Abstract: The empirical evidence of decline in ecosystem services (ES) over the last century has reinforced the call for ES quantification, monitoring and valuation. Usually, only provisioning ES are marketable and accounted for, whereas regulating, supporting and cultural ES are typically non-marketable and overlooked in connection with land-use or management decisions. The objective of this study was to quantify and value total ES (marketable and non-marketable) of diverse production systems and management intensities in Denmark to provide a basis for decisions based on economic values. The production systems were conventional wheat (Cwheat), a combined food and energy (CFE) production system and beech forest. Marketable (provisioning ES) and non-marketable ES (supporting, regulating and cultural) ES were quantified by dedicated on-site field measurements supplemented by literature data. The value of total ES was highest in CFE (US$ 3142 ha(-1) yr(-1)) followed by Cwheat (US$ 2767 ha (1) yr(-1)) and beech forest (US$ 2328 ha(-1) yr(-1)). As the production system shifted from Cwheat – CFE-beech, the marketable ES share decreased from 88% to 75% in CFE and 55% in beech whereas the non-marketable ES share increased to 12%, 25% and 45% of total ES in Cwheat, CFE and beech respectively, demonstrating production system and management effects on ES values. Total ES valuation, disintegrated into marketable and non-marketable share is a potential way forward to value ES and `tune’ our production systems for enhanced ES provision. Such monetary valuation can be used by policy makers and land managers as a tool to assess ES value and monitor the sustained flow of ES. The application of ES-based valuation for land management can enhance ES provision for maintaining the productive capacity of the land without depending on the external fossil-based fertilizer and chemical input. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: The diversity in farmers’ objectives and responses to external drivers is usually not considered in integrated assessment studies that investigate impacts and adaptation to climate and socio-economic change. Here, we present an approach to assess how farmers’ stated objectives relate to their currently implemented practices and to preferred adaptation options, and we discuss what this implies for assessments of future changes. We based our approach on a combination of multi-criteria decision-making methods. We consistently assessed the importance of farmers’ objectives and adaptation preferences from what farmers say (based on interviews), from what farmers actually do (by analysing current farm performance) and from what farmers want (through a selected alternative farm plan). Our study was performed for six arable farms in Flevoland, a province in the Netherlands. Based on interviews with farmers, we reduced the long list of possible objectives to the most important ones. The objectives we assessed included maximization of economic result and soil organic matter, and minimization of gross margin variance, working hours and nitrogen balance. In our sample, farmers’ stated preferences in objectives were often not fully reflected in realized farming practices. Adaptation preferences of farmers largely resembled their current performance, but generally involved a trend towards stated preferences. Our results suggest that in Flevoland, although farmers do have more objectives, in practical decision-making they focus on economic result maximization, while for strategic decision-making they account for objectives influencing long-term performance and indicators associated with sustainability, in this case soil organic matter.

Abstract: The development of methodologies for predicting crop yield, in real-time and in response to different agro-climatic conditions, could help to improve the farm management decision process by providing an analysis of expected yields in relation to the costs of investment in particular practices. Based on the use of crop models, this paper compares the ability of two methodologies to predict wheat yield (Triticum aestivum L.), one based on stochastically generated climatic data and the other on mean climate data. It was shown that the numerical experimental yield distribution could be considered as a log-normal distribution. This function is representative of the overall model behaviour. The lack of statistical differences between the numerical realisations and the logistic curve showed in turn that the Generalised Central Limit Theorem (GCLT) was applicable to our case study. In addition, the predictions obtained using both climatic inputs were found to be similar at the inter and intra-annual time-steps, with the root mean square and normalised deviation values below an acceptable level of 10% in 90% of the climatic situations. The predictive observed lead-times were also similar for both approaches. Given (i) the mathematical formulation of crop models, (ii) the applicability of the CLT and GLTC to the climatic inputs and model outputs, respectively, and (iii) the equivalence of the predictive abilities, it could be concluded that the two methodologies were equally valid in terms of yield prediction. These observations indicated that the Convergence in Law Theorem was applicable in this case study. For purely predictive purposes, the findings favoured an algorithm based on a mean climate approach, which needed far less time (by 300-fold) to run and converge on same predictive lead time than the stochastic approach. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.