|
|
Kersebaum, K. C., Malone, R. W., Kaspar, T. C., Ma, L., & Jaynes, D. B. (2016). Modelling cover crop effects in a corn-soybean rotation on water and nitrogen tile drain fluxes.. Berlin (Germany).
|
|
|
|
Kersebaum, K., Kroes, J., Gobin, A., Takáč, J., Hlavinka, P., Trnka, M., et al. (2016). Assessing uncertainties of water footprints using an ensemble of crop growth models on winter wheat. Water, 8(12), 571.
Abstract: Crop productivity and water consumption form the basis to calculate the water footprint (WF) of a specific crop. Under current climate conditions, calculated evapotranspiration is related to observed crop yields to calculate WF. The assessment of WF under future climate conditions requires the simulation of crop yields adding further uncertainty. To assess the uncertainty of model based assessments of WF, an ensemble of crop models was applied to data from five field experiments across Europe. Only limited data were provided for a rough calibration, which corresponds to a typical situation for regional assessments, where data availability is limited. Up to eight models were applied for wheat. The coefficient of variation for the simulated actual evapotranspiration between models was in the range of 13%–19%, which was higher than the inter-annual variability. Simulated yields showed a higher variability between models in the range of 17%–39%. Models responded differently to elevated CO2 in a FACE (Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment) experiment, especially regarding the reduction of water consumption. The variability of calculated WF between models was in the range of 15%–49%. Yield predictions contributed more to this variance than the estimation of water consumption. Transpiration accounts on average for 51%–68% of the total actual evapotranspiration.
|
|
|
|
Kebreab, E., Tedeschi, L., Dijkstra, J., Ellis, J. L., Bannink, A., & France, J. (2016). Modeling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Enteric Fermentation. In E. Kebreab (Ed.), Advances in Agricultural Systems (Vol. 6, pp. 173–196). Synthesis and Modeling of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Storage in Agricultural and Forest Systems to Guide Mitigation and Adaptation, Advances in Agricultural Systems (6).
Abstract: Livestock directly contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mainly through methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. For cost and practicality reasons, quantification of GHG has been through development of various types of mathematical models. This chapter addresses the utility and limitations of mathematical models used to estimate enteric CH4 emissions from livestock production. Models used in GHG quantification can be broadly classified into either empirical or mechanistic models. Empirical models might be easier to use because they require fewer input variables compared with mechanistic models. However, their applicability in assessing mitigation options such as dietary manipulation may be limited. The major driving variables identified for both types of models include feed intake, lipid and nonstructural carbohydrate content of the feed, and animal variables. Knowledge gaps identified in empirical modeling were that some of the assumptions might not be valid because of geographical location, health status of animals, genetic differences, or production type. In mechanistic modeling, errors related to estimating feed intake, stoichiometry of volatile fatty acid (VFA) production, and acidity of rumen contents are limitations that need further investigation. Model prediction uncertainty was also investigated, and, depending on the intensity and source of the prediction uncertainty, the mathematical model may inaccurately predict the observed values with more or less variability. In conclusion, although there are quantification tools available, global collaboration is required to come to a consensus on quantification protocols. This can be achieved through developing various types of models specific to region, animal, and production type using large global datasets developed through international collaboration.
|
|
|
|
Jennings, S., Koehler, A. - K., Sait, S., & Challinor, A. (2016). The abiotic and biotic impacts of climate change on potato agriculture.. Berlin (Germany).
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
