|
|
Kässi, P., Känkänen, H., Niskanen, O., Lehtonen, H., & Höglind, M. (2015). Farm level approach to manage grass yield variation under climate change in Finland and north-western Russia. Biosystems Engineering, 140, 11–22.
Abstract: Cattle feeding in Northern Europe is based on grass silage, but grass growth is highly dependent on weather conditions. If ensuring sufficient silage availability in every situation is prioritised, the lowest expected yield level determines the cultivated area in farmers’ decision-making. One way to manage the variation in grass yield is to increase grass production and silage storage capacity so that they exceed the annual consumption at the farm. The cost of risk management in the current and the projected future climate was calculated taking into account grassland yield and yield variability for three study areas under current and mid-21st century climate conditions. The dataset on simulated future grass yields used as input for the risk management calculations were taken from a previously published simulation study. Strategies investigated included using up to 60% more silage grass area than needed in a year with average grass yields, and storing silage for up to 6 months more than consumed in a year (buffer storage). According to the results, utilising an excess silage grass area of 20% and a silage buffer storage capacity of 6 months were the most economic ways of managing drought risk in both the baseline climate and the projected climate of 2046-2065. It was found that the silage yield risk due to drought is likely to decrease in all studied locations, but the drought risk and costs implied still remain significant. (C) 2015 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Tao, F., Roetter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Hernandez Diaz-Ambrona, C. G., Ines Minguez, M., Semenov, M. A., et al. (2018). Contribution of crop model structure, parameters and climate projections to uncertainty in climate change impact assessments. Glob. Chang. Biol., 24(3), 1291–1307.
Abstract: Climate change impact assessments are plagued with uncertainties from many sources, such as climate projections or the inadequacies in structure and parameters of the impact model. Previous studies tried to account for the uncertainty from one or two of these. Here, we developed a triple-ensemble probabilistic assessment using seven crop models, multiple sets of model parameters and eight contrasting climate projections together to comprehensively account for uncertainties from these three important sources. We demonstrated the approach in assessing climate change impact on barley growth and yield at Jokioinen, Finland in the Boreal climatic zone and Lleida, Spain in the Mediterranean climatic zone, for the 2050s. We further quantified and compared the contribution of crop model structure, crop model parameters and climate projections to the total variance of ensemble output using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). Based on the triple-ensemble probabilistic assessment, the median of simulated yield change was -4% and +16%, and the probability of decreasing yield was 63% and 31% in the 2050s, at Jokioinen and Lleida, respectively, relative to 1981-2010. The contribution of crop model structure to the total variance of ensemble output was larger than that from downscaled climate projections and model parameters. The relative contribution of crop model parameters and downscaled climate projections to the total variance of ensemble output varied greatly among the seven crop models and between the two sites. The contribution of downscaled climate projections was on average larger than that of crop model parameters. This information on the uncertainty from different sources can be quite useful for model users to decide where to put the most effort when preparing or choosing models or parameters for impact analyses. We concluded that the triple-ensemble probabilistic approach that accounts for the uncertainties from multiple important sources provide more comprehensive information for quantifying uncertainties in climate change impact assessments as compared to the conventional approaches that are deterministic or only account for the uncertainties from one or two of the uncertainty sources.
|
|
|
|
Elsgaard, L., Børgesen, C. D., Olesen, J. E., Siebert, S., Ewert, F., Peltonen-Sainio, P., et al. (2012). Shifts in comparative advantages for maize, oat and wheat cropping under climate change in Europe. Food Addit. Contam. Part A, 29(10), 1514–1526.
