grain yield) on the changes of independent driving variable (e.g. temperature). According to Thornley and Johnson (1990), a crop model can be classified as sensitive or insensitive based on response variable change. A specific model can be classified as sensitive, if the independent driv- ing variable is deviated for example by 10 per cent causing the response variable to change more than 10 per cent. If the change of response variable is less than 10 per cent, a model can be classified as insensitive. The sensitivity analy- sis was applied in this study to assess the grain yield sensitivity to temperature and CO 2 chang- es both with potential and non-potential mod- els. Results Calibration of phenological coefficients The optimum phenological coefficients for cv. Polkka with RMSD values for anthesis (RMSD ANTH ) and for full maturity (RMSD FMAT ) under ambient temperature and CO 2 conditions for PHINT, P1V, P1D and P5 were 60.0, 0.1, 1.0, 10.0 respectively (Table 5). Calibration of yield component coefficients The yield component coefficients (G1, G2 and G3) for cv. Polkka with the RMSD values for grain yield (RMSD YLD ) (Table 6) were calibrat- ed with the Anjala, Mietoinen, Kokemäki, Pälkäne and Salo research stations soil data (Ta- ble 4). In addition, Hankkija (Anttila and Tam- misto sites) cultivar trial data with long time- series (1968–1972) for spring wheat (cv. Ruso) were used. Cv. Ruso resembles cv. Polkka in phenological development, yield potential and with yield quality (Peltonen et al. 1990). Both cv. Ruso and cv. Polkka are late cultivars: 102 (cv. Ruso) versus 102 (cv. Polkka) growing days from sowing to yellow ripening stage. The aver- age grain yield is 3770 and 4030 kg/ha, 1000- seed weight 37.2 and 33.0 g and protein content 14.0 and 14.7 per cent on cv. Ruso and cv. Polk- ka, respectively (Järvi et al. 2000). The optimum yield coefficients for G1, G2 and G3 were 5.0, 1.0 and 1.5 respectively with all MTT soil data pooled together (Table 6). The optimum genetic coefficients for cv. Polkka under ambient CO 2 and temperature con- ditions were for PHINT, P1V, P1D, P5, G1, G2, G3 60.0, 0.1, 1.0, 10.0, 5.0, 1.0, 1.5 respective- ly. Model validation and evaluation results Evaluating phenological development The cv. Polkka growing days simulated with the phenological submodel (PHENOL) between sowing and anthesis dates (Table 7) were on av- erage 61 days after sowing in ambient versus 63 observed and 51 days in elevated temperature (+3°C) versus 59 observed average (1992–1994) (Hakala 1998a). The observed mean anthesis (1992–1994) occurred on 194 DOY in ambient conditions. Respectively the simulated anthesis (sowing 15 May) occurred on 192 DOY with mean difference of 2 days between observed and simulated. Table 5. Phenological coefficients (PHINT, P1V, P1D and P5) for cv. Polkka. RMSD ANTH RMSD FMAT PHINT P1V P1D P5 (d) (d) (dd) 2.99 5.86 60.0 0.10 1.00 10.0 RMSD ANTH = RMSD for anthesis (d), the anthesis is reached ca. 5 days after heading RMSD FMAT = RMSD for full maturity (d) 182 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Laurila, H. Simulation of spring wheat responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature The simulated growing days between sow- ing and full maturity dates were on average 113 days under ambient growing conditions versus 106 observed. Respectively the simulated grow- ing days were 92 days under elevated tempera- ture (+3°C) versus 99 days observed. According to MTT official variety trials, the average grow- ing day number with cv. Polkka under ambient Table 7. Simulated (cv. Polkka, potential model) anthesis and full maturity estimates (d) from sowing vs. observed mean values (SILMU 1992–1994) (Hakala 1998a). Sowing – anthesis Sowing – full maturity Observed Simulated Observed Simulated CO 2 D TEMP (SE) O ANTH (SE) S ANTH D ANTH (SE) O FMT (SE) S FMT D FMT (ppm) (°C) (d) (%) (d) (%) (d) (d) (%) (d)*1) (%) (d) 350 0 62.62)(1.9) – 60.73)(3.0) – 11.90 105.64)(3.1) – 113.35)(6.0) –– –7.70 350 3 59.02)(5.8) –5.75 51.02)(3.0) –15.98 18.00 199.32)(3.0) –5.97 191.72)(1.0) –19.06 –7.60 700 0 62.32)(1.8) –0.48 60.72)(3.0) –10.00 11.60 109.72)(2.0) –3.88 113.32)(6.0) –10.00 –3.60 700 3 62.32)(5.4) –0.48 51.02)(3.0) –15.98 11.30 196.32)(3.0) –8.81 191.72)(1.0) –19.06 –4.60 CO2 = CO2 concentration (ppm), D TEMP = temperature change (°C), SE = standard error of the mean in observed and simulated values (1992–1994), O ANTH = anthesis change (%) from the observed mean reference (350 ppm/0°C), S ANTH = anthesis change (%) from the simulated mean reference, O FMT = full maturity change (%) from the observed mean reference, S FMT = full maturity change (%) from simulated mean reference, D ANTH = difference between observed and simulated anthe- sis (d), D FMT = difference between observed and full maturity (d) 1) Full maturity occurs ca. five days after the yellow ripening stage (Järvi et al. 2000). 2) Reference value for O ANTH 3) Reference value for S ANTH 4) Reference value for O FMT 5) Reference value for S FMT Table 6. Yield component coefficients (G1, G2 and G3) for spring wheat (cv. Polkka, Svalöf and cv. Ruso, Jo). Soil type RMSD YLD G1 G2 G3 (t/ha) Sand (coarse and fine)1, 3) 1.7478 0.50 5.00 5.00 Heavy clay1, 4) 1.8323 1.00 8.50 1.00 Mixed clays5) 1.7245 1.00 8.50 1.00 Silt, Silt loam2) 1.4080 1.00 6.00 1.00 Organic soil (Peat, Mould)2) 0.2892 2.00 2.30 2.00 All soil data pooled 1.7980 5.00 1.00 1.50 RMSD YLD = RMSD for grain yield (t ha–1). 1) Contains coarse sand, fine sand and loamy sand soil types 2) Few observations in MTT official variety trial database, the optimized coefficients are only estimates 3) Data from Kokemäki (coarse sand, 1986–1990), Kokemäki (fine sand, 1985), Tuusula (fine sand, 1988) MTT experi- mental stations 4) Data from Mietoinen (heavy clay, 1986–1988,1990) MTT experimental station 5) Data from Anjala (sandy clay, silty clay, 1988–1990), Salo (sandy clay, silty clay, 1985–1989), Tuusula (sandy clay, silty clay, 1985–1987) MTT experimental stations, Hankkija Plant Breeding Institute Anttila and Tammisto experimental sites (cv. Ruso, 1968–1988) 183 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 10 (2001): 175–196. conditions is ca. 102 days from sowing to yel- low maturity stage. The phase from yellow rip- ening stage to full maturity is ca. five days (Järvi et al. 2000, Kangas et al. 2001). The growing period (d) between sowing and full maturity was 104 /1992, 113/1993 and 100/1994 days in am- bient CO 2 and temperature. Validation of yield components During the validation of the potential and non- potential models, the simulated grain yield, above ground biomass and harvest index (HI) estimates were compared with the mean OTC experiment values (1992–1994) (Hakala 1998a). The simulated grain yield estimates (potential and non-potential models) versus observed mean values are presented in Table 8. Both the abso- lute and percentage differences between ob- served and simulated estimates are tabulated. Respectively the simulated estimates and ob- served mean values for biomass and HI are pre- sented in Table 9. In addition, other significant yield components (1000 seed-weight, grains/ear and tillers/m2) were taken into account (Table 10). The observed mean grain yield (1992–1994) was 5.47 t ha–1 under ambient conditions (Haka- la 1998a). The potential model (sowing 15 May) overestimated the grain yield (6.16 t ha–1) with mean difference of 0.69 t ha–1 (DP YIELD ) (12.6%, PP YIELD ) between observed and simulated. Re- spectively the non-potential model (sowing 15 May) underestimated the grain yield (4.49 t h a – 1) w i t h m e a n d i ff e r e n c e o f 0 . 