|
|
Klein, D., Luderer, G., Kriegler, E., Strefler, J., Bauer, N., Leimbach, M., et al. (2014). The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE. Clim. Change, 123(3-4), 705–718.
Abstract: This study investigates the use of bioenergy for achieving stringent climate stabilization targets and it analyzes the economic drivers behind the choice of bioenergy technologies. We apply the integrated assessment framework REMIND-MAgPIE to show that bioenergy, particularly if combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a crucial mitigation option with high deployment levels and high technology value. If CCS is available, bioenergy is exclusively used with CCS. We find that the ability of bioenergy to provide negative emissions gives rise to a strong nexus between biomass prices and carbon prices. Ambitious climate policy could result in bioenergy prices of 70 $/GJ (or even 430 $/GJ if bioenergy potential is limited to 100 EJ/year), which indicates a strong demand for bioenergy. For low stabilization scenarios with BECCS availability, we find that the carbon value of biomass tends to exceed its pure energy value. Therefore, the driving factor behind investments into bioenergy conversion capacities for electricity and hydrogen production are the revenues generated from negative emissions, rather than from energy production. However, in REMIND modern bioenergy is predominantly used to produce low-carbon fuels, since the transport sector has significantly fewer low-carbon alternatives to biofuels than the power sector. Since negative emissions increase the amount of permissible emissions from fossil fuels, given a climate target, bioenergy acts as a complement to fossils rather than a substitute. This makes the short-term and long-term deployment of fossil fuels dependent on the long-term availability of BECCS.
|
|
|
|
Kim, D. - G., Thomas, A. D., Pelster, D., Rosenstock, T. S., & Sanz-Cobena, A. (2016). Greenhouse gas emissions from natural ecosystems and agricultural lands in sub-Saharan Africa: synthesis of available data and suggestions for further research. Biogeosciences, 13(16), 4789–4809.
Abstract: This paper summarizes currently available data on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from African natural ecosystems and agricultural lands. The available data are used to synthesize current understanding of the drivers of change in GHG emissions, outline the knowledge gaps, and suggest future directions and strategies for GHG emission research. GHG emission data were collected from 75 studies conducted in 22 countries (n = 244) in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were by far the largest contributor to GHG emissions and global warming potential (GWP) in SSA natural terrestrial systems. CO2 emissions ranged from 3.3 to 57.0 Mg CO2 ha(-1) yr(-1), methane (CH4) emissions ranged from -4.8 to 3.5 kg ha(-1) yr(-1) (-0.16 to 0.12 Mg CO2 equivalent (eq.) ha(-1) yr(-1)), and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions ranged from -0.1 to 13.7 kg ha(-1) yr(-1) (-0.03 to 4.1 Mg CO2 eq. ha(-1) yr(-1)). Soil physical and chemical properties, rewetting, vegetation type, forest management, and land-use changes were all found to be important factors affecting soil GHG emissions from natural terrestrial systems. In aquatic systems, CO2 was the largest contributor to total GHG emissions, ranging from 5.7 to 232.0 Mg CO2 ha(-1) yr(-1), followed by -26.3 to 2741.9 kgCH(4) ha(-1) yr(-1) (-0.89 to 93.2 Mg CO2 eq. ha(-1) yr(-1)) and 0.2 to 3.5 kg N2O ha(-1) yr(-1) (0.06 to 1.0 Mg CO2 eq. ha(-1) yr(-1)). Rates of all GHG emissions from aquatic systems were affected by type, location, hydrological characteristics, and water quality. In croplands, soil GHG emissions were also dominated by CO2, ranging from 1.7 to 141.2 Mg CO2 ha(-1) yr(-1), with -1.3 to 66.7 kgCH(4) ha(-1) yr(-1) (-0.04 to 2.3 Mg CO2 eq. ha(-1) yr(-1)) and 0.05 to 112.0 kg N2O ha(-1) yr(-1) (0.015 to 33.4 Mg CO2 eq. ha(-1) yr(-1)). N2O emission factors (EFs) ranged from 0.01 to 4.1 %. Incorporation of crop residues or manure with inorganic fertilizers invariably resulted in significant changes in GHG emissions, but results were inconsistent as the magnitude and direction of changes were differed by gas. Soil GHG emissions from vegetable gardens ranged from 73.3 to 132.0 Mg CO2 ha(-1) yr(-1) and 53.4 to 177.6 kg N2O ha(-1) yr(-1) (15.9 to 52.9 Mg CO2 eq. ha(-1) yr(-1)) and N2O EFs ranged from 3 to 4 %. Soil CO2 and N2O emissions from agroforestry were 38.6 Mg CO2 ha(-1) yr(-1) and 0.2 to 26.7 kg N2O ha(-1) yr(-1) (0.06 to 8.0 Mg CO2 eq. ha(-1) yr(-1)), respectively. Improving fallow with nitrogen (N)-fixing trees led to increased CO2 and N2O emissions compared to conventional croplands. The type and quality of plant residue in the fallow is an important control on how CO2 and N2O emissions are affected. Throughout agricultural lands, N2O emissions slowly increased with N inputs below 150 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1) and increased exponentially with N application rates up to 300 kg N ha(-1) yr(-1). The lowest yield-scaled N2O emissions were reported with N application rates ranging between 100 and 150 kg N ha(-1). Overall, total CO2 eq. emissions from SSA natural ecosystems and agricultural lands were 56.9 +/- 12.7 x 10(9) Mg CO2 eq. yr(-1) with natural ecosystems and agricultural lands contributing 76.3 and 23.7 %, respectively. Additional GHG emission measurements are urgently required to reduce uncertainty on annual GHG emissions from the different land uses and identify major control factors and mitigation options for low-emission development. A common strategy for addressing this data gap may include identifying priorities for data acquisition, utilizing appropriate technologies, and involving international networks and collaboration.
