
==== Front
Heliyon
Heliyon
Heliyon
2405-8440
Elsevier

S2405-8440(24)12434-6
10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36403
e36403
Research Article
Examining the impact of climate change on cereal production in India: Empirical evidence from ARDL modelling approach
Singh Arshdeep arshdeep.singh.khosa1@gmail.com
ab⁎
Arora Kashish kashish-aes@pau.edu
a
Chandra Babu Suresh s.babu@cgiar.org
c
a Department of Economics and Sociology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India
b Indian Council of Agricultural Research – National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (ICAR-NIAP), New Delhi, India
c International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC, USA
⁎ Corresponding author. Department of Economics and Sociology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, Punjab, India. arshdeep.singh.khosa1@gmail.com
27 8 2024
30 9 2024
27 8 2024
10 18 e364038 3 2024
12 8 2024
12 8 2024
© 2024 The Authors
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Agriculture sector is major sufferer of climate change both at a global level as well as at India level. Cereals account for about 92 % of India's total food grain output and climate change has a significant influence on the production of cereals. This study aimed to evaluate the long-term and short-term effects of climatic and non-climatic variables, specifically temperature, precipitation, cereal area, total cropped area, fertilizer consumption, and pesticide consumption, on cereal production in India. The study included annual time series data that covered the period from 1960 to 2018, covering a period of 58 years. Various econometric techniques were employed to examine these relationships. The validity of a long-term and short-term relationship among the relevant variables included in the study was validated by employing the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) technique and the Johansen cointegration test. The ARDL model's estimation outcomes reveals that input factors such as cereal area became a key factor in rising cereal production, as evidenced by its positive coefficient. Similarly, fertilizer consumption and precipitation had positive effects on production in the long run whereas total cropped area and minimum temperature has little influence over the results of production both in short run as well as long run. Furthermore, the long-term findings were also supported using econometric tools like Canonical Cointegrating Regression (CCR) and Fully Modified Least Squares (FMOLS). These methods confirmed that variations in cereal production in India were significantly influenced by both climatic factors and agricultural inputs and factors. The study emphasizes the urgency for policymakers to prioritize proactive measures aimed at reducing the adverse impacts of climate change on cereal production in India. This necessitates a comprehensive strategy integrating sustainable practices, technological innovations, and robust policy frameworks to ensure resilient agricultural sectors and sustainable food production.

Highlights

• Cereal area, fertilizer and precipitation boosted long-term cereal production.

• Total cropped area and minimum temperature had minimal effect on production over time.

• CCR and FMOLS supported these long-term findings.

• Address climate impacts, ensure sustainable food and boost India's agricultural resilience.

Keywords

Climate change
Cereals
ARDL
FMOLS
Long-run and short-run estimates
==== Body
pmcAbbreviations:

“ARDL - Autoregressive Distributed Lag

CCR - Canonical Cointegrating Regression

FMOLS - Fully Modified Least Squares

LNCP – Natural Log of Cereal Production

LNCA – Natural Log of Cereal Area

LNFC - Natural Log of Fertilizer Consumption

LNPC - Natural Log of Pesticide Consumption

LNPREC - Natural Log of Precipitation

LNTMIN - Natural Log of Temperature Minimum

LNTMEAN - Natural Log of Temperature Mean

LNTMAX - Natural Log of Temperature Maximum

ECT – Error Correction Term

ADF – Augmented Dickey–Fuller

PP - Phillips–Perron

VAR - Vector Autoregression

AIC - Akaike Information Criterion

SIC - Schwarz Information Criterion

CUMSUM - Cumulative Sum

CUMSUMSQ - Cumulative Sum of Square”

1 Introduction

Agricultural sector is main source of income and backbone of developing nations particularly South Asian countries, wherein South Asia with 5 % of the world's agricultural land, feeds 20 % of the world's population [1]. Agriculture's relevance in South Asian countries and regions can be gauged by the substantial proportion of its people, approximately 70 %, residing in countryside where agriculture is the principal source of revenue, the agricultural industry [2,3]. During the 1960s, India had a “green revolution” that allowed it to become independent in terms of food grains and become a net exporter of a variety of agricultural products [4]. The agricultural sector in India has played a crucial role in reduction of poverty and creation of work opportunities [[5], [6], [7]] and provided employment to 55 % of the workforce and 67 % of the population in farming and allied industries [[8], [9], [10]]. The enhancement of agricultural production has been achieved by several strategies, such as advancements in technology, heightened use of fertilizers, the adoption of improved seeds, and the expansion of cultivation areas [[11], [12], [13]]. The drivers in concern have demonstrated enhanced productivity; nevertheless, they have also been associated with substantial alterations in climate, which in turn have a notable impact on both the environment and agricultural output [14]. Therefore, it is of significant interest to investigate the effects of both climatic and non-climatic elements on developing nations such as India.

Climate change is now a significant concern in both developing and developed nations [[15], [16], [17], [18]] and agriculture is anticipated to be the sector most affected by it since weather is a crucial component of agricultural productivity [[19], [20], [21]]. Global land area and agricultural productivity are impacted by climate change [[22], [23], [24]] and inevitably alter the price levels [25,26] in several ways that worsen the nation's food security, including variations in the country's yearly rainfall, average temperature, frequency of heat waves, etc. [27,28].

Many people worldwide consume cereal grains like wheat, maize, and rice; hence they are regarded as fundamental crops [23]. The food security and way of life of rural communities are under risk due to the extreme vulnerability of all these crops to climate change [29,30]. Evidence reveals that the Indian agricultural industry is sensitive to climate change and natural disasters since there is not enough arable land, a sizable population depends on agriculture, rain is necessary for agricultural operations, and there is insufficient technology for adjusting to climate change [31,32]. As cereals accounted for about 92 % of India's total food grain output in the years 2022–2023, climate change has a substantial influence on the production of cereals. Additionally, the production of cereals makes up almost one-third of the total calories consumed in South Asian nations [33] making it a crucial component of the food security of these economies [34]. According to the most recent climate change predictions, temperatures will rise by 2–4 °C, there will be an increase in rainfall throughout the rainy season, and precipitation will climb by 15–20 % physically [35]. It will also have an influence on agricultural output, as shown by the fact that production of cereal, rice, cotton, sugarcane, sunflowers, and wheat drastically dropped [35,36].

Literature extensively examines the effect of climate change on individual cereal crops (such as rice, wheat, maize, etc.), but few limited studies focus on aggregate cereal production (sum of all cereal crop production) in India. The present study investigates the combined effect of climatic factors (rainfall and temperature) and non-climatic factors (cropped area, fertilizer consumption, and pesticide use) on aggregate cereal production in India. It aims to address the lack of comprehensive empirical evidence on these influences.

2 Literature review

Several recent studies have delved into the complex relationship between climatic conditions and cereal production across different regions, shedding light on both global and localized implications for food security. The rainfall impacts cereal crops positively, while average temperatures typically pose challenges, particularly in Africa [37]. Significant differences were found between country-specific scenarios regarding the impact of climate conditions on cereal output [37]. Climatic factors, such as carbon dioxide (CO2) levels and average temperatures, are found to have a detrimental effect on both agricultural value-added and cereal production. Furthermore, the influence of financial development on the output of cereals and agricultural value-added curves an inverted U shape. On the other hand, factors like cropped area, income level, and the size of the rural labor force are observed to positively contribute to production of cereals and agricultural products with added value [38]. In East Africa, the rainfall and carbon emissions showed favorable long-run effects, average temperatures had negative repercussions, particularly in the short run. In addition, elements like the amount of cultivated land and the population in rural areas contributed positively to the increase in agricultural output [39]. Moreover, the detrimental effects of several factors on wheat production, apart from land used for cereal cultivation, which had both short- and long-term benefits [40]. Another study from Pakistan reported that the rising temperatures had a significant negative long-term effect on the production of major crops such as wheat, rice, and cotton in Pakistan from 2000 to 2019, with an insignificant short-term impact [41]. Additionally, the area under cultivation and fertilizer input positively affected crop production in both the long and short run [41,42]. The study examined the effects of climate change elements and inventive capacities on food production in Algeria. The findings indicated that while temperatures had a negative correlation with food production, precipitation, human capital, and physical capital all had favorable effects [43]. The implications of climate change on India's food production, highlighting that energy use, rainfall, and methane emissions enhance food productivity, while temperature and N2O emissions hinder it in both the long and short run, with CO2 emissions having no effect [44]. Economic and environmental factors are crucial for Turkey's cereal supply, with energy use positively impacted by cereal output, climate change has varying effects and CO2 emission having a negatively impact [45]. Average temperature has a negative impact on Somalia's sorghum production, while rainfall and the amount of land used for sorghum farming have shown positive impact on yield [46]. In Bangladesh, precipitation has positive influence while carbon di-oxide and temperature have adverse impact on cereal production [1]. Furthermore, in India the rainfall has positive impact on rice crop productivity and small increase in temperature leads to decline in agricultural productivity [47]. Some crops like jowar, groundnut, sugarcane, gram, sesame, and bajra exhibited a positive impact of temperature production and certain crops, including tea, cotton, rice, wheat, and arhar are sensitive to climate conditions [32].

