|
|
Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Dietrich, J. P., Klein, D., Lotze-Campen, H., Bonsch, M., et al. (2014). Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(6), 064029.
Abstract: The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600-700 GtCO(2)), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO(2)) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Robinson, S., van Meijl, H., Willenbockel, D., Valin, H., Fujimori, S., Masui, T., et al. (2014). Comparing supply-side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 21–35.
Abstract: This article compares the theoretical and functional specification of production in partial equilibrium (PE) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models of the global agricultural and food system included in the AgMIP model comparison study. The two model families differ in their scopepartial versus economy-wideand in how they represent technology and the behavior of supply and demand in markets. The CGE models are deep structural models in that they explicitly solve the maximization problem of consumers and producers, assuming utility maximization and profit maximization with production/cost functions that include all factor inputs. The PE models divide into two groups on the supply side: (1) shallow structural models, which essentially specify area/yield supply functions with no explicit maximization behavior, and (2) deep structural models that provide a detailed activity-analysis specification of technology and explicit optimizing behavior by producers. While the models vary in their specifications of technology, both within and between the PE and CGE families, we consider two stylized theoretical models to compare the behavior of crop yields and supply functions in CGE models with their behavior in shallow structural PE models. We find that the theoretical responsiveness of supply to changes in prices can be similar, depending on parameter choices that define the behavior of implicit supply functions over the domain of applicability defined by the common scenarios used in the AgMIP comparisons. In practice, however, the applied models are more complex and differ in their empirical sensitivity to variations in specificationcomparability of results given parameter choices is an empirical question. To illustrate the issues, sensitivity analysis is done with one global CGE model, MAGNET, to indicate how the results vary with different specification of technical change, and how they compare with the results from PE models.
|
|
|
|
Kros, J., Bakker, M. M., Reidsma, P., Kanellopoulos, A., Jamal Alam, S., & de Vries, W. (2015). Impacts of agricultural changes in response to climate and socioeconomic change on nitrogen deposition in nature reserves. Landscape Ecol., 30(5), 871–885.
Abstract: This paper describes the environmental consequences of agricultural adaptation on eutrophication of the nearby ecological network for a study area in the Netherlands. More specifically, we explored (i) likely responses of farmers to changes in climate, technology, policy, and markets; (ii) subsequent changes in nitrogen (N) emissions in responses to farmer adaptations; and (iii) to what extent the emitted N was deposited in nearby nature reserves, in view of the potential impacts on plant species diversity and desired nature targets. For this purpose, a spatially-explicit study at landscape level was performed by integrating the environmental model INITIATOR, the farm model FSSIM, and the land-use model RULEX. We evaluated two alternative scenarios of change in climate, technology, policy, and markets for 2050: one in line with a ‘global economy’ (GE) storyline and the other in line with a ‘regional communities’ (RC) storyline. Results show that the GE storyline resulted in a relatively strong increase in agricultural production compared to the RC storyline. Despite the projected conversions of agricultural land to nature (as part of the implementation of the National Ecological Network), we project an increase in N losses and N deposition due to N emissions in the study area of about 20 %. Even in the RC storyline, with a relatively modest increase in agricultural production and a larger expansion of the nature reserve, the N losses and deposition remain at the current level, whereas a reduction is required. We conclude that more ambitious green policies are needed in view of nature protection.
|
|
|
|
Semenov, M. A., & Stratonovitch, P. (2015). Adapting wheat ideotypes for climate change: accounting for uncertainties in CMIP5 climate projections. Clim. Res., 65, 123–139.
Abstract: This study describes integration of climate change projections from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) multi-model ensemble with the LARS-WG weather generator, which delivers an attractive option for the downscaling of large-scale climate projections from global climate models (GCMs) to local-scale climate scenarios for impact assessments. A subset of 18 GCMs from the CMIP5 ensemble and 2 Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, were integrated with LARS-WG. For computationally demanding impact assessments, where it is not practical to explore all possible combinations of GCM x RCP, a climate sensitivity index could be used to select a subset of GCMs which preserves the range of uncertainty found in CMIP5. This would allow us to quantify uncertainty in predictions of impacts resulting fromthe CMIP5 ensemble by conducting fewer simulation experiments. In a case study, we describe the use of the Sirius wheat simulation model to design in silico wheat ideotypes that are optimised for future climates in Europe, sampling uncertainty in GCMs, emission scenarios, time periods and European locations with contrasting climates. Two contrasting GCMs were selected for the analysis, ‘hot’ HadGEM2-ES and ‘cool’ GISS-E2-R-CC. Despite large uncertainty in future climate projections, we were able to identify target traits for wheat improvement which may assist breeding for high-yielding wheat cultivars with increased yield stability.
|
|
