|
|
von Lampe, M., Willenbockel, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Cai, Y., Calvin, K., et al. (2014). Why do global long-term scenarios for agriculture differ? An overview of the AgMIP Global Economic Model Intercomparison. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 3.
Abstract: Recent studies assessing plausible futures for agricultural markets and global food security have had contradictory outcomes. To advance our understanding of the sources of the differences, 10 global economic models that produce long-term scenarios were asked to compare a reference scenario with alternate socioeconomic, climate change, and bioenergy scenarios using a common set of key drivers. Several key conclusions emerge from this exercise: First, for a comparison of scenario results to be meaningful, a careful analysis of the interpretation of the relevant model variables is essential. For instance, the use of real world commodity prices differs widely across models, and comparing the prices without accounting for their different meanings can lead to misleading results. Second, results suggest that, once some key assumptions are harmonized, the variability in general trends across models declines but remains important. For example, given the common assumptions of the reference scenario, models show average annual rates of changes of real global producer prices for agricultural products on average ranging between -0.4% and +0.7% between the 2005 base year and 2050. This compares to an average decline of real agricultural prices of 4% p.a. between the 1960s and the 2000s. Several other common trends are shown, for example, relating to key global growth areas for agricultural production and consumption. Third, differences in basic model parameters such as income and price elasticities, sometimes hidden in the way market behavior is modeled, result in significant differences in the details. Fourth, the analysis shows that agro-economic modelers aiming to inform the agricultural and development policy debate require better data and analysis on both economic behavior and biophysical drivers. More interdisciplinary modeling efforts are required to cross-fertilize analyses at different scales.
|
|
|
|
Hutchings, N. J., Özkan Gülzari, Ş., de Haan, M., & Sandars, D. (2018). How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production. Animal, 12(10), 2171–2180.
Abstract: The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools.
|
|
|
|
Leclère, D., Jayet, P. - A., & de Noblet-Ducoudré, N. (2013). Farm-level Autonomous Adaptation of European Agricultural Supply to Climate Change. Ecol. Econ., 87, 1–14.
Abstract: The impact of climate change on European agriculture is subject to a significant uncertainty, which reflects the intertwined nature of agriculture. This issue involves a large number of processes, ranging from field to global scales, which have not been fully integrated yet. In this study, we intend to help bridging this gap by quantifying the effect of farm-scale autonomous adaptations in response to changes in climate. To do so, we use a modelling framework coupling the STICS generic crop model to the AROPAj microeconomic model of European agricultural supply. This study provides a first estimate of the role of such adaptations, consistent at the European scale while detailed across European regions. Farm-scale autonomous adaptations significantly alter the impact of climate change over Europe, by widely alleviating negative impacts on crop yields and gross margins. They significantly increase European production levels. However, they also have an important and heterogeneous impact on irrigation water withdrawals, which exacerbate the differences in ambient atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations among climate change scenarios. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Park, S. K., Sungmin, O., & Cassardo, C. (2017). Soil temperature response in Korea to a changing climate using a land surface model. Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 53(4), 457–470.
Abstract: The land surface processes play an important role in weather and climate systems through its regulation of radiation, heat, water and momentum fluxes. Soil temperature (ST) is one of the most important parameters in the land surface processes; however, there are few extensive measurements of ST with a long time series in the world. According to the CLImatology of Parameters at the Surface (CLIPS) methodology, the output of a trusted Soil-Vegetation- Atmosphere Transfer (SVAT) scheme can be utilized instead of observations to investigate the regional climate of interest. In this study, ST in South Korea is estimated in a view of future climate using the output from a trusted SVAT scheme – the University of TOrino model of land Process Interaction with Atmosphere (UTOPIA), which is driven by a regional climate model. Here characteristic changes in ST are analyzed under the IPCC A2 future climate for 2046-2055 and 2091-2100, and are compared with those under the reference climate for 1996-2005. The UTOPIA results were validated using the observed ST in the reference climate, and the model proved to produce reasonable ST in South Korea. The UTOPIA simulations indicate that ST increases due to environmental change, especially in air temperature (AT), in the future climate. The increment of ST is proportional to that of AT except for winter. In wintertime, the ST variations are different from region to region mainly due to variations in snow cover, which keeps ST from significant changes by the climate change.
|
|
|
|
Eitzinger, J., Thaler, S., Schmid, E., Strauss, F., Ferrise, R., Moriondo, M., et al. (2013). Sensitivities of crop models to extreme weather conditions during flowering period demonstrated for maize and winter wheat in Austria. J. Agric. Sci., 151(6), 813–835.
Abstract: The objective of the present study was to compare the performance of seven different, widely applied crop models in predicting heat and drought stress effects. The study was part of a recent suite of model inter-comparisons initiated at European level and constitutes a component that has been lacking in the analysis of sources of uncertainties in crop models used to study the impacts of climate change. There was a specific focus on the sensitivity of models for winter wheat and maize to extreme weather conditions (heat and drought) during the short but critical period of 2 weeks after the start of flowering. Two locations in Austria, representing different agro-climatic zones and soil conditions, were included in the simulations over 2 years, 2003 and 2004, exhibiting contrasting weather conditions. In addition, soil management was modified at both sites by following either ploughing or minimum tillage. Since no comprehensive field experimental data sets were available, a relative comparison of simulated grain yields and soil moisture contents under defined weather scenarios with modified temperatures and precipitation was performed for a 2-week period after flowering. The results may help to reduce the uncertainty of simulated crop yields to extreme weather conditions through better understanding of the models’ behaviour. Although the crop models considered (DSSAT, EPIC, WOFOST, AQUACROP, FASSET, HERMES and CROPSYST) mostly showed similar trends in simulated grain yields for the different weather scenarios, it was obvious that heat and drought stress caused by changes in temperature and/or precipitation for a short period of 2 weeks resulted in different grain yields simulated by different models. The present study also revealed that the models responded differently to changes in soil tillage practices, which affected soil water storage capacity.
|
|
