|
|
Jägermeyr, J., Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S., Heinke, J., Lucht, W., & Rockström, J. (2016). Integrated crop water management might sustainably halve the global food gap. Environ. Res. Lett., 11(2), 025002.
Abstract: As planetary boundaries are rapidly being approached, humanity has little room for additional expansion and conventional intensification of agriculture, while a growing world population further spreads the food gap. Ample evidence exists that improved on-farm water management can close water-related yield gaps to a considerable degree, but its global significance remains unclear. In this modeling study we investigate systematically to what extent integrated crop water management might contribute to closing the global food gap, constrained by the assumption that pressure on water resources and land does not increase. Using a process-based bio-/agrosphere model, we simulate the yield-increasing potential of elevated irrigation water productivity (including irrigation expansion with thus saved water) and optimized use of in situ precipitation water (alleviated soil evaporation, enhanced infiltration, water harvesting for supplemental irrigation) under current and projected future climate (from 20 climate models, with and without beneficial CO2 effects). Results show that irrigation efficiency improvements can save substantial amounts of water in many river basins (globally 48% of non-productive water consumption in an ‘ambitious’ scenario), and if rerouted to irrigate neighboring rainfed systems, can boost kcal production significantly (26% global increase). Low-tech solutions for small-scale farmers on water-limited croplands show the potential to increase rainfed yields to a similar extent. In combination, the ambitious yet achievable integrated water management strategies explored in this study could increase global production by 41% and close the water-related yield gap by 62%. Unabated climate change will have adverse effects on crop yields in many regions, but improvements in water management as analyzed here can buffer such effects to a significant degree.
|
|
|
|
Zimmermann, A., & Britz, W. (2016). European farms’ participation in agri-environmental measures. Land Use Policy, 50, 214–228.
Abstract: Due to their diversity and voluntariness, agri-environmental measures (AEMs) are among the Common Agricultural Policy instruments that are most difficult to assess. We provide an EU-wide analysis of AEM adoption and farm’s total AEM support over total Utilised Agricultural Area using a Heckman sample selection approach and single farm data. Our analysis covers 22 Member States over the 2000-2009 period, assesses the entire portfolio of AEMs and focuses on the relationship between AEM participation and farming system. Results show that participation in AEMs is more likely in less intensive production systems, where, however, per committed hectare AEM premiums tend to be lower. Member States group into three categories: high/low intensity farming systems with low/high AEM enrollment rates, respectively, and large high diversity countries with medium AEM enrollment rates. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Ghaley, B. B., Sandhu, H. S., & Porter, J. R. (2015). Relationship between C:N/C:O stoichiometry and ecosystem services in managed production systems. PLoS One, 10(4), e0123869.
Abstract: Land use and management intensity can influence provision of ecosystem services (ES). We argue that forest/agroforestry production systems are characterized by relatively higher C:O/C:N and ES value compared to arable production systems. Field investigations on C:N/C:O and 15 ES were determined in three diverse production systems: wheat monoculture (Cwheat), a combined food and energy system (CFE) and a beech forest in Denmark. The C:N/C:O ratios were 194.1/1.68, 94.1/1.57 and 59.5/1.45 for beech forest, CFE and Cwheat, respectively. The economic value of the non-marketed ES was also highest in beech forest (US$ 1089 ha(-1) yr(-1)) followed by CFE (US$ 800 ha(-1) yr(-1)) and Cwheat (US$ 339 ha(-1) yr(-1)). The combined economic value was highest in the CFE (US$ 3143 ha(-1) yr(-1)) as compared to the Cwheat (US$ 2767 ha(-1) yr(-1)) and beech forest (US$ 2365 ha(-1) yr(-1)). We argue that C:N/C:O can be used as a proxy of ES, particularly for the non-marketed ES, such as regulating, supporting and cultural services. These ES play a vital role in the sustainable production of food and energy. Therefore, they should be considered in decision making and developing appropriate policy responses for land use management.
|
|
|
|
Rusu, T. (2014). Energy efficiency and soil conservation in conventional, minimum tillage and no-tillage. International Soil and Water Conservation Research, 2(4), 42–49.
Abstract: The objective of this research was to determine the capacity of a soil tillage system in soil conservation, in productivity and in energy efficiency. The minimum tillage and no-tillage systems represent good alternatives to the conventional (plough) system of soil tillage, due to their conservation effects on soil and to the good production of crops (Maize, 96%-98% of conventional tillage for minimum tillage, and 99.8% of conventional tillage for no till; Soybeans, 103%-112% of conventional tillage for minimum tillage and 117% of conventional tillage for no till; Wheat, 93%-97% of conventional tillage for minimum tillage and 117% of conventional tillage for no till. The choice of the right soil tillage system for crops in rotation help reduce energy consumption, thus for maize: 97%-98% energy consumption of conventional tillage when using minimum tillage and 91% when using no-tillage; for soybeans: 98% energy consumption of conventional tillage when using minimum tillage and 93 when using no-tillage; for wheat: 97%-98% energy consumption of conventional tillage when using minimum tillage and 92% when using no-tillage. Energy efficiency is in relation to reductions in energy use, but also might include the efficiency and impact of the tillage system on the cultivated plant. For all crops in rotation, energy efficiency (energy produced from 1 MJ consumed) was the best in no-tillage — 10.44 MJ ha− 1 for maize, 6.49 MJ ha− 1 for soybean, and 5.66 MJ ha− 1 for wheat. An analysis of energy-efficiency in agricultural systems includes the energy consumed-energy produced-energy yield comparisons, but must be supplemented by soil energy efficiency, based on the conservative effect of the agricultural system. Only then will the agricultural system be sustainable, durable in agronomic, economic and ecological terms. The implementation of minimum and no-tillage soil systems has increased the organic matter content from 2% to 7.6% and water stable aggregate content from 5.6% to 9.6%, at 0–30 cm depth, as compared to the conventional system. Accumulated water supply was higher (with 12.4%-15%) for all minimum and no-tillage systems and increased bulk density values by 0.01%-0.03% (no significant difference) While the soil fertility and the wet aggregate stability have initially been low, the effect of conservation practices on the soil characteristics led to a positive impact on the water permeability in the soil. Availability of soil moisture during the crop growth period led to a better plant watering condition. Subsequent release of conserved soil water regulated the plant water condition and soil structure.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
