| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> |
|
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.
|
|
Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Stevanovic, M., Müller, C., Bodirsky, B. L., Bonsch, M., et al. (2015). Land-use and carbon cycle responses to moderate climate change: implications for land-based mitigation. Environ Sci Technol, 49(11), 6731–6739.
Abstract: Climate change has impacts on agricultural yields, which could alter cropland requirements and hence deforestation rates. Thus, land-use responses to climate change might influence terrestrial carbon stocks. Moreover, climate change could alter the carbon storage capacity of the terrestrial biosphere and hence the land-based mitigation potential. We use a global spatially explicit economic land-use optimization model to (a) estimate the mitigation potential of a climate policy that provides economic incentives for carbon stock conservation and enhancement, (b) simulate land-use and carbon cycle responses to moderate climate change (RCP2.6), and (c) investigate the combined effects throughout the 21st century. The climate policy immediately stops deforestation and strongly increases afforestation, resulting in a global mitigation potential of 191 GtC in 2100. Climate change increases terrestrial carbon stocks not only directly through enhanced carbon sequestration (62 GtC by 2100) but also indirectly through less deforestation due to higher crop yields (16 GtC by 2100). However, such beneficial climate impacts increase the potential of the climate policy only marginally, as the potential is already large under static climatic conditions. In the broader picture, this study highlights the importance of land-use dynamics for modeling carbon cycle responses to climate change in integrated assessment modeling.
|
|
Jancic, M. (2016). Climate change adaptation in maize production in Serbia (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Climate change is noticed and well established phenomenon, described as change in the statistical properties of the climate system, considered over long period of time, regardless of cause (Houghton, 1996). This change has been monitored on global (Rosenzweig et al., 1994; Harrison et al., 1995; Wolf et al., 1995; Watson et al., 1996; Downing et al., 2000; Sathaye et al., 1997; Sirotenko et al., 1997) and regional scale (Alexandrov et al., 2002; Lalic et al., 2012; Vučetić, 2011) by researchers, organizations and part of various programmes (IPCC, UNESCO Climate Change Initiative). In a same time, it was analysed change in agroclimatic indices, soil and water balance, crop development and yield, that quantify climate change impact on agricultural production. In recent regional studies and research projects (COST 734, 2008; ADAGIO, 2009), it was estimated and quantified climate change impact on yield and development in crop production of Central and Eastern European countries and Mediterranean region. The research showed a decrease in yield in several major crops, important in national food production and part of economy. A high variability in yield from year to year and decrease in yield was showed for most cereals.
|
|
Kahiluoto, H., Kaseva, J., Balek, J., Olesen, J. E., Ruiz-Ramos, M., Gobin, A., et al. (2019). Decline in climate resilience of European wheat. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 116(1), 123–128.
Abstract: Food security relies on the resilience of staple food crops to climatic variability and extremes, but the climate resilience of European wheat is unknown. A diversity of responses to disturbance is considered a key determinant of resilience. The capacity of a sole crop genotype to perform well under climatic variability is limited; therefore, a set of cultivars with diverse responses to weather conditions critical to crop yield is required. Here, we show a decline in the response diversity of wheat in farmers’ fields in most European countries after 2002-2009 based on 101,000 cultivar yield observations. Similar responses to weather were identified in cultivar trials among central European countries and southern European countries. A response diversity hotspot appeared in the trials in Slovakia, while response diversity “deserts” were identified in Czechia and Germany and for durum wheat in southern Europe. Positive responses to abundant precipitation were lacking. This assessment suggests that current breeding programs and cultivar selection practices do not sufficiently prepare for climatic uncertainty and variability. Consequently, the demand for climate resilience of staple food crops such as wheat must be better articulated. Assessments and communication of response diversity enable collective learning across supply chains. Increased awareness could foster governance of resilience through research and breeding programs, incentives, and regulation.
Keywords: wheat; cultivar; Europe; climate resilience; response diversity; Diversity; Weather; Growth; Shifts; Crops; Yield; Variability
|
|
Kersebaum, K., & C,. (2014). Results of uncalibrated model runs available (ROTATIONEFFECTS) (Vol. 3).
Abstract: The study ROTATIONEFFECT aims to compare the output of different models simulating field data sets with multi-year crop rotations including different treatments. Data sets for 5 locations in Europe were distributed to 19 interested modeller groups comprising a total of 201 crop growth seasons. In a first step only minimal information for calibration were provided to the modellers. In total 14 modelling teams sent their “uncalibrated” results as single-year calculations and/or calculations of rotation depending on the capability of the model. 7-10 models were capable to run the rotations as continuous runs. Up to 12 models provided single year simulations of at least one crop. Comparing results of models which provided both single year and continuous runs, show a little lower root mean square error for the continuous rotations runs. Cereal crop yields were generally better simulated than tuber/beet yields. Additionally, the models’ response to various treatments (irrigation/rainfed, nitrogen level, CO2 level, residue management/ tillage, catch crops) were compared to observed differences. First indicators of model performance have been developed and presented at international conferences. No Label
|