* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Factores de emprendimiento: Análisis de empresarios exitosos en
Climate sensitivity wikipedia , lookup
Surveys of scientists' views on climate change wikipedia , lookup
Attribution of recent climate change wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and poverty wikipedia , lookup
Solar radiation management wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on human health wikipedia , lookup
Atmospheric model wikipedia , lookup
Effects of global warming on humans wikipedia , lookup
Climate change in Saskatchewan wikipedia , lookup
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report wikipedia , lookup
Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment wikipedia , lookup
Climate change, industry and society wikipedia , lookup
Instrumental temperature record wikipedia , lookup
Climate change and agriculture wikipedia , lookup
Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE PAPER Nº4 IV. Impacts of weather events on Ontario crop yields Juan Cabas Universidad del Bio-Bio Alfons Weersink University of Guelph 1. Introduction In order to determine how Ontario farmers can best adapt to any changes in climate, the first stage is to estimate the impacts of climate variability on crop yields. Such predictions can be based on crop biophysical simulation models, such as CERES or EPIC (see Rosenzweig et al.). An alternative is to use regression models with actual crop yield or profit as the dependent variable and climatic measures as explanatory variables (Newman 1978; Waggoner 1979; Granger 1980; Dixon et al. 1994; Segerson and Dixon 1999). Regression models have the potential flexibility to integrate both physiological determinants of yield, such as climate, but also socio-economic factors. For example, Kaufmann and Snell (1997) estimated a hybrid regression model integrating physical and social determinants of corn yield in a way that is consistent with crop physiology and economic behaviour. They found that climatic variables account for 19% of the variation in corn yield for counties in the US Midwest while social variables accounted for 74% of the variation. The discussion and analysis on climate change effects on crop yield has tended to focus on the effects of predicted increases in average values of climate variables on average crop yields (Adams et al. 1999). Rather than focus on the mean, others have suggested that the greatest challenge facing the agricultural industry will arise from an increase in the frequency and intensity of extreme 100 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE events resulting from climate change (CCAF 2002). There are several important questions that the agricultural industry will therefore have to answer: What is the relative influence of climatic and non-climatic factors on crop yield? How sensitive is the inter-annual average crop yield to climate variability? How sensitive is inter-annual crop yield variability to climate variability? The purpose of this study is to estimate the effects of weather on average yield and the variance of yield for corn, soybeans and winter wheat in Ontario. The first section of this study reviews the applications of regression models to estimate the impact of climate variability on crop yields in order to develop an appropriate model for Ontario. The empirical model is then presented along with a description of the necessary data. The fourth section presents the regression results. 2. Regression Model of Mean and Variance of Yield 2.1. Stochastic Production Function In order to determine the effects of weather and socio-economic variables on both the average and variability of crop yield, a stochastic production function approach of the type suggested by Just and Pope (1978, 1979) is developed. This method isolates the impacts of changes in a climate variable on expected yield and yield variance. The general form of the Just and Pope production function is: = Yt f ( X t , β ) + h1/ 2 ( X t , α )ε t (1) where Yt is the crop yield in period t, Xt is a vector of explanatory variables, f(.) is a production function relating X to average yield with β as the associated vector of estimated parameters, h1/ 2 (.) is the yield standard deviation function that relates X to the standard deviation of yield with α as the corresponding vector of estimated parameters, and ε is a random error with zero mean and variance σ 2 , The yield function is expressed in an explicit form for heteroskedastic errors, that allows for 101 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE the estimation of variance effects. A positive sign on the partial derivative of output variance with respect to an explanatory variable (α >0) implies that the marginal risk increases with input use (Just & Pope 1978,1979. The stochastic production function given by equation (1) can be estimated using maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) or a three-step estimation procedure involving feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) under heterosckedastic disturbances. Most empirical studies have used the FGLS approach but MLE is more efficient and unbiased than FLGS estimation in the case of small samples (Saha et al. 1997). Given the large sample in this study, the three stage estimation procedure as described in Judge et al. (1985) is used. The stochastic production function with heteroskedastic errors can be expressed as Yi =X i' β + ei i =1, 2,..., N 2 2 E (ei= ) σ= exp[ Z i'α ] i (2) (3) where Z i' = ( z1i , z2i ,..., zki ) is a vector of N observations on k independent variables, α = (α1 , α 2 ,....