| Literature DB >> 31639159 |
Bui Tan Yen1, Nguyen Huu Quyen2, Trinh Hoang Duong3, Duong Van Kham4, T S Amjath-Babu5, Leocadio Sebastian5.
Abstract
The Mekong River Delta is the rice production hub in South-east Asia and has a key role in determining rice prices in the world market. The increasing variability in the local climate due to global climate changes and the increasing severity of the ENSO phenomenon threatens rice production in the region, which has consequences for local and global food security. Though existing mapping efforts delineate the consequences of saline water intrusion during El Niño and flooding events during La Niña in the basin, research to predict future impacts in rice production is rather limited. The current work uses ORYZA, an ecophysiological model, combined with historical climate data, climate change scenarios RCP4.5 and 8.5 and climate-related risk maps to project the aggregate productivity and rice production impacts by the year 2050. Results show that in years of average salinity intrusion and flooding, the winter-spring rice crop in the MRD would experience an average annual decrease of 720,450 tons for 2020-2050 under the RCP4.5 scenario compared to the baseline of 2005-2016 average and another 1.17 million tons under the RCP8.5 scenario. The autumn-winter crop would decrease by 331,480 tons under RCP4.5 and 462,720 tons under RCP8.5. In years of severe salinity intrusion and flooding, the winter-spring rice crop would decrease by 2.13 million tons (10.29% lower than the projection for an average year) under RCP4.5 and 2.5 million tons (13.62%) under RCP8.5. Under severe conditions, the autumn-winter crop would have an average decrease of 1.3 million tons (7.36%) under RCP4.5 and 1.4 million tons (10.88%) for the RCP8.5 scenario. Given that most of the rice produced in this area is exported, a decline in rice supply at this scale would likely have implications on the global market price of rice affecting global food security. Such decline will also have implications for the rural economy and food security of Vietnam. Suggestions for corrective measures to reduce the impacts are briefly discussed.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31639159 PMCID: PMC6804992 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223884
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Location of the Mekong River Delta region in the map of Vietnam (yellow area in small map) and distribution of the region’s rice land in 2014.
Fig 2The methodological framework.
Percentage of rice land potentially affected by salinity intrusion in El Niño years and flooding in La Niña years.
| Percentage of potentially affected rice land (%) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salinity intrusion risk | Flooding risk | |||||||
| Province | High | Medium | Low | No risk | High | Medium | Low | No risk |
| Long An | 15.4 | 11.7 | 21.2 | 51.7 | 16.2 | 60.9 | - | 22.9 |
| Tien Giang | 2.1 | 0.2 | 47.3 | 50.4 | 26.8 | 16.2 | 2.0 | 55.0 |
| Ben Tre | 87.8 | 0.6 | - | 11.6 | - | - | - | 100.0 |
| Tra Vinh | 53.4 | 28.9 | 16.9 | 0.9 | - | - | 0.1 | 99.9 |
| Vinh Long | 8.1 | 20.5 | 28.3 | 43.1 | - | 38.4 | 28.3 | 33.2 |
| Dong Thap | - | - | - | 100.0 | 47.9 | 41.6 | 3.8 | 6.8 |
| An Giang | - | - | 11.1 | 88.9 | 55.2 | 15.1 | 0.0 | 29.7 |
| Kien Giang | 25.9 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 73.8 | 0.0 | 28.2 | 66.7 | 5.1 |
| Can Tho | - | - | 0.0 | 100.0 | 27.2 | 29.4 | 16.9 | 26.5 |
| Hau Giang | 45.8 | 4.1 | 10.6 | 39.5 | 59.2 | 8.9 | 31.8 | - |
| Soc Trang | 27.1 | 39.3 | 0.7 | 32.9 | - | - | - | 100.0 |
| Bac Lieu | 10.7 | 19.0 | 48.3 | 22.0 | - | - | - | 100.0 |
| Ca Mau | 75.9 | 2.4 | - | 21.7 | - | 25.3 | - | 74.7 |
Fig 3Relationship between observed Leaf Area Indexes (LAI) from experimental plots in Soc Trang province for winter-spring, summer-autumn, and autumn-winter season during 2012–2013, and simulated indexes generated by the ORYZA model.
