| Records |
| Author |
Pulina, A.; Lai, R.; Salis, L.; Seddaiu, G.; Roggero, P.P.; Bellocchi, G. |
| Title |
Modelling pasture production and soil temperature, water and carbon fluxes in Mediterranean grassland systems with the Pasture Simulation Model |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Grass and Forage Science |
Abbreviated Journal |
Grass Forage Sci. |
| Volume |
73 |
Issue |
2 |
Pages |
272-283 |
| Keywords |
grassland production; Mediterranean pastures; model calibration; PaSim; sheep grazing systems; soil respiration |
| Abstract |
Grasslands play important roles in agricultural production and provide a range of ecosystem services. Modelling can be a valuable adjunct to experimental research in order to improve the knowledge and assess the impact of management practices in grassland systems. In this study, the PaSim model was assessed for its ability to simulate plant biomass production, soil temperature, water content, and total and heterotrophic soil respiration in Mediterranean grasslands. The study site was the extensively managed sheep grazing system at the Berchidda‐Monti Observatory (Sardinia, Italy), from which two data sets were derived for model calibration and validation respectively. A new model parameterization was derived for Mediterranean conditions from a set of eco‐physiological parameters. With the exception of heterotrophic respiration (Rh), for which modelling efficiency (EF) values were negative, the model outputs were in agreement with observations (e.g., EF ranging from ~0.2 for total soil respiration to ~0.7 for soil temperature). These results support the effectiveness of PaSim to simulate C cycle components in Mediterranean grasslands. The study also highlights the need of further model development to provide better representation of the seasonal dynamics of Mediterranean annual species‐rich grasslands and associated peculiar Rh features, for which the modelling is only implicitly being undertaken by the current PaSim release. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
article |
| Area |
LiveM |
Expedition |
|
Conference  |
|
| Notes |
LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4973 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Hamidov, A.; Helming, K.; Bellocchi, G.; Bojar, W.; Dalgaard, T.; Ghaley, B.B.; Hoffmann, C.; Holman, I.; Holzkämper, A.; Krzeminska, D.; Kværnø, S.H.; Lehtonen, H.; Niedrist, G.; Øygarden, L.; Reidsma, P.; Roggero, P.P.; Rusu, T.; Santos, C.; Seddaiu, G.; Skarbøvik, E.; Ventrella, D.; Żarski, J.; Schönhart, M. |
| Title |
Impacts of climate change adaptation options on soil functions: A review of European case-studies |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Land Degradation & Development |
Abbreviated Journal |
Land Degradation & Development |
| Volume |
29 |
Issue |
8 |
Pages |
2378-2389 |
| Keywords |
agricultural adaptation; DPSIR; regional case-studies; soil degradation; Sustainable Development Goals; Agricultural Practices; Ecosystem Services; Land Management; Netherlands; Farm; Environment; Challenges; Catchments; Framework; Nitrogen |
| Abstract |
Soils are vital for supporting food security and other ecosystem services. Climate change can affect soil functions both directly and indirectly. Direct effects include temperature, precipitation, and moisture regime changes. Indirect effects include those that are induced by adaptations such as irrigation, crop rotation changes, and tillage practices. Although extensive knowledge is available on the direct effects, an understanding of the indirect effects of agricultural adaptation options is less complete. A review of 20 agricultural adaptation case-studies across Europe was conducted to assess implications to soil threats and soil functions and the link to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The major findings are as follows: (a) adaptation options reflect local conditions; (b) reduced soil erosion threats and increased soil organic carbon are expected, although compaction may increase in some areas; (c) most adaptation options are anticipated to improve the soil functions of food and biomass production, soil organic carbon storage, and storing, filtering, transforming, and recycling capacities, whereas possible implications for soil biodiversity are largely unknown; and (d) the linkage between soil functions and the SDGs implies improvements to SDG 2 (achieving food security and promoting sustainable agriculture) and SDG 13 (taking action on climate change), whereas the relationship to SDG 15 (using terrestrial ecosystems sustainably) is largely unknown. The conclusion is drawn that agricultural adaptation options, even when focused on increasing yields, have the potential to outweigh the negative direct effects of climate change on soil degradation in many European regions. |
| Address |
2018-10-16 |
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
1085-3278 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
XC, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5210 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Kipling, R.P.; Virkajärvi, P.; Breitsameter, L.; Curnel, Y.; De Swaef, T.; Gustavsson, A.-M.; Hennart, S.; Höglind, M.; Järvenranta, K.; Minet, J.; Nendel, C.; Persson, T.; Picon-Cochard, C.; Rolinski, S.; Sandars, D.L.; Scollan, N.D.; Sebek, L.; Seddaiu, G.; Topp, C.F.E.; Twardy, S.; Van Middelkoop, J.; Wu, L.; Bellocchi, G. |
| Title |
Key challenges and priorities for modelling European grasslands under climate change |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Science of the Total Environment |
Abbreviated Journal |
Science of the Total Environment |
| Volume |
566-567 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
851-864 |
| Keywords |
Climate change; Grasslands; Horizon scanning; Livestock production; Models; Research agenda |
| Abstract |
Grassland-based ruminant production systems are integral to sustainable food production in Europe, converting plant materials indigestible to humans into nutritious food, while providing a range of environmental and cultural benefits. Climate change poses significant challenges for such systems, their productivity and the wider benefits they supply. In this context, grassland models have an important role in predicting and understanding the impacts of climate change on grassland systems, and assessing the efficacy of potential adaptation and mitigation strategies. In order to identify the key challenges for European grassland modelling under climate change, modellers and researchers from across Europe were consulted via workshop and questionnaire. Participants identified fifteen challenges and considered the current state of modelling and priorities for future research in relation to each. A review of literature was undertaken to corroborate and enrich the information provided during the horizon scanning activities. Challenges were in four categories relating to: 1) the direct and indirect effects of climate change on the sward 2) climate change effects on grassland systems outputs 3) mediation of climate change impacts by site, system and management and 4) cross-cutting methodological issues. While research priorities differed between challenges, an underlying theme was the need for accessible, shared inventories of models, approaches and data, as a resource for stakeholders and to stimulate new research. Developing grassland models to effectively support efforts to tackle climate change impacts, while increasing productivity and enhancing ecosystem services, will require engagement with stakeholders and policy-makers, as well as modellers and experimental researchers across many disciplines. The challenges and priorities identified are intended to be a resource 1) for grassland modellers and experimental researchers, to stimulate the development of new research directions and collaborative opportunities, and 2) for policy-makers involved in shaping the research agenda for European grassland modelling under climate change. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