α k )' is a (Kx1) vector of unknown coefficients, and e is the random error term with = E (ei ) 0, E= (ei es ) 0 fo ri ≠ s . The same independent variables (X and Z) can be used for both the mean and variance of yield. The first stage of the estimation procedure is to estimate equation (2) by least squares. Equation (3) can be rewritten as ln σ i2 = Z i'α . The σ i2 are not known, but the second stage uses the least square residuals from (2) to estimate the marginal effects of explanatory variables on the variance of production. Therefore ln= ei*2 Z i'α * + ui (4) where ui = ln(ei*2 / σ i2 ) . Although ui has a non-zero mean, the mean and the variance of the limiting distribution of α * is known. Finally, the third stage uses the predicted values from 102 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE equation (4.4) are as weights for generating GLS estimators for the equation (4.2) or the mean output equation. 2.2. Estimation Procedure The first step in estimating the equations 2 and 3 for each crop is to ensure the times series data is stationary. Stationarity is tested using Dickey-Fuller panel unit root tests. Non-stationary variables are differenced once and retested with the process repeated until the stationarity condition is satisfied. In addition to repeated observations over time for each variable, there are also observations for each unit or county. The panel nature of the data can be estimated using either a fixed effects model, which controls for omitted variables that differ between counties but are constant over time, or a random effects model, which considers that some omitted variables may be constant over time but vary between cases. Determination of the appropriate model involves the inclusion of two additional variables to equations 5 and 6: 1) V which is a time-invariant, unobserved county specific effect, and 2) U which is a county-invariant, unobserved time specific effect. The independent variables included in the analysis do vary across states and time. However, there may be other unobservable, therefore omitted, variables that may be county specific (V) or time specific (U), which affect changes in crop yield and mask the true relationship between the dependent variable and independent variables in the model. The fixed effects model, assumes that V and U are constants and conditional on the sample not randomly distributed, while the random effects model assumes that V and U are randomly distributed and not conditional on the sample. A Breusch and Pagan test and a Hausman specification test is used to determine if the covariance between V and X is zero as required producing consistent estimates with a random effects model. If the null hypothesis of no correlation between county specific effects (V) and independent variables is rejected, then a fixed effects model will be used in the regression of the three crop yield equations. 103 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE 3. Data 3.1. Dependent Variable The base dependent variable for the analysis is yield in bushels per acre for corn, soybeans and winter wheat. Yield data were collected from 1960 to 2004 for the Ontario counties of Essex, Kent, Elgin, Huron, Perth, Haldimand-Norfolk, Middlesex and Lambton. The basis for the selection of these counties is data availability and the importance of the field crops in Ontario over the period of study. While there are regional differences in yield for the three crops, county crop yield averages tend to follow provincial trends, which are illustrated in Figure 4.1. Provincial average corn yield has increased dramatically from less than 80 bushels per acre in 1960 to more than 125 bushels per acre in 2004. Winter wheat yield also increased and doubled from less than 40 bushels per acre in 1960 to approximately 80 bushels per acre in 2004. Although there is a strong upward trend in both corn and wheat yield, there are still significant year-to-year variations, especially in the latter half of the study period. In contrast, average soybean yield in the province has remained relatively flat with some significant decreases in the last few years. 20 40 Yield (bu/acres) 60 80 100 120 Figure 1: Yield of corn, soybean and winter wheat in Ontario (1960-2004) 1960 1970 1980 year corn wheat 1990 2000 soy 104 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE 3.2. Explanatory Variables The yield response models generally have three major categories of explanatory variables: 1) economic variables, 2) site characteristics, and 3) climatic measures. Output to input price ratios have been included in several studies as an economic variable to explain yield including Fox and Rickard (1999), Segerson and Dixon (1999), and Dixon et al. (1994). The inclusion of such a variable suggests a supply function is estimated rather than a production function in which input levels would be included as explanatory variables. Actual input levels by crop are difficult to determine so input use is measured here using the approach of Kauffmann and Snell (1997). The change in input use can be determined by re-arranging the profit maximizing input level condition which is where marginal value product is equal to the input price; Pcrop ∆Qcrop ∆Qinput = Pinput (5) where Qinput is the quantity of purchased inputs per acre, Pcrop is the price per bushel of crop lagged one year, Pinput is the price index for inputs purchased in the current period, and Qcrop is crop yield in the current period (bushel/acre). Crop price is proxied by actual prices in the previous year at the provincial level and input prices are measured by the index of prices paid by Eastern Canadian farmers (OMAFRA 2005). The change in the use of inputs is expected to have a positive effect on average crop yield. Site