9 8 t h a – 1 (DN YIELD ) (17.9%, NP YIELD ) (Table 8). The observed mean grain yield (1992–1994) was 4.62 t ha–1 under elevated temperature con- ditions (3°C). The observed grain yield with el- evated temperature was 17% (O YIELD ) lower com- pared to the ambient grain yield. Respectively the simulated grain yield with the potential mod- el was 4.05 t ha–1. The simulated grain yield with potential model under elevated temperature was 19% (SP YIELD ) lower compared to the simulated ambient grain yield. The potential model under- estimated under elevated temperature the grain yield by 570 kg ha–1 (DP YIELD ) (12.3%, PP YIELD ) compared with the observed. Respectively the simulated grain yield with non-potential model was 23% (SN YIELD ) lower compared to the simu- Table 8. Simulated (cv. Polkka, potential and non-potential models) mean grain yield (t ha–1) vs. observed mean values (SILMU 1992–1994) (Hakala 1998a). Grain yield 1) Observed Potential model Non-potential model CO 2 D TEMP (t ha–1) O YIELD (t ha–1) SP YIELD DP YIELD PP YIELD (t ha–1) SN YIELD DN YIELD NP YIELD (ppm) (°C) (SE) (%) (SE) (%) (t ha–1) (%) (%) (t ha–1) (%) 350 0 5.47 (0.6)2) – 6.16 (1.0)3) – –0.69 –12.61 4.494) – –0.98 –17.92 350 3 4.62 (0.4)2) –17.09 4.05 (0.4)2) –19.64 –0.57 –12.34 3.492) –22.27 –1.13 –24.50 700 0 6.15 (0.9)2) –12.43 8.77 (1.5)2) –42.37 –2.62 –42.60 7.522) –67.48 –1.37 –22.28 700 3 5.54 (0.2)2) 1–1.28 6.56 (0.8)2) –16.49 –1.02 –18.41 5.522) –22.94 –0.02 1–0.36 CO 2 = CO 2 concentration (ppm), D TEMP = temperature change (°C), SE = standard error of the mean in observed and simulated values (1992–1994), O YIELD = grain yield change (%) from the observed mean reference (350 ppm/0°C), SP YIELD = grain yield change (%) from the simulated mean reference (potential), DP YIELD = difference (t ha–1) between observed and simulated grain yield (potential), PP YIELD = simulated grain yield difference (%) from the observed (potential), SN YIELD = grain yield change (%) from the simulated mean reference (non-potential), DN YIELD = difference (t ha–1) between observed and simulated grain yield (non-potential), NP YIELD = simulated grain yield difference (%) from the observed (non-potential). 1) 15% moisture grain yield content 2) Reference value for O YIELD, 3) Reference value for SP YIELD, 4) Reference value for SN YIELD 184 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Laurila, H. Simulation of spring wheat responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature lated ambient grain yield. The non-potential model underestimated with elevated temperature the grain yield by 1.13 t ha–1 (DN YIELD ) (24.5%, NP YIELD ) compared with the observed. The observed mean grain yield (1992–1994) was 6.15 t ha–1 under elevated CO 2 conditions (CO 2 700 ppm, +0°C). The observed grain yield with elevated CO 2 was 12% (O YIELD ) higher com- pared to the ambient grain yield. The simulated grain yield with potential model with elevated CO 2 was 8.77 t ha–1. Respectively the simulated grain yield with elevated CO 2 was 42% (SP YIELD ) higher compared to the ambient simulated yield. The potential model overestimated under elevat- ed CO 2 conditions the grain yield by 2.6 t ha–1 (DP YIELD ) (42%, PP YIELD ) compared with the ob- served. Respectively the simulated grain yield with the non-potential model was 7.52 t ha–1. The simulated grain yield with elevated CO 2 was 67% (SN YIELD ) higher compared to the ambient simu- lated yield. The non-potential model overesti- mated under elevated CO 2 conditions the grain yield by 1.37 t ha–1 (DN YIELD ) (22%, NP YIELD ) compared with the observed (Table 8). The observed mean grain yield (1992–1994) was 5.54 t ha–1 under elevated CO 2 and tempera- ture conditions (CO 2 700 ppm, +3°C). The ob- served grain yield with elevated CO 2 and tem- perature was only 1.3 per cent (O YIELD ) higher compared to the ambient grain yield. The simu- lated grain yield with the potential model was 6.56 t ha–1. Respectively the simulated grain yield with elevated CO 2 and temperature was 6.49% (SP YIELD ) higher compared to the ambient sim- ulated yield (sowing 15 May). The potential model clearly overestimated under elevated CO 2 and temperature conditions the grain yield by 1.02 t ha–1 (DP YIELD ) (18.4%, PP YIELD ) compared with the observed. Respectively the simulated grain yield with non-potential model was 5.52 t ha–1. The simulated grain yield (non-potential model) under elevated CO 2 and temperature was 22.9% (SN YIELD ) higher compared to the ambi- ent simulated yield (sowing 15 May). The non- potential model predicted accurately under ele- vated CO 2 and temperature the grain yield (DN YIELD =20 kg ha–1) (0.4%, NP YIELD ) compared with the observed (Table 8). The potential model simulated HI relatively accurately only under ambient temperature and CO 2 conditions. However, the HI difference (D HI ) between observed and simulated deviated more than 20% under elevated temperature CO 2 con- ditions (Table 9). The observed mean HI (1992– 1994) was 0.440 (0.503 simulated) in ambient conditions. The observed HI was 0.380 (0.505 simulated) in elevated temperature (+3°C). The observed HI was 0.420 (0.501 simulated) in ele- vated CO 2 (CO 2 700 ppm). Respectively the ob- served HI was 0.370 (0.493 simulated) in ele- Table 9. Simulated (cv. Polkka, potential model) above ground biomass and harvest index (HI) values vs. observed mean values (SILMU 1992–1994) (Hakala 1998a). CO 2 D TEMP Above ground biomass1) Harvest Index (HI) (ppm) (°C) Observed Simulated D ABGR Observed Simulated D HI (SE) (SE) (t ha–1) (t ha–1) (%) (%) (%) (%) 350 0 12.22 12.06 (1.2) 1–1.31 0.440 0.503 (0.043) 14.32 350 3 11.96 18.10 (0.7) –32.27 0.380 0.505 (0.052) 32.89 700 0 14.33 17.22 (1.7) –20.17 0.420 0.501 (0.044) 19.29 700 3 14.75 13.27 (0.6) –10.03 0.370 0.493 (0.044) 33.24 CO 2 = CO 2 concentration (ppm), D TEMP = temperature change (°C), D ABGR = simulated above ground biomass difference (%) from the observed (potential model), D HI = simulated HI difference (%) from the observed Harvest Index (potential model), SE = standard error of the mean in observed and simulated values (1992–1994). 