Comparison between observed (YO, ton/ha) and simulated (YS, ton/ha) rice yields of experimental plots implemented in Soc Trang province for winter-spring, summer-autumn, and autumn-winter season during 2012–2013.
| Seasonal rice yield, ton/ha* | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plot | Winter-spring | Summer-autumn | Autumn-winter | ||||||
| YS | YO | YO-YS | YS | YO | YO-YS | YS | YO | YO-YS | |
| 1 | 6.18 | 6.52 | 0.35 | 4.30 | 4.21 | -0.09 | 5.29 | 5.04 | -0.25 |
| 2 | 5.12 | 5.00 | -0.12 | 3.81 | 3.21 | -0.60 | 5.62 | 5.69 | 0.07 |
| 3 | 5.61 | 5.03 | -0.58 | 5.78 | 5.42 | -0.36 | 5.45 | 5.48 | 0.03 |
| 4 | 6.18 | 5.59 | -0.60 | - | - | - | 6.44 | 5.39 | -1.05 |
| 5 | 6.38 | 6.40 | 0.02 | - | - | - | 6.37 | 5.87 | -0.50 |
| 6 | 6.01 | 6.07 | 0.06 | 5.87 | 5.78 | -0.08 | 5.08 | 4.78 | -0.30 |
| 7 | 7.42 | 7.82 | 0.40 | - | - | - | 7.31 | 7.21 | -0.10 |
| 8 | 6.71 | 6.65 | -0.06 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| RMSE | 0.35 | 0.36 | 0.47 | ||||||
| R2 | 0.89 | 0.96 | 0.78 | ||||||
“-”: no field experiment
Fig 4Simulated and observed rice yield of WS season in (a) Soc Trang and (b) Tra Vinh provinces, and of AW season in (c) An Giang and (d) Long An provinces for the period 1976–2016.
The coefficient of determination (Ef) calculated for validation of seasonal yield estimation for the period 1976–2016 of 13 MRD provinces.
| Model efficient coefficient (Ef) by province | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cropping season | Long An | Tien Giang | Ben Tre | Tra Vinh | Vinh Long | An Giang | Kien Giang | Hau Giang | Soc Trang | Bac Lieu | Ca Mau | Can Tho | Dong Thap |
| WS | 0.97 | 0.96 | 0.70 | 0.75 | 0.95 | 0.88 | 0.95 | 0.80 | 0.86 | 0.94 | - | - | - |
| AW | 0.90 | 0.81 | - | - | 0.92 | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.82 | - | - | 0.80 | 0.87 | 0.85 |
* WS = Winter-Spring; AW = Autumn-Winter cropping season
** The provinces with no Ef value (-): the cropping season is not applicable or observed data series is too short to evaluate the estimation.
Fig 5Yield reduction (%) due to salinity intrusion in winter-spring season of El Niño years for the period 1976–2016.
Fig 6Yield reduction (%) due to flooding in autumn-winter season of La Niña years for the period 1976–2016.
Levels of rice yield reduction ratio of MRD’s provinces due to negative impacts of El Niño in WS season and La Niña in AW season.
