CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS IMPACT ON WHEAT PRODUCTION AND MITIGATION THROUGH AGROFORESTRY TECHNOLOGIES

International Journal on Environmental Sciences, Vol. 5 (Issue 1), pp. 73-90, 2014

CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS IMPACT ON WHEAT PRODUCTION AND MITIGATION THROUGH

AGROFORESTRY TECHNOLOGIES

1 2Ashok Kumar and Avtar Singh

1Systematic Botany Discipline, Botany Division, Forest Research Institute (Deemed) University, P.O. New Forest, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

2Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India

Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]

Article

Received on: 25.02.2014 Revised: 03.03.2014 Accepted on: 15.03.2014

No. of Pages: 18 No. of Figs.: 5 No. of Tables : 1 References: 84

Keywords: Climate change, Wheat, Agroforestry, Mitigation.

ABSTRACT

Climate change is a reality and affects the poor in developing countries in many ways such

as yield potential. This paper presents an analysis of crop-climate relationships, using

historic production statistics for wheat crops. An overview of the state of the knowledge of

possible effect of the climate variability and change on wheat production indicated that an 0increase in 1 C mean temperatures, associated with CO increase, would not cause any 2

significant loss to wheat production, if simple adaptation strategies such as change in

planting date and varieties are used. We examine data on the mitigation potential of

agroforestry in the humid and sub-humid tropics. We then present the scientific evidence

that leads to the expectation that agroforestry also has an important role in climate change

adaptation, particularly for smallholder farmers. Poplar based agroforestry system could be

a good option in the light of climate change and from financial and diversification point of

view. The technologies developed in India and future research strategies would be

accommodating to improve financial return from such system.

INTRODUCTIONGlobal climate change has already had

observable effects on the environment.

Climate change is one of the major challenges

facing humanity in the future and effect of

climate change has been detrimental to

agricultural industry. There is clear evidence

for an observed increase in global average

temperatures and change in rainfall rates

thduring the 20 century (Easterling, 1999; IPCC,

2001; Jung et al., 2002; Fauchereau et al., 2003)

around the world. The IPCC predicted that 0increases in global mean temperature (1-3 C)

after 1990 would produce beneficial impacts

in some regions and harmful ones in others. In

India, studies by several authors shown that

during last century there is observed

increasing trend in surface temperature (Singh

ISSN No. 0976-4534

74

IJES 2014

and Sontakke, 2002; Singh et al., 2001), no

significant trend in rainfall on all India basis

(Pant et al., 1999; Stephenson et al., 2001), and

decreasing/ increasing trends in rainfall in

regional basis (Singh and Sontakke, 2002;

Kripalani et al., 2003). All these can have

tremendous impact on agricultural production

and hence, food security of any region

(Aggarwal, 2003).

Climate change and food securityAlthough the climate change in some areas of

the world, particularly the areas located within 0

the northern widths above 55 , will have

positive effects on agricultural production

(Ewert et al., 2005), but the negative impacts of

these changes will be so severe in hot and dry

areas (Parry et al., 2004), so in developing

countries the rise in temperature and the

decrease in rainfall have been more severe

(Sivakumar et al., 2005), and moreover the

frequency and intensity of the occurrence of

rare climatic phenomena (drought, heat,

coldness and flood) will also be intensified

(IPCC, 2007). Climatic variability is a major

concern for the Indian subcontinents. Net

annual costs for food production will increase

over time as global temperatures increase.

Climate change increases the urgency of

reforming trade policies to ensure that global

food security needs are met" (ICTSD, 2009).

Adapting to climate change could cost the

agriculture sector $14bn globally a year as per

the new ICTSD-IPCC study by Jodie Keane.

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report also describes

the impact of climate change on food security.

Agriculture plays a key role in overall

economic and social well being of India. In

India, average food consumption at present is

550 gm per capita per day whereas the

corresponding figures in China and USA are

980 gm and 2850 gm respectively. Present

annual requirement based on present

consumption level (550 gm) for the country is

about 210 Million Tonnes (Mt), which is

almost equal to the current production. While

the area under food grain, for instance fell from

126.67 mha to 124.24 mha during the period

from 1980–81 to 2003-04, the production

registered as increase from 129.59 Mt. to 212

Mt during that period. The food grain

production looked quite impressive in 2003-

04, which is more than 4 times the production

of 50.82 Mt in 1950-51. However, the country

faces major challenges to increase its food

production to the tune of 300 million tons by

2020 in order to feed its ever-growing

population, which is likely to reach 1.30

billion by the year 2020. To meet the demand

for food from this increased population, the

country's farmers need to produce 50% more

grain by 2020 (Paroda and Kumar, 2000; DES,

2004).

About 21% of the world's food depends on the

wheat (Triticum aestivum) crop, which grows

on 200 million hectares of farmland worldwide

(http://www.fao.org). Although wheat is traded

internationally and developing countries are

major importers (43% of food imports), the

reality is that 81% of wheat consumed in the

developing world is produced and utilized

within the same country, if not the same

community (CIMMYT, 2005). It is important to

know how climatic change will affect growth,

development, water use and productivity of

the wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) crop in India,

which is one of the important staple food crops

of India, accounting for 35% of the food grain

production of the country. The wheat

production has increased tremendously from

12.3 Mt in 1965 to 70.8 Mt in 1998–99. This has

been possible due to the increase in area under

wheat from 13.4 to 27.4 mha and productivity -1

from 0.92 to 2.58 t ha (Department of

Agriculture and Co-operation, 2000). Mall and

Singh (2000) observed that small changes in

the growing season temperature over the years

appeared to be the key aspect of weather

affecting yearly wheat yield fluctuations.

Pathak et al., (2003) concluded that the

negative trends in solar radiation and an

International Journal on Environmental Sciences, Vol. 5 (Issue 1), pp. 73-90, 2014 ISSN No. 0976-4534

75

IJES 2014

increase in minimum temperature, resulting in

declining trends of potential yields of wheat in

the Indo-Gangetic plains of India. Selvaraju

(2003) analyzed the relationship between

Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall (SMR) and

food grain production in India. He found that

the inter-annual variations are closely related.

However, the magnitude of change in food

grain production is smaller than the rainfall.

Recent trends of a decline or stagnation in the

yield of rice-wheat cropping system in Indo-

Gangetic plain and north western India have

raised serious concern about the regions food

supply (Aggarwal et al., 2000; Mall and

Srivastava, 2002; Pathak et al., 2003). This

trend clearly indicates the reduced factor of

productivity in case of the rice-wheat cropping

systems. These variations in trends of

productivity indicate the effects of other

biophysical and socio-economic components,

which needs to be eliminated before

embarking on assessing the impacts of climate

change and its variability on growth and yield

of crops. Easterling et al., (2007) looked at

studies that made quantitative projections of

climate change impacts on food security. The

first was that climate change would likely

increase the number of people at risk of hunger

compared with reference scenarios with no

climate change. In 2006, the global estimate for

the number of people under nourished was 820

million (FAO, 2011).

