Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> |
![]() |
Records | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Author | Zimmermann, A.; Webber, H.; Zhao, G.; Ewert, F.; Kros, J.; Wolf, J.; Britz, W.; de Vries, W. | ||||
Title | Climate change impacts on crop yields, land use and environment in response to crop sowing dates and thermal time requirements | Type | Journal Article | ||
Year | 2017 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Syst. |
Volume | 157 | Issue | Pages | 81-92 | |
Keywords | Integrated assessment; Crop management; Climate change; Europe; INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT; EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE; FOOD SECURITY; HEAT-STRESS; ADAPTATION; SYSTEMS; TEMPERATURE; SCENARIOS; WHEAT; PRODUCTIVITY; Vries W., 2011, ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION, V159, P3254 | ||||
Abstract ![]() |
Impacts of climate change on European agricultural production, land use and the environment depend on its impact on crop yields. However, many impact studies assume that crop management remains unchanged in future scenarios, while farmers may adapt their sowing dates and cultivar thermal time requirements to minimize yield losses or realize yield gains. The main objective of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of climate change impacts on European crop yields, land use, production and environmental variables to adaptations in crops sowing dates and varieties’ thermal time requirements. A crop, economic and environmental model were coupled in an integrated assessment modelling approach for six important crops, for 27 countries of the European Union (EU27) to assess results of three SRES climate change scenarios to 2050. Crop yields under climate change were simulated considering three different management cases; (i) no change in crop management from baseline conditions (NoAd), (ii) adaptation of sowing date and thermal time requirements to give highest yields to 2050 (Opt) and (iii) a more conservative adaptation of sowing date and thermal time requirements (Act). Averaged across EU27, relative changes in water-limited crop yields due to climate change and increased CO2 varied between -6 and + 21% considering NoAd management, whereas impacts with Opt management varied between + 12 and + 53%, and those under Act management between 2 and + 27%. However, relative yield increases under climate change increased to + 17 and + 51% when technology progress was also considered. Importantly, the sensitivity to crop management assumptions of land use, production and environmental impacts were less pronounced than for crop yields due to the influence of corresponding market, farm resource and land allocation adjustments along the model chain acting via economic optimization of yields. We conclude that assumptions about crop sowing dates and thermal time requirements affect impact variables but to a different extent and generally decreasing for variables affected by economic drivers. | ||||
Address | 2017-11-02 | ||||
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 | 0308-521x | ISBN | Medium | article | |
Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
Notes | CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5178 | ||
Permanent link to this record | |||||
Author | Weindl, I.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Rolinski, S.; Biewald, A.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Muller, C.; Dietrich, J.P.; Humpenoder, F.; Stevanovic, M.; Schaphoff, S.; Popp, A. | ||||
Title | Livestock production and the water challenge of future food supply: Implications of agricultural management and dietary choices | Type | Journal Article | ||
Year | 2017 | Publication | Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions | Abbreviated Journal | Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions |
Volume | 47 | Issue | Pages | 121-132 | |
Keywords | Livestock; Productivity; Dietary changes; Consumptive water use; Water scarcity; Water resources; Climate-Change Mitigation; Greenhouse-Gas Emissions; Global Vegetation; Model; Land-Use; Comprehensive Assessment; Fresh-Water; Systems; Requirements; Irrigation; Carbon | ||||
Abstract ![]() |
Human activities use more than half of accessible freshwater, above all for agriculture. Most approaches for reconciling water conservation with feeding a growing population focus on the cropping sector. However, livestock production is pivotal to agricultural resource use, due to its low resource-use efficiency upstream in the food supply chain. Using a global modelling approach, we quantify the current and future contribution of livestock production, under different demand-and supply-side scenarios, to the consumption of “green” precipitation water infiltrated into the soil and “blue” freshWater withdrawn from rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Currently, cropland feed production accounts for 38% of crop water consumption and grazing involves 29% of total agricultural water consumption (9990 km(3) yr(-1)). Our analysis shows that changes in diets and livestock productivity have substantial implications for future consumption of agricultural blue water (19-36% increase compared to current levels) and green water (26-69% increase), but they can, at best, slow down trends of rising water requirements for decades to come. However, moderate productivity reductions in highly intensive livestock systems are possible without aggravating water scarcity. Productivity gains in developing regions decrease total agricultural water consumption, but lead to expansion of irrigated agriculture, due to the shift from grassland/green water to cropland/blue water resources. While the magnitude of the livestock water footprint gives cause for concern, neither dietary choices nor changes in livestock productivity will solve the water challenge of future food supply, unless accompanied by dedicated water protection policies. | ||||
Address | 2018-01-08 | ||||
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 | 0959-3780 | ISBN | Medium | ||
Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
Notes | LiveM, TradeM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5183 | ||
Permanent link to this record | |||||
Author | Kriegler, E.; Bauer, N.; Popp, A.; Humpenöder, F.; Leimbach, M.; Strefler, J.; Baumstark, L.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Hilaire, J.; Klein, D.; Mouratiadou, I.; Weindl, I.; Bertram, C.; Dietrich, J.-P.; Luderer, G.; Pehl, M.; Pietzcker, R.; Piontek, F.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Biewald, A.; Bonsch, M.; Giannousakis, A.; Kreidenweis, U.; Müller, C.; Rolinski, S.; Schultes, A.; Schwanitz, J.; Stevanovic, M.; Calvin, K.; Emmerling, J.; Fujimori, S.; Edenhofer, O. | ||||