characteristics are captured by soil quality as measured by the weighted average of the soil capability classes for agriculture in the region with the weights equal to the share of total acreage. Farmland area by soil class within each county is reported for Ontario in Hoffman and Noble (1975). Increases in soil quality are assumed to increase average crop yield and decrease its variance, ceteris paribus. An additional site variable used is the percentage change in acres planted from one period to the next. It is assumed that an increase in area will result a decrease in average 105 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE yield and an increase in its variance since as more land is brought into production of a given crop, the comparative advantages of that incremental land will decline and so will yield of the crop. The lower-quality land will also be subject to greater yield variation. A final site variable included is location as proxied by latitude and longitude. It is assumed that sites further south and west will have higher yields than other locations if all else is held constant. A time-trend variable is also added to represent the effect of technological progress, such as new crop varieties and improved cropping practices, during the sample period. The major climatic variables include in previous studies are average temperature and precipitation for alternative periods of time ranging from a month to a year. For example, Granger (1980) used total seasonal precipitation (April to November), total precipitation in four months (May, June, July and August) and monthly mean daily maximum and minimum temperatures to explain yield of several California crops. Adams et al. (2002) also used monthly average maximum daily temperatures and monthly precipitation but in a quadratic functional form hereby permitting climate changes to have a non-monotonic effect on crop yield (i.e., a potential increase in yields under warming in cooler locations and a decrease in yields under warming in warmer locations as temperatures increases). Hansen (1991) estimated a corn yield function by considering climate and weather variables for July because growing conditions in this month are strategic due to corn pollinization occurring during that month. Interactions between variables were included to account for changes in the marginal impacts of weather with respect to climate. Rickard and Fox (1999) found mean monthly precipitation from April to September was positively related to yields of corn, barley, and winter wheat. Chen et al. (2004) also included monthly average temperature but annual rainfall and found crop specific differences in the climatic impacts on yield level and variability. For example, in the case of corn and sorghum, precipitation and temperature were found to have opposite effects on yield levels and variability. Chang (2002) also included seasonal average monthly temperature and the seasonal mean of monthly average precipitation but also added the 106 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE variation of these measures from their 20-year seasonal average to capture the effect of an extreme event on yield. Dixon et al. (1994) and Kaufmann and Snell (1997) modified the traditional inclusion of temperature and precipitation in the crop yield response functions and developed corn yield models that included weather related factors by phenological stages of crop development instead of monthly values 37. Dixon et al. explain that “because of the year-to-year variability of weather events and planting dates, the development stage of a crop during a particular month varies by location and year. As a result, the use of monthly data provides only a rough approximation of the weather effects on yields, and suggests that weather related factors should be measured by growth stage of the crop.” The weather variables used for each of the fourth growth stages considered were the mean of daily high and daily low temperatures, accumulated solar radiation available for interception, mean daily soil moisture measured as percentage of available water, and accumulated precipitation. Several studies using cross-sectional data to explain crop yield or land value have also used climatic variables. Sergerson and Dixon (1999) included 30-year average monthly temperatures and precipitation levels (January, April, July, and October) and not the levels of these variables that are observed for the actual crop season as would be done with most conventional yield response studies. Squared terms were included for the climatic variables. The precipitation variables were, in general, significant with January and April precipitation having a negative effect on corn and soybean yield and a positive effect on wheat yield. July precipitation was positively related to the yield of corn and winter wheat. Reinsborough (2003) and Weber and Hauser (2003) examined the relationship between climate and agricultural land value in Canada using data from the 1996 Census of Canada. Their empirical cross-sectional Ricardian models included monthly temperature and 37 The phenological stages of development considered were sowing to germination, germination to seedling emergence, seedling emergence to the end of the juvenile stage, end of the juvenile stage to tassel initiation, tassel initiation to silking, silking to the beginning of the grain filling period, and effective grain filling period to physiological maturity. 