Table 1: Estimated Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural Production

Temp-erature

Agriculture

Temperatures to increase

0by 2.3-4.5 C by 2070-2099.

Net cerealproduction

to decrease

by at least 4-

10% e.g.

rain-fed

wheat

production is

to decrease

by 20-75%

by 2080.

Temperatures toincrease by

02.0-3.8 C by 2070-2099.

Overall

cerealproduction

to increase

by up to

30%, but

rain-fed

wheat

production is

to decrease

by 10-95%

by 2080.

Temperatures

to increase by 03-7 C by

2080-2099.

Rain-fed

cereal

(wheat,

maize, rice)

productionto decrease

by 12% (net

loss) by

2080, with

great

regional

variations.


0by 1.0-7.5 C by 2070-2099.

Overall grain

yields to

change by

between -

30% to +5%

by 2080 e.g.

rain-fed

wheat

production is

to decrease

by 12-27%

by 2080.


0by 1.0-5.5 C by 2070-2099.

Cereal yields

to increase

inNorthern

Europe, e.g.

rain-fed

wheat

production

by 10-30%,

and to

decrease in

Southern

Europeby 2080.

However,

there will be

a net gain

overall.


0by 2.0-5.0 C by 2099.

Yields to

increase by

5-20% across

the whole

continent,

though with

some

regional

differences

across

products

such as:

corn, rice,

sorghum,

soybean,

wheat,

common

forages,

cotton and

some fruits.

South Asia

South East Asia

Sub-SaharanAfrica

Latin America

Europe North America

Note: The wide range of temperature and precipitation reflect the scenarios on which the estimates are based across regions.Sources: Ruosteenoja et al., (2003); Giorgi et al., (2004); Christensen et al., (2007); IPCC (2007)


76

IJES 2014

Impact of climate change on wheat

production2

A decline of 600-650 grains/m in wheat crop 0

with every 1 C increase in mean temperatures 0above 17-17.7 C during the terminal spikelet

initiation to anthesis was observed by Saini and

Nanda (1986). Integrated impact of a rise in

temperature and CO concentration on yield of 2

crops may be negative (Sinha and 0Swaminathan, 1991). Further, a 0.5 C increase in

winter temperature would reduce wheat crop

duration by seven days and reduce yield by 0.45

ton/ha. An increase in winter temperature of 00.5 C would thereby translate into a 10 per cent

reduction in wheat production in the high yield

states of Northern India.

The growing season for wheat is limited by high

temperatures at sowing and maturation. As

wheat is grown over a wide range of latitudes in

India, it is frequently exposed to temperatures

above the threshold for heat stress. For example,

high maximum and minimum temperatures in

September (about 34/20°C) adversely affect

seedling establishment, accelerate early

vegetative development, and reduce canopy

cover, tillering, spike size and yield. High

temperatures at the end of February (25/10°C)

and during March (30/13°C) and April (30/20°C)

reduce the number of viable florets and the

duration of grain filling. The situation is similar

for sorghum and pearl millet, which are exposed

to extreme high temperatures in Rajasthan

(Abrol et al., 1991; Abrol and Ingram, 1996).

Aggarwal and Sinha (1993) reported that at 425 ppm CO concentration and no rise in 2

temperature, wheat grain yield at all levels of production (i.e. potential irrigated and rainfed)

0increased significantly. In northern India, a 1 C rise in mean temperature had no significant effect on potential yields but irrigated and rainfed yields increased in most places. An

0increase of 2 C in temperature reduced potential wheat yields at most places. A 2-3ºC increase in temperature will reduce yields in the majority of the wheat growing areas

(Aggarwal and Sinha, 1993), and this yield reduction will be greater in non-irrigated (and thus water stressed) crops due to rainfall variability. Therefore, the warmer regions will suffer crop losses. A minor increase of only

00.5 C during the winter is expected to decrease wheat yield by 0.45 t/ha. However, as with most crops, the response of wheat yields is dependent on CO fertilization, decreasing by 2

up to 64% with no fertilization but ranging between +4 and –34% with CO2 fertilization (Gangadhar and Sinha, 1994).

Aggarwal and Kalra (1994) developed and evaluated the WTGROWS crop simulation model to estimate the effect of climate change on productivity of wheat in India was simulated for normally sown crops at three levels of production (potential, irrigated and rainfed). At 425 ppm CO concentration and no 2

rise in temperature, grain yield at all levels of production increased significantly at all places. One degree Celsius rise in mean temperature had no significant effect on potential yields. Irrigated yields however showed a small increase in most places where current yields were greater than 3.5 t/ha. In central and peninsular India, where current irrigated yields were between 2 to 4 t/ha, the response varied from a significant decrease to a significant increase. Rainfed yields, however, showed a significant increase. An increase of 02 C in temperature reduced potential yields at

0most places. In sub-tropical (above 23 N) environment, there was a small decrease in potential yields (1.5 to 5.8%) but in tropical location, the decrease was 17-18 per cent. More over with the examination of climatic change impacts including rise in temperature and CO concentration on the wheat yield, 2

Mitchell et al., (1995) observed that the plant yield showed reduction between16% and 35% under the impact of temperature rise with in the current situation.

Hundal and Kaur (1996) examined the climate change impact on productivity of wheat crop in Punjab using CERES-wheat (Godwin et al., 1989). They concluded that, if all other climate


77

IJES 2014

variables were to remain constant , 0

temperature increase of 1, 2 and 3 C from present day condition, would reduce the grain yield of wheat by 8.1, 18.7 and 25.7 per cent. Lal et al., (1998a) have also simulated a 28% increase in wheat yield under doubling of CO 2

from the present value of 350 ppmv, but they found no significant increase beyond 950 ppmv. Similar findings have been reported by Cure and Acock (1986) and Rosenzweig et al., (1994). Annual variations of yield were significantly higher under rainfed conditions in all the cultivars (CV: 35-95%) compared with irrigated ones (CV: 8-21%). Lal et al., (1998) reported that rise in temperature leads to a reduction of about 5 days in the flowering time of the wheat, affects the time period of wheat flowering and reduces the time of grain filling and as a result wheat yield in India. Also in a study in the north west of India, they found

0that 4 C rise in the average daily temperature led to 54% reduction of wheat yield.

Mall and Singh (2000) observed that small changes in the growing season temperature over the years appeared to be the key aspect of weather affecting yearly wheat yield fluctuations. In addition, the improved water use efficiency and growth rates helped the crops to maintain adequate rates of growth. The simulation analysis showed that if crops were allowed to maintain same crop duration as in current weather, the effects of climate change are significant. The isolines of the simulated irrigated wheat yields under current climate and under climate change scenarios. There was no

effect of climate change in northern India but yields were reduced in Central India by 10-15 per cent. This reduction in productivity under changed climate unless accompanied with suitable research and policy interventions may reduce wheat production options in central India (Aggarwal, 2000).

