|
|
Challinor, A. E. A. (2014). How have uncertainties in projected yields changed between AR4 and AR5..
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Coles, G. D., Wratten, S. D., & Porter, J. R. (2016). Food and nutritional security requires adequate protein as well as energy, delivered from whole-year crop production. PeerJ, 4, 17.
Abstract: Human food security requires the production of sufficient quantities of both high-quality protein and dietary energy. In a series of case-studies from New Zealand, we show that while production of food ingredients from crops on arable land can meet human dietary energy requirements effectively, requirements for high-quality protein are met more efficiently by animal production from such land. We present a model that can be used to assess dietary energy and quality-corrected protein production from various crop and crop/animal production systems, and demonstrate its utility. We extend our analysis with an accompanying economic analysis of commercially available pre-prepared or simply-cooked foods that can be produced from our case-study crop and animal products. We calculate the per-person, per-day cost of both quality-corrected protein and dietary energy as provided in the processed foods. We conclude that mixed dairy/cropping systems provide the greatest quantity of high quality protein per unit price to the consumer, have the highest food energy production and can support the dietary requirements of the highest number of people, when assessed as all-year-round production systems. Global food and nutritional security will largely be an outcome of national or regional agroeconomies addressing their town food needs. We hope that lour model will be used for similar analyses of food production systems in other countries, agroecological zones and economies.
|
|
|
|
Comadira, G., Rasool, B., Karpinska, B., Morris, J., Verrall, S. R., Hedley, P. E., et al. (2015). Nitrogen deficiency in barley (Hordeum vulgare) seedlings induces molecular and metabolic adjustments that trigger aphid resistance. J. Experim. Bot., 66(12), 3639–3655.
Abstract: Agricultural nitrous oxide (N2O) pollution resulting from the use of synthetic fertilizers represents a significant contribution to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, providing a rationale for reduced use of nitrogen (N) fertilizers. Nitrogen limitation results in extensive systems rebalancing that remodels metabolism and defence processes. To analyse the regulation underpinning these responses, barley (Horedeum vulgare) seedlings were grown for 7 d under N-deficient conditions until net photosynthesis was 50% lower than in N-replete controls. Although shoot growth was decreased there was no evidence for the induction of oxidative stress despite lower total concentrations of N-containing antioxidants. Nitrogen-deficient barley leaves were rich in amino acids, sugars and tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediates. In contrast to N-replete leaves one-day-old nymphs of the green peach aphid (Myzus persicae) failed to reach adulthood when transferred to N-deficient barley leaves. Transcripts encoding cell, sugar and nutrient signalling, protein degradation and secondary metabolism were over-represented in N-deficient leaves while those associated with hormone metabolism were similar under both nutrient regimes with the exception of mRNAs encoding proteins involved in auxin metabolism and responses. Significant similarities were observed between the N-limited barley leaf transcriptome and that of aphid-infested Arabidopsis leaves. These findings not only highlight significant similarities between biotic and abiotic stress signalling cascades but also identify potential targets for increasing aphid resistance with implications for the development of sustainable agriculture.
|
|