Despite extensive research on the effects of climate change on individual cereal crops such as wheat, rice, maize, barley, sorghum, millet (including bajra), oats, rye [3,[30], [31], [32],41,42,[48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]] there is a notable gap in studies examining the aggregate cereal production across global [1,37,39,40,45,[63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76]] and very limited in India [77]. Furthermore, the influence of non-climatic factors such as cropped area, fertilizer consumption, and pesticide use on cereal production remains insufficiently addressed. The combined effects of climatic and non-climatic factors on cereal yields lack comprehensive empirical evidence, and the specific impacts of rainfall, temperature, and agricultural inputs on cereal yields are not well understood.

The present research work closes this gap by analyzing the short- and long-term impacts of climatic variables on cereal production using the ARDL model. This method allows for a more in-depth analysis of the factors effecting cereal production. This study is distinctive from others as we employed nine variables, including input and climate factors over a long-time span.

3 Data and methodology

3.1 Data

The purpose of this study was to evaluate both the short and the long-term impact of climatic factors and agricultural inputs on cereal production in India. The analysis employed 58-year time-series datasets that span the years 1961–2018. The dependent variable in the study, cereal production (CP), was examined along with independent variables like the area cultivated with cereal crops (CA), fertilizer and pesticide consumption (FC and PC), and climatic variables like average precipitation (PREC), minimum, mean and maximum temperatures (TMIN, TMEAN, and TMAX). The minimum, mean, and maximum temperature data were obtained from Climate Change Knowledge Portal [78] while the remaining variables' data were obtained from the website of Reserve Bank of India [79]. All data pertaining to various variables were gathered on an annual basis. The minimum and maximum temperature data were aggregated to annual figures from the mean of monthly means obtained from daily data. Similarly, rainfall data was transformed into annual values, as outlined in Table 1, and subsequently converted into natural logarithmic values. Table 1 presents a comprehensive summary of the variables incorporated in the study, along with their respective sources, rationale, and descriptions of the data.Table 1 List of study variables selected for the analysis.

Table 1Variable type	Variables	Abbreviation	Units	Data source	
Output variable	Dependent Variables	Cereal production	LNCP	Million ha	[1]	
Input variables	Independent Variables	Cereal Area	LNCA	Million tonnes	[1]	
Total Cropped Area	LNTCA	thousand ha	[1]	
Fertilizer consumption	LNFC	Lakh tonnes	[1]	
Pesticide consumption	LNPC	thousand tonnes	[1]	
Climatic Variables	Precipitation	LNPREC	millimeter	[14]	
Min Temperature	LNTMIN	°Celsius	[14]	
Mean Temperature	LNTMEAN	°Celsius	[14]	
Max Temperature	LNTMAX	°Celsius	[14]	

The rationale for using these variables in our study, as outlined in Table 1, was as follows: Several scholars have investigated the relationship between climatic factors and crop production across various global regions [53,58,66,69]. Previous findings indicate that average temperature negatively impacts crop production [66,80], whereas rainfall is anticipated to have a positive influence [50,58]. Our study includes mean temperature [52,65,74], minimum temperature [56,81] and maximum temperature [56,82] due to their direct impact on crop yield [80,83,84]. Moreover, total cropped area [82,85], fertilizer [51,52,60,86,87] and pesticide consumption [52,60,86,88] have been integrated into previous models by various researchers. Many studies on the effects of climate change on crop production have employed the ARDL approach, typically focusing on 4–5 variables over shorter periods (35–40 years), with few examining 9 variables over longer time series (>50 years) [48]. Our study sets itself apart by incorporating nine variables spanning input, climatic, and financial aspects over an extended period [48]. To our knowledge, no prior research has examined these variables collectively within a single study in India.

3.2 Methodology

The association between climate change factors and agriculture variables was examined using the following functional model:(1) CP=(CA,TCA,FC,PC,PREC,TMIN,TMEAN,TMAX)

Equation (1) can be rephrased as follows by taking natural logarithm on both sides of the equation. LNCP, LNCA, LNTCA, LNFC, LNPC, LPREC, LTMIN, LNTMEAN and LTMAX stand for natural logarithm of cereal production, cereal area, total cropped area, fertilizer and pesticide consumption, minimum, mean and maximum temperature, respectively.(2) LNCP=β0+β1LNCA+β2LNTCA+β3LNFC+β4LNPC+β5LNPREC+β6LNTMIN+β7LNTMEAN+β8LNTMAX+εt

3.2.1 Econometric technique

The use of a suitable method for gathering empirical data is essential to evaluate the impact of climate change on India's cereal production. An array of studies from the literature that used various cointegration approaches tailored to different scenarios were used in the empirical evaluation. When compared to the aforementioned cointegration strategies, the ARDL method excels in many ways. Prior studies have favored the cointegration technique developed by Johansen and Juselius [89] for testing the cointegration relationships between the selected variables, and the current study adopted a similar strategy. As a result, it is crucial to arrange the variables in a consistent order to ensure that this methodology is applied correctly.

This study uses the ARDL method, also known as the “Bound Test,” which was developed by Ref. [90] after being first proposed by Pesaran and Shin [91]. The ARDL methodology offers several significant advantages over conventional cointegration methods like Engle and Granger [92] or Johansen [93,94]. As opposed to earlier methodologies that demanded extensive time series data, it is particularly well-suited for the analysis of datasets with small sample sizes [95]. In addition, the ARDL approach exhibits remarkable flexibility in terms of the order of variable integration [51] and has the ability to estimate long-run and short-run cointegration regardless of whether the variables are integrated at order I (0), I (1) or the combination of both [90,96,97]. The ARDL approach also permits the simultaneous regression of long-run and short-run cointegration [58,98]. Notably, this analysis accounts for potential variations in the adjustment process by taking the possibility of asymmetry in the conditional error correction coefficients into account [46,58]. A bias-corrected bootstrap method is used to ensure accurate statistical inferences regarding the long-run cointegration among the variables of interest, improving the accuracy and reliability of the results [46,58].

3.2.2 Specification of the model

The ARDL cointegrating equations are as follows:(3) ΔLNCPt=δ0+δ1∑i=1pΔLNCPt−1+δ2∑i=1pΔLNCAt−1+δ3∑i=1pΔLNTCAt−1+δ4∑i=1pΔLNFCt−1+δ5∑i=1pΔLNPCt−1+δ6∑i=1pΔLNPRECt−1+δ7∑i=1pΔLNTMINt−1+δ8∑i=1pΔLNTMEANt−1+δ9∑i=1pΔLNTMAXt−1+λ1LNCPt−i+λ2LNCAt−i+λ3LNTCAt−i+λ4LNFCt−i+λ5LNPCt−i+λ6LNPRECt−i+λ7LNTMINt−i+λ8LNTMEANt−i+λ9LNTMAXt−i+εt

Equation (3) represent the short-run dynamics and long-run relationship of the model, where δ0 is the intercept, δ1 to δ9 are the short-run parameters, λ1 to λ9 are the long-run parameters, and εt represents the error term.(4) LNCPt=δ0+δ1∑i=1pΔLNCPt−1+δ2∑i=1pΔLNCAt−1+δ3∑i=1pΔLNTCAt−1+δ4∑i=1pΔLNFCt−1+δ5∑i=1pΔLNPCt−1+δ6∑i=1pΔLNPRECt−1+δ7∑i=1pΔLNTMINt−1+δ8∑i=1pΔLNTMAXt−1+δ9∑i=1pΔLNTMAXt−1+φECTt−i+εt

The residuals that were produced by Equation (4) are ECTt-1 and reflects the rate of adjustment in the direction of the long-term equilibrium. After establishing long-run cointegration, we analyzed the long-run coefficients using FMOLS and CCR techniques to ensure robustness. Diagnostic tests validated the ARDL model: the Jarque-Bera test confirmed residual normality; Breusch-Godfrey test indicated no autocorrelation; Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey, ARCH, Glesier and Harvey test established heteroskedasticity. However, Ramsey Reset test confirmed correct specification, and CUSUM and CUSUM squares tests affirmed parameter stability.