Kumar and Parikh (2001) estimated the functional relationship between farm level net revenue and climate variables, introduced through linear, quadratic, and interaction terms, to understand the climatic sensitivity of Indian agriculture. They found that the overall impacts due to the climate change scenario for a 20C rise in temperature and a 7 per cent increase in precipitation are negative and about 8.4% of the total farm level net-revenue for India. The temperature increase results in significant negatnive impacts, while the higher precipitation cosidered under the scenario increases the net-revenue. On the whole the negative impacts due to temperature change more than compensate for the small positive impact due to precipitation change. Impacts estimated for a range of temperature changes revealed that the temperature response function is of inverted 'U' shape, i.e., with higher climate changes the loss would be greater. The spatial distribution of impact is shown in Figure 1. The northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and western Uttar Pradesh, which grow predominantly wheat in the winter season, experience most negative effects, along with the coastal districts of Tamil Nadu.

Fig. 1 : Distribution of impacts on net revenue across various states (as percentage of total absolute impacts) (Source: Kumar and Parikh, 2001).


78

IJES 2014

Sharma and Sharma (2002) reported that

within increase of 0.5C in mean temperature in

Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh another is

reduction in productivity of wheat crop by 10

per cent. Climate projections indicate a

continual decrease in wheat yield (Figure 2).

The growing season for wheat is limited by

high temperatures at sowing and maturation.

As wheat is grown over a wide range of

Attri and Rathore (2003) used CERES-wheat

dynamic simulation model and climate change

scenarios. Yield enhancements of the order of

29-37% and 16-28% are obtained for different

genotypes, under rainfed and irrigated

conditions respectively, for a temperature rise 0coupled with elevated CO levels (T + 1.0 C, 2 max

0 2T + 1.5 C and 460 ppmv CO ) compared with min

the current climate. A further increase of 0 0temperature (T + 2.0 C, T + 2.5 C and 460 max min

ppmv CO ) resulted in a yield reduction, but it 2

was still higher than under the current climate. 0

An increase of temperature of the order of 3 C or

more cancels out the beneficial effects of

elevated CO in all the cultivars under study. 2

Yields of normally sown cultivars (HD2329 and

WH542) were higher under A2 (delayed sowing

by 10 days) and lower under A1 (advanced

sowing by 10 days) strategies, whereas the

reverse trend was observed for late-sown

cultivars (HD2285, Sonalika, Raj3765). A

latitudes in India, it is frequently exposed to

temperatures above the threshold for heat

stress. For example, high maximum and

minimum temperatures in September (about 034 /20 C) adve r se ly a f f ec t s eed l ing

establishment, accelerate early vegetative

development, and reduce canopy cover,

tillering, spike size and yield.

reduction in anthesis, maturity and evapo-

transpiration under A1 and an enhancement

under A2 strategies were observed in normally

sown cultivars, whereas the reverse trend was

seen in late-sown cultivars.

The effect of climate change scenario of

different periods can be positive or negative

depending upon the magnitude of change in

CO and temperature (Aggarwal, 2003). The 2

time series of all-India wheat production

(Figure 3(a)) shows a sudden increase after the

mid-1960s that can be attributed to the Green

Revolution (Kumar et al., 2004). The year-to-

year variability of wheat production is weaker

than that of rice, and lacks a strong association

with monsoon rainfall (Figure 3(b) and (c)).

Although wheat is grown during non-

monsoon months, its production shows a

rather weak but significant correlation with

monsoon rainfall in the months of July and

Fig. 2: Projected impact of climate change on wheat production (total yield in million tonnes) estimates for India. (Source: Aggarwal et al., 2002, as quoted in Chattopadhyay, 2008)


79

IJES 2014

September (Figure 3(d)). The rise in

temperature will increase the growth and

development speed of the crops, though

experimental evidence has showed that under

this condition, the length of maturity of the

seed in the grains and seedy plants will be

reduced (Parry et al., 2004). It was shown that

elevated (CO ) increases the photosynthetic 2

rate in wheat (C3 plant) over a wide range of

radiation (Long et al., 2006).

The impact of temperature rise based on scenarios and general circulation model on the increase in the development rate (Tao et al., 2006) and thus reduces the wheat growth season. Though it has been reported that in the areas where the crop's growth season encounters limitation, climate change and earth warming can lead to the improvement of crop's yield by increasing the growth season period and the improvement of the plant flowering strength (Challinor et al., 2007). Anwar et al., (2007) used CropSyst version-4 to predict climate change impacts on wheat yield in southeastern Australia and their results show that the elevated CO2 level can reduce the median wheat yield by about 25%. A higher atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide enhances plant growth, increases water use efficiency (CO fertilization), and so 2

affects water availability (Betts et al., 2007).

The decrease in yield was much higher in lower latitude. Locations, particularly where current rainfed yields were greater than 2 t/ha showed a very significant increase in rainfed wheat yields

with climate change. These results were closely related to the effects of changed climate on crop duration. Depending upon the magnitude of temperature increase, crop duration, particularly the period up to anthesis was reduced. In northern India, because of this reduction in pre anthesis duration, grain filling was often shifted to relatively cooler temperature of February thus enabling the crop to maintain reasonable grain filling duration in changed climate. Temperature and soil moisture determine the length of growing season and control the crop's development and water requirements. In general, higher temperatures will shorten the freeze periods, promoting cultivation in cool-climate marginal croplands. However, in arid and semi-arid areas, higher temperatures will shorten the crop cycle and reduce crop yields (IPCC, 2007).

Analysis showed that a more serious problem associated with global warming might be an increase in the frequency of heat stress around flowering, which represents a greater risk for sustainable wheat production (Barnabas et al., 2008).The studies about wheat production affected by climate change are mainly concerned with future CO concentrations. 2

Ortiz et al., (2008) discussed how wheat can adapt to climate change in Indo-Gangetic Plains for 2050s and suggested that global warming is beneficial for wheat crop production in some regions, but may reduce productivity in critical temperature areas, so it is urgent to develop some heat-tolerant wheat germplasm to mitigate climate change.


in Figure 4. Sud (2008) reported that as per the

findings of the study conducted by the Indian

Agriculture Research Institute (IARI) New 0

Delhi, with every 1 C. Increase in the

temperature throughout the growing period of

the crop, the overall wheat production may be

lost by 4 to 5 million tones.

Any increase in temperature is projected to

cause crop yield decline, particularly for maize

and rice (whose centers of origin are in or close

to the tropics) as these crops are already near

the upper limits for their optimum growth.

Comparison of temperature rise on crop yields

in temperate and tropical regions are exhibited

80

IJES 2014

Fig. 3: All-India total wheat production and its association with rainfall over India. (a) Growth in wheat production. (b) Year-to-year variations in wheat production and monsoon rainfall. Correlation between wheat production and (c) monsoon seasonal rainfall and (d) individual monthly rainfall during May to December. Correlations are based on data during the period 1949–50 to 1997–98. The values shown in (b) are backward-differenced wheat production and monsoon rainfall indices expressed as percentage change from their respective previous year's value (Source: Kumar et al., 2004)

Fig. 4: Comparison of temperature rise on crop yields in temperate and

tropical regions (Source: IPCC, 2007; Nicholls et al., 2008).