1) 15% moisture content 185 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 10 (2001): 175–196. vated CO 2 and temperature (CO 2 700 ppm, +3°C). The potential model simulated above ground biomass accurately only under ambient temperature and CO 2 conditions. However, the above ground biomass difference (D ABGR ) be- tween observed and simulated was more than 30 per cent under elevated temperature conditions (Table 9). The simulated and observed yield compo- nents (1000-seed weight (g), grains/ear, grains/ m2 and tillers/m2) are presented in Table 10. The potential model simulated 1000-seed weight rel- atively accurately, only with elevated CO 2 the difference (D SWG ) between observed versus sim- ulated deviated more than 10%. Respectively the tillers/m2 difference (D TLL ) remained below 15% level. However, the grains/ear difference (D GRE ) was significant (35%) under elevated tempera- ture and CO 2 conditions. Sensitivity analysis results The grain yield sensitivity for temperature and CO 2 changes was analysed with both potential and non-potential models (Table 11). The applied dichotomy classification (sensitive/insensitive) is after France and Thornley (1984), Thornley and Johnson (1990). According to sensitivity analysis results, both the potential and non-po- tential models were sensitive to small tempera- ture changes in mean temperature. Only with the non-potential model, the temperature increase of 20 per cent (equal to +3°C increase) decreased the grain yield less than corresponding tempera- ture change. When analysing the CO 2 sensitivi- ty results only the potential model was sensitive to CO 2 deviations below 20 per cent (450 ppm), in higher CO 2 concentrations both potential and non-potential models were insensitive. Respec- tively the potential model was sensitive to con- current CO 2 and temperature changes below 20 per cent (400 ppm and +2°C). However, in high- er CO 2 and temperature levels both the potential and non-potential models were insensitive. Elevated CO 2 and temperature effects under potential growing conditions The sensitivity analysis results for elevated CO 2 effect indicate that the elevated CO 2 concentra- tion increased the biomass and yield potential of cv. Polkka from CO 2 compensation point (ca. 50 ppm) to saturation point (ca. 1000 ppm) (Law- lor 1987, Lawlor et al. 1989, Hakala et al. 1999). According to the sensitivity analysis results for cv. Polkka potential yield, the grain yield in- creased with potential model to +142% (8.77 t ha–1) under elevated CO 2 conditions (Point D, Fig. 1) from the ambient simulated reference (100%, 6.2 t ha–1) (Point A, Fig. 1). The 100% baseline of yield reference with isoline of equal yield refers to current ambient temperature and Table 10. Simulated (cv. Polkka, potential model mean yield component values vs. observed mean values (SILMU 1992– 1994) (Hakala 1998a). CO 2 D TEMP 1000-seed weight Grains/ear Tillers/m2 (ppm) (°C) (g) Obs. Sim. D SWG Obs. Sim. D GRE Obs. Sim D TLL (SE) (%) (SE) (%). (SE) (%) 350 0 34.4 37.1 (2.9) 17.85 22.2 23.7 (2.1) 16.76 615.7 584.4 (16.9) 1–5.08 350 3 32.7 32.7 (2.8) 10.00 19.2 18.7 (1.1) –2.60 649.0 565.5 (<1) –12.87 700 0 33.4 37.8 (3.3) 13.17 23.5 26.9 (1.6) 14.47 643.1 718.4 (36.4) –11.71 700 3 33.9 32.7 (2.8) –3.54 21.2 28.6 (1.4) 34.91 701.9 592.9 (3.9)1 –15.53 CO 2 = CO 2 level (ppm), D TEMP = Temperature change (°C), D SWG = simulated 1000-seed weight difference (%) from the observed, D GRE = simulated grains/ear difference (%) from the observed, D TLL = simulated tillers/m2 difference (%) from the observed, SE = standard error of the mean in observed and simulated values (1992–1994). 186 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Laurila, H. Simulation of spring wheat responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature CO 2 level. Respectively the measured mean grain yield (1992–1994) increased to 112% (6.15 t ha–1) from the ambient reference level (5.47 t ha–1) (Hakala 1998a). The simulation results for elevated tempera- ture effect indicated a clear acceleration of phe- nological development between anthesis and full maturity and a decrease of grain yield and above ground biomass. Especially after the anthesis, the ripening of the grains was accelerated through the increase of thermal time. Full maturity was thus reached earlier, causing a reduction in the final grain yield. The potential model decreased the grain yield to 80.4% (4.1 t ha–1) (Point B, Fig. 1) under elevated temperature conditions from ambient simulated reference (100%, 6.2 t ha–1). Respectively the measured mean yield (1992–1994) decreased to 84 per cent (4.62 t ha–1) from the ambient reference (Hakala 1998a). The simulation results for elevated tempera- ture and CO 2 interaction indicate that the increase in biomass and grain yield due to the elevated CO 2 was reduced through the interaction with elevated temperatures. The potential model in- creased the grain yield to 106% (6.56 t ha–1, Point C, Fig. 1) from the simulated ambient reference (6.2 t ha–1). Respectively the measured mean grain yield (1992–1994) increased to 102% (5.54 t ha–1) from the observed ambient reference (Hakala 1998a). Non-potential growing conditions The sensitivity analysis results under non-opti- mal growing conditions (water and nutrient de- Table 11. The sensitivity analysis results for potential and non-potential models: the grain yield sensitivity (%) of cv. Polkka on different temperature and CO 2 deviations (%). Driving variable Response variable (grain yield, t ha–1) Potential model4) Non-potential model4) Change Yield Sensitivity Yield Sensitivity (%)5) change (%) class change (%) class Temperature Temperature change (°C)1) 1 117 –19.0 Sen –15.7 Sen 2 113 –22.9 Sen –19.3 Sen 32) 120 –22.7 Sen –13.3 Ins CO 2 CO 2 -level (ppm) 390 111 –11.9 Sen –19.6 Ins 438 121 –32.7 Sen –11.4 Ins 525 150 –38.3 Ins –32.8 Ins 7003) 100 –63.9 Ins –67.4 Ins CO 2 * temperature CO 2 / Temp. 390/2 11–13 –39.5 Sen 1–0.7 Ins 440/3 20–21 –13.6 Ins –12.2 Ins Response variable (grain yield) dichotomy classification: Sen = Sensitive, Ins = Insensitive 1) The mean reference temperature is ca. 10–15°C during the growing season in Southern Finland (Hakala 1998a) 2) Temperature level corresponds to the point B (point A reference) in Fig. 1. and Fig. 2. 3) CO 2 level corresponds to the point D (point A reference) in Fig. 1. and Fig. 2. 4) Negative percentage change denotes decreasing yield 5) Percentage change is calculated from the current ambient temperature and CO 2 . 