107 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE precipitation for January, April, July and October, squared values for those climatic variables in the case of Reinsborough’s research and interactions in the Weber and Hauser study. All models explaining yield include the above site and economic variables, but two specifications of climatic variables will be used. The first variation includes summary measures of climate over the whole season. One is the length of the growing season (DGS) measured in days, starting when the mean daily temperature is greater than or equal to 5oC for 5 consecutives days beginning March 1. Mean temperature for the growing season (TGS) in Celsius degrees is expected to have a positive effect on yields, as is precipitation for the growing season (PGS) measured in mm. The variation in seasonal temperature is captured by the coefficient of variation (CV) for temperature measured as is the standard deviation of the weekly mean temperatures expressed as a percentage of the annual mean of those temperatures. Similarly, the CV for precipitation is measured as the standard deviation of the weekly precipitation estimates expressed as a percentage of the annual mean of those estimates. These two variables have been included to capture the effects of extreme events on average crop yield. An increase in the CV represents an increase in the proportionate variability of these two weather variables and it is assumed to decrease the level of crop yields and increase their variance. An interaction variable between precipitation in the growing season and mean temperature of the growing season is also included for all crops plus one in the coldest quarter for winter wheat. The second yield model uses monthly weather variables for the growing season (April to October) instead of seasonal summary measures. The climatic variables for these months include mean monthly minimum temperatures and total precipitation levels within the month. Squared values for temperature and precipitation variables are included to allow for non-monotonicity. A positive coefficient for the linear term and a negative coefficient for the quadratic term would suggest that an intermediate value has the greatest positive effect on yield. 108 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE Weather variables were obtained from Dr Dan McKenney of the Canadian Forest Service, Great Lakes Forestry Centre. Base climatic data is obtained for meteorological stations from the Canadian Atmospheric Environment Service in Downsview Ontario. (Mackey et al. 1995). Since the weather stations are not located in each county or there may be several within a county, weather variables for each county were estimated using a climate interpolation method named ANUSPLIN (McKenney et al. 2001). McKenney et al. (2001) couple the climate surfaces determined by ANUSPLIN with the longitude, latitude and altitude values from a digital elevation model (DEM) to produce grids (maps) of the required climate variables for each period of time. Summary statistics for all of the variables used in the function regressions are given in Table 1. The behavior of major weather variables over time is illustrated for Perth county in Figures 3 and 4. Mean temperatures for April fluctuate significantly between periods with a slight increase in the average over time (see Figure 3). Similarly, monthly precipitation levels vary widely between years (see Figure 4) with an apparent increase in spring rainfall over time. The growing season also fluctuates significantly over the period of study (see Figure 4). Finally, variability of April temperature and precipitation measured by the standard deviation of weather variables (see figures 5 and 6) appears to be fluctuating significantly over the period of study with a decreasing trend until 1990 for April temperature but not for April precipitation. The variability of these two variables clearly present the arguments for the study of the effects of extreme events in agricultural production as a result of climate change. 109 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE -4 -2 Temperature (Celsius) 0 2 4 Figure 2: April mean minimum temperatures in Perth county 1960 1970 1980 Year 1990 2000 0 5000 Precipitation (mm) 10000 15000 20000 Figure 3: April precipitation in Perth county 1960 1970 1980 Year 1990 2000 110 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE 190 200 Days of Growing Season 210 220 230 240 Figure 4: Length of the Growing Season in Perth county 1960 1970 1980 year 2000 1990 .4 Standard Deviation April Temperature .6 .8 1 1.2 1.4 Figure 5: April mean minimum temperature variability by year in Perth county 1960 1970 1980 Year 1990 2000 111 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE 0 Standard Deviation April Precipitation 10 20 30 Figure 6: April mean precipitation variability by year in Perth county 1960 1970 1980 Year 1990 2000 4. Results On the basis of the multivariate augmented Dickey-Fuller panel unit root-test (Sarno and Taylor 1998), the null hypothesis that all variables are I(1) processes was rejected. Therefore, the data series are stationary. A random effects model was rejected as the appropriate means of estimating the panel data on the basis of the Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test (see Appendix for the output of this and other tests). The Hausman test results indicated that a fixed effects specification could not be rejected for the three crops so the crop yield functions were estimated using a fixed panel model with dummy variables for the counties. This model assumes that each unit or county has a unique but constant source of variation. The soil quality and location variables were dropped because these variables were found to be perfectly collinear with the dummy variables for the individual counties. 