81

IJES 2014

The number of the days from planting to

maturity also obeyed the similar results of the

number of the days from planting to flowering

of wheat (Valizadeh et al., 2013). They also

studied the effects of climate change on the

maturity period, leaf area index (LAI), biomass

and grain yield of wheat under future climate

change for the studied region in Iran. For this

purpose, two general circulation models

HadCM3 and IPCM4 under three scenarios

A B, B and A in three time periods 2020, 2050 1 1 2

and 2080 were used. Wheat growing season

period in all scenarios of climate change was

reduced compared to the current situation.

Agroforestry technologies to mitigate the

impact of climate change Research into the contributions of agroforestry

in buffering against climate variability is not

well advanced. We have begun looking at

ongoing trials and reanalyzing results to see

what we can learn about the performance of

different systems in exceptional years. One

system that we have looked at closely is the

improved fallow system that is practiced in

many areas of East and Southern Africa,

described above. These systems greatly

improve maize yields on degraded soils where

nitrogen is limiting production. This ability to

maintain yields may be due to a number of

factors that are improved with this system

including soil physical properties, water

holding capacity, biological properties, and

soil nutrient status (Albrecht and Kandji 2003).

The forest-based systems are known to have

the largest potential to mitigate climate change

through conservation of existing carbon pools,

expansion of carbon sinks (e.g., agroforestry)

and substitution of fossil fuels for wood

products (Schlamadinger et al., 2007). The

expansion of carbon sinks through

agroforestry provides unique opportunities for

mitigating Greenhouse Gas (GHGs) emissions,

while addressing other more pertinent

livelihood concern of the rural dwellers in

southern Africa. These gases can be reduced by

managing the terrestrial and subterranean

carbon and nitrogen pools more efficiently in

agroforestry ecosystems (Bouman, 2001) by

converting low-biomass land use systems (e.g.,

grasslands and agricultural landscapes) to tree

based C-rich systems. The integration of trees

in agroforestry land use has the potential to

increase Soil Organic Matter (SOM) and store

significant amounts of carbon in the woody

biomass (Unruh et al., 1993). Carbon can be

sequestered from the atmosphere and stored in

soils or vegetation in agroforestry systems

(Albrecht and Kandji, 2003; Makumba et al.,

2006). For smallholder agroforestry systems in

the tropics, potential C sequestration rates -1 -1ranges from 1.5-3.5 ton C ha year

(Montagnini and Nair, 2004).

Two-year rotations of non-coppicing

agroforestry species in Eastern Zambia -1sequestered 26-78 Mg ha carbon in the soil,

while four-year rotations sequestered 120 Mg -1

ha . Sileshi et al., (2007) estimated carbon -1storage capacity of 3-60 ton ha (for live

-1biomass), 1-100 ton ha (for wood products),

-1 -110-50 ton ha (for SOM) and up to 1000 ton ha

(existing forests), offsetting of greenhouse gas

emissions through energy and material

substitution and reduction of fertilizer C foot

print. Crops and residues from agroforestry

systems can be used as a source either of fuel to

displace fossil fuel combustion, directly or

after conversion to fuels such as ethanol or

diesel (Cannell, 2003). Of all the land uses

analyzed in the IPCC Land Use, Land-Use

Change and Forest reports, agroforestry was

reported to offer the highest potential for

carbon sequestration (Verchotet al., 2007). In

general, it has been estimated that about 45-50

per cent of tree wood biomass and 30 per cent

of foliage consist of carbon. Studies conducted

at PAU Ludhiana reports the carbon

sequestration by different species.

Various agroforestry technologies viz.,

scattered tree planting, boundary planting,

home gardens, fodder bank, trees in


83

IJES 2014

rangelands, fruit trees and timber woodlot and

agroforestry plantations are used by the

farmers to enhance their income and number

of products from production system. In Social

forestry, agroforestry systems not only provide

a great opportunity for sequestering carbon,

and hence helping to mitigate climate change,

but they also enhance the adaptive capacity of

agricultural systems in tropical and

subtropical regions.

Agroforestry studies (Akinnifesi et al., 2006)

have focused on increasing crop yields to meet

the needs for human subsistence. According to

Sileshi et al., (2007), this has concentrated on

maximizing the soil fertility improvement.

Various agroforestry systems have been

employed to enhance crop yield and therefore,

food security in southern Africa. According to

Akinnifesi et al., (2008), the most common

agroforestry technologies for improving crop

yield in southern Africa include: traditional

tree-crop and parkland systems such as the

Faidherbia albida based system; improved

fertilizers tree systems e.g., coppicing tree

fallow e.g., Gliricidia sepium and Lerucaena

sp., improved fallow with short duration

species such as Sesbania spp., Tephrosia spp.,

Cajanus cajan, etc. in rotational fallow system

and annual relay fallow using Sesbania spp.,

Tephrosia spp., Cajanus cajan.

A recent meta-analysis from 94 studies

published in sub-Saharan Africa concluded

that these fertilizer tree systems could double

and even triple the yield of maize (Sileshi et al.,

2008). In East Africa, Kenya in particular, the

increase in crop yield stood at 53 per cent for

Leucaena leucocephala and 42 per cent for

Gliricidia sepium (Akinnifesi et al., 2006).

Kwesiga et al., (1999) confirmed the provision

of fuelwood from Sesbania sesban fallows.

Research on firewood consumption by

selected agroforestry in Zambia revealed that

11per cent of firewood consumed by rural

households comes from improved fallow fields

(Govere, 2002). Ajayi et al., (2007) observed

that there is a potential that this proportion

would substantially increase if more small-

scale farmers adopted agroforestry. The

foregoing discussion supports the view that

agroforestry technologies to contribute

towards reduced deforestation and therefore

mitigate climate change through storage of

carbon stocks in natural woodlands. The

traditional tree crop and parkland system has

widely been reported to positively enhance the

crop yield of smallholdings. Several studies on

traditional tree crop and parkland system

(Akinnifesi et al., 2006) have reported an

increased crop yield ranging from 37-200 per

cent in many parts of Africa.

Fertilizer tree systems have also demonstrated

their ability to increase crop yield over an area

in the miombo eco-region. In Zambia,

Sesbania sesban fallow was reported to have

increased the maize yield by 500 per cent

(Chirwa et al., 2003), while in Tanzania, the

improved fallow with Tephrosia vogelii and S.

