|
Wallach, D. (2015). Developing skills: how to train adaptive modelers. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 52–53.
|
|
|
Kim, Y., Seo, Y., Kraus, D., Klatt, S., Haas, E., Tenhunen, J., et al. (2015). Estimation and mitigation of N₂O emission and nitrate leaching from intensive crop cultivation in the Haean catchment, South Korea. Science of the Total Environment, 529, 40–53.
Abstract: Considering intensive agricultural management practices and environmental conditions, the LandscapeDNDC model was applied for simulation of yields, N2O emission and nitrate leaching from major upland crops and temperate deciduous forest of the Haean catchment, South Korea. Fertilization rates were high (up to 314 kg N ha(-1) year(-1)) and resulted in simulated direct N2O emissions from potato, radish, soybean and cabbage fields of 1.9 and 2.1 kg N ha(-1) year(-1) in 2009 and 2010, respectively. Nitrate leaching was identified as the dominant pathway of N losses in the Haean catchment with mean annual rates of 112.2 and 125.4 kg N ha(-1) year(-1), causing threats to water quality and leading to substantial indirect N2O emissions of 0.84 and 0.94 kg N ha(-1) year(-1) in 2009 and 2010 as estimates by applying the IPCC EF5. Simulated N2O emissions from temperate deciduous forest were low (approx. 0.50 kg N ha(-1) year(-1)) and predicted nitrate leaching rates were even negligible (≤0.01 kg N ha(-1) year(-1)). On catchment scale more than 50% of the total N2O emissions and up to 75% of nitrate leaching originated from fertilized upland fields, only covering 24% of the catchment area. Taking into account area coverage of simulated upland crops and other land uses these numbers agree well with nitrate loads calculated from discharge and concentration measurements at the catchment outlet. The change of current agricultural management practices showed a high potential of reducing N2O emission and nitrate leaching while maintaining current crop yields. Reducing (39%) and splitting N fertilizer application into 3 times was most effective and lead to about 54% and 77% reducing of N2O emission and nitrate leaching from the Haean catchment, the latter potentially contributing to improved water quality in the Soyang River Dam, which is the major source of drinking water for metropolitan residents.
|
|
|
Mitter, H., Heumesser, C., & Schmid, E. (2015). Spatial modeling of robust crop production portfolios to assess agricultural vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Land Use Policy, 46, 75–90.
Abstract: Agricultural vulnerability to climate change is likely to vary considerably between agro-environmental regions. Exemplified on Austrian cropland, we aim at (i) quantifying climate change impacts on agricultural vulnerability which is approximated by the indicators crop yields and gross margins, (ii) developing robust crop production portfolios for adaptation, and (iii) analyzing the effect of agricultural policies and risk aversion on the choice of crop production portfolios. We have employed a spatially explicit, integrated framework to assess agricultural vulnerability and adaptation. It combines a statistical climate change model for Austria and the period 2010-2040, a crop rotation model, the bio-physical process model EPIC (Environmental Policy Integrated Climate), and a portfolio optimization model. We find that under climate change, crop production portfolios include higher shares of intensive crop management practices, increasing average crop yields by 2-15% and expected gross margins by 3-18%, respectively. The results depend on the choice of adaptation measures and on the level of risk aversion and vary by region. In the semi-arid eastern parts of Austria, average dry matter crop yields are lower but gross margins are higher than in western Austria due to bio-physical and agronomic heterogeneities. An abolishment of decoupled farm payments and a threefold increase in agri-environmental premiums would reduce nitrogen inputs by 23-33%, but also crop yields and gross margins by 18-37%, on average. From a policy perspective, a twofold increase in agri-environmental premiums could effectively reduce the trade-offs between crop production and environmental impacts. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
Vosough Ahmadi, B., Shrestha, S., Thomson, S. G., Barnes, A. P., & Stott, A. W. (2015). Impacts of greening measures and flat rate regional payments of the Common Agricultural Policy on Scottish beef and sheep farms. J. Agric. Sci., 153(04), 676–688.
Abstract: The latest Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms could bring substantial changes to Scottish farming communities. Two major components of this reform package, an introduction of environmental measures into the Pillar 1 payments and a move away from historical farm payments towards regionalized area payments, would have a significant effect on altering existing support structures for Scottish farmers, as it would for similar farm types elsewhere in Europe where historic payments are used. An optimizing farm-level model was developed to explore how Scottish beef and sheep farms might be affected by the greening and flat rate payments under the current CAP reforms. Nine different types of beef and sheep farms were identified and detailed biophysical and financial farm-level data for these farm types were used to parameterize the model. Results showed that the greening measures of the CAP did not have much impact on net margins of most of the beef and sheep farm businesses, except for ‘Beef Finisher’ farm types where the net margins decreased by 3%. However, all farm types were better off adopting the greening measures than not qualifying for the greening payments through non-compliance with the measures. The move to regionalized farm payments increased the negative financial impact of greening on most of the farms but it was still substantially lower than the financial sacrifice of not adopting greening measures. Results of maximizing farm net margin, under a hypothetical assumption of excluding farm payments, showed that in most of the mixed (sheep and cattle) and beef suckler cattle farms the optimum stock numbers predicted by the model were lower than actual figures on farm. When the regionalized support payments were allocated to each farm, the proportion of the mixed farms that would increase their stock numbers increased whereas this proportion decreased for beef suckler farms and no impact was predicted in sheep farms. Also under the regionalized support payments, improvements in profitability were found in mixed farms and sheep farms. Some of the specialized beef suckler farms also returned a profit when CAP support was added.
|
|
|
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.
|
|