187 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 10 (2001): 175–196. ficiencies during growing period) are presented in Fig. 2. The sensitivity analysis results indi- cate that, under elevated CO 2 and temperature condition (700 ppm CO 2 /3°C) the grain yield in- creased to +122% (5.52 t ha–1, Point C, Fig. 2) from the reference (Point A, Fig. 2) (100%, 4.49 t ha–1). The simulated grain yield level increased to +167 percentage under elevated CO 2 conditions (7.52 t ha–1, Point D, Fig. 2) from the simulated ambient reference. However, the simulated grain yield decreased under elevated temperature to –76.8 percentage (3.49 t ha–1, Point B, Fig. 2). Impact assessment Impact assessment of early sowing on wheat phenology and yield potential According to simulation results, the observed mean anthesis occurred on 167 DOY (Table 12) Fig. 1. Results of the sensitivity analysis of the CERES-wheat potential model for grain yield (t ha–1) of spring wheat cv. Polkka in response to CO 2 (ppm) and temperature (°C). Model reference values are 0°C and 350 ppm (point A) indicating change from current mean temperature and CO 2 level. Isolines denote mean grain yield change (%) with steps of ±25% from the reference (100%) going through point A. 188 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Laurila, H. Simulation of spring wheat responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature with earlier sowing (15 d, sowing 29 April 1992) under elevated temperature conditions (Hakala 1998a). Respectively the simulated anthesis oc- curred on 171 DOY with mean difference of 4 days between observed and simulated (Table 12). The observed anthesis with earlier sowing (15 d) and elevated temperature occurred 27 days ear- lier compared to the reference anthesis date (15 July). Respectively the simulated anthesis with earlier sowing (15 d) occurred 18 days earlier compared to the simulated reference anthesis date. The potential model estimated the anthesis to occur with earlier sowing on average 9 days later compared with the observed. The observed mean full maturity (1992– 1994) occurred on 236 DOY in ambient condi- tions. Respectively the simulated full maturity (sowing 15 May) occurred on 244 DOY with Fig. 2. Results of the sensitivity analysis of the CERES-wheat non-potential-model (with stress factors: water stress, nitro- gen deficiency) for grain yield (t ha–1) of spring wheat cv. Polkka in response to CO 2 (ppm) and temperature (°C). Model reference values are 0°C and 350 ppm (point A) indicating change from current mean temperature and CO 2 level. Isolines denote grain yield change (%) with steps of ±25 % from the reference (100%) going through point A. 189 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 10 (2001): 175–196. mean difference of 8 days between observed and simulated. The observed mean full maturity oc- curred on 209 DOY with earlier sowing (15 d) under elevated temperature condition (sowing 29 April 1992). Respectively the simulated full maturity occurred on 213 DOY with mean dif- ference of 4 days between observed and simu- lated. The observed full maturity with earlier sowing (15 d) under elevated temperature oc- curred 32 days earlier compared to the reference full maturity date (22 August) in ambient condi- tions (Table 12). Respectively the simulated full maturity with earlier sowing (15 d) occurred 31 days earlier compared to the reference full ma- turity. The potential model estimated the full maturity to occur with earlier sowing on aver- age one day later compared with the observed. According to MTT variety trials, the cv. Polkka full maturity occurs on average 5 days from the yellow ripening stage (Järvi et al. 2000, Kangas et al. 2001). The observed mean above ground biomass (1992–1994) was 12.22 t ha–1 (9.7 t ha–1 simulat- ed) in ambient conditions (Table 13). Respec- tively the observed mean above ground biomass was 12.12 t ha–1 (10.5 t ha–1 simulated) with ear- lier sowing (15 d, sowing 29 April) under ele- vated temperature condition. The observed mean 1000-seed weight (1992– 1994) was 34.4 g (35.4 g simulated) in ambient conditions. Respectively the observed 1000-seed weight was 36.9 g (37.0 g simulated) with earli- er sowing (15 d, sowing 29 April) and elevated temperature. The observed mean grains/ear var- iable (1992–1994) was 22.2 g (18.9 g simulat- ed) in ambient conditions. Respectively the ob- served grains/ear variable was 24.6 g (22.7 g sim- ulated) with earlier sowing (15 d, sowing 29 April) and elevated temperature (Table 13). The observed mean grain yield was 4.95 t ha–1 with earlier sowing (15 d) under elevated temperature conditions (sowing 29 April 1992, Table 12. Simulated results (potential model) of earlier sowing for cv. Polkka phenology vs. observed values (SILMU 1992–1994) (Hakala 1998a). CO 2 D TEMP SOW O ANTH S ANTH D ANTH O FMT S FMT D FMT (ppm) (°C) (d) (DOY) (DOY) (d) (DOY) (DOY) (d) 350 Ref.1) 01) 01) 194 192 2 236 244 –8 350 3 0 190 182 8 234 226 –8 350 3 10 175 216 350 0 15 182 230 350 3 15 1672) 171 –4 2092) 213 –4 350 5 15 165 205 700 0 0 192 190 2 234 238 –4 700 3 0 170 159 11 207 202 –5 700 3 5 178 219 700 3 10 175 216 700 0 15 182 230 700 3 15 171 213 700 5 15 165 205 The date of 15 May used as the sowing reference value. SOW = earlier sowing (number of days before 15 May), CO 2 = CO 2 concentration (ppm), D TEMP = temperature change (°C), O ANTH = observed anthesis date (DOY, S ANTH = simulated), D ANTH = difference between observed anthesis vs. simulated (d), O FMT = observed full maturity date (DOY, S FMT = simulated), D FMT = difference between observed full maturity vs. simulated (d). 1) Used as the reference value (sowing 15 May, CO 2 350 ppm, ambient temperature) 2) Observed 1992 mean value from OTC experiment (sowing 29 April, CO 2 350 ppm, +3°C) (Hakala 1998a) 190 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Laurila, H. Simulation of spring wheat responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature 3°C) (Table 14). Respectively the simulated grain yield was 5.6 t ha–1. The observed grain yield with earlier sowing (15 d) and elevated temperature was 9.5% lower compared to the ambient grain yield. Respectively the simulated grain yield with earlier sowing (15 d) was 19 per cent higher compared to the simulated am- bient grain yield (sowing 15 May). The poten- tial model overestimated with earlier sowing the grain yield by 650 kg ha–1 (13%) compared to the observed (sowing 29 April 1992, +3°C). The simulated grain yield under elevated CO 2 and temperature conditions was 40% higher com- pared to the ambient simulated yield (sowing 15 May). The model clearly overestimated with el- evated CO 2 and temperature conditions the grain yield by 1.02 t ha–1 (18.4%) compared with the observed. Respectively the simulated grain yield was 8.40 t ha–1 in earlier sowing (15 d) and ele- vated CO 2 and temperature (CO 2 700 ppm, +3°C), the yield increase was 78% from the ambient simulated reference (Table 14). Discussion Spring wheat phenological development The simulation results indicate that the phenol- ogy submodel estimated relatively accurately the phenological development of cv. Polkka. The anthesis and full maturity estimates for cv. Polk- ka deviated less than one week versus observed mean values in OTC experiments (1992–1994). Only with elevated temperature and CO 2 , the simulated anthesis difference vs. observed was 11 days. Respectively the simulated full maturi- ty difference was less than one week. Table 13. Simulated results (potential model) of earlier sowing for cv. Polkka biomass and yield components vs. observed values (SILMU 1992–1994) (Hakala 1998a). CO 2 D TEMP SOW O BMASS S BMASS O KERWT S KERWT O GPP S GPP S TPSM (ppm) (°C) (d) (t ha–1) (t ha–1) (g) (g) (grains/ear) (grains/ear) (tillers/m2) 350 Ref.1) 01) 01) 12.22 9.7 34.4 35.4 22.2 18.9 574.5 350 3 0 11.96 – 32.7 – 19.2 – – 350 3 5 9.5 36.9 20.8 565.5 350 3 10 10.7 36.6 23.0 565.5 350 0 15 14.0 37.9 28.1 612.0 350 3 15 12.122) 10.5 36.92) 37.0 24.62) 22.7 565.5 700 0 0 14.33 – 33.4 – 23.5 – – 700 0 5 18.4 39.9 28.1 750.5 700 3 0 14.75 – 33.9 – 21.2 – – 700 3 5 14.7 37.5 28.5 624.9 700 3 10 15.8 36.9 28.1 669.2 700 0 15 19.6 38.6 30.8 768.3 700 3 15 15.8 37.3 29.0 652.6 700 5 15 13.5 36.9 27.4 580.1 The date of 15 May used as the sowing reference value. SOW = earlier sowing (number of days before 15 May), CO 2 = CO 2 concentration (ppm), D TEMP = temperature change (°C), O BMASS = observed above ground biomass (t/ha, (S BMASS = simulated biomass), O KERWT = observed 1000-seed weight (g, S KERWT = simulated), O GPP = observed grains/ear in main shoot (S GPP = simulated), S TPSM = simulated tillers/m2. 1) Used as the reference value (sowing 15 May, CO 2 350 ppm, ambient temperature) 2) Observed 1992 mean value from OTC experiment (sowing 29 April, CO 2 350 ppm, +3°C) (Hakala 1998a). 191 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 10 (2001): 175–196. Under elevated temperature, the potential model accelerated the phenological development from sowing to anthesis and from sowing to full maturity. Both in vegetative phase before the anthesis and in generative phase from anthesis to full maturity the potential model estimated the phenological phases to occur too early under el- evated temperature conditions compared with the observed mean values (1992–1994). This might be explained by low phyllochron value (60 dd) used in simulation for cv. Polkka compared to default value (95 dd) for spring wheat genotypes cultivated in Northern Europe (Table 3). In ad- dition, the grain filling duration variable P5 was high (10.0) compared to default value (2.5) and the threshold temperature (T b ) for different growth stages (Table 1) was low (0–2°C) com- pared to previous results suggesting 4.0°C for vegetative and 8.0°C for generative phase (Kont- turi 1979). However, under ambient and elevat- ed CO 2 conditions, the potential model predict- ed the anthesis accurately. In addition, the feed- back mechanism between the CO 2 and phenolog- ical subroutines in the potential model (CERES- wheat v. 1.9) accelerated the phenological de- velopment under elevated CO 2 and temperature conditions. The observed yellow ripening dates under elevated temperature and CO 2 conditions confirm this phenomenon (Hakala 1998a). Table 14. The simulated (cv. Polkka, potential model) results of earlier sowing for grain yield (t ha–1, 15% moisture content) vs. observed mean grain yields (SILMU 1992–1994) (Hakala 1998a). Observed Simulated Difference (obs.-sim.) CO2 D TEMP SOW O YIELD (SE) PO YIELD S YIELD PS YIELD D YIELD D DIF (ppm) (°C) (d) (t ha–1) (%) (t ha–1) (%) (t ha–1) (%) 350 Ref1) 0 0 5.47 (0.6)3) – 4.704) – –0.77 –14.08 350 3 0 4.62 (0.4) 3) –15.54 4.055) –13.83 –0.57 –12.34 350 3 5 5.105) – 8.51 350 3 10 5.605) –19.15 350 0 15 7.705) –63.83 350 3 15 4.952) –9.51 5.605) –19.15 –0.65 –13.13 350 5 15 4.305) –8.51 700 0 0 6.15 –12.43 8.775) –86.60 –2.62 –42.60 700 3 0 5.54 –1.28 6.565) –39.57 –1.02 –18.41 700 3 5 7.905) –68.09 700 3 10 8.205) –74.47 700 0 15 10.80 4) 129.79 700 3 15 8.405) –78.72 700 5 15 6.905) –46.81 The date of 15 May used as the sowing reference value. CO 2 = CO 2 concentration (ppm), D TEMP = temperature change (°C), SOW = earlier sowing (d) before reference sowing date (15 May), O YIELD = observed mean grain yield (t ha–1), PO YIELD = observed grain yield change (%) from the observed mean reference, S YIELD = simulated grain yield estimate (t ha–1), PS YIELD = simulated grain yield change (%) from the simulated mean reference, D YIELD = difference between observed and simulated yield (t ha–1), D DIF = simulated grain yield difference (%) from the observed, SE = standard error of the mean (1992–1994). 1) Ref. used as the reference value (sowing 15 May, CO2 350 ppm, ambient temperature) 2) Observed 1992 mean value from OTC experiment (sowing 29 April, CO2 350 ppm, +3°C) (Hakala 1998a). 3) Reference value for PO YIELD, 4) Reference value for PS YIELD, 5) Simulated mean grain yield estimate (1992–1994) 192 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Laurila, H. Simulation of spring wheat responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature Grain yield and other yield components under elevated temperature and CO 2 The mean observed grain yield for cv. Polkka under ambient growing conditions versus simu- lated estimates with potential and non-potential models suggest that the growing conditions might have been sub-optimal under ambient con- ditions in OTC experiments (1992–1994). The observed mean grain yield remained between the potential and non-potential estimates. Recent studies have critically reviewed problems with the data from OTC experiments. van Oijen et al. (1999) suggested that OTC experiments might overestimate the effects of rising CO 2 with spring wheat genotypes. Moreover, several recent pub- lications have critically reviewed the validation results of crop simulation models with CO 2 and O 3 (ozone) data from OTC (van Oijen and Ew- ert 1999) and free-air CO 2 enrichment (FACE) experiments. Tubiello et al. (1999) validated the CERES-wheat model with FACE data. Ewert et al. (1999) published revised modelling results with CO 2 and O 3 data for spring wheat growth and development in different sites in Europe. In addition, the CERES-wheat model was originally developed for the simulation of field conditions (Ritchie and Otter 1985, Hanks and Ritchie 1991), which differ from OTC growing condi- tions. Both the potential and non-potential models underestimated the grain yield under elevated temperature conditions versus observed mean grain yields. This might imply that the pheno- logical submodel terminated the grain