Sesban increased the maize yield to 40 and 68

per cent, respectively (Gama et al., 2004). In

Malawi, an increase of 415 per cent was

reported among farmers using S. sesban in

improved fallow with land holdings of 1.75 ha

on average (Haule et al., 2003). The fallow

systems have also been reported to reduce

insect pests such as termites and also weed

problems (Sileshi et al., 2008). The adoption of

agroforestry technologies by farmers is

strongly influenced by policy and institutional

context within which technologies are

disseminated to potential users. Currently,

although the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol

on climate change and its coming into force

has given rise to new opportunities to highlight

issues on carbon trading and incentives to

reward multi-output land use systems like

agroforestry (Nair et al . , 2009), the

mechanisms of how this would benefit small

scale farmers is not clear.

On the other hand, taking land completely for

afforestation for many years to produce only


83

IJES 2014

trees for environmental goods and climate

change may not be attractive to smallholder

farmers because of the high tradeoff in terms of

food production (Ajayi et al., 2007), so

integrating agroforestry is one of the most

promising win-win opportunities for

smallholder farmers in the region.

Agroforestry technologies developed in India

and research strategies in relation to poplar-

wheat based agroforestry systemPoplar, Eucalyptus and Melia are preferred tree

species by North Indian farmers. Being winter

deciduous in nature, rabi crops such as wheat,

turmeric, sugarcane, mustard and berseem etc.

can be grown successfully throughout the tree

rotation (Figure 5). The grain yield of wheat

varied from 24.5 q/ha in 6-year-old to 51.4 q/ha

in 1-year-old poplar block plantation whereas

Studies have revealed that the boundary tree

plantation should be in north-south row

orientation to minimize the competition of

trees with adjoining agricultural crops. In a

comparison of carbon content of five tree

species (Toona, Ailanthus, Melia, Poplar and

in dek, the yield varied from 25.6 q/ha to 51.7

q/ha. The yield reduction of intercrops can be

decreased by manipulating spacing, cultural

and management practices of trees.

Recommended spacing for poplar block

plantation is 8 x 2.5 m with wider tree row in

north-south direction. Out of the six wheat

varieties (PBW-502, PBW-509, PDW-274, PBW-

343, PBW-373 and WH-542) tested under

poplar block plantation, the PBW 502 out ndyielded other varieties when sown in 2 week

of November as compared to the late sowings

(end Nov and mid Dec). Among the new

varieties, performance of PBW 621 and DBW

17 under poplar is better than PBW 550 and

PBW 502. Additional (25 %) seed and N than

recommended to sole wheat along with the

recommended P significantly increased yield

of wheat sown under poplar.

Eucalyptus) after seven year of planting, the

aboveground, belowground and total carbon

storage was highest in poplar (68.0, 16.8 and

84.7 t/ha, respectively) and lowest in Toona

(25.0, 5.7 and 30.7 t/ha, respectively). In an

economic study made on Poplar-Wheat

Fig. 5: Poplar based agroforestry system in India.


84

IJES 2014

agroforestry system the returns from the

poplar block plantations are Rs 80,000 --1 -1 100,000 acre year at the market rates of Rs

800/- per quintal of wood The total costs of

cultivation of poplar were Rs 30,500 and net

returns from poplar at the age of 4 years were

Rs 1, 97,500 (Kaur et al., 2010).

The most common crop rotation (rice-wheat)

in the irrigated agro-ecosystem in North-

western Indian states is over exploiting the

water resources and the water table in Punjab

has been receding at an average rate of over 42

cm per year (Aulakh, 2005). As per the one of

the estimate made by PAU scientists the water 3

saving is 40500 thousand m in case of Poplar-

Wheat agroforestry system as compared to

rice-wheat rotation in Punjab. The best growth

of poplar was observed on soil with bulk 3

density (1.5 g cm ). The effect of soil

amendments on growth parameters of poplar

was study and it was observed that diameter

and height recorded increase with application

of both Jalshkati and FYM. Height of poplar

plant increased by 22 per cent with application

of FYM @ 80 t/ha. Similarly, diameter also

increased by 10 per cent when FYM was

increased from 0 to 80 t/ha, the respective

values for Jalshakti was 30 per cent.

In Haryana, poplar at wider spacing's (10 m x

2.5 m and 15 m x 2.5 m) produce higher volume

of wood. Among wheat varieties tested in the

interspaces of poplar, WH-896 was found most

suitable for agroforestry, as squirrel did not eat

its seeds at the time of germination and by

parrots at seed maturity. Weed control and

fertilizer studies in poplar nursery revealed

that for getting healthy ETPs of poplar, it

should be fertilized with 200 kg N + 50 kg

P2O5 /ha or 20 t/ha FYM and weed can be

effectively controlled with chemical weeding

(Glyphosate @1.0 % solution on product basis

(round up/glycel) 60 days after bud

sprouting].The higher irrigation requirement

of wheat raised in association with 4-5 years

old eucalypts was due to about 30 per cent

higher soil moisture depletion from 0-90 cm

soil layer in agroforestry than sole wheat.

In Himachal Pradesh, Regional climate change

has advanced phonological phases of

multipurpose tree species. Climate change has

prolonged growth period ranging between 31-

46 days within eight years (1999-2006). The

leaf emergence and flower initiation phases

h a v e a l s o b e e n a d v a n c e d . C a r b o n

sequestration by agroforestry systems viz. agri-

horti-silviculture and silvipastoral in

comparison to natural grassland systems has

shown net positive carbon balance. Hence,

these systems have been categorized as

potential carbon sinks.

Future Research strategiesThe identification of suitable response

strategies is key to sustainable agriculture. The

important mitigation and adaptation strategies

required to cope with anticipated climate

change impacts include adjustment in sowing

dates, breeding of plants that are more resilient

to variability of climate, and improvement in

agronomic practices. As the wheat cultivars

are also sensitive to physico-chemical

characteristics of the soil, the varieties

prevalent in central India cultivated on

vertisols do not yield optimally in north India

where the soils are entisols. Therefore, the

increase in temperature limits indicative of

environmental suitability of sowing of

cultivars in the northern plains of central India

will not be useful owing to the genetic

characteristics of the genotypes suitable for the

particular soils and uncertain water supply.

Adaptation assessments suggest that the

possible changes in sowing dates and hybrid

selection can reduce the negative impact of

projected potential warming in the current

century. It should be noted that shifting of

sowing dates is a no-cost decision that can be

taken at the farm level; a large shift in sowing

dates probably would interfere with the agro-

technological management of other crops,

grown during the remaining part of the year.


85

IJES 2014

Changes in the cropping mixtures, irrigation

and agriculture land use can be additional

alternative options for adaptation in

agriculture.

The major root cause of the climate change is

increase in GHS's leading to increase in

temperature. Therefore, to reduce the level of

GHS's in the environment following research

strategies are suggested:

PD e t a i l e d i n v e s t i g a t i o n s o n

phonological phases in different

climate region need to carry out for

regeneration and multiplication of

tree species.

PStudies on Pollen biology of flora

need to make to ensure the

production of seed. Pathological

survey need to done frequently to see

the appearance of diseases on crops

under agroforestry and selection of

tree species be made keeping in view

the pathogen surveillance in the area

and resistance in crop genotypes

need to be evaluated.

