Tackling problems, harvesting benefits: A systematic review of the regulatory debate around AI

How to integrate an emerging and all-pervasive technology such as AI into the structures and operations of our society is a question of contemporary politics, science and public debate. It has produced a considerable amount of international academic literature from different disciplines. This article analyzes the academic debate around the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The systematic review comprises a sample of 73 peer-reviewed journal articles published between January 1st, 2016, and December 31st, 2020. The analysis concentrates on societal risks and harms, questions of regulatory responsibility, and possible adequate policy frameworks, including risk-based and principle- based approaches. The main interests are proposed regulatory approaches and instruments. Various forms of interventions such as bans, approvals, standard-setting, and disclosure are presented. The assessments of the included papers indicate the complexity of the field, which shows its prematurity and the remaining lack of clarity. By presenting a structured analysis of the academic debate, we contribute both empirically and conceptually to a better understanding of the nexus of AI and regulation and the underlying normative decisions. A comparison of the scientific proposals with the proposed European AI regulation illustrates the specific approach of the regulation, its strengths and weaknesses

Implications of climate mitigation for future agricultural production

Climate change is projected to negatively impact biophysical agricultural productivity in much of the world. Actions taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate future climate changes, are thus of central importance for agricultural production. Climate impacts are, however, not unidirectional; some crops in some regions (primarily higher latitudes) are projected to benefit, particularly if increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is assumed to strongly increase crop productivity at large spatial and temporal scales. Climate mitigation measures that are implemented by reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations lead to reductions both in the strength of climate change and in the benefits of carbon dioxide fertilization. Consequently, analysis of the effects of climate mitigation on agricultural productivity must address not only regions for which mitigation is likely to reduce or even reverse climate damages. There are also regions that are likely to see increased crop yields due to climate change, which may lose these added potentials under mitigation action. Comparing data from the most comprehensive archive of crop yield projections publicly available, we find that climate mitigation leads to overall benefits from avoided damages at the global scale and especially in many regions that are already at risk of food insecurity today. Ignoring controversial carbon dioxide fertilization effects on crop productivity, we find that for the median projection aggressive mitigation could eliminate ~81% of the negative impacts of climate change on biophysical agricultural productivity globally by the end of the century. In this case, the benefits of mitigation typically extend well into temperate regions, but vary by crop and underlying climate model projections. Should large benefits to crop yields from carbon dioxide fertilization be realized, the effects of mitigation become much more mixed, though still positive globally and beneficial in many food insecure countries

Potential yield simulated by global gridded crop models: using a process-based emulator to explain their differences

How global gridded crop models (GGCMs) differ in their simulation of potential yield and reasons for those differences have never been assessed. The GGCM Intercomparison (GGCMI) offers a good framework for this assessment. Here, we built an emulator (called SMM for simple mechanistic model) of GGCMs based on generic and simplified formalism. The SMM equations describe crop phenology by a sum of growing degree days, canopy radiation absorption by the Beer–Lambert law, and its conversion into aboveground biomass by a radiation use efficiency (RUE). We fitted the parameters of this emulator against gridded aboveground maize biomass at the end of the growing season simulated by eight different GGCMs in a given year (2000). Our assumption is that the simple set of equations of SMM, after calibration, could reproduce the response of most GGCMs so that differences between GGCMs can be attributed to the parameters related to processes captured by the emulator. Despite huge differences between GGCMs, we show that if we fit both a parameter describing the thermal requirement for leaf emergence by adjusting its value to each grid-point in space, as done by GGCM modellers following the GGCMI protocol, and a GGCM-dependent globally uniform RUE, then the simple set of equations of the SMM emulator is sufficient to reproduce the spatial distribution of the original aboveground biomass simulated by most GGCMs. The grain filling is simulated in SMM by considering a fixed-in-time fraction of net primary productivity allocated to the grains (frac) once a threshold in leaves number (nthresh) is reached. Once calibrated, these two parameters allow for the capture of the relationship between potential yield and final aboveground biomass of each GGCM. It is particularly important as the divergence among GGCMs is larger for yield than for aboveground biomass. Thus, we showed that the divergence between GGCMs can be summarized by the differences in a few parameters. Our simple but mechanistic model could also be an interesting tool to test new developments in order to improve the simulation of potential yield at the global scale

Exploring uncertainties in global crop yield projections in a large ensemble of crop models and CMIP5 and CMIP6 climate scenarios

Concerns over climate change are motivated in large part because of their impact on human society. Assessing the effect of that uncertainty on specific potential impacts is demanding, since it requires a systematic survey over both climate and impacts models. We provide a comprehensive evaluation of uncertainty in projected crop yields for maize, spring and winter wheat, rice, and soybean, using a suite of nine crop models and up to 45 CMIP5 and 34 CMIP6 climate projections for three different forcing scenarios. To make this task computationally tractable, we use a new set of statistical crop model emulators. We find that climate and crop models contribute about equally to overall uncertainty. While the ranges of yield uncertainties under CMIP5 and CMIP6 projections are similar, median impact in aggregate total caloric production is typically more negative for the CMIP6 projections (+1% to −19%) than for CMIP5 (+5% to −13%). In the first half of the 21st century and for individual crops is the spread across crop models typically wider than that across climate models, but we find distinct differences between crops: globally, wheat and maize uncertainties are dominated by the crop models, but soybean and rice are more sensitive to the climate projections. Climate models with very similar global mean warming can lead to very different aggregate impacts so that climate model uncertainties remain a significant contributor to agricultural impacts uncertainty. These results show the utility of large-ensemble methods that allow comprehensively evaluating factors affecting crop yields or other impacts under climate change. The crop model ensemble used here is unbalanced and pulls the assumption that all projections are equally plausible into question. Better methods for consistent model testing, also at the level of individual processes, will have to be developed and applied by the crop modeling community