Abstract: Climate change is anticipated to affect European agriculture, including the risk of emerging or re-emerging feed and food hazards. Indirectly, climate change may influence such hazards (e.g. the occurrence of mycotoxins) due to geographic shifts in the distribution of major cereal cropping systems and the consequences this may have for crop rotations. This paper analyses the impact of climate on cropping shares of maize, oat and wheat on a 50-km square grid across Europe (45-65°N) and provides model-based estimates of the changes in cropping shares in response to changes in temperature and precipitation as projected for the time period around 2040 by two regional climate models (RCM) with a moderate and a strong climate change signal, respectively. The projected cropping shares are based on the output from the two RCMs and on algorithms derived for the relation between meteorological data and observed cropping shares of maize, oat and wheat. The observed cropping shares show a south-to-north gradient, where maize had its maximum at 45-55°N, oat had its maximum at 55-65°N, and wheat was more evenly distributed along the latitudes in Europe. Under the projected climate changes, there was a general increase in maize cropping shares, whereas for oat no areas showed distinct increases. For wheat, the projected changes indicated a tendency towards higher cropping shares in the northern parts and lower cropping shares in the southern parts of the study area. The present modelling approach represents a simplification of factors determining the distribution of cereal crops, and also some uncertainties in the data basis were apparent. A promising way of future model improvement could be through a systematic analysis and inclusion of other variables, such as key soil properties and socio-economic conditions, influencing the comparative advantages of specific crops.
|
|
|
|
Gabaldón-Leal, C., Lorite, I. J., Mínguez, M. I., Lizaso, J. I., Dosio, A., Sanchez, E., et al. (2015). Strategies for adapting maize to climate change and extreme temperatures in Andalusia, Spain. Clim. Res., 65, 159–173.
Abstract: Climate projections indicate that rising temperatures will affect summer crops in the southern Iberian Peninsula. The aim of this study was to obtain projections of the impacts of rising temperatures, and of higher frequency of extreme events on irrigated maize, and to evaluate some adaptation strategies. The study was conducted at several locations in Andalusia using the CERES-Maize crop model, previously calibrated/validated with local experimental datasets. The simulated climate consisted of projections from regional climate models from the ENSEMBLES project; these were corrected for daily temperature and precipitation with regard to the E-OBS observational dataset. These bias-corrected projections were used with the CERES-Maize model to generate future impacts. Crop model results showed a decrease in maize yield by the end of the 21st century from 6 to 20%, a decrease of up to 25% in irrigation water requirements, and an increase in irrigation water productivity of up to 22%, due to earlier maturity dates and stomatal closure caused by CO2 increase. When adaptation strategies combining earlier sowing dates and cultivar changes were considered, impacts were compensated, and maize yield increased up to 14%, compared with the baseline period (1981-2010), with similar reductions in crop irrigation water requirements. Effects of extreme maximum temperatures rose to 40% at the end of the 21st century, compared with the baseline. Adaptation resulted in an overall reduction in extreme T-max damages in all locations, with the exception of Granada, where losses were limited to 8%.
|
|
|
|
Hlavinka, P., Kersebaum, K. C., Dubrovský, M., Fischer, M., Pohanková, E., Balek, J., et al. (2015). Water balance, drought stress and yields for rainfed field crop rotations under present and future conditions in the Czech Republic. Clim. Res., 65, 175–192.
Abstract: Continuous crop rotation modeling is a prospective trend that, compared to 1-crop or discrete year-by-year calculations, can provide more accurate results that are closer to real conditions. The goal of this study was to compare the water balance and yields estimated by the HERMES crop rotation model for present and future climatic conditions in the Czech Republic. Three locations were selected, representing important agricultural regions with different climatic conditions. Crop rotation (spring barley, silage maize, winter wheat, winter rape) was simulated from 1981-2080. The 1981-2010 period was covered by measured meteorological data, while 2011-2080 was represented by a transient synthetic weather series from the weather generator M& Rfi. The data were based on 5 circulation models, representing an ensemble of 18 CMIP3 global circulation models, to preserve much of the uncertainty of the original ensemble. Two types of crop management were compared, and the influences of soil quality, increasing atmospheric CO2 and adaptation measures (i. e. sowing date changes) were also considered. Results suggest that under a ‘dry’ scenario (such as GFCM21), C-3 crops in drier regions will be devastated for a significant number of seasons. Negative impacts are likely even on premium-quality soils regardless of flexible sowing dates and accounting for increasing CO2 concentrations. Moreover, in dry conditions, the use of crop rotations with catch crops may have negative impacts, exacerbating the soil water deficit for subsequent crops. This approach is a promising method for determining how various management strategies and crop rotations can affect yields as well as water, carbon and nitrogen cycling.
|
|