Title | Fossil-fueled development (SSP5): An energy and resource intensive scenario for the 21st century | Type | Journal Article | ||
Year | 2017 | Publication | Global Environmental Change | Abbreviated Journal | Glob. Environ. Change |
Volume | 42 | Issue | Pages | 297-315 | |
Keywords | Shared Socio-economic Pathway; SSP5; Emission scenario; Energy transformation; Land-use change; Integrated assessment modeling | ||||
Abstract ![]() |
Highlights • The SSP5 scenarios mark the upper end of the scenario literature in fossil fuel use, food demand, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. • The SSP5 marker scenario results in a radiative forcing pathway close to the highest Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP8.5). • An investigation of mitigation policies in SSP5 confirms high socio-economic challenges to mitigation in SSP5. • In SSP5, ambitious climate targets require land based carbon management options such as avoided deforestation and bioenergy production with CCS. • The SSP5 scenarios provide useful reference points for future climate change, impact, adaption, mitigation and sustainable development analysis. Abstract This paper presents a set of energy and resource intensive scenarios based on the concept of Shared Socio-Economic Pathways (SSPs). The scenario family is characterized by rapid and fossil-fueled development with high socio-economic challenges to mitigation and low socio-economic challenges to adaptation (SSP5). A special focus is placed on the SSP5 marker scenario developed by the REMIND-MAgPIE integrated assessment modeling framework. The SSP5 baseline scenarios exhibit very high levels of fossil fuel use, up to a doubling of global food demand, and up to a tripling of energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions over the course of the century, marking the upper end of the scenario literature in several dimensions. These scenarios are currently the only SSP scenarios that result in a radiative forcing pathway as high as the highest Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP8.5). This paper further investigates the direct impact of mitigation policies on the SSP5 energy, land and emissions dynamics confirming high socio-economic challenges to mitigation in SSP5. Nonetheless, mitigation policies reaching climate forcing levels as low as in the lowest Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP2.6) are accessible in SSP5. The SSP5 scenarios presented in this paper aim to provide useful reference points for future climate change, climate impact, adaption and mitigation analysis, and broader questions of sustainable development. | ||||
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 | 0959-3780 | ISBN | Medium | ||
Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
Notes | TradeM, ftnotmacsur | Approved | no | ||
Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5005 | ||
Permanent link to this record | |||||
Author | Challinor, A.J.; Müller, C.; Asseng, S.; Deva, C.; Nicklin, K.J.; Wallach, D.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Whitfield, S.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Koehler, A.-K. | ||||
Title | Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation | Type | Journal Article | ||
Year | 2017 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Syst. |
Volume | 159 | Issue | Pages | 296-306 | |
Keywords | Crop model; Risk assessment; Climate change impacts; Adaptation; Climate models; Uncertainty | ||||
Abstract ![]() |
Highlights • 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments Abstract Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper. |
||||
Address | |||||
Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
Language | Summary Language | phase 2+ | Original Title | ||
Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
ISSN | 0308521x | ISBN | Medium | ||
Area | CropM | Expedition | Conference | ||
Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5175 | ||
Permanent link to this record | |||||
Author | Rosenzweig, C.; Elliott, J.; Deryng, D.; Ruane, A.C.; Müller, C.; Arneth, A.; Boote, K.J.; Folberth, C.; Glotter, M.; Khabarov, N.; Neumann, K.; Piontek, F.; Pugh, T.A.; Schmid, E.; Stehfest, E.; Yang, H.; Jones, J.W. | ||||
Title | Assessing agricultural risks of climate change in the 21st century in a global gridded crop model intercomparison | Type | Journal Article | ||
Year | 2014 | Publication | Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America | Abbreviated Journal | Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. |
Volume | 111 | Issue | 9 | Pages | 3268-3273 |
Keywords | Agriculture/*methods/statistics & numerical data; *Climate Change; Computer Simulation; Crops, Agricultural/*growth & development; Forecasting; Geography; *Models, Theoretical; Nitrogen/*analysis; Risk Assessment; Temperature; AgMIP; Isi-mip; agriculture; climate impacts; food security | ||||
Abstract ![]() |
Here we present the results from an intercomparison of multiple global gridded crop models (GGCMs) within the framework of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project and the Inter-Sectoral Impacts Model Intercomparison Project. Results indicate strong negative effects of climate change, especially at higher levels of warming and at low latitudes; models that include explicit nitrogen stress project more severe impacts. Across seven GGCMs, five global climate models, and four representative concentration pathways, model agreement on direction of yield changes is found in many major agricultural regions at both low and high latitudes; however, reducing uncertainty in sign of response in mid-latitude regions remains a challenge. Uncertainties related to the representation of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and high temperature effects demonstrated here show that further research is urgently needed to better understand effects of climate change on agricultural production and to devise targeted adaptation strategies. | ||||
Address | 2016-10-31 | ||||
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 | 1091-6490 (Electronic) 0027-8424 (Linking) | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
Notes | CropM | Approved | no | ||
Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4801 | ||
Permanent link to this record |