0048-9697 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4761 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
Sándor, R.; Barcza, Z.; Acutis, M.; Doro, L.; Hidy, D.; Köchy, M.; Minet, J.; Lellei-Kovács, E.; Ma, S.; Perego, A.; Rolinski, S.; Ruget, F.; Sanna, M.; Seddaiu, G.; Wu, L.; Bellocchi, G. |
| Title |
Multi-model simulation of soil temperature, soil water content and biomass in Euro-Mediterranean grasslands: Uncertainties and ensemble performance |
Type |
Journal Article |
| Year |
2016 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
European Journal of Agronomy |
| Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
| Keywords |
Biomass; Grasslands; Modelling; Multi-model ensemble; Soil processes |
| Abstract |
• We simulate biomass, soil water content (SWC) and temperature (ST) in grasslands. • We compare nine models to the multi-model median (MMM) at nine sites. • With model calibration, we obtain satisfactory estimates of ST, less of SWC and biomass. • We observe discrepancies across models in the simulation of grassland processes. • We improve performance with multi-model approach. This study presents results from a major grassland model intercomparison exercise, and highlights the main challenges faced in the implementation of a multi-model ensemble prediction system in grasslands. Nine, independently developed simulation models linking climate, soil, vegetation and management to grassland biogeochemical cycles and production were compared in a simulation of soil water content (SWC) and soil temperature (ST) in the topsoil, and of biomass production. The results were assessed against SWC and ST data from five observational grassland sites representing a range of conditions – Grillenburg in Germany, Laqueuille in France with both extensive and intensive management, Monte Bondone in Italy and Oensingen in Switzerland – and against yield measurements from the same sites and other experimental grassland sites in Europe and Israel. We present a comparison of model estimates from individual models to the multi-model ensemble (represented by multi-model median: MMM). With calibration (seven out of nine models), the performances were acceptable for weekly-aggregated ST (R² > 0.7 with individual models and >0.8–0.9 with MMM), but less satisfactory with SWC (R² < 0.6 with individual models and < ∼ 0.5 with MMM) and biomass (R² < ∼0.3 with both individual models and MMM). With individual models, maximum biases of about −5 °C for ST, −0.3 m3 m−3 for SWC and 360 g DM m−2 for yield, as well as negative modelling efficiencies and some high relative root mean square errors indicate low model performance, especially for biomass. We also found substantial discrepancies across different models, indicating considerable uncertainties regarding the simulation of grassland processes. The multi-model approach allowed for improved performance, but further progress is strongly needed in the way models represent processes in managed grassland systems. |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
Language |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
LiveM |
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4768 |
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
| Author |
König, H.J.; Helming, K.; Seddaiu, G.; Kipling, R.; Köchy, M.; Graversgaard, M.; van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A.; Nguyen, T.P.L.; Quaranta, G.; Salvia, R.; Sieber, S.; Ithes, S.; Kjeldsen, C.; Turner, K.G.; Dalgaard, T.; Roggero, P.P. |
| Title |
Stakeholder participation in agricultural research: Who should be involved, why, and how? |
Type |
Manuscript |
| Year |
|
Publication |
|
Abbreviated Journal |
|
| Volume |
|
Issue |
|
Pages |
|
| Keywords |
|
| Abstract |
Research in sustainable agricultural management requires appropriate participatory processes and tools enabling efficient dialogue and cooperation to allow researchers and stakeholders to co-produce knowledge. Research approaches that encourage stakeholder participation are in high demand because they allow a better understanding of human-nature interactions and interdependencies between actors. Participatory approaches also support multiple goals of agricultural management: improved productivity, food security, climate change adaptation, environmental conservation, rural development and policy decision making. Approaches to stakeholder engagement in the field of agricultural management research are manifold. Therefore, selecting the “right” approach depends on the specific purpose and contextualized issues at stake. We analyzed ten stakeholder approaches and propose a new framework with which to identify and select appropriate approaches for stakeholder engagement. The framework consists of three components: whom to engage (i.e., stakeholder type and mandate), why to engage (i.e., research purpose: consult, inform, collaborate), and how to engage (i.e., different methodological approaches). We identified different stakeholder groups (who?): farmers, agricultural actors, land users, and policymakers; different purposes (why?): facilitate engagement process, inform stakeholders, and obtain stakeholder perceptions; and different types of engagement methods (how?): participatory field experiments, desk simulations, interviews, panel discussions and different types of workshops. The framework was applied to arrange these approaches, organize them to improve understanding of their main strengths, weaknesses and supports for identifying and selecting an appropriate approach. We conclude that understanding the different facets of available approaches is crucial for selecting an appropriate stakeholder engagement approach. ; |
| Address |
|
| Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
| Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
| Language |
|
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
| Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
| Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
| ISSN |
|
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
| Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
| Notes |
|
Approved |
no |
| Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
2564 |
| Permanent link to this record |