Assessing Agricultural Risks of Climate Change in the 21st Century in a Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison

Here we present the results from an intercomparison of multiple global gridded crop models (GGCMs) within the framework of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project and the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project. Results indicate strong negative effects of climate change, especially at higher levels of warming and at low latitudes; models that include explicit nitrogen stress project more severe impacts. Across seven GGCMs, five global climate models, and four representative concentration pathways, model agreement on direction of yield changes is found in many major agricultural regions at both low and high latitudes; however, reducing uncertainty in sign of response in mid-latitude regions remains a challenge. Uncertainties related to the representation of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and high temperature effects demonstrated here show that further research is urgently needed to better understand effects of climate change on agricultural production and to devise targeted adaptation strategies

Global Response Patterns of Major Rainfed Crops to Adaptation by Maintaining Current Growing Periods and Irrigation

Increasing temperature trends are expected to impact yields of major field crops by affecting various plant processes, such as phenology, growth, and evapotranspiration. However, future projections typically do not consider the effects of agronomic adaptation in farming practices. We use an ensemble of seven Global Gridded Crop Models to quantify the impacts and adaptation potential of field crops under increasing temperature up to 6 K, accounting for model uncertainty. We find that without adaptation, the dominant effect of temperature increase is to shorten the growing period and to reduce grain yields and production. We then test the potential of two agronomic measures to combat warming-induced yield reduction: (i) use of cultivars with adjusted phenology to regain the reference growing period duration and (ii) conversion of rainfed systems to irrigated ones in order to alleviate the negative temperature effects that are mediated by crop evapotranspiration. We find that cultivar adaptation can fully compensate global production losses up to 2 K of temperature increase, with larger potentials in continental and temperate regions. Irrigation could also compensate production losses, but its potential is highest in arid regions, where irrigation expansion would be constrained by water scarcity. Moreover, we discuss that irrigation is not a true adaptation measure but rather an intensification strategy, as it equally increases production under any temperature level. In the tropics, even when introducing both adapted cultivars and irrigation, crop production declines already at moderate warming, making adaptation particularly challenging in these areas. ©2019. The Authors

Promoting sustainable agricultural intensification and crowdsourcing plot information

Provision of adequate and timely information to farmers on the ground means optimizing crop production decisions, reducing costs and eliminating adverse effects of overuse of agricultural inputs, e.g. fertilizer. AgroTutor aims to support farmers across Mexico with benchmarking information, including historical and potential yield on the area where the plot is located, historical costs, income and profit as well as agronomical recommendations. Location and limits of parcels can be saved, and agronomical activities including costs, pictures and videos can be then added to document the cropping system

Understanding the weather signal in national crop‐yield variability

Year‐to‐year variations in crop yields can have major impacts on the livelihoods of subsistence farmers and may trigger significant global price fluctuations, with severe consequences for people in developing countries. Fluctuations can be induced by weather conditions, management decisions, weeds, diseases, and pests. Although an explicit quantification and deeper understanding of weather‐induced crop‐yield variability is essential for adaptation strategies, so far it has only been addressed by empirical models. Here, we provide conservative estimates of the fraction of reported national yield variabilities that can be attributed to weather by state‐of‐the‐art, process‐based crop model simulations. We find that observed weather variations can explain more than 50% of the variability in wheat yields in Australia, Canada, Spain, Hungary, and Romania. For maize, weather sensitivities exceed 50% in seven countries, including the United States. The explained variance exceeds 50% for rice in Japan and South Korea and for soy in Argentina. Avoiding water stress by simulating yields assuming full irrigation shows that water limitation is a major driver of the observed variations in most of these countries. Identifying the mechanisms leading to crop‐yield fluctuations is not only fundamental for dampening fluctuations, but is also important in the context of the debate on the attribution of loss and damage to climate change. Since process‐based crop models not only account for weather influences on crop yields, but also provide options to represent human‐management measures, they could become essential tools for differentiating these drivers, and for exploring options to reduce future yield fluctuations

Biophysical and Economic Implications for Agriculture of +1.5 and +2.0C Global Warming Using AgMIP Coordinated Global and Regional Assessments

This study presents results of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Coordinated Global and Regional Assessments (CGRA) of +1.5 and +2.0 C global warming above pre-industrial conditions. This first CGRA application provides multi-discipline, multi-scale, and multi-model perspectives to elucidate major challenges for the agricultural sector caused by direct biophysical impacts of climate changes as well as ramifications of associated mitigation strategies. Agriculture in both target climate stabilizations is characterized by differential impacts across regions and farming systems, with tropical maize (Zea mays) experiencing the largest losses while soy (Glycine max) mostly benefits. The result is upward pressure on prices and area expansion for maize and wheat (Triticum), while soy prices and area decline (results for rice, Oryza sativa, are mixed). An example global mitigation strategy encouraging bioenergy expansion is more disruptive to land use and crop prices than the climate change impacts alone, even in the +2.0 C World which has a larger climate signal and lower mitigation requirement than the +1.5 C World. Coordinated assessments reveal that direct biophysical and economic impacts can be substantially larger for regional farming systems than global production changes. Regional farmers can buffer negative effects or take advantage of new opportunities via mitigation incentives and farm management technologies. Primary uncertainties in the CGRA framework include the extent of CO2 benefits for diverse agricultural systems in crop models, as simulations without CO2 benefits show widespread production losses that raise prices and expand agricultural are