|
|
Sánchez, B., Rasmussen, A., & Porter, J. R. (2014). Temperatures and the growth and development of maize and rice: a review. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20(2), 408–417.
Abstract: Because of global land surface warming, extreme temperature events are expected to occur more often and more intensely, affecting the growth and development of the major cereal crops in several ways, thus affecting the production component of food security. In this study, we have identified rice and maize crop responses to temperature in different, but consistent, phenological phases and development stages. A literature review and data compilation of around 140 scientific articles have determined the key temperature thresholds and response to extreme temperature effects for rice and maize, complementing an earlier study on wheat. Lethal temperatures and cardinal temperatures, together with error estimates, have been identified for phenological phases and development stages. Following the methodology of previous work, we have collected and statistically analysed temperature thresholds of the three crops for the key physiological processes such as leaf initiation, shoot growth and root growth and for the most susceptible phenological phases such as sowing to emergence, anthesis and grain filling. Our summary shows that cardinal temperatures are conservative between studies and are seemingly well defined in all three crops. Anthesis and ripening are the most sensitive temperature stages in rice as well as in wheat and maize. We call for further experimental studies of the effects of transgressing threshold temperatures so such responses can be included into crop impact and adaptation models.
|
|
|
|
Bellocchi, G., Rivington, M., & Acutis, M. (2014). Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agro-ecological models. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Biophysical models are acknowledged for examining interactions of agro-ecological systems and fostering communication between scientists, managers and the public. As the role of models grows in importance, there is an increase in the need to assess their quality and performance (Bellocchi et al., 2010). However, the heterogeneity of factors influencing model outputs makes it difficult a full assessment of model features. Where models are used with or for stakeholders then model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured statistical evaluation but also less tangible factors may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes. To expand our horizons in the evaluation of crop and grassland models, approaches have been reviewed with emphasis on using combined metrics. Comprehensive evaluation of simulation models was developed to integrate expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system where lower and upper fuzzy bounds are applied to a set of evaluation metrics. A questionnaire-based survey helped understanding the multi-faceted knowledge and experience required and the substantial challenges posed by the deliberative process. MACSUR knowledge hub holds potential to advance in good modelling practice in relation with model evaluation (including access to appropriate software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited projects.
|
|
|
|
Patil, R. H., Laegdsmand, M., Olesen, J. E., & Porter, J. R. (2014). Soil temperature manipulation to study global warming effects in arable land: performance of buried heating-cable method. Environment and Ecology Research, 1(4), 196–204.
Abstract: Buried heating-cable method for manipulating soil temperature was designed and tested its performance in large concrete lysimeters grown with the wheat crop in Denmark. Soil temperature in heated plots was elevated by 5℃ compared with that in control by burying heating-cable at 0.1 m depth in a plough layer. Temperature sensors were placed at 0.05, 0.1 and 0.25 m depths in soil, and 0.1 m above the soil surface in all plots, which were connected to an automated data logger. Soil-warming setup was able to maintain a mean seasonal temperature difference of 5.0 ± 0.005℃ between heated and control plots at 0.1 m depth while the mean seasonal rise in soil temperature in the top 0.25 m depth (plough layer) was 3℃. Soil temperature in control plots froze (≤ 0℃) for 15 and 13 days respectively at 0.05 and 0.1 m depths while it did not in heated plots during the coldest period (Nov-Apr). This study clearly showed the efficacy of buried heating-cable technique in simulating soil temperature, and thus offers a simple, effective and alternative technique to study soil biogeochemical processes under warmer climates. This technique, however, decouples below-ground soil responses from that of above-ground vegetation response as this method heats only the soil. Therefore, using infrared heaters seems to represent natural climate warming (both air and soil) much more closely and may be used for future climate manipulation field studies.
|
|
|
|
François, L., Jacquemin, I., Fontaine, C., Minet, J., Dury, M., & Tychon, B. (2014). Implementing agricultural land-use in the CARAIB dynamic vegetation model. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: CARAIB (Dury et al., 2011) is a state-of-the-art dynamic vegetation model with various modules dealing with (i) soil hydrology, (ii) photosynthesis/stomatal regulation, (iii) carbon allocation and biomass growth, (iv) litter/soil carbon dynamics, (v) vegetation cover dynamics, (vi) seed dispersal, and (vii) vegetation fires. Climate and atmospheric CO2 are the primary inputs. The model calculates all major water and CO2/carbon fluxes and pools. It can be run with plant functional types or species (up to 100 different species) at various spatial scales, from the municipality to country or continental levels. Within the VOTES project (Fontaine et al., 2013), the model has been improved to include crops and meadows, and some modules have been written to translate model outputs into quantitative indicators of ecosystem services (e.g., evaluate crop yield from net primary productivity or calculate soil erosion from runoff, slope, grown species and various soil attributes). The model was run over an area covering four municipalities in central Belgium, where land-use is dominated by crops, meadows, housing and some forests and was introduced in the model at the land parcel level. Simulations were also performed for the future. In these simulations, CARAIB was combined with the Aporia Agent-Based Model, to project land-use changes up to 2050. This approach is currently extended within the MASC project (funded by Belgian Science Policy, BELSPO) to the whole Belgian territory (at 1 km2) and to Western Europe (at 20 km x 20 km).
|
|
|
|
Kässi, P., Niskanen, O., & Känkänen, H. (2014). Farm level approach to manage grass yield variation in changing climate in Jokioinen and St. Petersburg (Vol. 3).
Abstract: Cattle’s feeding is based on grass silage in Northern Europe, but grass growth is highly dependent on weather conditions. In farms decision making, grass area is usually determined by the variation of yield. To be adequate in every situation, the lowest expected yield level determines the cultivated area. Other way to manage the grass yield risk is to increase silage storage capacity over annual consumption. Variation of grass yield in climate data from years 1961-1990 was compared with 15 different climate scenario models simulating years 2046-2065. A model was developed for evaluating the inadequacy risk in terms of cultivated area and storing capacity. The cost of risk is presented and discussed.In northern Europe a typical farm has storage for roughage consumption of almost one year. In addition, there can be a buffer storage. The extra storage is to be used before and during the harvest season. New harvest will be fed to animals only after the buffer empty. Shortage in the buffer storage is possible to be filled, when the yield exceeds the target level. For risk management, two alternative mechanisms are given: forage buffer and possibility to alter the field area.According to our results, there are no significant adverse effects in the cost of risk and implied farm profitability due to climate change. Selecting the risk management scenario of 30 % grass yield risk turned out to be the least cost solution. No Label
|
|
