| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> |
|
| Records | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Mittenzwei, K.; Persson, T.; Höglind, M.; Kværnø, S. | ||||
| Title | Combined effects of climate change and policy uncertainty on the agricultural sector in Norway | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2017 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Syst. |
| Volume | 153 | Issue | Pages | 118-126 | |
| Keywords | Climate change; Norway; Agriculture; Policy uncertainty; Modelling; LINGRA; CSM-CERES-Wheat; DSSAT | ||||
| Abstract | Highlights • A framework to study climate and policy uncertainty in agriculture is presented. • Combining both sources of uncertainty has ambiguous effects on agriculture. • Uncertainty needs to be highlighted in modelling tools for policy analysis. Abstract Farmers are exposed to climate change and uncertainty about how that change will develop. As farm incomes, in Norway and elsewhere, greatly depend on government subsidies, the risk of a policy change constitutes an additional uncertainty source. Hence, climate and policy uncertainty could substantially impact agricultural production and farm income. However, these sources of uncertainty have, so far, rarely been combined in food production analyses. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of a combination of policy and climate uncertainty on agricultural production, land use, and social welfare in Norway. Output yield distributions of spring wheat and timothy, a major forage grass, from simulations with the weather-driven crop models, CSM-CERES-Wheat and, LINGRA, were processed in the a stochastic version Jordmod, a price-endogenous spatial economic sector model of the Norwegian agriculture. To account for potential effects of climate uncertainty within a given future greenhouse gas emission scenario on farm profitability, effects on conditions that represented the projected climate for 2050 under the emission scenario A1B from the 4th assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and four Global Climate Models (GCM) was investigated. The uncertainty about the level of payment rates at the time farmers make their management decisions was handled by varying the distribution of payment rates applied in the Jordmod model. These changes were based on the change in the overall level of agricultural support in the past. Three uncertainty scenarios were developed and tested: one with climate change uncertainty, another with payment rate uncertainty, and a third where both types of uncertainty were combined. The three scenarios were compared with results from a deterministic scenario where crop yields and payment rates were constant. Climate change resulted in on average 9% lower cereal production, unchanged grass production and more volatile crop yield as well as 4% higher farm incomes on average compared to the deterministic scenario. The scenario with a combination of climate change and policy uncertainty increased the mean farm income more than a scenario with only one source of uncertainty. On the other hand, land use and farm labour were negatively affected under these conditions compared to the deterministic case. Highlighting the potential influence of climate change and policy uncertainty on the performance of the farm sector our results underline the potential error in neglecting either of these two uncertainties in studies of agricultural production, land use and welfare. | ||||
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 | 0308521x | ISBN | Medium | ||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, TradeM | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4986 | ||
| 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 | Ruane, A.C.; Hudson, N.I.; Asseng, S.; Camarrano, D.; Ewert, F.; Martre, P.; Boote, K.J.; Thorburn, P.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Angulo, C.; Basso, B.; Bertuzzi, P.; Biernath, C.; Brisson, N.; Challinor, &rew J.; Doltra, J.; Gayler, S.; Goldberg, R.; Grant, R.F.; Heng, L.; Hooker, J.; Hunt, L.A.; Ingwersen, J.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Kumar, S.N.; Müller, C.; Nendel, C.; O’Leary, G.; Olesen, J.E.; Osborne, T.M.; Palosuo, T.; Priesack, E.; Ripoche, D.; Rötter, R.P.; Semenov, M.A.; Shcherbak, I.; Steduto, P.; Stöckle, C.O.; Stratonovitch, P.; Streck, T.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Travasso, M.; Waha, K.; Wallach, D.; White, J.W.; Wolf, J. | ||||
| Title | Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2016 | Publication | Environmental Modelling & Software | Abbreviated Journal | Env. Model. Softw. |
| Volume | 81 | Issue | Pages | 86-101 | |
| Keywords | Crop modeling; Uncertainty; Multi-model ensemble; Wheat; AgMIP; Climate; impacts; Temperature; Precipitation; lnterannual variability; simulation-model; crop model; nitrogen dynamics; winter-wheat; large-area; systems simulation; farming systems; yield response; growth; water | ||||