PCarbon sequestration potential of

various multipurpose trees and crops

n e e d s t o b e s t u d i e d a n d

quantification of area to bring under

agroforestry for lowering the level of

GHGs.

PValue addition of wood obtained from

agroforestry tree species for ensuring

the good return to farmers.

PSimplifying the procedure of carbon

credits purchase and selling.

REFERENCES1. Abrol, Y. P. and Ingram, K. T.: 1996 Effects

of higher day and night temperatures on

growth and yields of some crop plants. In:

Global Climate Change and Agricultural

Production. Direct and Indirect Effects of

Changing Hydrological, Pedological and

Plant Physiological Processes. Eds.

Bazzaz, F. and Sombroek, W. FAO, Rome

and John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

Pp. 123-140.

2. Abrol, Y. P., Bagga, A. K., Chakravorty, N.

V. K. and Wattal, P. N.: 1991. Impact of

rise in temperature on productivity of

wheat in India. In: Impact of global

climate change on photosynthesis and

plant productivity. Abrol, Y. P., Wattal, P.

N., Gnanam, A., and Teramura, A. H.

(eds) Oxford Publishers, New Delhi,

India. Pp. 787-798.

3. Aggarwal, P. K.: 2000. 'Application of

systems simulation for understanding

and increasing yield potential of wheat

and rice', Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen

University, Netherlands.

4. Aggarwal, P. K.: 2003. Impact of climate

change on Indian agriculture. Journal of

Plant Biology 30(2): 189-198.

5. Aggarwal, P. K. and Kalra, N.: 1994.

Simulating the effect of climatic factors,

g e n o t y p e a n d m a n a g e m e n t o n

productivity of wheat in India. Indian

Agr icul tura l Research Ins t i tute

Publication, New Delhi, India. Pp. 156.

6. Aggarwal, P. K. and Sinha, S. K.: 1993.

Effect of probable increase in carbon

dioxide and temperature on productivity

of wheat in India. Journal of Agricultural

Meteorology 48(5): 811-814.

7. Aggarwal, P. K., Talukdar, K. K. and

Mall, R. K.: 2000. Potential Yields of Rice-

Wheat System in the Indo-Gangetic

Plains of India', Rice-Wheat Consortium

Paper Series 10, RWCIGP, CIMMYT, New

Delhi. Pp. 16.

8. Ajayi, C. O., Akinnifesi, F. K., Sileshi, G.,

Chakeredza, S. and Matakala P.: 2007.

Economic framework for integrating

environment stewardship into food

security strategies in low-income

countries: Case of agroforestry in

Southern African region. Environmental

Science and Technology 1: 59-67.


86

IJES 2014

9. Kinnifesi, F. K., Kwesiga, F. R., Sileshi,

G., Ajayi, O. C., Chirwa, P. W. and

Harawa, R.: 2008. Contributions of agroforestry research and development to livelihood of smallholder farmers in Southern Africa: 2. fruit, medicinal, fuelwood and fodder tree systems.

Journal of Agricultural Science 3: 76-88.

10. Akinnifesi, F. K., Kwesiga, F., Mhango, J.,

Chilanga, T. and Mkonda, A.: 2006. Towards the development of miombo fruit trees as commercial tree crops in Southern Africa. Forest Trees Livelihoods

16: 103-121.

11. Albrecht, A., Kandji S. T.: 2003. Carbon sequestration in tropical agroforestry systems. Agricultural Ecosystem and

Environment 99: 15-27.

12. Anwar, M. R., O'Leary, G., McNeil, D., et al.: 2007. Climate change impact on rainfed wheat in south-eastern Australia.

Field Crops Research 104: 139-147.

13. Attri S. D. and Rathore, L. S.: 2003. 'Simulation of impact of projected climate change on wheat in India.

International Journal of Climatology 23: 693-705.

14. Aulakh, K. S.: 2005. Crop diversification is a necessity: paddy a drain on Punjab water resources. The Tribune Newspaper Chandigarh, Feb 25, 2005.

15. Barnabas, B., Jager, K. and Feher, A.: 2008. The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant

Cell Environment 31: 11-38.

16. Betts, R. A., Boucher, O., Collins, M.,

Cox, P. M., Falloon, P. D., Gedney, N., et al. : 2007. Projected increase in continental runoff due to plant responses

to increasing carbon dioxide. Nature 448: 1037-1041.

17. Bouman, A.: 2001. Global Estimates of

Gaseous Emissions from Agricultural

Land. Food and Agricultural Organization,

Rome, ISBN: 92-5-104698-1.

18. Cannell, M. G. R.: 2003. Carbon

sequestration and biomass energy offset:

Theoretical, potential and achievable

capacities globally, in Europe and the

UK. Biomass Energy 24: 97-116.

19. Challinor, A. J., Wheeler, T. R., Craufurd,

P. Q., Ferro, C. A. T. and Stephenson, D.

B.: 2007. Adaptation of crops to climate

change through genotypic responses to

mean and extreme temperatures

agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment

119: 190-204.

20. Chattopadhyay, N.: 2008. Climate

Change and Food Security in India.

International Symposium on Climate

Change and Food Security in South Asia,

25-30 August 2008, Dhaka, Bangladesh.

21. Chirwa, T. S., Mafongoya, P. L. and

Chintu, R.: 2003. Mixed planted-fallows

using coppicing and non-coppicing tree

species for degraded acrisols in eastern

Zambia. Agroforestry System 59: 243-251.

22. Christensen, J. H., Hewitson, B.,

Busuioc, A., Chen, A., Gao, X., Held, I., et

al.: 2007. Regional climate projections.

Climate Change 2007: The Physical

Science Basis. Contribution of Working

Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report

of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change, S. Solomon, D. Qin, M.

Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B.

Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller, Eds.,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

pp Pp. 847-940.

23. CIMMYT: 2005. CIMMYT Business Plan

2006–2010. Translating the Vision of

Seeds of Innovation into a Vibrant Work

P l a n . C e n t r o I n t e r n a c i o n a l d e

Mejoramiento de Mai´z y Trigo, El Batan,

Mexico. Pp. 31-37.

24. Cure, J. D. and Acock, B.: 1986. Crop

responses to carbon dioxide doubling - A

literature survey. Agricultural and Forest

Meteorology 38: 127-145.


87

IJES 2014

25. DES: 2004. Agricultural Statistics at a

glance', Directorate of Economics and

Statistics, Government of India, New

Delhi. Pp. 221.

26. Easterling, D. R., Diaz, H. F., Douglas, A.

V., Hogg,W. D., Kunkel, K. E., Rogers, J.

C., and Wilkinson, J. F.: 1999. Long term

observation for monitoring extremes in

the Americas. Climatic Change 42: 285-

308.

27. Easterling, W. E.: 2007. "5.6.5 Food

security and vulnerability". In ML Parry

et al, (eds.). Chapter 5: Food, Fibre, and

Forest Products. Climate change 2007:

impacts, adaptation and vulnerability:

contribution of Working Group II to the

fourth assessment report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. Cambridge University Press

(CUP): Cambridge, UK: Print version:

CUP. This version: IPCC - ISBN 0-521-

88010-6.