112 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE The Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test rejected the hypothesis that there are homoskedastic errors for corn and winter wheat. The Wooldridge test for autocorrelation in panel data indicated that the null hypothesis of no first-order autocorrelation could be rejected. On the basis of this test result, I estimated the fixed effects models with a robust Cochrane-Orcutt AR(1) regression. The models were estimated using STATA software. 4.1. Average Yield The regression coefficients for average yield are listed in Table 2 for corn, Table 3 for soybean, and Table 4 for winter wheat. Regressions were estimated for each of the three crops without any climatic variables, with seasonal climatic variables, and with monthly climatic variables. The regressions fit the data well as indicated by the high adjusted R-squared values across all models for all three crops. The lowest adjusted R-squared value is 0.77 for soybeans. The non-climatic factors are all important in explaining average crop yield and have consistent signs across the three crops. The change in input use determined from the profit-maximizing input level condition (equation 5) had a statistically significant positive effect on average yield. The impact is particularly evident for corn, which uses more inputs than the other two crops. The positive correlation with input use and corn yield was also found by Kauffman and Snell (1977) who suggested the proxy measure for input use. Soil quality also had a statistically significant positive effect on average yield as expected with the largest effect noted for wheat. Mean corn and soybean yield appear to respond to better quality land when climatic variables are included in the regression, which is consistent with the impacts of individual climatic variables noted below. Although soil quality had an important effect on mean yield, location dummies were generally statistically insignificant for corn and soybeans. Differences were noted for wheat with lower yields tending to occur in the counties in the southwestern portion of the region. 113 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE Technological advances as captured by a time trend variable also increased average yield as expected. The productivity increases have been largest for corn, followed by wheat and lowest for soybeans, which is consistent with the trend in yields illustrated in Figure 1. Increases in area significantly increase soybean and winter wheat yield. The effect was not significant for corn, which may be due to the large base area of corn at the beginning of the estimation period in contrast to the increasing area planted to soybean and wheat over time. It was hypothesized that increasing crop area may mean bringing in more marginal land into production and thereby decreasing average yield. However, the area considered is a relatively small region and most of the land well-suited to producing all three crops so marginal productivity of the new land is unlikely to drop. Given the high adjusted R-squared values in the mean crop yield models without climatic variables, average yield in southern Ontario appears to be determined largely by input use, soil quality and technological advances. However, weather variables do enhance the explanatory power of the regression models of mean crop yield. Length of the growing season has a statistically significant positive effect on average yield for corn and soybeans as expected. It not significant for winter wheat, which is harvested much earlier in the year than the other two crops so total growing season length is not as relevant. A related variable is average temperature of the growing season and it has the expected positive effect on mean yield across all three crops. The monthly climatic model indicates that the temperature effects are important early in the growing season as average temperatures in the latter months are generally statistically insignificant. In addition, there is no quadratic effect noted for the monthly temperature variables suggesting that it cannot become too warm for crops at least within the observed temperature range within the data set. Increasing the variability in temperature over the growing season decreases average yield of corn and soybeans as expected but has no statistically significant effect on mean winter wheat yield. The latter is not as dependent on warm temperatures as the other two crops. 114 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE Total precipitation in the growing season is positive and statistically significant for soybean and winter wheat. Although total precipitation is not important in explaining average corn yield, the levels of rainfall before planting begins in April and during the pollination period of June are statistically significant as expected. Similarly, the influence of rain within the year is only statistically significant in July for soybeans. The majority of the coefficients on squared precipitation are negative and significant for corn and soybeans which implies that too much precipitation in these months will decrease yields. Segerson and Dixon found similar results. As with temperature, increases in the variance of precipitation were found to decrease average yields of corn and soybeans. The coefficient of variation in rainfall had no effect on winter wheat yield. The interaction variable between average temperature and precipitation of growing season had no significant effect on mean yield of corn and soybeans but was found to positively affect winter wheat yield. The monthly weather variables models present problems of multicollinearity as measured by VIF test. VIF calculates the variance inflation factors (VIFs) for the independent variables specified in the fitted model. The highest levels of collinearity arise from the weather variables. The implications of collinearity are that the estimated coefficients should be interpreted carefully. For example, some results of insignificant coefficients should be not evidence of an irrelevant variable. Considering that these models present good overall fit, they can be used to forecast the impact of climate change where a similar proportion changes the temperature variables or the precipitation variables. 