| Abstract | We compare 27 wheat models’ yield responses to interannual climate variability, analyzed at locations in Argentina, Australia, India, and The Netherlands as part of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Wheat Pilot. Each model simulated 1981-2010 grain yield, and we evaluate results against the interannual variability of growing season temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. The amount of information used for calibration has only a minor effect on most models’ climate response, and even small multi-model ensembles prove beneficial. Wheat model clusters reveal common characteristics of yield response to climate; however models rarely share the same cluster at all four sites indicating substantial independence. Only a weak relationship (R-2 <= 0.24) was found between the models’ sensitivities to interannual temperature variability and their response to long-term warming, suggesting that additional processes differentiate climate change impacts from observed climate variability analogs and motivating continuing analysis and model development efforts. Published by Elsevier Ltd. | ||||
| Address |
|||||
| 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 | 1364-8152 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4769 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Wallach, D.; Thorburn, P.; Asseng, S.; Challinor, A.J.; Ewert, F.; Jones, J.W.; Rötter, R.; Ruane, A. | ||||
| Title | Estimating model prediction error: Should you treat predictions as fixed or random | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2016 | Publication | Environmental Modelling & Software | Abbreviated Journal | Env. Model. Softw. |
| Volume | 84 | Issue | Pages | 529-539 | |
| Keywords | Crop model; Uncertainty; Prediction error; Parameter uncertainty; Input uncertainty; Model structure uncertainty | ||||
| Abstract | Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. We compare two criteria of prediction error; MSEPfixed, which evaluates mean squared error of prediction for a model with fixed structure, parameters and inputs, and MSEPuncertain(X), which evaluates mean squared error averaged over the distributions of model structure, inputs and parameters. Comparison of model outputs with data can be used to estimate the former. The latter has a squared bias term, which can be estimated using hindcasts, and a model variance term, which can be estimated from a simulation experiment. The separate contributions to MSEPuncertain(X) can be estimated using a random effects ANOVA. It is argued that MSEPuncertain(X) is the more informative uncertainty criterion, because it is specific to each prediction situation. | ||||
| Address |
|||||
| 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 | 1364-8152 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4773 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Doltra, J.; Olesen, J.E.; Báez, D.; Louro, A.; Chirinda, N. | ||||
| Title | Modeling nitrous oxide emissions from organic and conventional cereal-based cropping systems under different management, soil and climate factors | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2015 | Publication | European Journal of Agronomy | Abbreviated Journal | European Journal of Agronomy |
| Volume | 66 | Issue | Pages | 8-20 | |
| Keywords | greenhouse gas emissions; nitrogen losses; fasset process-based model; mitigation; crop management; n2o emissions; agricultural soils; cover crops; simulation; matter; wheat; uncertainty; variability; fertilizer; rotation | ||||
| Abstract | Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture should be assessed across cropping systems and agroclimatic regions. In this study, we investigate the ability of the FASSET model to analyze differences in the magnitude of N2O emissions due to soil, climate and management factors in cereal-based cropping systems. Forage maize was grown in a conventional dairy system at Mabegondo (NW Spain) and wheat and barley in organic and conventional crop rotations at Foulum (NW Denmark). These two European sites represent agricultural areas with high and low to moderate emission levels, respectively. Field trials included plots with and without catch crops that were fertilized with either mineral N fertilizer, cattle slurry, pig slurry or digested manure. Non-fertilized treatments were also included. Measurements of N2O fluxes during the growing cycle of all the crops at both sites were performed with the static chamber method with more frequent measurements post-fertilization and biweekly measurements when high fluxes were not expected. All cropping systems were simulated with the FASSET version 2.5 simulation model. Cumulative soil seasonal N2O emissions were about ten-fold higher at Mabegondo than at Foulum when averaged across systems and treatments (8.99 and 0.71 kg N2O-N ha(-1), respectively). The average simulated cumulative soil N2O emissions were 9.03 and 1.71 kg N2O-N ha(-1) at Mabegondo and at Foulum, respectively. Fertilization, catch crops and cropping systems had lower influence on the seasonal soil N2O fluxes than the environmental factors. Overall, in its current version FASSET reproduced the effects of the different factors investigated on the cumulative seasonal soil N2O emissions but temporally it overestimated emissions from nitrification and denitrification on particular days when soil operations, ploughing or fertilization, took place. The errors associated with simulated daily soil N2O fluxes increased with the magnitude of the emissions. For resolving causes of differences in simulated and measured fluxes more intensive and temporally detailed measurements of N2O fluxes and soil C and N dynamics would be needed. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. | ||||
| Address |
|||||
| 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 | 1161-0301 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4748 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||