4 Results and discussion

4.1 Descriptive analysis

The goal of this study was to investigate the effects of agriculture inputs and climate change on India's annual cereal production. Table 2 presents the results of the descriptive analysis of the variables used in the model. The mean values range from 4.959 (LNCP) to 12.097 (LNTCA), with medians largely aligned. The maximum values vary between 5.573 (LNCP) and 12.211 (LNTCA), while the minimum values range from 1.509 (LNFC) to 4.134 (LNCP). Standard deviations are generally low, with values between 0.021 (LNTMIN) and 1.133 (LNFC). Skewness indicates slight deviations from normality, with the most skewed being LNFC at −1.497. Kurtosis values suggest mild tail behavior, ranging from 1.871 (LNTCA) to 4.544 (LNFC). Jarque-Bera tests highlight departures from normality, where LNFC exhibits the highest value at 27.417. Notably, LNPREC has a skewness close to zero (0.057) and the lowest Jarque-Bera value (0.859), indicating relatively normal distribution. Probability values for the Jarque-Bera tests reinforce these observations. The data comprises of 58 observations for each variable.Table 2 Descriptive statistics of the variables.

Table 2Particulars	LNCP	LNCA	LNTCA	LNFC	LNPC	LNPREC	LNTMIN	LNTMEAN	LNTMAX	
Mean	4.959	4.604	12.097	4.401	3.744	7.006	2.922	3.202	3.421	
Median	5.058	4.610	12.113	4.809	3.886	7.014	2.922	3.202	3.421	
Maximum	5.573	4.679	12.211	5.683	4.329	7.160	2.969	3.238	3.451	
Minimum	4.134	4.526	11.953	1.509	2.245	6.773	2.878	3.170	3.398	
Std. Dev.	0.411	0.036	0.077	1.133	0.496	0.087	0.021	0.015	0.011	
Skewness	−0.353	−0.567	−0.321	−0.881	−1.497	−0.259	0.057	0.248	0.262	
Kurtosis	1.958	2.868	1.871	2.796	4.544	2.703	2.410	2.639	2.811	
Jarque-Bera	3.823	3.149	4.081	7.612	27.417	0.859	0.873	0.908	0.752	
Probability	0.148	0.207	0.130	0.022	0.000	0.651	0.646	0.635	0.687	
Observation	58	58	58	58	58	58	58	58	58	

4.2 Correlation among variables

The correlation matrix between the chosen variables is shown in Table 3. Notably, with correlation coefficients of 0.986 and 0.965, respectively, LNCP exhibits strong positive correlations with LNTCA and LNFC. In addition, a positive correlation of 0.705 exists between LNCP and LNPC. Low coefficients, such as 0.033 with LNCP, indicate that variables precipitation, as represented by LNPREC, have little correlation with other variables. Like the temperature variables, the correlation between LNCP with LNTMIN, LNTMEAN and LNTMAX varies from 0.586 (LNTMAX) to 0.775 (LNTMIN). These conclusions show the intricate relationships between the variables that were examined and help us comprehend how those relationships interact with one another in the context of the dynamics of cereal production in India.Table 3 Correlation matrix of the selected variables.

Table 3Variables	LNCP	LNCA	LNTCA	LNFC	LNPC	LNPREC	LNTMIN	LNTMEAN	LNTMAX	
LNCP	1.000	0.269	0.986	0.965	0.705	0.033	0.775	0.702	0.586	
LNCA	0.269	1.000	0.311	0.363	0.671	0.260	0.042	−0.056	−0.163	
LNTCA	0.986	0.311	1.000	0.952	0.708	0.111	0.750	0.668	0.544	
LNFC	0.965	0.363	0.952	1.000	0.806	−0.091	0.781	0.710	0.595	
LNPC	0.705	0.671	0.708	0.806	1.000	−0.063	0.497	0.404	0.278	
LNPREC	0.033	0.260	0.111	−0.091	−0.063	1.000	−0.087	−0.161	−0.231	
LNTMIN	0.775	0.042	0.750	0.781	0.497	−0.087	1.000	0.977	0.900	
LNTMEAN	0.702	−0.056	0.668	0.710	0.404	−0.161	0.977	1.000	0.972	
LNTMAX	0.586	−0.163	0.544	0.595	0.278	−0.231	0.900	0.972	1.000	

4.3 Unit root tests results

The findings demonstrate that the majority of variables exhibit significant evidence of stationarity at the 1 % level for both the ADF and PP tests (Table 4), indicating that these variables are integrated of order zero (I (0)). There is noteworthy evidence of stationarity in both tests for variables like LNCP, LNCA, LNTCA, LNFC, LNPC, LNPREC, LNTMIN, LNTMEAN, and LNTMAX at a significance level of 1 %. Table 4 indicates that the results of both the ADF and PP tests suggest that all variables in this study exhibit stationarity at the first difference I (1). Hence, these tests show the application of the ARDL model that is suitable for use.Table 4 Results of Augmented Dickey Fuller and Phillips Perron unit root test.

Table 4Particulars	ADF	PP	
I(0)	I(1)	I(0)	I(1)	
LNCP	−2.81*	−5.97***	−0.84	−18.57***	
LNCA	−2.22	−7.20***	−3.29**	−13.85***	
LNTCA	−1.27	−8.87***	−1.43	−16.19***	
LNFC	−4.04***	−3.96***	−7.12***	−5.14***	
LNPC	−2.54	−1.88	−3.94***	−7.78***	
LNPREC	−8.69***	−5.73***	−8.71***	−24.13***	
LNTMIN	−0.69	−3.09**	−2.79*	−16.77***	
LNTMEAN	−0.38	−3.32**	−3.43**	−17.66***	
LNTMAX	−0.81	−2.90*	−4.10***	−16.70***	
Note: (*) Significant at the 10 %; (**) Significant at the 5 % and (***) Significant at the 1 % respectively.

4.4 Lag selection criteria

It is necessary to choose an appropriate lag order for the variables to apply the ARDL bound test to determine out if there is cointegration between cereal production, cereal area, total cropped area, minimum, mean, and maximum temperature, fertilizer and pesticide consumption, and precipitation. For this purpose, the study employed the VAR model's optimal lag order, and the outcomes are shown in Table 5. While there are many lag selection criteria listed in Table 5, this study used popular ones like the AIC and SIC. According to the AIC, lag 4 is the ideal lag value for the cereal production in the model, and Fig. 2 displays the top 20 models chosen based on the AIC. The AIC criterion has also been used in other studies [61,[99], [100], [101]] to establish the number of lag lengths in the ADF test. As shown in Fig. 1, where dots inside the circle symbolize the validation of result accuracy. Additionally, the polynomial graph was utilized to verify the appropriate lag length under the VAR method.Table 5 Lag selection criteria.

Table 5Lag	LogL	LR	FPE	AIC	SC	HQ	
0	1273.291	NA	0.000	−47.709	−47.374a	−47.580	
1	1365.684	149.922	0.000	−48.139	−44.793	−46.852	
2	1439.896	95.214	0.000	−47.883	−41.526	−45.438	
3	1541.023	95.403	0.000	−48.642	−39.274	−45.040	
4	1732.244	115.454a	0.000a	−52.802a	−40.422	−48.041a	
Note: LR: sequential modified LR test statistic (each test at 5 % level); FPE: Final prediction error; AIC: Akaike information criterion; SC: Schwarz information criterion; HQ: Hannan-Quinn information criterion.

a Indicates lag order selected by the criterion.

Fig. 1 Inverse roots of AR test.

Fig. 1

Fig. 2 AIC value of top ARDL models.

Fig. 2

4.5 Results of ARDL bound and Johansen cointegration test

It is crucial to carry out the ARDL bound test [90] to determine the long and short-run relationships between variables to confirm the existence of cointegration. The ARDL bounds method was used in the current study to investigate the long-term relationships between LNCP, LNCA, LNTCA, LNFC, LNPC, LNPREC, LNTMIN, LNTMEAN and LNTMAX. The findings in Table 6 and Fig. 2 show that there is a long-term association. The J-J cointegration technique's results are shown in Table 7, which attest to the variables' effectiveness and robustness over the long term. The LNCP, LNCA, LNTCA, LNFC, LNPC, LNPREC, LNTMIN, LNTMEAN, LNTMAX estimated F-statistics, i.e., 6.46, 5.163, 3.314, 16.191, 4.070, 3.962, 3.873 are exceed the upper threshold of the I (1) value at different significance levels, suggesting the rejection of the null hypothesis (H0)., i.e., “no cointegration among the variables.” While the LNCA, LNPC estimated F-statistics, i.e., 0.997, 2.64 are lower than the lower bound I (0).Table 6 Results of Johansen cointegration test.

