ece3782-sup-0001-DataS1FigureS1-S4TableS1-S7.docxWord document541K

Data S1. Methods, Results and References

Methods Table S1. Agroclimatic indicators generated by N-AgriCLIM.

Table S2. Goodness-of-fit of the models for predicting barley yields from agroclimatic indicators and order of variables' entry (using stepwise selection) presented for each trial site.

Table S3. Effects of the tested agroclimatic indicators on barley yields at Jokioinen, Ylistaro and Ruukki.

Table S4. List of General Circulation Model (GCM) simulations downloaded from the CMIP3 archive (Meehl et al. 2007) for three SRES emission scenarios (B1, A1B, A2) (Nakicenovic et al. 2000) for which all variables required to construct scenario data for crop modeling were available.

Table S5. Observed and scenario variables used for crop modeling (cf. Wolf et al., 2012).

Table S6. Thermal requirements [°C day] for three modern barley cultivar groups from emergence to flowering (TSUM1), and from flowering to physiological maturity (TSUM2); assuming a common base temperature (TBASE) of 0°C - and indication of differences in other crop parameters.

Table S7. Changes of crop parameter set (uniform for all spring barley cultivar groups) for different CO2 levels: Specific leaf area (SLA), maximum CO2 assimilation rate (AMAX occurring over indicated development stage (DVS)) and correction factor for potential evapotranspiration (CFET) under reference climate (350 ppmv) and enhanced (435, 525 and 615 ppmv) atmospheric CO2 concentration (with % changes in relation to current level).


Figure S1. Projected changes in mean temperature and precipitation during March-August relative to the baseline climate (1971–2000) presented for the time periods 2011–2040, 2041–2070 and 2071–2100 for selected locations (Turku (1), Jokioinen (2), Utti (3), Ylistaro (4), Oulu (5), Rovaniemi (6)) representing the environmental zones most relevant for agricultural production in Finland (see Fig. 1).

Figure S2. Projected changes for (A) sowing date (deviations relative to fixed date 1st May) and three agroclimatic indicators: (B) early drought stress, (C) specific heat stress, and (D) yield potential reduction risk, for climate scenario 2 (warm and wet), combining SRES emissions scenario A1B with MIROC3.2 (medres) (see Table S4).

Figure S3. Spatial patterns of the most risk prone areas for each of these indicators using pre-determined thresholds, as well as, the overlay of all three risk factors – MIROC3.2(medres)/A1B - for each the three future time slices (2011–2040), (2041–2070) and (2071–2100).

Figure S4. Early drought stress (Rain sum 3–7 weeks after sowing) presented as 10-year moving average under current (1971–2009) and projected future climate conditions (2011–2040, 2041–2070, 2071–2100) applying delta change method and preserving the variability of the reference climate (1971–2000) for grid cells (A) Jokioinen, (B) Utti, (C) Ylistaro, (D) Oulu, representing the environmental zones most relevant for agricultural production in Finland (see Fig. 1) Climate change projections based on three GCMs × SRES combinations: GISS-ER/B1, CCCMA-CGCM3.1 (T63)/A1B and IPSL-CM4/A2 (see, Table S4).

References Additional references for Data S1

Please note: Wiley Blackwell is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.