4.2. Variance of Yield The resultant estimated impacts of weather variables on variance of yield models determined with a Just and Pope-production function approach are displayed in Table 5 for corn, Table 6 for soybean and Table 7 for wheat. Since the Breusch-Pagan and Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg tests 115 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE rejected the hypothesis of homoskedastic errors for corn and winter wheat but failed to do so for soybeans. The variance models have low values for the adjusted-R2 with only a few of the explanatory variables statistically significant. An increase in the seasonal variability of precipitation significantly increases the variability of winter wheat yield. More variability in seasonal temperature will decrease the variability of corn yield. Length of growing season has a positive and significant effect on the variance of corn yield but the opposite for winter wheat. An increase on mean temperature significantly increases the variance of corn yield and decrease the variance of winter wheat. The interaction variable increases the variance of winter wheat yield. 5. Summary This study examined the effects of climatic and non-climatic factors on the mean and variance of corn, soybean and winter wheat yield. The models were estimated with a panel data of 8 counties in southwestern Ontario over a period of 40 years. Average crop yields were determined largely by input use, soil quality and technological advances. Weather variables do enhance the explanatory power of the regression models of mean crop yield but productivity enhancements over time appear to offset annual fluctuations in weather. The major weather variables influencing average crop yield is length of the growing season with monthly temperature particularly important early in the growing season across all three crops. Total precipitation over the growing season is especially important for wheat but precipitation in certain periods, such as during pollination for corn, does have an impact on individual crop yield. Increases in the coefficient of variation in seasonal temperature and precipitation do decrease yield. The estimated results suggest climate change may have an ambiguous effect on average crop yield. The predicted increase in temperature would act to enhance yield while the projected 116 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE increases in the variability of temperature and rainfall would offset the increase to some extent. The projections would also depend on future technological developments, which have generated significant increases in yield over time despite changing annual weather conditions. While improving the tolerance and yield capability of crops through genetics and other technologies may be a public adaptation response to climate change, individual producers can also respond by re-allocating cropping area or by insuring their crops against yield loss. Table 1: Mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation of dependent and explanatory variables Variable Crop Yield (bu/acre) Corn Soybeans Winter Wheat Explanatory Variables Input change Corn Soybean Winter wheat Crop Area Corn Soybeans Winter Wheat Temperature seasonality (CV) Precipitation Seasonality (CV) Total precipitation growing season (mm) Growing Degree Days Mean temperature growing season (Co) Mean Monthly Minimum Temp (Co) April June August Mean Monthly Precipitation (mm) April June August Mean Standard Deviation Coefficient of Variation (CV) 97.90 32.20 52.60 20.90 6.90 13.01 0.21 0.22 0.25 3.606 8.389 4.859 1.067 2.087 1.765 106,714 93,067 40,702 3.538 41.831 193.40 327.80 12.70 53,224 80,781 20,920 0.224 8.799 48.60 9.60 1.13 0.49 0.86 0.51 1.73 12.82 14.61 1.57 1.70 1.63 0.90 0.13 0.11 79.61 83.62 85.20 25.99 32.79 39.31 0.32 0.39 0.46 0.25 0.03 0.09 117 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE Table 2: Mean corn yield models Explanatory Variable Intercept No WEATHER Variable Model Coefficient 34.78 (5.27)*** Input use change 0.15 (13.59)*** 0.01 Soil quality 0.33 (4.30)*** 0.28 Crop area -3.78 (0.28) -.004 Time trend 1.47 (27.59)*** 0.33 County Dummies Perth Elast Seasonal WEATHER Model Coefficient Elast. -37.01 (-1.93)* 0.14 0.01 (13.86)*** 0.50 (5.70) 0.43 -4.29 (0.32) 1.33 (23.35)*** -0.004 0.29 Monthly WEATHER Model Coefficient Elast. 48.66 (0.96) 0.10 0.007 (12.76)*** 0.48 0.41 (4.60)*** -7.24 (-0.008 0.40) 1.52 0.34 (24.69)*** 0.94 (0.37) 1.03 (0.38) 0.19 (2.54)** Haldimand Middlesex 4.13 (1.98) Lambton 0.88 (0.41) Elgin 3.63 (2.09)** Kent 11.35 (4.13)*** 0.85 (0.40) -3.78 (1.60) -0.76 (0.40) 2.98 (0.92) Essex 1.19 (0.46) 0.82 (0.36) -4.16 (1.57) -0.52 (0.22) 3.04 (0.89) -7.67 (-2.09)** Growing season Mean temperature Total precipitation Temperature CV 0.81 -5.69 (-2.84)*** -0.24 (-5.99)*** 0.0008 (0.92) 0.82 1.83 1.87 Precipitation CV( Temp*Precipitati on Adjusted Rsquared Durbin Watson -6.95 (2.38) 0.19 (5.63)*** 3.13 (4.00)*** 0.00 (1.08) 0.44 0.46 0.02 -0.20 -0.11 0.02 0.85 1.50 t- statistics in parenthesis; Elast.