The gains are much higher than the ones found in the 1996 report. This is partly due to increased economic activity in general, but probably has to do with more adoption of smart irrigation as well. The total yearly gains in agriculture range between $492 million, taking only the intensive margin effects, and up to about $1,982 million considering the extra acres that can be grown with the saved water. A surprisingly large sector using CIMIS is landscaping and golf courses, with yearly monetary savings of at least $201 million for our survey sample alone. Several other user types were included in the survey, indicating a substantial role of CIMIS in areas crucial for California’s economy. Respondents use CIMIS to plan drainage in agricultural and urban settings, taking advantage of CIMIS historic rainfall records. CIMIS is used for water budgeting and even pricing. Researchers in the public and private sector use CIMIS for diverse purposes, from basic research to calibration and verification of other weather related products. These are just a few of many additional uses of CIMIS we know about, but do not quantify here due to the complicated methodological framework required. The economic gains from CIMIS surely surpass the ongoing costs of a system with less than a dozen employees. However, could these gains be achieved by the private sector? The decreasing costs of weather sensors mean that growers and other users could potentially access precise data on their own. If we wanted a cheap weather station, costing about $1,000, for every 1,000 acres of drip irrigated land in California, the total cost would surpass$2.8 million, plus some ongoing costs for maintenance. This, however, would prevent many benefits from the centralized aggregation of data and the historical records that are crucial for research and planning, as one could not assure that aggregation of the data from all these separate private stations would occur. While several online aggregators of weather information exist,planting in pots ideas many rely on the public information provided by networks such as CIMIS and other government bodies such as airports and air quality monitoring systems. It is not obvious that private aggregators would be profitable if they had to purchase this information, or what their WTP would be.
Moreover, the ET measurements which many growers use are usually not captured by commercial stations, and there are concerns regarding the reliability of ET approximations by other variables. The development of satellite technology might change these conditions in the future.California pistachios are a high value crop, with grower revenues of $1.8 billion in 2016. The most common variety is “Kerman” , and almost all the California acreage is planted in five adjacent counties in the southern part of the San Joaquin valley. In recent years, rising winter daytime temperatures and decreasing fog incidence have lowered winter CP counts. Climatologists have concluded that winter chill counts will continue to dwindle , putting pistachios in danger at their current locations. To better predict the trajectory for this crop and make informed investment and policy decisions, the yield response function to chill must first be assessed. This task has proven quite challenging. The effects of chill thresholds on bloom can be explored in controlled environments, but for various reasons these relationships are not necessarily reflected in commercial yield data. For example, Pope et al. report that the threshold level of CP for successful bud breaking in California pistachios was experimentally assessed at 69, but could not identify a negative response of commercial yields to chill portions of the same level or even lower. They use a similar yield panel of California counties, but only have one “representative” CP measure per county-year. Using Bayesian methodologies, they fail to find a threshold CP level for pistachios, and reach the conclusion that “Without more data points at the low amounts of chill, it is difficult to estimate the minimum-chill accumulation necessary for average yield.” The statistical problem of low variation in treatment at the growing area, encountered by Pope et al., is very common in published articles on pistachios. Simply put, pistachios are not planted in areas with adverse climate. Too few “bad” years are therefore available for researchers to work with when trying to estimate commercial yield responses.
An ideal experiment would randomize a chill treatment over entire orchards, but that is not possible. Researchers resort either to small scale experimental settings, with limitations as mentioned above, or to yield panels, which usually are small in size , length , or both. Zhang and Taylor investigate the effect of chill portions on bloom and yields in two pistachio growing areas in Australia, growing the “Sirora” variety. Using data from “selected orchards” over five years, they note that on two years where where chill was below 59 portions in one of the locations, bloom was uneven. Yields were observed, and while no statistical inference was made on them, the authors noted that “factors other than biennial bearing influence yield”. Elloumi et al. Investigate responses to chill in Tunisia, where the “Mateur” variety is grown. They find highly non-linear effects of chill on yields, but this stems from one observation with a very low chill count. Standard errors are not provided, and the threshold and behavior around it are not really identified. Kallsen uses a panel of California orchards, with various temperature measures and other control variables to find a model which best fits the data. Unfortunately, only 3 orchards are included in this study, and the statistical approach mixes a prediction exercise with the estimation goal, potentially sacrificing the latter for the former. Besides the potential over-fitting using this technique, the dependent variables in the model are not chill portions but temperature hour counts with very few degree levels considered, and no confidence interval is presented. Finally, Benmoussa et al. use data collected at an experimental orchard in Tunisia with several pistachio varieties. They reach an estimate for the critical chill for bloom, and find a positive correlation between chill and tree yields, with zero yield following winters with very low chill counts. However, they also have many observation with zero or near-zero yields above their estimated threshold, and the external validity of findings from an experimental plot to commercial orchards is not obvious.Pistachio growing areas are identified using USDA satellite data with pixel size of roughly 30 meters. About 30% of pixels identified as pistachios are singular. As pistachios don’t grow in the wild in California, these are probably missidentified pixels. Aggregating to 1km pixels, I keep those pixels with at least 20 acres of pistachios in them. Looking at the yearly satellite data between 2008-2017, I keep those 1km pixels with at least six positive pistachio identifications.