Table 6Hypothesized No. of CE(s)	Eigen value	Trace Statistic	Prob.**	
Trace	
None *	0.851	353.417	0.0000	
At most 1 *	0.696	250.588	0.0000	
At most 2 *	0.651	186.260	0.0000	
At most 3 *	0.474	129.485	0.0000	
At most 4 *	0.439	94.800	0.0002	
At most 5 *	0.392	63.562	0.0009	
At most 6 *	0.256	36.650	0.0069	
At most 7 *	0.207	20.691	0.0075	
At most 8 *	0.140	8.162	0.0043	
Maximum	
None *	0.851	102.829	0.0000	
At most 1 *	0.696	64.327	0.0000	
At most 2 *	0.651	56.775	0.0000	
At most 3 *	0.474	34.685	0.0000	
At most 4 *	0.439	31.238	0.0002	
At most 5 *	0.392	26.912	0.0009	
At most 6 *	0.256	15.959	0.0069	
At most 7 *	0.207	12.529	0.0075	
At most 8 *	0.140	8.162	0.0043	
Note:***, ** represents the 1 %, 5 % significance level, respectively. **Expose the prob. values of MacKinnon-Haug-Michelis

Table 7 The summary of ARDL bounds testing.

Table 7Model for estimation	Optimal lag	F-stat	
FLNCP (LNCP/LNCA, LNTCA, LNFC, LNPC, LNPREC, LNTMIN, LNTMEAN, LNTMAX)	ARDL (4,1,4,4,4,4,4,4,4)	6.46a	
Bounds test critical values: K (8)	I (0)	I (1)	
1 %	2.62	3.77	
5 %	2.11	3.15	
10 %	1.85	2.85	
a represents the 1 % significance level. The critical values are based on [20]. Here, K represents number of parameters.

4.6 Long-run and short-run estimates

The ARDL long-run and short-run results, as presented in Table 8, reveal significant insights into the connection between climate and agriculture variables and cereal production in India. Expanding cereal crop production is dependent on increasing cereal crop cultivated land area [82]. Further, the increased agricultural carbon emissions, often resulting from excessive chemical use and energy-intensive agro-based technologies, pose a challenge to cereal production growth [76]. Furthermore, multiple researchers have demonstrated that the escalating global warming issue has the potential to impair cereal production worldwide and the global average temperature has risen by approximately 0.5 °C–0.6 °C over the past decades [102]. This temperature shift could result in a 10–15 % decrease in cereal production, resulting in higher market prices [103].Table 8 The ARDL long-run and short-run results.

Table 8Variables	Coefficient	Std. Error	t-stat	Prob.	
Long run	
LNCA	0.613***	0.075	8.141	0.000	
LNTCA	−0.266	0.420	−0.632	0.540	
LNFC	0.081***	0.022	3.705	0.004	
LNPC	0.019	0.022	0.845	0.416	
LNPREC	0.258***	0.082	3.140	0.009	
LNTMIN	−0.155	14.499	−0.011	0.992	
LNTMEAN	−2.349	38.062	−0.062	0.952	
LNTMAX	0.838	23.812	0.035	0.973	
C	0.006**	0.003	2.151	0.055	
Short run	
ΔLNCA	0.843***	0.030	27.895	0.000	
ΔLNTCA	0.258*	0.124	2.089	0.061	
ΔLNFC	−0.020	0.020	−0.982	0.347	
ΔLNPC	−0.048***	0.015	−3.238	0.008	
ΔLNPREC	0.172***	0.028	6.164	0.000	
ΔLNTMIN	−4.110	3.081	−1.334	0.209	
ΔLNTMEAN	8.060	8.243	0.978	0.349	
ΔLNTMAX	−4.382	5.225	−0.839	0.420	
ECMt-1	−1.795***	0.166	−10.837	0.000	
R-squared	0.999	
Adjusted R-squared	0.997	
F-statistic	213.114***	
Durbin–Watson stat	1.49	
Note: *, **, *** exhibits significance at 10 %, 5 %, 1 % level.

However, the present study identifies a favorable and statistically significant relationship between LNCA and LNCP. The findings show that increasing the LNCA has a direct impact on LNCP in both the short and long term. With a coefficient of 0.613, this means that a 1 % increase in LNCA results in a 0.613 % increase in LNCP over time. These conclusions are consistent with earlier researches by Refs. [54,58,60,62,64,66,69,72,74,75,[104], [105], [106], [107], [108]]. Josephson et al. [109] and Ahsan et al. [69] revealed that with every 1 % increase in area under cereal crops the crop production increase by 0.16 % in long-run. Additionally, the study reveals that a 1 % increase in LNCA correlates with a 0.843 % increase in LNCP in the short term. Moreover, while LNTCA negatively affects LNCP in the long term, it demonstrates a significant positive impact on LNCP in the short term. Specifically, a 1 % increase in LNTCA is projected to decrease LNCP by 0.266 % in the long run while increasing it by 0.258 % in the short run.

Fertilizers are widely thought to boost agricultural productivity by enriching soil nutrients [110]. They improve land fertility and plant growth [50] as a result, fertilizers are expected to have a positive impact on agricultural productivity. This increase in agricultural production has been accomplished through a variety of means, including technological advancements, increased fertilizer utilization, improved seed quality, and expanded cultivation areas. Because cultivable land is limited, future efforts to increase cereal production and productivity are likely to rely on intensive input utilization, particularly fertilizers.

The study findings show that LNFC has a positive and statistically significant influence on LNCP over the long term, with a significance level of 1 %. This means that a 1 % increase in LNFC results in a 0.081 % increase in LNCP in the long run. These findings are consistent with empirical studies conducted by Refs. [60,67,74,87,107,[110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115]] all of which also found positive correlations between fertilizer application and crop production. Chandio et al. [54] observed that 1 per cent increase in fertilizer consumption could raise agricultural output by 0.38 %. Appropriate usage of fertilizers could improve soil nutrition and soil fertility. The effect of fertilizer consumption on agricultural output is also notable. However, in the short term, this study reveals a contrary result, indicating that estimated LNFC has a negative impact on LNCP. This outcome could be attributed to the inherent fertility of cultivated lands in the short run, where excessive fertilizer application may not only harm crops but also result in runoff into water bodies and groundwater. This runoff has the potential to cause harmful algal blooms that are harmful to ecosystems, humans, and animals, including pets.

LNPC has a positive long-term correlation with LNCP as highlighted in Table 8. This implies that a 1 % increase in LNPC leads to a 0.019 % increase in LNCP over time. Several factors contribute to India's favorable relationship between LNPC and LNCP. Crop and plant diseases are on the rise as the environment deteriorates, forcing farmers to resort to increased pesticide use to protect their crops from insects. This rising demand for pesticides is wreaking havoc on the environment. LNPC has decreased significantly, like LNFC patterns. In this context, a 1 % increase in LNPC results in a 0.048 % decrease in LNCP in the short term. While the short run impact may not be valid, pesticide use in general has intricate ties to environmental degradation, particularly in the long run. Pesticides cumulative effects may contribute to environmental degradation over time. Notably, the multifaceted negative consequences of pesticide application emerge right away. Pesticides seep into the soil in large quantities, compromising soil quality and eventually affecting agricultural productivity. Some of these pesticides make their way into bodies of water via runoff, making the water toxic and harmful to aquatic life. Another substantial portion evaporates into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. Furthermore, pesticides can harm beneficial insects, including pollinators. The entire process of pesticide transformation and its consequences are inextricably linked to environmental degradation. To mitigate the negative consequences of usage of pesticides and IPM methods emerges as a viable option [88]. IPM is a comprehensive strategy for reducing pesticide toxicity while maintaining agricultural productivity.