| Yield reduction ratio (D, %) by province | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level | Long An | Tien Giang | Ben Tre | Tra Vinh | Vinh Long | An Giang | Kien Giang | Hau Giang | Soc Trang | Bac Lieu | Ca Mau | Can Tho | Dong Thap |
| El Niño years | |||||||||||||
| ≥ 15 | ≥ 12 | ≥ 50 | ≥ 46 | ≥ 17 | ≥10 | ≥ 21 | ≥ 25 | ≥ 34 | ≥ 28 | - | - | - | |
| 4–14 | 3–11 | 10–49 | 9–45 | 4–16 | 2–9 | 5–20 | 5–24 | 6–33 | 5–27 | - | - | - | |
| ≤ 3 | ≤ 2 | ≤ 9 | ≤ 8 | ≤ 3 | ≤ 1 | ≤ 4 | ≤ 4 | ≤ 5 | ≤ 4 | - | - | - | |
| La Niña years | |||||||||||||
| ≥ 25 | ≥ 17 | - | - | ≥ 14 | ≥ 26 | ≥ 18 | - | - | - | ≥ 12 | ≥ 20 | ≥ 25 | |
| 4–24 | 3–16 | - | - | 3–13 | 5–25 | 3–17 | - | - | - | 3–11 | 3–19 | 4–24 | |
| ≤ 3 | ≤ 2 | - | - | ≤ 2 | ≤ 4 | ≤ 2 | - | - | - | ≤ 2 | ≤ 2 | ≤ 3 | |
Differences between average future (2020–2050) and present (2005–2016) rice yields in the winter-spring (WS), summer-autumn (SA) and autumn-winter (AW) cropping seasons.
| Province | Scenario | Average seasonal rice yield (ton/ha) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WS | SA | AW | ||||||||
| Present | Future | D (%) | Present | Future | D (%) | Present | Future | D (%) | ||
| Long An | RCP4.5 | 5.86 | 5.78 | 1.37 | 4.19 | 4.12 | 1.67 | 3.28 | 3.22 | 1.83 |
| RCP8.5 | 5.46 | 6.83 | 4.00 | 4.53 | 3.12 | 4.88 | ||||
| Tien Giang | RCP4.5 | 6.71 | 6.58 | 1.94 | 4.94 | 4.84 | 2.02 | 4.42 | 4.35 | 1.58 |
| RCP8.5 | 6.28 | 6.41 | 4.71 | 4.66 | 4.2 | 4.98 | ||||
| Ben Tre | RCP4.5 | 4.99 | 4.89 | 2.00 | 4.11 | 4.04 | 1.70 | 4.16 | 4.09 | 1.68 |
| RCP8.5 | 4.67 | 6.41 | 3.94 | 4.14 | 3.98 | 4.33 | ||||
| Tra Vinh | RCP4.5 | 5.54 | 5.44 | 1.81 | 4.84 | 4.77 | 1.45 | 4.67 | 4.61 | 1.28 |
| RCP8.5 | 5.18 | 6.50 | 4.62 | 4.55 | 4.46 | 4.50 | ||||
| Vinh Long | RCP4.5 | 6.58 | 6.48 | 1.52 | 4.75 | 4.68 | 1.47 | 4.43 | 4.37 | 1.35 |
| RCP8.5 | 6.17 | 6.23 | 4.56 | 4.00 | 4.24 | 4.29 | ||||
| Dong Thap | RCP4.5 | 6.99 | 6.83 | 2.29 | 5.23 | 5.12 | 2.10 | 4.32 | 4.26 | 1.39 |
| RCP8.5 | 6.53 | 6.58 | 5.01 | 4.21 | 4.09 | 5.32 | ||||
| An Giang | RCP4.5 | 7.29 | 7.15 | 1.92 | 4.84 | 4.75 | 1.86 | 4.46 | 4.37 | 2.02 |
| RCP8.5 | 6.82 | 6.45 | 4.58 | 5.37 | 4.19 | 6.05 | ||||
| Kien Giang | RCP4.5 | 6.68 | 6.53 | 2.25 | 4.86 | 4.77 | 1.85 | 4.07 | 4.01 | 1.47 |
| RCP8.5 | 6.23 | 6.74 | 4.62 | 4.94 | 3.87 | 4.91 | ||||
| Can Tho | RCP4.5 | 7.06 | 6.93 | 1.84 | 4.70 | 4.62 | 1.70 | 3.89 | 3.83 | 1.54 |
| RCP8.5 | 6.64 | 5.95 | 4.51 | 4.04 | 3.72 | 4.37 | ||||