29. Ewert, F., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Reginster,

I., Metzger, M.G., Leemans, R.: 2005.

Fu t u r e s c e n a r i o s o f E u r o p e a n

agricultural land use. I. Estimating

c h a n g e s i n c r o p p r o d u c t i v i t y.

Agriculture, Ecosystem and Environment

107 : 101–116.

30. FAO: 2011. World Census of Agriculture:

analysis and international comparison of

the results (1996-2005). FAO Statistical

Development Series No. 13.

31. Fauchereau, N., Trzaska, M., Rouault,

M. and Richard, Y.: 2003. Rainfall

variability and changes in Southern

Africa during the 20th century in the

global warming context. Natural

Hazards 29: 139-154.

32. Gama, B. M., Otsyina, R., Nyadzi, G. I.,

Banzi, F., Shirima, D. S. and Mumba, M:.

2004. Improved fallows for soil fertility

improvement at Tabora in western

Tanzania: A synthesis. Proccedings of the

Regional Agroforestry Conference, May

20-24, World Agroforestry Centre,

Nairobi, Kenya. Pp. 131-140.

33. Gangadhar, R. D. and Sinha, S. K.: 1994.

Impact of climate change on simulated

wheat productionin India , In C.

Rosenzweig and I. Iglesias (ed.).

Implications of climate change for

internationalagriculture: Crop modeling

study. USEPA230-B-94-003. USEPA,

Washigton. Pp. 1-17.

34. Giorgi, F., Bi, X. and Pal, J.: 2004. Mean

interannual and trends in a regional

climate change experiment over Europe',

II: Climate Change scenarios. Climate

Dynamics 23: 839-858.

35. Godwin, D., Ritchie, J. T., Singh, U. and

Hunt, L. 1989. A User's Guide to CERES-

W h e a t - V 2 . 1 0 , M u s c l e S h o a l s :

International Fertilizer Development

Center.

36. Govere, I. 2002. Improved tree fallow

and natural miombo woodland use in

Eastern Zambia: The potential of

agroforestry in the conservation of

indigenous forests. M.Sc. Thesis,

University of Zimbabwe, Harare,

Zimbabwe.

37. Haule, C. A., Kanyanma-Phiri, G. Y.,

Nyirenda, N. M., Mafongoya, P. L. and

Kwapata, M. P. : 2003. Maize and

biomass production and soil fertility

improvement under Sesbania sesban

improved fallows in Kasungu district in

central Malawi. Malawi Journal of

Agricultural Science 2: 21-33.

38. Hundal, S. S. and Kaur, P. : 1996. Climate

change and its impact on crop

productivity in the Punjab,India', In

Climate Variability and Agriculture. In:

Abrol, Y. P., Gadgil, G. and Pant, G. B.

(eds.), New Delhi, India. Pp. 410.

39. ICTSD: 2009. Constructing a Composite

Index of Market. Pp. 34.

40. IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001 –The

Scientific Basis, Contribution of Working


88

IJES 2014

rdGroup I to the 3 Assessment Report of

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. In: Houghton, J. T., Ding, Y.,

Griggs, D. J., Noguer, M., Van-der Linden

P. J., Dai, X., Maskell K. and Johnson, C.

A. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, UK.

Pp. 881.

41. IPCC: 2007. Climate Change 2007-

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the

Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change. Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F.,

Palutikof, J.P., Van der Linden P.J. and

Hanson, C .E . (eds) , Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

43. Jamieson, P. D., Berntsen, J., Ewert, F.,

Kimball, B. A., Olesen, J. E., Pinter, P. J. J.,

Porter, J. R. and Semenov, M. A.: 2000.

Modelling CO effects on wheat with 2

varying nitrogen supplies. Agricultural

Ecosystem Environment 82: 27-37.

44. Jung, H. S., Choi, Y., Oh, J. H. and Lim, G.

H.: 2002. Recent trends in temperature

and precipitation over South Korea',

International Journal of Climatology 22:

1327-1337.

45. Kaur, N., Singh, B. and Gill, R. I. S.: 2010.

Agro - techniques for increas ing

productivity of wheat (Trit icum

aestivum) under poplar (Populus

deltoides) plantation. Indian Journal of

Agronomy 55(1): 68-74.

46. Kripalani R. H., Kulkarni, A., Sabade, S.

S. and Khandekar, M. L.: 2003. Indian

monsoon variability in a global warming

scenarios', Natural Hazards 29(2): 189-

206.

47. Kumar, K. K. S. and Parikh, J.: 2001.

Indian Agriculture and Climate

sensitivity. Global Environment Change

11: 147-154.

48. Kumar, K. K., Kumar, K. R., Ashrit, R. G.,

Deshpande, N. R. and Hansen, J. W. :

2004. Climate impacts on indian

agriculture. International Journal of

Climatology 24: 1375-1393.

49. Kwesiga, F. R., Franzel, S., Place, F.,

Phiri, D. and Simwanza, C. P.; 1999.

Sesbania sesban improved fallows in

eastern Zambia: Their inception,

development and farmer enthusiasm.

Agroforestry System 47: 49-66.

50. Lal, M., Singh, K. K., Rathore, L. S.,

Srinivasan, G. and Saseendran, S. A.:

1998. Vulnerability of rice and wheat

yields in NW India to future changes in

climate. Agricultural and Forest


51. Lal, M., Singh, K. K., Srinivasan, G.,

Rathore, L. S. and Saseendran, A. S.;

1998a. 'Vulnerability of rice and wheat

yields in NW-India to future change in

c l imate . Agricul ture and Fores t


52. Long, S. P., Ainsworth, E. A., Leakey, A.

D. B., Nosberger, J. and Ort, D. R.: 2006.

Food for thought: lower-than-expected

crop yield stimulation with rising CO2

concentrations. Science 312: 1918-1921.

53. Makumba, W., Akinnifesi, F. K., Janssen,

B. and Oenema, O. 2006. Long-term

i m p a c t o f a G l i r i c i d i a - m a i z e

intercropping system on carbon

sequestration in southern Malawi.

Agricultural Ecosystem and Environment

118: 237-243.

54. Mall, R. K. and Singh, K. K. 2000.

Climate variability and wheat yield

progress in Punjab using the CERES-

wheat and WTGROWS models. Yayu

Mandal 30(3-4): 35-41.

55. Mall, R. K. and Srivastava, A. K.: 2002.

Prediction of potential and attainable

yield of wheat: A case study on yield gap.

Mausam 53(1): 45-52.

56. Mitchell, R. A. C., Lawlor, D. W.,

Mitchell, V. J., Gibbard, C. L., White, E.


89

IJES 2014

M. and Porter, J. R.,: 1995. Effects of

elevated CO concentration and 2

increased temperature on winter wheat:

test of ARCWHEAT1 simulation model.