Examining other climatic factors, specifically LNPREC, the results show a notable and statistically significant positive impact at the 1 % significance level, both in the long and short run. This means that a 100 mm increase in LNPREC results in an increase in LNCP of about 0.258 % in the long run and 0.172 % in the short run. The enhanced long-term effect compared to the short-term outcome can be attributed to increased average yields, even in the face of consistent LNCA and saturated irrigated regions. LNPREC is a critical determinant in the agricultural sector. This finding is inherently logical, as it emphasizes cereal farming reliance on rainfall/precipitation patterns. The beneficial impact of LNPREC on crop yields aligns with earlier reports by Refs. [53,57,59,60,68,71,75,116,117] which indicated that rainfall enhances agricultural production. The results are in line with the findings of Pickson et al. [66] and He et al. [118], which established that precipitation exerts a substantial favorable influence on China's cereal cultivation. But in case of Somalia, Warsame et al. [58] observed that with 1 % increase in average rainfall and temperature leads to a reduction in crop production by 0.11 % and 8.5 %, respectively in the short run. Minimum, mean, and maximum temperatures all play important roles in cereal production in India. All are required for the plant growth cycle, but only within a certain range; even minor variations can result in crop failure and significant yield losses. The minimum temperature influences germination, early growth stages, and pest dynamics, whereas high maximum temperatures can cause heat stress, impede pollination, and increase water demand. The duration of the growing season, the timing of phenological events, and overall climate resilience are all affected by mean temperature, which is the average of these extremes. Managing these temperature factors collectively is critical for optimal crop growth, yield formation, and adaptation to climate variations, thereby safeguarding the nation's cereal production and the nation's overall food security. The coefficients associated with average LNTMIN have a negative impact on cereal yield in both the long and short run. This means that for every 1 °C increase in LNTMIN, LNCP is expected to fall by 0.155 %–4.110 %. These results underscore the susceptibility of crop productivity to substantial yield declines resulting from climate change and extreme weather occurrences such as floods and droughts in the forthcoming decades [35]. Attiaoui and Boufateh [68] revealed that with every 1 % increase in average temperature the crop production will decrease by 11.5 % in the long run. The IPCC [119] reported in 2013 that even a 1 °C temperature increase could result in a 5 % decrease in grain crop yields. This trend is consistent with the experience of major cereal crops such as maize and wheat, which have experienced significant yield reductions on a global scale, totaling 40 megatons annually from 1981 to 2002 due to climate change.

Over the long term, LNTMEAN coefficients negatively influence LNCP, indicating a 1 °C rise in LNTMEAN leads to a 2.349 % decrease in LNCP. This aligns with the findings of [1,37,54,58,60,65,68,71,75,83,120], which consistently demonstrated a negative correlation between LNTMEAN and LNCP. Conversely, this contradicts [63,121], who identified a significant positive correlation between LNTMEAN and LNCP. Additionally, LNTMEAN had no impact on LNCP in Pakistan [50]. In the short term, LNTMEAN positively affects LNCP, predicting a 1 °C increase in LNTMEAN would result in an 8.060 % rise in LNCP.

A slight temperature increase can promote critical stages such as flowering and seed formation, potentially resulting in higher yields. This suggests that, within a certain range, a moderate temperature increase can benefit crop growth. However, beyond this point, the negative consequences of temperature changes tend to outweigh any potential benefits. The maximum temperature coefficients reveal a variety of effects on cereal production. LNTMAX has a short-term unfavorable impact but a long-term good benefit. A 1 °C LNTMAX is expected to reduce LNCP by 0.838 % in the long run and increase LNCP by 4.382 % in the short run. It is corroborated by the findings of the study that [50,53,60,83,122,123] who reported that LNTMAX negatively affects LNCP. The effects of climate change have been most felt by developing nations sectors related to agriculture in recent times. Essential food crops have struggled to adapt to changing weather patterns and planting patterns. Climate change adversities in the agricultural sector include decreased production performance and increased operational costs due to limited resources to combat vulnerabilities. As a result, addressing climate change comes at a high cost, but timely interventions can be implemented to mitigate its negative consequences [75,124].

The ECMt-1, shows a highly significant negative impact with a coefficient of −1.795 and a p-value of 0.000, indicating its role in restoring the equilibrium relationship between the variables. The model's goodness of fit is underscored by the high R-squared value of 0.999 and the adjusted R-squared of 0.997, implying a strong explanatory power. The F-statistic of 213.114 further signifies the overall significance of the model. Additionally, the Durbin-Watson statistic of 1.49 indicates the presence of positive autocorrelation.

4.7 Diagnostic testing

The findings of diagnostic statistical tests conducted to judge the reliable and precise nature of the analysis are shown in Table 9. With a value of 2.41 and a probability of 0.299, the Normality Test of Jarque-Bera indicates that the distribution of the data may be close to being normal. The LM Test for Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation yields a statistic of 1.407 with a corresponding probability of 0.294, indicating that there may not be significant serial correlation in the model. Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey, ARCH, Glejser, and Harvey heteroskedasticity tests all produce values of 0.651, 0.264, 0.907, and 1.167, respectively, with associated probabilities that do not show any discernible heteroskedasticity. The correct specification of the model is confirmed by the Ramsey Reset test. The stability of the ARDL model parameters is confirmed by the CUSUM and CUSUMSQ tests, as depicted in Fig. 3, Fig. 4.Table 9 Diagnostic statistics test.

Table 9Particulars	F-statistic	Prob. F	
Jarque-Bera Normality Test	2.41	0.299	
Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test	1.407	0.294	
Heteroskedasticity Test: Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey	0.651	0.844	
Heteroskedasticity Test: ARCH	0.264	0.610	
Heteroskedasticity Test: Glejser	0.907	0.616	
Heteroskedasticity Test: Harvey	1.167	0.413	
Ramsey Reset Test	0.083	0.778	
CUSUM	Stable	
CUSUMSQ	Stable	

Fig. 3 CUSUM test.

Fig. 3

Fig. 4 CUSUM square test.

Fig. 4

4.8 Robustness estimates

After confirming the variables' long-run cointegration, we examined the variables' long-run coefficients. To make sure the model is robust; we estimated the parameter's long-run coefficients using FMOLS and CCR techniques. The result of the CCR and FMOLS models is presented in Table 10, and it demonstrates that all the variables are significant over the long term. The long-run covariance estimate was calculated in the robustness analysis using parameters to increase the accuracy of the findings. The estimation method involved pre-whitening with a maximum lag of three, as determined by the AIC. During the estimation process, the Bartlett kernel and a fixed Newey-West bandwidth of 4.0 were both used.Table 10 Robustness check.

Table 10Variables	Fully Modified Least Squares (FMOLS)	Canonical Cointegrating Regression (CCR)	
Coeff.	S.E.	Prob.	Coeff.	S.E.	Prob.	
LNCA	0.941***	0.025	0.000	0.562***	0.039	0.000	
LNTCA	0.734***	0.071	0.000	−0.699***	0.122	0.000	
LNFC	−0.026**	0.011	0.017	−0.035**	0.014	0.018	
LNPC	0.022***	0.008	0.014	0.050***	0.012	0.000	
LNPREC	−0.077***	0.016	0.000	0.138***	0.030	0.000	
LNTMIN	33.296***	1.899	0.000	84.019***	3.192	0.000	
LNTMEAN	−85.406***	4.950	0.000	−224.546***	8.533	0.000	
LNTMAX	51.063***	3.087	0.000	138.239***	5.426	0.000	
C	−0.001	0.001	0.604	0.017***	0.002	0.000	
R2	0.904	0.884	
Adj R2	0.888	0.851	
Note: *, **, *** exhibits significance at 10 %, 5 %, 1 % level.

The variables such as LNCA, LNTCA, LNPC, LNTMIN, and TMAX in FMOLS and LNCA, LNPC, LNPREC, LNTMIN, and TMAX in CCR have statistically significant at 1 % level of significance with positive effects on cereal production. LNFC, LNPREC and LNTMIN exhibit a detrimental effect on cereal production reducing it by approximately 0.026 %, 0.077 % and 85.406 % respectively in FMOLS for a 1 % increase in these variables in the long run. On the other hand, LNTCA, LNFC and LNTMIN have a negative impact on cereal production in the CCR model, with a reduction of 0.699, 0.035 and 224.546 % respectively, for a 1 % increase in these variables in the long run. With R-squared values for FMOLS and CCR of 0.904 and 0.884, respectively, both models exhibit high levels of explanatory power and the capacity to fully explain the variation in the dependent variable. Thus, both the CCR and FMOLS models validate that the ARDL model is accurately specified and estimated.

5 Conclusion

This study's main goal was to investigate the complex interactions between India's cereal production, cereal area, total cropped area, and various climatic and agricultural factors from 1961 to 2018. This study aimed to answer two important questions: first, whether cereal production in India could be negatively impacted by the looming threat of climate change, and second, whether cereal production trends were significantly influenced by the complex web of agricultural variables, including fertilizer use, pesticide use, and total cropped area. The ARDL model was used to shed light on these questions, allowing for a thorough evaluation of the long-term effects of climate change and agriculture-related variables on cereal production. However, the results of the ARDL bound test for cointegration confirmed that cointegration existed between the variables, which prompted additional research. There are enduring connections between climatic variables, agricultural inputs, and cereal production in both the long run and the short run, according to the computed F-statistic of 6.46, which exceeds the value of the upper bound F > I (1). The findings revealed a complex landscape in this setting. LNCA became a key factor in rising cereal production, as evidenced by its positive coefficient. LNFC and LNPREC had similar positive effects on production trends. LNTCA and LNTMIN, on the other hand, seemed to have little influence over the results of production. The short-run coefficients also shed light on the dynamics that underlie transient fluctuations. LNCA, LNPC, and LNPREC were identified as key factors that temporarily altered cereal production and had statistical significance. The negative coefficient connected to LNFC, on the other hand, suggested a potential short-term decrease in production due to changes in fertilizer consumption. ECMt-1 presence confirmed the idea of enduring interconnections by highlighting the constancy of the long-term relationships among the variables. The long-term findings were also supported using econometric tools CCR and FMOLS. These methods confirmed that variations in cereal production in India were significantly influenced by climate as well as agricultural inputs and factors.