| Hau Giang | RCP4.5 | 6.69 | 6.58 | 1.64 | 4.53 | 4.46 | 1.55 | 4.46 | 4.38 | 1.79 |
| RCP8.5 | 6.30 | 5.83 | 4.36 | 3.75 | 4.29 | 3.81 | ||||
| Soc Trang | RCP4.5 | 6.13 | 5.98 | 2.45 | 4.84 | 4.75 | 1.86 | 4.46 | 4.37 | 2.02 |
| RCP8.5 | 5.75 | 6.20 | 4.58 | 5.37 | 4.22 | 5.38 | ||||
| Bac Lieu | RCP4.5 | 6.27 | 6.14 | 2.07 | 5.10 | 5.01 | 1.76 | 4.82 | 4.72 | 2.07 |
| RCP8.5 | 5.87 | 6.38 | 4.90 | 3.92 | 4.60 | 4.56 | ||||
| Ca Mau | RCP4.5 | - | - | - | 4.18 | 4.11 | 1.67 | 3.76 | 3.70 | 1.60 |
| RCP8.5 | - | - | - | 3.98 | 4.78 | 3.59 | 4.52 | |||
| Regional average | RCP4.5 | 6.40 | 6.28 | 1.93 | 4.70 | 4.62 | 1.74 | 4.25 | 4.18 | 1.66 |
| RCP8.5 | 5.99 | 6.38 | 4.49 | 4.48 | 4.04 | 4.76 | ||||
* Climate change scenarios: RCP4.5 = average GHGs concentration; RCP8.5 = high GHGs concentration
** D = yield reduction ratio (%); (-) the cropping season is not applicable
Fig 7Simulated future rice yield of WS in Soc Trang province and AW in An Giang province from 2020 to 2050 under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 climate change scenarios.
Estimation of future rice production of MRD’s provinces under impacts of climate change scenarios and ENSO events.
| Province | Rice production, 106 ton | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Present | Future without ENSO | Future with ENSO | |||||
| RCP 4.5 | RCP 8.5 | RCP 4.5 | RCP 8.5 | ||||
| El Niño | La Niña | El Niño | La Niña | ||||
| Long An | 2.53 | 2.49 | 2.38 | 2.26 | 2.42 | 2.16 | 2.32 |
| Tien Giang | 1.18 | 1.16 | 1.12 | 1.14 | 1.12 | 1.10 | 1.08 |
| Ben Tre | 0.20 | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.10 | 0.19 | 0.10 | 0.18 |
| Tra Vinh | 1.14 | 1.12 | 1.08 | 0.78 | 1.12 | 0.75 | 1.08 |
| Vinh Long | 0.93 | 0.92 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.90 | 0.84 | 0.87 |
| Dong Thap | 3.12 | 3.05 | 2.95 | 3.05 | 2.69 | 2.95 | 2.60 |
| An Giang | 3.75 | 3.68 | 3.53 | 3.68 | 3.19 | 3.53 | 3.06 |
| Kien Giang | 4.20 | 4.12 | 3.96 | 3.58 | 4.08 | 3.45 | 3.92 |
| Can Tho | 1.27 | 1.25 | 1.21 | 1.25 | 1.15 | 1.21 | 1.11 |
| Hau Giang | 1.12 | 1.10 | 1.07 | 0.86 | 0.96 | 0.83 | 0.93 |
| Soc Trang | 1.93 | 1.89 | 1.82 | 1.53 | 1.89 | 1.48 | 1.82 |
| Bac Lieu | 0.96 | 0.94 | 0.92 | 0.89 | 0.94 | 0.87 | 0.92 |
| Ca Mau | 0.46 | 0.45 | 0.44 | 0.45 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.43 |
| MRD | 22.79 | 22.37 | 21.52 | 20.45 | 21.12 | 19.69 | 20.32 |
| Rice lost (%) | 1.86 | 5.58 | 10.29 | 7.36 | 13.62 | 10.88 | |