filling phase too early. According to the CERES-wheat model estimations, the yield of cv. Polkka de- creased on average to 80.4 % with potential model (76.8% with non-potential simulating water and nitrogen deficiencies) under elevated temperature conditions compared to the simu- lated reference (100%). Both the potential and non-potential models overestimated the grain yield under elevated CO 2 conditions versus observed. This might imply that the coefficients for CO 2 response in the CERES-wheat model (version 1.9.) overestimat- ed the CO 2 response on cv. Polkka grain yield. The yield of cv. Polkka increased to 142% un- der elevated CO 2 condition with potential mod- el (167% with non-potential) from the simulat- ed reference (100%). Respectively the observed grain yield increased only to 112 per cent. Orig- inally the SILMU OTC experiment was estab- lished to mimic the potential growing conditions for cv. Polkka under both ambient and elevated temperature and CO 2 conditions (Hakala 1998a). However, several previous studies have suggest- ed that C 3 -metabolic pathway plants will increase the grain yield potential between 20 to 53% un- der doubled CO 2 concentration (Kimball 1983, Goudriaan et al. 1990, van de Geijn et al. 1993). However, the forecasted variation range is very large (Cure and Acock 1986). In that respect, the simulated grain yields under elevated CO 2 in this study accord with the projected range. The potential model clearly overestimated the grain yield under elevated temperature and CO 2 conditions versus observed mean grain yield. When simulating the interactive effect of in- creased CO 2 and temperature together, the in- crease in grain yield due to elevated CO 2 was reduced by the elevated temperature producing a net increase between 6–22%. The grain yield increased with the potential model on average to 106% (122% non-potential) from the simu- lated reference yield. In addition, the yield com- ponent grains per ear difference between ob- served and simulated was significant (35%) with the potential model under elevated temperature and CO 2 conditions. This might indicate that the potential model is sensitive to wheat transloca- tion changes during grain filling period in yel- low ripening stage before full maturity (growth stages 5 and 6, Table 1), since all yield compo- nents are interconnected through the plant me- tabolism and translocation of assimilates. However, the non-potential model predicted accurately the grain yield compared to the ob- served (Table 8): This might imply that the av- erage growing conditions under elevated temper- ature and CO 2 in OTC experiments resembled the sub-optimal conditions simulated with the non- 193 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 10 (2001): 175–196. potential model. These factors might explain to some extent the difference between the observed and simulated grain yields. In addition, one can speculate how representative the validation data of only three years (1992–1994) actually is. Early sowing If the mean temperature will increase during late winter and spring in Finland according to cli- mate change scenarios, it will enable earlier sow- ing in southern and mid-Finland. In Finland a longer growing season for crops (ca. 1 month) is projected: sowing will occur earlier, thus caus- ing changes in pre-anthesis radiation and day- length conditions especially during vegetative phase. Earlier sowing will potentially entail changes in spring wheat phenological develop- ment (Saarikko and Carter 1996, Saarikko 1999). The simulation results with current Finnish cultivars imply that by using earlier sowing a substantial increase in grain yields can be ex- pected under elevated CO 2 growing conditions. Earlier sowing combined with elevated CO 2 can mitigate the decreasing effect of elevated tem- perature on yield potential. When simulating the effects of early sowing, the potential model in- creased the grain yield with earlier sowing dates (varying between 5 to 15 days) compared to ambient conditions with mean sowing date in southern Finland. According to simulation results with the potential model, the grain yield increase with earlier sowing days from the reference (15 May) was +51% (5 d), +57% (10 d), +64% (15 d) under ambient temperature and CO 2 conditions. Respectively under elevated temperature and CO 2 conditions, the simulated grain yield in- crease with earlier sowing was +68% (5 d), +75% (10 d), +78% (15 d). The simulation results also indicate with earlier sowing that the increasing effect of elevated CO 2 on grain yield is reduced under elevated temperature levels. There was a large variation in observed grain yields between years (1992–1994) especially in the OTC experiments under elevated CO 2 con- ditions (Hakala 1998a). In addition, the meas- ured earlier sowing data (15 d, sowing 29 April) with elevated temperature consisted of only 1992 data. The data of only one-year might mitigate the conclusions drawn between the simulated grain yield estimates with earlier sowing versus observed values. Adaptation strategies for the climate change According to climate change scenarios, the fu- ture climate in Finland (2050–2100) will resem- ble the growing conditions currently prevailing in southern Sweden and northern Germany. A scheme of transferring mid-European cultivars to Finland to be grown under elevated tempera- ture and CO 2 growing conditions can be hypoth- esised. A longer growing period would enable cultivation of crops with a longer growing peri- od (Carter 1992), supporting the hypothesis of transferring mid-European spring wheat geno- types to Finland for cultivation. However, cur- rent mid-European cultivars are adapted to long- er growing period and shorter daylength com- pared with the cultivars currently cultivated in Finland and adapted to northern long-day grow- ing conditions. Daylength and photoperiodic constraints should be evaluated before introduc- ing mid-European cultivars for cultivation in Finland. Laurila (1995) evaluated with the CERES-wheat model phenological development and yield potential differences between a Ger- man cultivar (cv. Nandu) and cv. Polkka current- ly cultivated in Finland under ambient and ele- vated temperature and CO 2 growing conditions. Simulation results suggested that the mid-Euro- pean cv. Nandu would benefit more from the el- evated CO 2 and temperature levels. The grain yield of cv. Nandu increased to 161% versus 158% for cv. Polkka under elevated CO 2 condi- tion (700 ppm) from the ambient reference (100%). Respectively the grain yield of cv. Nan- du decreased to 59% versus 57% for cv. Polkka under elevated temperature conditions, since the elevated temperature (3°C) accelerated the phe- nological development with both cultivars. Re- 194 