6 Policy implications

It is essential for policymakers to give preventive measures top priority because the findings highlighted the potential vulnerability of cereal production to climate change. This problem requires a multifaceted approach to be solved. The first viable solution, serving both environmental preservation and cereal production optimization, is the reduction of pesticide and fertilizer usage. The negative environmental effects caused by excessive chemical use can be reduced by adopting integrated pest management strategies and organic farming practices. In addition, due to the importance of rice as a cereal crop, irrigation technology investments are crucial for ensuring a sufficient water supply during times of unpredictable rainfall. Considering shifting climatic patterns, water management strategies can increase crop productivity as well as water use effectiveness.

Additionally, it becomes strategic imperative to promote crop varieties that are climate resilient and can withstand water and temperature stress. To combat the problems brought on by climate change, research and development efforts should concentrate on breeding high-yielding, drought-tolerant, and disease-resistant varieties. Adopting sustainable land management techniques, for instance, conservation agriculture and agroforestry, can improve ecosystem resilience overall and improve soil health and water conservation. To address the complex climate change's effects on cereal production in India, a comprehensive strategy that incorporates sustainable practices, technological innovation, and strong policy frameworks is essential. The results highlight the need for proactive measures to lessen the adverse effects of climate change, ensure sustainable food production, and increase India's agricultural sector's resilience.

7 Limitations of the study and future research focus

Limitations of this study include the focus primarily on aggregated national-level data, which may overlook regional disparities and nuances that affect cereal production differently across India. Additionally, the study's reliance on econometric models like ARDL, CCR, and FMOLS assumes linear relationships and may not fully capture non-linear dynamics or interactions among variables. Future research could explore finer geographical resolutions to better understand regional variations in climate impacts on cereal production. Incorporating more detailed data on specific agricultural practices and innovations, such as precision farming techniques or crop diversification strategies, could also provide deeper insights into adaptation and mitigation strategies. Furthermore, longitudinal studies tracking the implementation and effectiveness of policy interventions aimed at climate resilience in agriculture would contribute valuable empirical evidence for informed policymaking.

Data availability statements

Data will be made available on reasonable request.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Arshdeep Singh: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Software, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Kashish Arora: Writing – review & editing, Data curation. Suresh Chandra Babu: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Acknowledgement

One of the author (Arshdeep Singh) acknowledges the support received from the 10.13039/501100001848 Indian Council of Social Science Research (10.13039/501100001848 ICSSR ) for providing a scholarship during the PhD program. Further, authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for their valuable comments that helped to improve the quality of the manuscript.
==== Refs
References

