|
|
Mitter, H., Schmid, E., & Sinabell, F. (2015). Integrated modelling of protein crop production responses to climate change and agricultural policy scenarios in Austria. Clim. Res., 65, 205–220.
Abstract: Climate and policy changes are likely to affect protein crop production and thus trade balances in Europe, which is highly dependent on imports. Exemplified for Austrian cropland, we developed an integrated modelling framework to analyze climate change and policy scenario impacts on protein crop production and environmental outcomes. The integrated modelling framework consists of a statistical climate change model, a crop rotation model, the bio-physical process model EPIC, and the economic bottom-up land use optimization model BiomAT. EPIC is applied to simulate annual dry matter crop yields for different crop management practices including crop rotations, fertilization intensities, and irrigation, as well as for 3 regional climate change scenarios until 2040 at a 1 km grid resolution. BiomAT maximizes total gross margins by optimizing land use choices and crop management practices subject to spatially explicit cropland endowments. The model results indicate that changes in agricultural policy conditions, cropland use, and higher flexibility in crop management practices may reduce protein import dependence under changing climatic conditions. Expanding protein crop production is most attractive in south-eastern Austria with its Central European continental climate where maize is most often replaced in crop rotations. However, the acreage of protein crops is limited by agronomically suitable cropland. An intended side effect is the reduction of nitrogen fertilizer inputs by about 0.1% if total protein crop production increases by 1%.
|
|
|
|
Challinor, A. J., Müller, C., Asseng, S., Deva, C., Nicklin, K. J., Wallach, D., et al. (2017). Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation. Agric. Syst., 159, 296–306.
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.
|
|
|
|
Challinor, A. J., Smith, M. S., & Thornton, P. (2013). Use of agro-climate ensembles for quantifying uncertainty and informing adaptation. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 170, 2–7.
Abstract: ► Introduces the special issue on Agricultural prediction using climate model ensembles. ► Discuss remaining scientific challenges. ► Develops distinction between projection- and utility-based ensemble modelling. ► Recommendations made RE modelling and the analysis and reporting of uncertainty. Significant progress has been made in the use of ensemble agricultural and climate modelling, and observed data, to project future productivity and to develop adaptation options. An increasing number of agricultural models are designed specifically for use with climate ensembles, and improved methods to quantify uncertainty in both climate and agriculture have been developed. Whilst crop–climate relationships are still the most common agricultural study of this sort, on-farm management, hydrology, pests, diseases and livestock are now also examined. This paper introduces all of these areas of progress, with more detail being found in the subsequent papers in the special issue. Remaining scientific challenges are discussed, and a distinction is developed between projection- and utility-based approaches to agro-climate ensemble modelling. Recommendations are made regarding the manner in which uncertainty is analysed and reported, and the way in which models and data are used to make inferences regarding the future. A key underlying principle is the use of models as tools from which information is extracted, rather than as competing attempts to represent reality.
|
|
|
|
Wolf, J., Ouattara, K., & Supit, I. (2015). Sowing rules for estimating rainfed yield potential of sorghum and maize in Burkina Faso. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 214-215, 208–218.
Abstract: To reduce the dependence on local expert knowledge, which is important for large-scale crop modelling studies, we analyzed sowing dates and rules for maize (Zea mays L.) and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L)) at three locations in Burkina Faso with strongly decreasing rainfall amounts from south to north. We tested in total 22 methods to derive optimal sowing dates that result in highest water-limited yields and lowest yield variation in a reproducible and objective way. The WOFOST crop growth simulation model was used. We found that sowing dates that are based on local expert knowledge, may work quite well for Burkina Faso and for West Africa in general. However, when no a priori information is available, maize should be sown between Julian days 160 and 200, with application of the following criteria: (a) cumulative rainfall in the sowing window is >= 3 cm or available soil moisture content is >2 cm in the moderately dry central part of Burkina Faso, (b) cumulative rainfall in this period is >= 2 cm or available soil moisture content is >1 cm in the more humid regions in the southern part of Burkina Faso. Sorghum should also be sown between Julian days 160 and 200 with application of the following criteria: (a) in the dry northern part of Burkina Faso the long duration sorghum variety should be sown when cumulative rainfall is >2 cm in the sowing window, and the short duration sorghum variety should be sown later when cumulative rainfall is >= 3 cm, (b) in central Burkina Faso sowing should start when cumulative rainfall in this period is >= 2 cm or when available soil moisture content is >1 cm. Sowing date rules are shown to be generally crop and location specific and are not generic for West Africa. However, the required precision of the sowing rules appears to rapidly decrease with increasing duration and intensity of the rainy season. Sowing delay as a result of, for example, labour constraints, has a disastrous effect on rainfed maize and sorghum yields, particularly in the northern part of West Africa with low rainfall. Optimization of sowing dates can also be done by simulating crop yields in a time window of two months around a predefined sowing date. Using these optimized dates appears to result in a good estimate of the maximal mean rainfed yield level. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Gabaldón-Leal, C., Lorite, I. J., Mínguez, M. I., Lizaso, J. I., Dosio, A., Sanchez, E., et al. (2015). Strategies for adapting maize to climate change and extreme temperatures in Andalusia, Spain. Clim. Res., 65, 159–173.
Abstract: Climate projections indicate that rising temperatures will affect summer crops in the southern Iberian Peninsula. The aim of this study was to obtain projections of the impacts of rising temperatures, and of higher frequency of extreme events on irrigated maize, and to evaluate some adaptation strategies. The study was conducted at several locations in Andalusia using the CERES-Maize crop model, previously calibrated/validated with local experimental datasets. The simulated climate consisted of projections from regional climate models from the ENSEMBLES project; these were corrected for daily temperature and precipitation with regard to the E-OBS observational dataset. These bias-corrected projections were used with the CERES-Maize model to generate future impacts. Crop model results showed a decrease in maize yield by the end of the 21st century from 6 to 20%, a decrease of up to 25% in irrigation water requirements, and an increase in irrigation water productivity of up to 22%, due to earlier maturity dates and stomatal closure caused by CO2 increase. When adaptation strategies combining earlier sowing dates and cultivar changes were considered, impacts were compensated, and maize yield increased up to 14%, compared with the baseline period (1981-2010), with similar reductions in crop irrigation water requirements. Effects of extreme maximum temperatures rose to 40% at the end of the 21st century, compared with the baseline. Adaptation resulted in an overall reduction in extreme T-max damages in all locations, with the exception of Granada, where losses were limited to 8%.
|
|