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Laurila, H. Simulation of spring wheat responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature spectively the concurrent elevated CO 2 and tem- perature conditions increased the grain yield of cv. Nandu to 107% versus 104% for cv. Polkka compared to the ambient reference. Conclusions Previous crop physiological experiments and theoretical calculations suggest, that the yield potential of wheat cultivars can be increased even by 30 per cent from the maximum yielding capacity by using higher radiation levels and providing that the translocation of assimilates and the sink capacity are non-limiting factors. According to theoretical calculations, the maxi- mum yielding capacity arises above 10 tons per hectare for wheat cultivars (Stoy 1966, Evans 1973, Evans and Wardlaw 1976). If the doubled CO 2 increases the yield levels of spring wheat cultivars between 10 and 40 per cent from the current average yield level, as the crop physio- logical and simulation results suggest, the yield levels with current cultivars still remain below the maximum yielding capacity. In conclusion, the simulation results suggest that by using earlier sowing a substantial increase in grain yields can be expected under elevated CO 2 growing conditions with cultivars currently cultivated in Finland. Earlier sowing with elevat- ed CO 2 will mitigate the decreasing effect of ele- vated temperature on grain yields. A longer grow- ing period due to climate change will potentially enable cultivation of new wheat cultivars adapt- ed to a longer growing period: In future it might be possible to cultivate cultivars currently grown in central Europe also in Finland. Acknowledgments. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to professor Timo Mela, Dr. Kaija Hakala, Ms.Sci. Timo Kaukoranta, Ms.Sci. Markku Kontturi and Dr. Riitta Saa- rikko (MTT), professor Timothy Carter (The Finnish Envi- ronment Institute), professors Eero Varis, Eija Pehu and Pirjo Mäkelä (Helsinki University), professor Risto Kuit- tinen (The Finnish Geodetic Institute), professor Tuomo Karvonen (Helsinki University of Technology), Dr. Jouko Kleemola (Kemira Agro Oy), professor Jan Goudriaan (Wageningen Agricultural University, Netherlands), profes- sor John T. Ritchie (The Michigan State University, USA), Dr. John H.M. Thornley (Hurley Research Station, Berk- shire, UK) and professor John R. Porter (The Royal Veter- inary and Agricultural University, Denmark) for their ad- vises during the modelling work and preparation of the manuscript. References Carter, T.A. 1992. The greenhouse effect and Finnish agriculture. Maatilahallinnon aikakausikirja (Journal of Farm Administration) 1/1992: 31–57. – 1996. Developing scenarios of atmosphere, weather and climate for northern regions. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 5: 235–249. – 1998. Changes in the thermal growing season in Nor- dic countries during the past century and prospects for the future. Agricultural and Food Science in Fin- land 7: 161–179. Cure, J.D. & Acock, B. 1986. Crop responses to carbon dioxide doubling: a literature survey. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 38: 127–145. Evans, L.T. 1973. The effects of light on plant growth, development and yield. In: Plant Response to Climatic Factors. Paris, UNESCO 5: 21–35. – & Wardlaw, I.F. 1976. Aspects of comparative physi- ology of grain yield in cereals. In Advances in Agron- omy 28: 301–350. Ewert, F., van Oijen, M. & Porter, J.R. 1999. Simulation of growth and development processes of spring wheat in response to CO 2 and ozone for different sites and years in Europe using mechanistic crop simulation models. European Journal of Agronomy 10: 231–247. Fiacco, A. 1983. Introduction to Sensitivity and Stability Analysis in Nonlinear Programming. Acad. Press. 367 p. France, J. & Thornley, J.H.M. 1984. Mathematical mod- els in agriculture. Butterworths. 335 p. Gal, T. & Greenberg (eds.). 1996. Recent Advances in Sensitivity Analysis and Parametric Programming. Kluwer Publishers. 248 p. van de Geijn, Goudriaan, J. & Berendse, F. (eds.). 1993. Climate change; crops and terrestrial ecoystems. Agrobiologische Thema’s 9. CABO-DLO. Wagenin- gen. 144 p. 195 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Vol. 10 (2001): 175–196. Godwin, D., Ritchie, J.T., Singh, U. & Hunt, T. 1989. A User’s Guide to CERES-wheat (v. 2.10). Michigan State University. 129 p. Goudriaan, J., van Keulen, H. & van Laar, H. (eds.). 1990. The greenhouse effect and primary productivity in European agro-ecosystems. Proceedings of the in- ternational workshop on primary productivity of Eu- ropean agriculture and the greenhouse effect. Wage- ningen, the Netherlands, 5–10 April 1990. Pudoc Wageningen. 90 p. –, van Laar, H., van Keulen, H. & Louwerse, W. 1985. Photosynthesis, CO 2 and plant production. In: Day, W. & Atkin, R.K. (eds.). Wheat growth and modelling. NATO ASI Ser., Series: Life Sciences. Vol 86: 107– 122. Hakala, K. 1998a. Effect of climate change in the north on growth, yield formation and photosynthesis of spring wheat and meadow fescue. Thesis. University of Turku. Series AII. 160 p. – 1998b. Growth and yield potential of spring wheat in a simulated changed climate with increased CO 2 and higher temperature. European Journal of Agronomy 9: 41–52. –, Heliö, R., Tuhkanen, E. & Kaukoranta T. 1999. Pho- tosynthesis and Rubisco kinetics in spring wheat and meadow fescue under conditions of simulated climate change with elevated CO 2 and increased tempera- tures. Agricultural and Food Science in Finland 8: 441–457. Hanks, J. & Ritchie, J.T. (eds.). 1991. Modelling plant and soil systems. Agr. Monogr. 31, Am.Soc.Agron. Prin- ciples of Arable Crop Production. Granada Publish- ing Ltd. Great Britain. 545 p. Hodges, T. 1991. Predicting Crop Phenology. CRC Press. 233 p. IGBP/GCTE 1993. GCTE Focus 3 Wheat Network. Mod- el and Experimental Meta Data. Report No. 2. Inter- national Geosphere-Biosphere Program / Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems Program. Univer- sity of Oxford. IPCC/WGI 1996. Climate change 1995 – The science of climate change. Contribution of Working Group I to the 2nd Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. UK. Järvi, A., Kangas, A., Laine, A., Niskanen, M., Salo, Y., Vuorinen, M., Jauhiainen, L. & Mäkelä, L. 2000. Re- sults of official variety trials 1992–1999. Publications of Agricultural Research Centre of Finland. Serie A 70. 216 p. Kangas, A., Laine, A., Niskanen, M., Salo, Y., Vuorinen, M., Jauhiainen, L. & Mäkelä, L. 2001. Results of offi- cial variety trials 1993–2000. MTT Publications. Se- ries A 94. Jokioinen, MTT Agrifood Research Finland. 