1 Chandio A.A. Jiang Y. Assessing the impacts of climate change on cereal production in Bangladesh: evidence from ARDL modeling approach Int J Clim Chang Strateg Manag 14 2022 125 147
2 Almazroui M. Saeed S. Saeed F. Islam M.N. Ismail M. Projections of precipitation and temperature over the South Asian countries in CMIP6 Earth Systems and Environment 4 2020 297 320
3 Bandara J.S. Cai Y. The impact of climate change on food crop productivity, food prices and food security in South Asia Econ Anal Policy 44 2014 451 465
4 Singh A. Thakur R.K. Profitability, resource use efficiency and technical efficiency of organic crops in Himachal Pradesh, India Int. J. Environ. Stud. 80 2023 1248 1258 10.1080/00207233.2022.2037337
5 Kumar P. Singh N.P. Mathur V.C. Sustainable agriculture and rural livelihoods: a synthesis Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 19 2006 1 22
6 Kashish D.V. A study on production and trade performance of fruits in India Agric. Res. J. 54 2017 108 113
7 Dev S.M. Climate Change, Rural Livelihoods and Agriculture (Focus on Food Security) in Asia-Pacific Region 2011
8 Singh A. Thakur R.K. Mehta K. Singh S. Economic viability of organic crops in Himachal Pradesh Journal of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development 17 2022 67 74
9 Singh A. Thakur R.K. Economic assessment and labour utilization of organic kidney beans and black gram Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 22 2022 44 50
10 Singh A. Thakur R.K. Understanding the perception, constraints and reasons for the adoption of organic farming Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 22 2022 110 117
11 Dhawan V. Singh K. J M. Commercialization to specialization: a scenario of Punjab agriculture Econ. Aff. 60 2015 433 437
12 Dhawan V. Singh J. M K. How profitable is agriculture in Indian Punjab: an insight from cost of cultivation survey Indian J Econ Dev 14 2018 71 76
13 Hemathilake D.M.K.S. Gunathilake D.M.C.C. Agricultural productivity and food supply to meet increased demands Future Foods 2022 Academic Press Cambridge, MA 539 553 USA
14 Chandio A.A. Jiang Y. Ahmad F. Adhikari S. Ain Q. Assessing the impacts of climatic and technological factors on rice production: empirical evidence from Nepal Technol. Soc. 66 2021 1607 10161
15 Bindi M.O. J E. The responses of agriculture in Europe to climate change Reg. Environ. Change 11 2011 151 158
16 Müller C. Cramer W. Hare W.L. Lotze-Campen H. Climate change risks for African agriculture Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108 2011 4313 4315 21368199
17 Beach R.H. Cai Y. Thomson A. Zhang X. Jones R. McCarl B.A. Crimmins A. Martinich J. Cole J. Ohrel S. DeAngelo B. McFarland J. Strzepek K. Boehlert B. Climate change impacts on US agriculture and forestry: benefits of global climate stabilization Environ. Res. Lett. 10 2015
18 Ray D.K. Gerber J.S. Macdonald G.K. West P.C. Climate variation explains a third of global crop yield variability Nat. Commun. 6 2015 5989 25609225
19 Howden S.M. Soussana J.F. Tubiello F.N. Chhetri N. Dunlop M. Meinke H. Adapting agriculture to climate change Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104 2007 19691 19696 18077402
20 Mackay A.W. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change J. Environ. Qual. 37 2008 2407
21 Fisher A.C. Hanemann W.M. Roberts M.J. Schlenker W. The economic impacts of climate change: evidence from agricultural output and random fluctuations in weather: comment Am, Econ Rev. 102 2012 3749 3760
22 De Vrese P. Stacke T. Hagemann S. Exploring the biogeophysical limits of global food production under different climate change scenarios Earth System Dynamics 9 2018 393 412
23 Wang J. Vanga S.K. Saxena R. Orsat V. Raghavan V. Effect of climate change on the yield of cereal crops: a review Climate 6 2018 41 10.3390/cli6020041
24 Yawson D.O. Mulholland B. Ball T. Adu M.O. Mohan S. White P.J. Effect of climate and agricultural land use changes on UK feed barley production and food security to the 2050s Land 6 2017 1 14 10.3390/land6040074
25 Jayatilleke S.B. Yiyong C. The impact of climate change on food crop productivity, food prices and food security in South Asia, Econ Anal. Policy 44 2014 451 465
26 Tripathi A. Tripathi D.K. Chauhan D.K. Kumar N. Singh G.S. Paradigms of climate change impacts on some major food sources of the world: a review on current knowledge and future prospects Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 216 2016 356 373
27 Raza A. Razzaq A. Mehmood S.S. Zou X. Zhang X. Lv Y. Xu J. Impact of climate change on crops adaptation and strategies to tackle its outcome: a review Plants 8 2019 34 30704089
28 Bagale S. Climate ready crops for drought stress: a review in Nepalese context Rev. Food Agric. 2 2021 83 87
29 Kaffashi S. Assessing the impacts of climate change on paddy production in Malaysia Res. J. Environ. Sci. 8 2014 331 341
30 Kumar A. Singh A. Climate change and its impact on wheat production and mitigation through agroforestry technologies Int. J. Environ. Sci. 5 2014 73 90
31 Birthal P.S. Khan T. Negi D.S. Agarwal S. Impact of climate change on yields of major food crops in India: implications for food security Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 27 2014 145 155
32 Praveen B. Sharma P. Climate variability and its impacts on agriculture production and future prediction using autoregressive integrated moving average method, ARIMA) J. Public Affairs 2019 e2016 10.1002/pa.2016
33 Mughal M. Fontan-Sers C. Cereal production, undernourishment, and food insecurity in South Asia Rev. Dev. Econ. 24 2020 524 545
34 Ahmad M. Iqbal M. Farooq U. Food security and its constraining factors in South Asia: challenges and opportunities Res. J. Soc. Sci. 5 2016 2
35 Gupta S. Sen P. Srinivasan S. Impact of climate change on the Indian economy: evidence from food grain yields Clim. Change Econ. 5 2014 1 29
36 Mall R.K. Gupta A. Singh R. Singh R.S. Rathore L.S. Water resources and climate change: an Indian perspective Curr. Sci. 90 2006 1610 1626
37 Pickson R.B. Boateng E. Gui P. Chen A. The impacts of climatic conditions on cereal production: implications for food security in Africa Dev. Sustain 2023 10.1007/s10668-023-03391-x
38 Chandio A.A. Abbas S. Ozdemir D. Ahmad F. Sargani G.R. Twumasi M.A. The role of climatic changes and financial development to the ASEAN agricultural output: a novel long-run evidence for sustainable production Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 30 2023 1381 10.1007/s11356-022-23144-z
39 Abdi A.H. Warsame A.A. Sheik-Ali I.A. Modelling the impacts of climate change on cereal crop production in East Africa: evidence from heterogeneous panel cointegration analysis Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 30 2023 35246 35257 10.1007/s11356-022-24773-0
40 Ali D.A. Dahir A.M. Yusuf S.M. Autoregressive distributed lag modeling of climate and non-climatic determinants affecting cereal production: empirical evidence from Somalia Int. J. Energy Econ. Pol. 13 2023 577 10.32479/ijeep.14553
41 Abbas S. Climate change and major crop production: evidence from Pakistan Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 29 2022 5406 5414 10.1007/s11356-021-16041-4
42 Abbas S. Climate change and cotton production: an empirical investigation of Pakistan Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 27 2020 29580 29588 10.1007/s11356-020-09222-0
43 Bouznit M. Aïssaoui R. The impacts of climate change factors and innovative capabilities on food production in Algeria: evidence from ARDL model Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023 10.1007/s10668-023-03627-w
44 Ahmed M. Shuai J. Ali H. The effects of climate change on food production in India: evidence from the ARDL model Dev. Sustain 2023 10.1007/s10668-023-03209-w
45 Köprücü Y. Acaroğlu H. How cereal yield is influenced by eco-environmental factors? ARDL and spectral causality analysis for Turkey Cleaner Environmental Systems 10 2023 10.1016/j.cesys.2023.100128
46 Warsame A.A. Sheik-Ali I.A. Jama O.M. Hassan A.A. Barre G.M. Assessing the effects of climate change and political instability on sorghum production: empirical evidence from Somalia J. Clean. Prod. 360 2022
47 Kumar P. Sahu N.C. Ansari M.A. Kumar S. Climate change and rice production in India: role of ecological and carbon footprint J. Agribus. Dev. Emerg. Econ. 13 2023 260 278 10.1108/JADEE-06-2021-0152
48 Singh A. Arora K. Babu S.C. An analysis of long-term and short-term impact of climate change on rice production in India China Agric. Econ. Rev. 16 2024 290 319 10.1108/CAER-07-2023-0179
49 Asseng S. Foster I. Turner N.C. The impact of temperature variability on wheat yields Glob Chang Biol 17 2011 997 1012 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2010.02262.x
50 Chandio A.A. Magsi H. Ozturk I. Examining the effects of climate change on rice production: case study of Pakistan Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 27 2020 7812 7822
51 Nasrullah M. Rizwanullah M. Yu X. Jo H. Sohail M.T. Liang L. Autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach to study the impact of climate change and other factors on rice production in South Korea Journal of Water and Climate Change 12 2021 2256 2270 10.2166/wcc.2021.030
52 Rizwanullah M. Mao J. Jia T. Nasrullah M. Are climate change and technology posing a challenge to food security in South Korea? South Afr. J. Bot. 157 2023 167 173
53 Guntukula R. Assessing the impact of climate change on Indian agriculture: evidence from major crop yields J. Public Aff. 20 2020 1
54 Chandio A.A. Jiang Y. Rehman A. Rauf A. Short and long-run impacts of climate change on agriculture: an empirical evidence from China, Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg OR Manag. 12 2020 201 221
55 Sarker M.A.R. Alam K. Gow J. Assessing the effects of climate change on rice yields: an econometric investigation using Bangladeshi panel data Econ. Anal. Pol. 44 2014 405 416
56 Devkota N. Paija N. Impact of climate change on paddy production: evidence from Nepal ’’ Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development 17 2020 63 78
57 Sarker M.A.R. Alam K. Gow J. Exploring the relationship between climate change and rice yield in Bangladesh: an analysis of time series data Agric. Syst. 2012 2012 11 16 10.1016/j.agsy
58 Warsame A.A. Sheik A.I. Ali A.O. Sarkodie S.A. Climate change and crop production nexus in Somalia: empirical evidence from ARDL technique Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 28 16 2021 11733 11739 9850
59 Guntukula R. Goyari P. The impact of climate change on maize yields and its variability in Telangana, India: a panel approach study J. Publ. Aff. 20 2020 3
60 Singh A. Arora K. Babu S.C. An analysis of long-term and short-term impact of climate change on rice production in India China Agric. Econ. Rev. 16 2 2024 290 319 10.1108/CAER-07-2023-0179
61 Baig I.A. Chandio A.A. Ozturk I. Kumar P. Khan Z.A. Salam M. Assessing the long-and short-run asymmetrical effects of climate change on rice production: empirical evidence from India Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 29 2022 34209 34230
62 Zhai S. Song G. Qin Y. Ye X. Lee J. Modeling the impacts of climate change and technical progress on the wheat yield in inland China: an autoregressive distributed lag approach PLoS One 12 2017 9
63 Bhandari G. Effect of precipitation and temperature variation on the yield of major cereals in Dadeldhura district of far western development region, Nepal International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences 3 2013 247 256