These 2,165 pixels are the grid on which I do temperature interpolations and calculations. Observed temperatures for 1984-2017 come from the California Irrigation Management Information System , a network of weather stations located in many counties in California, operated by the California Department of Water Resources. A total of 27 stations are located within 50km of my pistachio pixels. Missing values at these stations are imputed as the temperature at the closest available station plus the average difference between the stations at the week-hour window. Future chill is calculated at the same interpolation points,growing blueberries in pots with data from a CCSM4 model CEDA . These predictions use an RCP8.5 scenario. This scenario assumes a global mean surface temperature increase of 2o C between 2046-2065 . The data are available with predictions starting in 2006, and include daily maximum and minimum on a 0.94 degree latitude by 1.25 degree longitude grid. Hourly temperature are calculated from the predicted daily extremes, using the latitude and date . I then calibrate these future predictions with quantile calibration procedure , using a week-hour window. Past observed and future predicted hourly temperatures in the dormancy season are interpolated at each of the 2,165 pixels, and chill portions are calculated from these temperatures. Erez and Fishman produced an Excel spreadsheet for chill calculations, which I obtain from the University of California division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, together with instructions for growers . For speed, I code them in an R function . The data above are used for estimation and later for prediction of future chill effects. For the estimation part, I have a yield panel with 165 county-year observations. For each year in the panel, I calculate the share of county pixels that had each CP level. For example: in 2016, Fresno county had 0.4% of its pistachio pixels experiencing 61 CP, 1.8% experiencing 62 CP, 12% experiencing 63 CP, and so on.Figure 3.1 presents chill counts and their estimated effects in percent yield change for two time periods: 2000-2018 and 2020-2040. The top left panel shows the chill counts in the 1/4 warmest years between 2000 and 2018 . The top right panel shows the chill counts in the 1/4 warmest years in climate predictions between 2020 and 2040. Chill at the pistachio growing areas is likely to drop substantially within the lifespan of existing trees.Results from the polynomial regression are presented in Table 3.2 . The first coefficient is for an intercept term, and it is a zero with very wide error margins. This makes sense, as centering around the means also gets rid of intercepts. The second coefficient is positive, as we would expect, and statistically significant. The third coefficient is negative, as we would also expect since the returns from chill should decrease at some point, but not statistically significant even at the 10% level. However, as dropping it would eliminate the decreasing returns feature, I keep it at the cost of having a wide confidence area. With the estimated coefficients, I build the polynomial curve that represents the effect of temperatures on yields. It is presented in Figure 3.2 with a bold dashed line. The 90% confidence area boundaries are the dotted lines bounding it above and below. Note that the upper bound of the confidence area does not curve down like the lower one. This is the manifestation of the third coefficient’s P-value being greater than 0.1. In both cases, the confidence area was calculated by bootstrapping. The data was resampled and estimated 500 times, producing 500 curves with the resulting parameters. At each CP level, I take the 5th and 95th percentiles of bootstrapped curve values as the bounds for the confidence area. This approach also deals with the potential spatial correlation in error terms. Another minor issue requiring the bootstrap approach is that the implicit potential yield estimation should change the degrees of freedom in the non-linear regressions when estimating the standard errors. In the lower panel of Figure 3.2, a histogram of positive shares is presented. That is, for each chill portion, the count of panel observations where the share of that chill portion was positive. The actual shares of the very low and very high portions are usually quite low. This shows the relatively small number of observations with low chill counts. The two yield effects curves look very similar in the relevant chill range. By both estimates, the yield loss is very close to 0 at higher chill portions, and starts declining substantially somewhere in the upper 60’s, as the experimental literature would suggest. Interestingly, the polynomial curve does not exceed zero effect, although it is not mechanically bounded from above like the logistic curve. This probably reflects the fact that historically, the average growing conditions has not deviated much from the optimal range. The “within” transformation hence did not deviate the potential yield much from the optimum in this case. At currently low chill portion ranges of 55-60, the effect is around −25%, again consistent with the stipulation of Pope et al. that a significant effect threshold would be located there. Considering alternate bearing and other factors contributing to the background fluctuation in yields, it is easy to understand how such effects on relatively small areas within the pistachio growing counties have not been picked up by researchers so far.