Plant Cell Environment 18: 736-748.

57. Montagnini, F. and Nair, P. K. R.: 2004.

Carbon sequestration: An unexploited

environmental benefit of agroforest

systems. Agroforestry System 61: 281-295.

58. Nair, P. K. R., Kumar, B. M. and Nair, V.

D.: 2009. Agroforestry as a strategy for

carbon sequestration. Journal of Plant

Nutrition and Soil Science 172: 10-23.

59. Nicholls, T., Norgrove, L. and Masters,

G. 2008. Innovative solutions to new

invaders: managing agricultural pests,

diseases and weeds under climate

change. In: Agriculture in a Changing th

Climate. Ed. Brown, A.G. 14 Annual

Development Conference, The ATSE

Crawford Fund. Pp. 9-13.

60. Ortiz, R., Sayre K. D. and Govaerts, B., et

al. : 2008. Climate change: can wheat

beat the heat? Agricultural Ecosystem

Environment 126: 46-58.

61. Pant, G. B., Kumar, R. and Borgaonkar,

K.: 1999. Climate and its long-term

variability over the western Himalaya

during the past two centuries. The

Himalayan Environment (Eds. S. K. Dash

and J. Bahadur), New Age International

Limited, Publishers, Delhi. Pp. 172-184.

62. Paroda, R. S. and Kumar, P. 2000. Food

production and demand in South Asia.

Agricultural Economics Research Review

13(1): 1-24.

63. Parry, M., Rosenzweig, C., Inglesias, A.,

Livermore, M. and Gischer, G.: 2004.

Effects of climate change on global food

production under SRES emissions and

socio-economic scenarios. Global

Environment Change 14: 53-67.

64. Parry, M., Rosenzweig, C., Inglesias, A.,

Livermore, M. and Gischer, G.: 2004.

Effects of climate change on global food

production under SRES emissions and

socio-economic scenarios. Global

Environment Change 14: 53–67.

65. Pathak, H., Ladha, Aggarwal, P. K., Peng,

S., Das, S., Singh, Y., Singh, B., Kamra, S.

K., Mishra, B., Sastri, A. S. R. A. S.,

Aggarwal, H. P., Das, D. K., Gupta, R. K.

2003) Trends of climatic potential and

on-farm yields of rice and wheat in the

Indo-Gangetic Plains. Field Crops

Research 80: 223-234.

66. Rosenzweig C., Curry, B., Ritchie, J. T.,

Jones, J. W., et al.: 1994. The effects of

potential climate change on simulated

grain crops in the United States. United

States Environmental Protection Agency.

Policy planning and evaluation. USA. Pp.

3-24.

67. Ruosteenoja, K., Carter, T. R., Jylha, K.

and Tuomenvirta, H.: 2003. 'Future

climate in world regions: an inter-

comparison of model-based projections

for the new IPCC emissions scenarios.

The Finnish Environment 644, Finnish

Environment Institute, Helsinki. Pp. 83.

68. Saini, A. D. and Nanda, R.: 1986.

Influence of temperature and light

intensity during early growth period on

grain number in wheat. Indian Journal of

Agricultural Sciences 56: 512-519.

69. Schlamadinger, B., Bird, N., Johns, T.,

Brown, S. and Canadell, J.: 2007. A

synopsis of land use, land-use change

and forestry (LULUCF) under the Kyoto

Protocol and Marrakech Accords.

Environmental Science and Policy 10:

271-282.

70. Selvaraju, R.: 2003: Impact of El Nino-

Southern Oscillation on Indian food

grain production. International Journal of

Climatology 23: 187-206.

71. Sharma, J. S. and Sharma, P. D.: 2002.

Safeguarding natural resources and

environment. Indian Farming 52: 34-41.


90

IJES 2014

72. Sileshi, G., Akinnifesi, F. K., Ajayi, O. C.,

Chakeredza, S., Kaonga, M. and

Matakala, P. W.: 2007. Contributions of

agroforestry to ecosystems services in the

miombo eco-region of eastern and

southern Africa. African Journal of

Environmental Science and Technology 1:

68-80.

73. Sileshi, G., Akinnifesi, F. K., Ajayi, O. C.,

Chakeredza, S., Mngomba, S. and

Nyoka, B. I. 2008. Towards sustainable

management of soil biodiversity in

agricultural landscapes in Africa.

Biodiversity 6: 45-48.

74. Singh, N. and Sontakke, N. A. : 2002. On

climatic fluctuations and environmental

changes of the Indo-Gangetic plains,

India. Climatic Change 52: 287-313.

75. Singh, R. S., Narain, P. and Sharma, K.

D.: 2001. Climate changes in Luni river

basin of arid western Rajasthan (India).

Vayu Mandal 31(1–4): 103-106.

76. Sinha, S. K. and Swaminathan, M. S.:

1991. Deforestation climate change and

sustainable nutrients security. Climate

Change 16: 33-45.

77. Sivakumar, M.V.K., Das, H.P. and

Brunini, O. : 2005. Impacts of present

and future climate variability and change

on agriculture and forestry in the arid

and semi-arid tropics. Climatic Change

70: 31–72.

78. Stephenson, B. Herve, D. D. and

Rupakumar, K. (2001) Searching for a

fingerprint of global warming in the

Asian summer monsoon. Mausam 52(1):

213-220.

79. Sud, S.: 2008. Agriculture may decline

due to climate change. Business

Standard. Pp. 10.

80. Tao, F., Yokozawa, M., Xu, Y., Hayashi, Y.

and Zhang, Z.: 2006. Climate changes

and trends in phenology and yields of

field crops in China, 1981–2000.

Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 138:

82-92.

81. Unruh, J. D., Houghton, R. A. and

Lefebvre, P. A.: 1993. Carbon storage in

agroforestry: An estimate for sub-Saharan

Africa. Climatic Research 3: 39-52.

82. Valizadeh, J., Ziaei, S. M. and

Mazloumzadeh, S. M. : 2013> Assessing

climate change impacts on wheat

production. Journal of the Saudi Society

of Agricultural Sciences (In press)

83. Verchot, L. V., Noordwijk, M. V., Kandji,

S., Tomich, T. and Ong, C. : 2007. Climate

change: l inking adaptation and

mitigation through agroforestry.

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for

Global Change 12: 901-918.

Annexure I: List of abbreviations

CIMMYT International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre

CV Coefficient of Variation

DES Department and Economics and Statistics

FAO Fo o d a n d A g r i c u l t u r e Organization

FYM Farm Yard Manure

GDP Gross Domestic Produce

GHGs Green House Gases

ICTSD International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

SMR Summer Monsoon Rainfall

SOM Soil Organic Matter


CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS IMPACT ON WHEAT PRODUCTION AND MITIGATION THROUGH AGROFORESTRY TECHNOLOGIES

Documents

Transcript of CLIMATE CHANGE AND ITS IMPACT ON WHEAT PRODUCTION AND MITIGATION THROUGH AGROFORESTRY TECHNOLOGIES