64 Sarigül S.S. Merve Ü.N.L.Ü. Pnar A.V.C.I. Yaşar E. The empirical analysis of cereal production under the climate exchange and examining the effects of banks' domestic credit on cereal production: evidence from Turkey Journal of Ekonomi 9 2023 40 51
65 Xiang X. Solaymani S. Change in cereal production caused by climate change in Malaysia Ecol. Inf. 70 2022
66 Pickson R.B. He G. Ntiamoah E.B. Li C. Cereal production in the presence of climate change in China Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 27 2020 45802 45813
67 Asfew M. Bedemo A. Impact of climate change on cereal crops production in Ethiopia Advances in Agriculture 2022 1 8
68 Attiaoui I. Boufateh T. Impacts of climate change on cereal farming in Tunisia: a panel ARDL–PMG approach Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 26 2019 1333
69 Ahsan F. Chandio A.A. Fang W. Climate change impacts on cereal crops production in Pakistan evidence from cointegration analysis International Journal of Climate Change Strategies Management 12 2020 257 269
70 Pickson R.B. Boateng E. Gui P. Chen A. The impacts of climatic conditions on cereal production: implications for food security in Africa Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023 1 28
71 Sossou S. Igue C.B. Diallo M. Impact of climate change on cereal yield and production in the Sahel: case of Burkina Faso Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology 37 2019 1 11
72 Chandio A.A. Jiang Y. Fatima T. Ahmad F. Ahmad M. Li J. Assessing the impacts of climate change on cereal production in Bangladesh: evidence from ARDL modeling approach Int J Clim Chang Strateg Manag 14 2022 125 147
73 Köprücü Y. Acaroğlu H. How cereal yield is influenced by eco-environmental factors? ARDL and spectral causality analysis for Turkey Cleaner Environmental Systems 2023 100128
74 Chandio A.A. Jiang Y. Akram W. Adeel S. Irfan M. Jan I. Addressing the effect of climate change in the framework of financial and technological development on cereal production in Pakistan J. Clean. Prod. 288 2021
75 Kumar P. Sahu N.C. Kumar S. Ansari M.A. Impact of climate change on cereal production: evidence from lower-middle income countries Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 28 2021 51597 51611
76 Simionescu M. Bilan Y. Gedek S. Streimikiene D. The effects of greenhouse gas emissions on cereal production in the European Union Sustainability 11 2019 3433
77 Chandio A.A. Jiang Y. Amin A. Akram W. Ozturk I. Sinha A. Ahmad F. Modeling the impact of climatic and non-climatic factors on cereal production: evidence from Indian agricultural sector Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 29 2022 14634 14653 10.1007/s11356-021-16751-9
78 CCKP Climate change knowledge portal https://clima 2023
79 RBI 2023 Reserve Bank of India https://dbie.rbi.org.in/DBIE/dbie.rbi?site=home
80 Ahmad S. Tariq M. Hussain T. Abbas Q. Elham H. Haider I. Li X. Does Chinese FDI, climate change, and CO2 emissions stimulate agricultural productivity? An empirical evidence from Pakistan Sustainability 12 2020 7485 10.3390/su12187485
81 Abbas S. Kousar S. Shirazi S.A. Yaseen M. Latif Y. Illuminating empirical evidence of climate change: impacts on rice production in the Punjab Regions, Pakistan Agric. Res. 11 2022 32 47
82 Koondhar M.A. Aziz N. Tan Z. Yang S. Abbasi K.R. Kong R. Green growth of cereal food production under the constraints of agricultural carbon emissions: a new insights from ARDL and VECM models Sustain. Energy Technol. Assessments 47 2021
83 Zhao C. Liu B. Piao S. Wang X. Lobell D.B. Huang Y. Huang M. Yao Y. Bassu S. Ciais P. Durand J.L. Elliott J. Ewert F. Janssens I.A. Li T. Lin E. Liu Q. Martre P. Müller C. Peng S. Peñuelas J. Ruane A.C. Wallach D. Wang T. Wu D. Liu Z. Zhu Y. Zhu Z. Asseng S. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114 2017 9326 10.1073/pnas.1701762114 28811375
84 Schlenker W. Roberts M.J. Nonlinear temperature effects indicate severe damages to U.S. crop yields under climate change Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106 2009 15594 15598 10.1073/pnas.0906865106 19717432
85 Farooq U. Gang F. Guan Z. Rauf A. Chandio A.A. Ahsan F. Exploring the long-run relationship between financial inclusion and agricultural growth: evidence from Pakistan Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 18 2023 1677 1696
86 Ali R. Ishaq R. Bakhsh K. Yasin M.A. Do agriculture technologies influence carbon emissions in Pakistan? Evidence based on ARDL technique Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 29 2022 43361 43370
87 Gul A. Xiumin W. Chandio A.A. Rehman A. Siyal S.A. Asare I. Tracking the effect of climatic and nonclimatic elements on rice production in Pakistan using the ARDL approach Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 2022 31886 31900
88 Hossain M.E. Islam M.S. Sujan M.H.K. Tuhin M.M.U.J. V Bekun F. Towards a clean production by exploring the nexus between agricultural ecosystem and environmental degradation using novel dynamic ARDL simulations approach Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 29 2022 5376
89 Johansen S. Juselius K. Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration-with applications to the demand for money Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 52 1990 169 210
90 Pesaran M.H. Shin Y. Smith R.J. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships J. Appl. Econ. 16 2001 289 326
91 Pesaran M.H. Shin Y. An autoregressive distributed-lag modelling approach to cointegration analysis Econom Soc Monogr 31 1998 371 413
92 Engle R.F. Granger C.W.J. Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing Econometrica 55 1987 251 276
93 Johansen S. Cointegration in partial systems and the efficiency of single-equation analysis J. Econom. 52 1992 389 402
94 Johansen S. Estimation and hypothesis testing of cointegration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models Econometrica 59 1991 1551 1580
95 Duasa J. Determinants of Malaysian trade balance: an ARDL bound testing approach Global Econ. Rev. 36 2007 89 102 https://doi:10.1080/12265080701217405
96 Frimpong M.J. Oteng E.F. Bound testing approach: an examination of foreign direct investment, trade and growth relationships MPRA Paper No. 352 2006 1 19
97 Shahbaz M. Shahbaz S.M. Sabihuddin B.M. Effect of financial development on agricultural growth in Pakistan: new extensions from bounds test to level relationships and granger causality tests Int. J. Soc. Econ. 40 2013 707 728 10.1108/IJSE-01-2012-0002
98 Tuan Anh N. Gan C. Anh D.L.T. Does credit boost agricultural performance? Evidence from Vietnam Int. J. Soc. Econ. 47 2020 1203 1221
99 Emenekwe C.C. Onyeneke R.U. Nwajiuba C.U. Assessing the combined effects of temperature, precipitation, total ecological footprint, and carbon footprint on rice production in Nigeria: a dynamic ARDL simulations approach Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 29 2022 8500
100 Baig I.A. Irfan M. Salam M.A. Işik C. Addressing the effect of meteorological factors and agricultural subsidy on agricultural productivity in India: a roadmap toward environmental sustainability Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 30 2022 1588 10.1007/s11356-022-23210-6
101 Begum M. Masud M.M. Alam L. Mokhtar M.B. Amir A.A. The impact of climate variables on marine fish production: an empirical evidence from Bangladesh based on autoregressive distributed lag (A Koondhar RDL) approach Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 29 2022 8792
102 Hansen J. Ruedy R. Sato M. Lo K. Global surface temperature change Rev. Geophys. 48 2010 10.1029/2010RG000345
103 Nelson G.C. Rosegrant M.W. Koo J. Robertson R. Sulser T. Zhu T. Ringler C. Msangi S. Palazzo A. Batka M. Magalhaes M. Climate change: impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation Food Pol. Res. Inst 2009 1 57 10.2499/0896295354
104 Ahmad N. Impact of institutional credit on agricultural output: a case study of Pakistan Theor. Appl. Econ. 1 2011 99 120
105 Hussain A.H. Impact of credit disbursement, area under cultivation, fertilizer consumption and water availability on rice production in Pakistan, 1988-2010) Sarhad J. Agric. 28 2012 95 101
106 Faridi M.Z. Chudhry M.O. Tahir N. Institutional credit and agricultural productivity: evidence from Pakistan Pak. J. Life. Soc. Sci. 13 2015 183 188
107 Chandio A.A. Jiang Y. Joyo M.A. Rehman A. Impact of area under cultivation, water availability, credit disbursement, and fertilizer offtake on wheat production in Pakistan J. Appl. Environ. Biol. Sci. 6 2016 10 18
108 Dogan H.G. Nexus of agriculture, GDP, population and climate change: case of some Eurasian countries and Turkey Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 16 2018 6963 6976 10.15666/aeer/
109 Josephson A.L. Ricker-Gilbert J. Florax R.J.G.M. How does population density influence agricultural intensification and productivity? Evidence from Ethiopia Food Pol. 48 2014 142 152 10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.03.004
110 Ahmad K. Heng A.C.T. Determinants of agriculture productivity growth in Pakistan. International Research J. Finance Econ. 95 2012 163 172
111 Endale K. Fertilizer Consumption and Agricultural Productivity in Ethiopia 2011 Ethiopian Development Research Institute Working Paper 03)
112 Shita A. Kumar N. Singh S. Determinants of agricultural productivity in Ethiopia: ARDL approach Indian Econ. J. 66 2018 365 374
113 Chandio A.A. Jiang Y. Joyo M.A. Becker Pickson R. Research on factors influencing the grain production in Pakistan: an ARDL approach Eur. Online J. Nat. Soc. Sci. 7 2018 538
114 Ketema A.M. Determinants of agricultural output in Ethiopia: ARDL approach to co-integration Int. J. Bus. 10 2020 1 10
115 Gul A. Chandio A.A. Siyal S.A. Rehman A. Xiumin W. How climate change is impacting the major yield crops of Pakistan? An exploration from long- and short-run estimation Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 29 2022 26660 26674
116 Brown M.E. Funk C.C. Food security under climate change Science 319 2008 580 581 10.1126/1979 18239116
117 Dumrul Y. Kilicarslan Z. Economic impacts of climate change on agriculture: empirical evidence from ARDL approach for Turkey J. Bus. 6 2017 336 347 10.17261/pressacademia.2017.766
118 He W. Chen W. Chandio A.A. Zhang B. Jiang Y. Does agricultural credit mitigate the effect of climate change on cereal production? Evidence from sichuan province, China Atmosphere 13 2022 336 10.3390/atmos13020336
119 IPCC Climate change 2013: synthesis report Team C.W. Pachauri R.K. Meyer L.A. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2013 IPCC Geneva
120 Barrios S. Ouattara B. Strobl E. The impact of climatic change on agricultural production: is it different for Africa? Food Pol. 33 2008 287 298 10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.01.003
121 Akpalu W. Hassan R.M. Ringler C. Climate variability and maize yield in South Africa, environment and production technology division IFPRI Paper 843 2008
122 Bannayan M. Mansoori H. Rezaei E.E. Estimating climate change, CO2 and technology development effects on wheat yield in northeast Iran Int. J. Biometeorol. 58 2014 395 405 23397072
123 Sarkar A. Das A. Groundwater irrigation-electricity-crop diversification nexus in Punjab: trends, turning points, and policy initiatives Econ. Polit. Wkly. 2014 64 73
124 NSSO Annual Report 2016-17 2016 Government of India Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation New Delhi