262 p. Kimball, B. 1983. Carbon dioxide and agricultural yield: an assemblage and analysis of 430 prior observa- tions. Agronomy Journal 75: 779–788. Kleemola, J. 1991. Effect of Temperature on Phasic De- velopment of Spring Wheat in Northern Conditions. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica 41: 275–283. – 1997. Modelling Nitrogen and Water Limited Crop Growth. Thesis. University of Helsinki. Department of Crop Husbandry. Publication no 48. 148 p. Kontturi, M. 1979. The effects of weather on yield and development of spring wheat in Finland. Annales Agriculturae Fenniae 18: 263–274. Large, E.C. 1954. Growth stages in cereals. Illustration of the Feekes scale. Plant Pathology 3: 128–129. Laurila, H. 1995. Modelling the effects of elevated CO 2 and temperature on Swedish and German spring wheat varieties with CERES-wheat and AFRC-wheat crop models. Journal of Biogeography 22: 591–595. Lawlor, D.W. 1987. Photosynthesis: metabolism,control and physiology. Longman Scietific & Technical. 251 p. –, Kontturi, M. & Young, A.T. 1989. Photosynthesis by Flag Leaves of Wheat in Relation to Protein, Ribu- lose Bisphosphate Carboxylase Activity and Nitrogen Supply. Journal of Experimental Botany 40, 210: 43– 52. van Oijen, M. & Ewert, F. 1999. The effects of climatic variation in Europe on the yield response of spring wheat cv. Minaret to elevated CO 2 and O 3 : an analy- sis of open-top chamber experiments by means of two crop growth simulation models. European Jour- nal of Agronomy 10: 249–264. –, Schapendonk, M., Jansen, A., Pot, M. & Maciorowski, C. 1999. Do open-top chambers overestimate the effects of rising CO 2 on plants? An analysis using spring wheat. Global Change Biology 5: 411–422. Peltonen, J., Karvonen, T. & Kivi, E. 1990. The effect of climatic factor on production of spring wheat quanti- ty to quality ratio in southern Finland. Journal of Ag- ricultural Science in Finland 62: 227–236. Por ter, J.R., Jamieson, P.D. & Wilson, D.R. 1993. C o m p a r i s o n o f t h e w h e a t s i mu l a t i o n m o d e l s AFRCWHEAT2, CERES-wheat and SWHEAT for non- limiting conditions of crop growth. Field Crops Re- search 33: 131–157. Ritchie, J.T. 1989. A user-oriented model of the soil wa- ter balance in wheat. In: Day, W. & Atkin, R. (eds.). Wheat Growth and Modelling. Plenum Publishing Corp. p. 293–305. – & Otter S. 1985. Description and performance of CERES-wheat: A user oriented wheat yield model. Agr. Monogr. 31. ASAS,CSSA and SSA. Madison, WI., USA. 158 p. Rosenzweig, C. & Parry, M. 1994. Potential impact of cli- mate on world food supply. Nature 367: 133–138. Saarikko, R.A. 1999. Climate Change and Crop Potential in Finland: Regional Assessment of Spring Wheat. Thesis. University of Helsinki. Department of Plant Production. Publication no. 55. 125 p. – & Carter, T.A. 1996. Phenological development in spring cereals: response to temperature and photope- riod under northern conditions. European Journal of Agronomy 5: 59–70. Semenov, M.A., Porter, J.R. & Delecolle, R. 1993. Simu- lation of the effects of climatic change on the growth and development of wheat in the UK and France. European Journal of Agronomy 2: 293–304. Spitters, C., Kraalingen, D. & van Keulen, H. 1989. A sim- ple and universal crop growth simulator: SUCROS87. In: Rabbinge, R. et al. (eds.). Simulation and systems 196 A G R I C U L T U R A L A N D F O O D S C I E N C E I N F I N L A N D Laurila, H. Simulation of spring wheat responses to elevated CO 2 and temperature management in crop protection. Simulation Mono- graphs, Pudoc, Wageningen. p. 147–181. Stoy, V. 1966. Photosynthesis, respiration and carbohy- drate accumulation in spring wheat in relation to yield. Physiologia Plantarum Supplement 4: 1–125. Thornley, J.H.M. & Johnson, J.R. 1990. Plant and crop modelling. A Mathematical Approach to Plant and Crop Physiology. Oxford Science Publications. 669 p. Tubiello, F.N, Rosenzweig, C., Kimball, B., Pinter, Jr. P., Wall, G.W., Hunsaker, D., LaMorte, R. & Garcia, G. 1999. Testing CERES-wheat with free-air carbon di- oxide enrichment (FACE) experiment data: CO 2 and water interactions. Agronomy Journal (American So- ciety of Agronomy) 91: 247–255. Zadoks, J.C, Chang, T.T. & Konzak, C.F. 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14: 415–421. SELOSTUS Kohotettujen CO 2 :n ja lämpötilan vaikutukset kevätvehnän fenologiseen kehitykseen ja sadontuottomahdollisuuksiin Heikki Laurila MTT (Maa- ja elintarviketalouden tutkimuskeskus) CERES wheat -kasvumallilla simuloitiin kohotettu- jen CO 2 :n (700 ppm, parts per million) ja lämpötilan (+3 °C) vaikutuksia kevätvehnälajike Polkan (Triti- cum aestivum L., cv. Polkka) fenologiseen kehityk- seen sekä biomassa- ja sadontuottomahdollisuuksiin optimaalisissa kasvuoloissa (potentiaalinen kasvu- malli). Toinen simulointi suoritettiin kasvukauden aikaisten stressitekijöiden (sää, kuivuus, sadanta ja typpilannoitus) vaikuttaessa fenologiseen kehitykseen ja sadontuotantoon (non-potentiaalinen kasvumalli). Suomen ilmastonmuutos -tutkimusohjelman (SILMU 1992–1994) skenaarioiden mukaan Suomen kasvu- olosuhteet tulevat muistuttamaan v. 2100 olosuhtei- ta, jotka vallitsevat tällä hetkellä Tanskassa ja Poh- jois-Saksassa. Tällöin keskilämpötila on kohonnut 3 °C ja ilmakehän CO 2 -taso kaksinkertaistunut nykyi- sestä 350:stä 700 ppm:ään. CERES wheat -kasvumallituksen tulokset indi- koivat kaksinkertaisen CO 2 -tason kohottavan Polkka- lajikkeen satoa 142 % potentiaalisella mallilla (167 % non-potentiaalisella) laskettuna nykyisestä referens- sitasosta (100 %, ambientti lämpötila, CO 2 350 ppm). Kohotettu lämpötila (+3 °C) pienensi Polkan satoa 80,4 %:iin referenssitasosta (100 %, 6,16 t ha–1) po- tentiaalisella mallilla (76,8 % non-potentiaalisella mallilla referenssitasosta 4,49 t ha–1). Kohotettu läm- pötila lyhensi kasvin kasvuaikaa kiihdyttämällä kas- vua vegetatiivisessa ja generatiivisessa vaiheessa. Kasvuajan lyhentyminen puolestaan alensi Polkka- vehnän satoa. Kun simuloitiin kohotettujen CO 2 -ta- son ja lämpötilan yhteisvaikutusta Polkan satoon, kiihdytti kohotettu CO 2 -taso vegetatiivisessa vaihees- sa biomassan muodostumista ja generatiivisessa vai- heessa sadonmuodostusta. Toisaalta kohotettu lämpö- tila lyhensi kasvin generatiivista vaihetta ja pienensi CO 2 :n satoa kohottavaa vaikutusta. Tällöin kohotet- tu lämpötila aiheutti tähkän täystuleentumisen aikai- semmin ja sato jäi alhaisemmaksi (106 % potentiaa- linen malli, 122 % non-potentiaalinen malli). Tulok- set olivat samansuuntaiset Maatalouden tutkimus- keskuksessa v. 1992–1994 Polkka kevätvehnällä teh- tyjen open top -kasvukammio kokeiden kanssa (Ha- kala 1998a). Simuloitaessa aikaisempaa kylvöaikaa (15 päivää aiempi kylvö, referenssi 15.5.) sato kohosi potentiaalisella mallilla 178 %:iin referenssitasosta (100 %) kohotetussa lämpötilassa ja CO 2 -tasossa. Title Introduction Material and methods Results Discussion Conclusions References SELOSTUS