| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Mueller, L.; Schindler, U.; Shepherd, T.G.; Ball, B.C.; Smolentseva, E.; Hu, C.; Hennings, V.; Schad, P.; Rogasik, J.; Zeitz, J.; Schlindwein, S.L.; Behrendt, A.; Helming, K.; Eulenstein, F. |
|
| |
Title |
A framework for assessing agricultural soil quality on a global scale |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2012 |
Publication |
Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science |
Abbreviated Journal  |
Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science |
|
| |
Volume |
58 |
Issue |
sup1 |
Pages |
S76-S82 |
|
| |
Keywords |
soil quality; indicators; muencheberg soil quality rating |
|
| |
Abstract |
This paper provides information about a novel approach of rating agricultural soil quality (SQ) and crop yield potentials consistently over a range of spatial scales. The Muencheberg Soil Quality Rating is an indicator-based straightforward overall assessment method of agricultural SQ. It is a framework covering aspects of soil texture, structure, topography and climate which is based on 8 basic indicators and more than 12 hazard indicators. Ratings are performed by visual methods of soil evaluation. A field manual is then used to provide ratings from tables based on indicator thresholds. Finally, overall rating scores are given, ranging from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) to characterise crop yield potentials. The current approach is valid for grassland and cropland. Field tests in several countries confirmed the practicability and reliability of the method. At field scale, soil structure is a crucial, management induced criterion of agricultural SQ. At the global scale, climate controlled hazard indicators of drought risk and soil thermal regime are crucial for SQ and crop yield potentials. Final rating scores are well correlated with crop yields. We conclude that this system could be evolved for ranking and controlling agricultural SQ on a global scale. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
0365-0340 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, TradeM, ftnotmacsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4589 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Köchy, M.; Bishop, J.; Lehtonen, H.; Scollan, N.; Webber, H.; Zimmermann, A.; Bellocchi, G.; Bannink, A.; Biewald, A.; Ferrise, R.; Helming, K.; Kipling, R.P.; Milford, A.; Özkan Gülzari, Ş.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Curth-van Middelkoop, J. |
|
| |
Title |
Challenges and research gaps in the area of integrated climate change risk assessment for European agriculture and food security |
Type |
Report |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
10 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
H0.1-D |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
Priorities in addressing research gaps and challenges should follow the order of importance, which in itself would be a matter of defining goals and metrics of importance, e.g. the extent, impact and likelihood of occurrence. For improving assessments of climate change impacts on agriculture for achieving food security and other sustainable development goals across the European continent, the most important research gaps and challenges appear to be the agreement on goals with a wide range of stakeholders from policy, science, producers and society, better reflection of political and societal preferences in the modelling process, and the reflection of economic decisions in farm management within models. These and other challenges could be approached in phase 3 of MACSUR. |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4950 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
König, H.J.; Helming, K.; Seddaiu, G.; Kipling, R.; Köchy, M.; Graversgaard, M.; van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A.; Nguyen, T.P.L.; Quaranta, G.; Salvia, R.; Sieber, S.; Ithes, S.; Kjeldsen, C.; Turner, K.G.; Dalgaard, T.; Roggero, P.P. |
|
| |
Title |
Stakeholder participation in agricultural research: Who should be involved, why, and how? |
Type |
Manuscript |
| |
Year |
|
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
Research in sustainable agricultural management requires appropriate participatory processes and tools enabling efficient dialogue and cooperation to allow researchers and stakeholders to co-produce knowledge. Research approaches that encourage stakeholder participation are in high demand because they allow a better understanding of human-nature interactions and interdependencies between actors. Participatory approaches also support multiple goals of agricultural management: improved productivity, food security, climate change adaptation, environmental conservation, rural development and policy decision making. Approaches to stakeholder engagement in the field of agricultural management research are manifold. Therefore, selecting the “right” approach depends on the specific purpose and contextualized issues at stake. We analyzed ten stakeholder approaches and propose a new framework with which to identify and select appropriate approaches for stakeholder engagement. The framework consists of three components: whom to engage (i.e., stakeholder type and mandate), why to engage (i.e., research purpose: consult, inform, collaborate), and how to engage (i.e., different methodological approaches). We identified different stakeholder groups (who?): farmers, agricultural actors, land users, and policymakers; different purposes (why?): facilitate engagement process, inform stakeholders, and obtain stakeholder perceptions; and different types of engagement methods (how?): participatory field experiments, desk simulations, interviews, panel discussions and different types of workshops. The framework was applied to arrange these approaches, organize them to improve understanding of their main strengths, weaknesses and supports for identifying and selecting an appropriate approach. We conclude that understanding the different facets of available approaches is crucial for selecting an appropriate stakeholder engagement approach. ; |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2564 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Helming, K. |
|
| |
Title |
Impact Assessment for Multifunctional Land Use |
Type |
Book Chapter |
| |
Year |
2014 |
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
223-234 |
|
| |
Keywords |
CropM |
|
| |
Abstract |
|
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
Springer International Publishing |
Place of Publication |
Cham |
Editor |
Mueller, L.; Saparov, A.; Lischeid, G. |
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
Environmental Science and Engineering |
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2471 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Helming, K. |
|
| |
Title |
Kickoff Workshop, Session on Stakeholders |
Type |
Report |
| |
Year |
2013 |
Publication |
FACCE MACSUR Reports |
Abbreviated Journal |
|
|
| |
Volume |
1 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
M-H3.1.4 |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
None available No Label |
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2252 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