= elasticity ***indicates coefficient significant at the 1% significant level ** indicates coefficient significant at the 5% significant level * indicates coefficient significant at the 10% significant level 118 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE Table 3: Mean soybean yield models Explanatory Variable Intercept Input use change Soil quality Crop area Time trend County Dummies Perth Haldimand Middlesex Lambton Elgin Kent Essex Growing season (days)v Mean temperature Total precipitation Temperature CV No Climate Variable Model Coefficient Elast. 15.29 (4.21)*** 0.05(25.09) 0.005 ** 0.072(1.61) 0.19 * 0.00 (1.48) 0.04 Seasonal Climatic Model Coefficient Elast. -24.05 (3.37)*** 0.05 0.005 (25.06)*** 0.15(3.20)* 0.40 * 0.00 0.07 (2.77)** 0.27 0.19 (5.76)* ** Monthly Climatic Model Coefficient Elast. -29.9(1.83)* 0.04 0.004 (16.73)** * 0.15 0.40 (3.31)** 0.00 (2.59)* 0.06 0.10(0.09) 0.42 (0.32) 0.30 (0.25) 1.25(1.19) 0.92(0.65) 1.55(1.50) -0.52(-0.49) -2.71(-1.76) -0.65 (0.58) -1.43(-0.78) -3.89 (-2.10 0.69 (5.91) -0.44 (-0.37) -2.83 (-1.76) -0.43 (-0.37) 0.38 (7.84)*** 0.25 4.01(2.45)* 1.50(0.93) 1.98 (7.60) 0.00 (2.00) -1.88 (2.98) -0.08 (6.10) -0.00 (0.61) Precipitation CV Temp*Precipitation Adjusted R-squared Durbin Watson 0.77 1.76 0.31 (6.59)*** 0.21 -1.37 (-0.71) -3.73 (-2.15) 0.48 0.89 0.05 -0.20 -0.10 -0.01 0.82 1.71 0.84 1.72 t- statistics in parenthesis; Elast.=elasticity ***indicates coefficient significant at the 1% significant level * *indicates coefficient significant at the 5% significant level * indicates coefficient significant at the 10% significant level Table 4: Mean wheat yield models Explanatory Variable No Climate Variable Model Coefficients Elast. Seasonal Climatic Model Coefficients Elast. Monthly Climatic Model Coefficients Elast. 119 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE Intercept Input use change Soil quality Crop area Time trend County Dummies Perth Halidmand Middlesex 0.11(15.92) 0.54 (8.84) 0.00 (6.36) 0.75(19.37) 0.01 0.86 0.09 0.31 0.11(15.66) 0.60 (9.43) 0.00 (5.25) 0.70(17.18) 0.01 0.95 0.07 0.29 .09 (13.69) .43 (5.78) .00 (6.15) .81 (16.20) 0.75 (0.42) 0.47 (0.28) 0.73 (0.38) -4.51 (-2.81) -5.24 (3.32) -5.49 (3.16) -4.85 (3.30) -5.45 (2.52) -6.09 (3.11) 0.00 (0.37) -2.80 (-1.64) Lambton -5.15 (-3.13) Elgin -3.32 (-2.20) Kent -3.77 (-1.86) Essex -4.00 (-2.24) Growing season (days) Mean temperature Total precipitation Temperature CV Precipitation CV Temp*Precipitation Adjusted R-squared 0.80 Durbin Watson 1.70 1.50 (3.28) 0.01 (3.74) 0.16 (0.14) -0.00 (0.26) .00 (1.65) 0.81 1.75 0.009 0.68 0.09 0.33 -2.36 (-1.19) -1.37 (-0.78) 0.27 (0.11) -0.17 (1.59) 0.04 0.41 0.13 0.01 -0.006 0.05 0.86 1.73 t- statistics in parenthesis; Elast.=elasticity ***indicates coefficient significant at the 1% significant level ** indicates coefficient significant at the 5% significant level * indicates coefficient significant at the 10% significant level Table 5: Variance of corn yield with Just and Pope production model Explanatory Variable Intercept Input use change Soil quality Crop area Time trend County Dummies Perth Halidmand Middlesex Lambton No Climate Variable Model 4.51 (2.93)** 0.005 (2.37)* -0.04 (-1.88)* 7.7e-06 (1.84)* 0.02 (1.54) Seasonal Climatic Model -4.89 (-0.87) -0.00007 (-0.03) 0.005 (0.24) 6.84e-06 (1.70)* -0.0002 (-0.01) Monthly Climatic Model 12.389 (0.65) 3.32e-06 (0.00) -0.021 (-0.78) 6.74e-06 (1.20) -0.0039 (-0.19) 0.68 (1.13) 0.25 (0.46) -0.04 (-0.08) -0.20 (-0.38) 0.62 (1.15) -1.68 (-3.26)*** -0.38 (-0.68) -1.09 (-2.03)* -0.02 (-0.03) 120 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE Elgin Kent Essex Growing season (days) Mean temperature Total precipitation Temperature CV Precipitation CV Temp*Precipitation -0.25 (-0.50) 0.52 (0.82) 1.31 (2.17)** Adjusted R-squared Durbin Watson 0.04 1.93 -1.00 (-1.95)** -0.84 (-1.14) -0.85 (-1.16) 0.01 (1.51) -1.36 (-1.81)* -0.77 (-0.80) -1.003 (-0.84) 0.44 (2.01)* 0.0009 (0.76) -1.06 (-1.69)* 0.01 (1.01) -0.0002 (-1.14) 0.05 1.96 0.16 1.91 t- statistics in parenthesis ***indicates coefficient significant at the 1% significant level ** indicates coefficient significant at the 5% significant level * indicates coefficient significant at the 10% significant level Table 6: Variance of soybean yield with Just and Pope production model Explanatory Variable Intercept Input use change Soil quality Crop area Time trend County Dummies Perth Halidmand Middlesex Lambton Elgin Kent Essex Growing season (days) Mean temperature Total precipitation Temperature CV Precipitation CV Temp*Precipitation Adjusted R-squared Durbin Watson No Climate Variable Model 1.16 (0.83) 0.001 (0.81) 0.002 (0.13) 7.8e-07 (0.15) 0.0006 (0.03) Seasonal Climatic Model 1.53 (0.27) 0.001 (0.78) -0.03 (-1.23) 2.1e-06 (0.38) -0.01 (-0.45) Monthly Climatic Model 14.37 (0.87) 0.0008 (0.29) 0.005 (0.21) 1.58e-07 (0.03) -0.02 (-0.66) -0.01 (-0.03) 0.59 (0.88) -0.30 (-0.51) -0.62 (-1.29) -1.08 (-1.31) -1.42 (-2.74)*** -0.44 (-0.51) 0.31 (0.45) -0.27 (-0.44) -0.95 (-0.95) -0.98 (-1.43) -0.29 (-0.25) 0.08 (0.08) -1.38 -0.91 -1.51 -0.64 -1.04 0.06 1.72 0.44 (2.02)** 0.002 (1.48) -0.09 (-0.15) -0.02 (-1.73)* -0.0004 (-1.58) 0.09 1.94 0.16 1.80 (-2.28)** (-0.97) (-2.32)** (-0.50) (-0.81) t- statistics in parenthesis ***indicates coefficient significant at the 1% significant level ** indicates coefficient significant at the 5% significant level * indicates coefficient significant at the 10% significant level 121 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE Table 7: Variance of wheat yield with Just and Pope production model Explanatory Variable Intercept Input use change Soil quality Crop area Time trend County Dummies Perth Haldimand Middlesex Lambton Elgin Kent Essex Growing season (days) Mean temperature Total precipitation Temperature CV Precipitation CV Temp*Precipitation Adjusted R-squared Durbin Watson No Climate Variable Model 2.66 (1.64)* 0.003 (1.15) -0.033 (-1.54) 4.2e-06(0.46) 0.06 (4.07)* Seasonal Climatic Model 14.11 (1.96) 0.002 (0.61) -0.06 (-2.53)* -8.22e-06 (-0.76) 0.06 (3.16)* Monthly Climatic Model 0.00004 (0.01) -0.04 (-1.57)* 1.07e-06 (0.14) 0.03 (2.00)* -0.04 (-2.66)* 0.05 1.96 -0.55 (-1.94)* 0.0006 (0.40) 1.23 (1.53) 0.03 (1.96)* 0.0005 (1.81)* 0.03 1.97 0.07 1.97 t- statistics in parenthesis ***indicates coefficient significant at the 1% significant level ** indicates coefficient significant at the 5% significant level * indicates coefficient significant at the 10% significant level 6. References Adams R.M., Wu, J. and Houston, L.L. 2003. The effects of climate change on yields and water use of major California crops. Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon. Available online at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-10-31_500-03-058CF_A09.PDF. Adams, R.M., McCarl, B.A., Segerson, K., Rosenzweig, C., Bryant, K.J., Dixon, B.L., Conner, R., Evenson, R.E., Ojima, D., 1999. The economic effects of climate change on US agriculture. In: Mendelsohn, R. and J. E., Neumann (Eds.). The Impact of Climate Change on the United States Economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Chapter 2: 18–55. 122 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE CCAF. 2002. Climate change impacts and adaptation: A Canadian Perspective. Agriculture. Government of Canada. Chang C.C., 2002. The Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Taiwan’s Agriculture. Agricultural Economics. 27: 51-64 Chen, C.C and Chang, C.C. 2004. Climate change and crop yield distribution: some new evidence from panel data models. Institute of Economics, academia Sinica Taiwan, IEAS Working paper No 04-A001. Chen, C. C., McCarl, B. A., and Schimmelpfennig, D. E. 2004. Yield variability as influenced by climate: A statistical Investigation. Climatic Change.Volume 66 No 1-2 Dixon, B.L., Hollinger, S.E., Garcia, P., Tirupattur, V., 1994. Estimating corn yield response models to predict impacts of climate change. Journal of Agricultural and Resources Economics. 19: 58–68. Granger, O. E. 1980. The impact of climatic variation on the yield of selected crops in three California counties. Agricultural Meteorology, 22: 367-386. Hansen, L. 1991. Farmer response to changes in climate: the case of corn production. Journal of Agricultural and Economics Resources. 43:18-25. Judge G.G., Griffiths W.E., Hill R.C., Lutkepohl H., and Lee T.C. 1985. The theory and practice of econometrics. New York: John Wiley and Sons Just, R. E. and Pope, R. D. 1979. Production function estimation and related risk considerations. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. Vol.6, No.2: 276-284. Just, R. E. and Pope, R. D. 1978. Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications. Journal of Econometrics 7: 67-86. Kaufmann, R.K., Snell, S.E., 1997. A biophysical model of corn yield: integrating climatic and social determinants. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79:178–190. Mackey, B.G., McKenney, D.W. and Nippers, B. 1995. EDIS -Environmental Domain Interrogation System: a decision support tool for assessing representativeness. NODA/NFP Tech. Rep., Can. For. Serv. - Ontario, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, (in press). McKenney, D.W., Kesteven, J.L., Hutchinson M.F. and Venier. L.A. 2001. Canada's Plant Hardiness zones revisited using modern climate interpolation techniques. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 81(1): 117-129. Newman, J.E. 1978. Drought impacts on American agricultural productivity. In: Rosenberg, N.J., ed. North American Droughts. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 43-63. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs. 2005. Ontario Agriculture and Food Statistics. Field Crops 1981-2005. Canada - Ontario. Available online at: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/stats/crops/index.html 123 Proceedings del XXIV Encuentro Nacional de Facultades de Administración y Economía ENEFA Proceedings - Vol. 1, Año 2008 ASFAE Reinsborough M.J. 2003. A Ricardian model of climate change in Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics, 36 (1): 22-40. Rickard, B. and Fox. G. 1999. Have grain yields in Ontario reached a plateau? Food Reviews International, 15(1): 1-17. Rosenzweig, C., Iglesias, A., Yang, X. B., Epstein, P. R., and Chivian, E. 2001. Change and extreme weather events. Implications for food production, plant diseases, and pests. Global Change & Human Health, Volume 2, No. 2. Saha, A., Havenner, A. and Talpaz, H. 1997, “Stochastic Production Function Estimation: Small Sample Properties of ML versus FGLS.” Applied Economics,459-69. Sarno, L. and Taylor, M. 1998. Real Exchange Rates under the Current Float: Unequivocal Evidence of Mean Reversion. Economics Letters 60: 131-137. Segerson, K., and Dixon, B.L. 1999. Climate change and agriculture: the role of farmer adaptation. In: Mendelsohn, R., Neumann, J.E. (Eds.). The Impact of Climate Change on the United States Economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Chapter 4: 75–93. Statistics Canada. 2001. 2001 Census of Agriculture. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Available online at: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/ind01/l3_920_992.htm?hili_agrc42. Waggoner, P. E. 1979. Variability of annual wheat yields since 1909 and among nations. Journal of Agricultural Meteorology, 20, 42. Weber, M. and Hauer, G., 2003. A regional analysis of climate change impacts on Canadian agriculture. Canadian Public Policy. 24(2): 163-180. 124