|
|
|
|
Andreoli, V., Cassardo, C., Iacona, L. T., & Spanna, F. (2019). Description and Preliminary Simulations with the Italian Vineyard Integrated Numerical Model for Estimating Physiological Values (IVINE). Agronomy, 9(2).
Abstract: The numerical crop growth model Italian Vineyard Integrated Numerical model for Estimating physiological values (IVINE) was developed in order to evaluate environmental forcing effects on vine growth. The IVINE model simulates vine growth processes with parameterizations, allowing the understanding of plant conditions at a vineyard scale. It requires a set of meteorology data and soil water status as boundary conditions. The primary model outputs are main phenological stages, leaf development, yield, and sugar concentration. The model requires setting some variety information depending on the cultivar: At present, IVINE is optimized for Vitis vinifera L. Nebbiolo, a variety grown mostly in the Piedmont region (northwestern Italy). In order to evaluate the model accuracy, IVINE was validated using experimental observations gathered in Piedmontese vineyards, showing performances similar or slightly better than those of other widely used crop models. The results of a sensitivity analysis performed to highlight the effects of the variations of air temperature and soil water potential input variables on IVINE outputs showed that most phenological stages anticipated with increasing temperatures, while berry sugar content saturated at about 25.5 °Bx. Long-term (60 years, in the period 1950–2009) simulations performed over a Piedmontese subregion showed statistically significant variations of most IVINE output variables, with larger time trend slopes referring to the most recent 30-year period (1980–2009), thus confirming that ongoing climate change started influencing Piedmontese vineyards in 1980.
|
|
|
|
Sanz-Cobena, A., Lassaletta, L., Gamier, J., Smith, P., Sanz-Cobena, A., Lassaletta, L., et al. (2017). Mitigation and quantification of greenhouse gas emissions in Mediterranean cropping systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 238, 1–4.
|
|
|
|
Balkovič, J., van der Velde, M., Schmid, E., Skalský, R., Khabarov, N., Obersteiner, M., et al. (2013). Pan-European crop modelling with EPIC: Implementation, up-scaling and regional crop yield validation. Agricultural Systems, 120, 61–75.
Abstract: Justifiable usage of large-scale crop model simulations requires transparent, comprehensive and spatially extensive evaluations of their performance and associated accuracy. Simulated crop yields of a Pan-European implementation of the Environmental Policy Integrated Climate (EPIC) crop model were satisfactorily evaluated with reported regional yield data from EUROSTAT for four major crops, including winter wheat, rainfed and irrigated maize, spring barley and winter rye. European-wide land use, elevation, soil and daily meteorological gridded data were integrated in GIS and coupled with EPIC. Default EPIC crop and biophysical process parameter values were used with some minor adjustments according to suggestions from scientific literature. The model performance was improved by spatial calculations of crop sowing densities, potential heat units, operation schedules, and nutrient application rates. EPIC performed reasonable in the simulation of regional crop yields, with long-term averages predicted better than inter-annual variability: linear regression R-2 ranged from 0.58 (maize) to 0.91 (spring barley) and relative estimation errors were between +/- 30% for most of the European regions. The modelled and reported crop yields demonstrated similar responses to driving meteorological variables. However, EPIC performed better in dry compared to wet years. A yield sensitivity analysis of crop nutrient and irrigation management factors and cultivar specific characteristics for contrasting regions in Europe revealed a range in model response and attainable yields. We also show that modelled crop yield is strongly dependent on the chosen PET method. The simulated crop yield variability was lower compared to reported crop yields. This assessment should contribute to the availability of harmonised and transparently evaluated agricultural modelling tools in the EU as well as the establishment of modelling benchmarks as a requirement for sound and ongoing policy evaluations in the agricultural and environmental domains. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
