Abstract: Future changes in temperature, rainfall and soil moisture could threaten agricultural land use and crop productivity in Europe, with major consequences for food security. We assessed the projected impacts of climate change on the yield of seven major crop types (viz wheat, barley, maize, potato, sugar beet, rice and rye) grown in Europe using a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis of data reported in 41 original publications from an initial screening of 1748 studies. Our approach adopted an established SR procedure developed by the Centre for Evidence Based Conservation constrained by inclusion criteria and defined methods for literature searches, data extraction, meta-analysis and synthesis. Whilst similar studies exist to assess climate impacts on crop yield in Africa and South Asia, surprisingly, no comparable synthesis has been undertaken for Europe. Based on the reported results (n = 729) we show that the projected change in average yield in Europe for the seven crops by the 2050s is +8%. For wheat and sugar beet, average yield changes of +14% and +15% are projected, respectively. There were strong regional differences with crop impacts in northern Europe being higher (+14%) and more variable compared to central (+6%) and southern (+5) Europe. Maize is projected to suffer the largest negative mean change in southern Europe (−11%). Evidence of climate impacts on yield was extensive for wheat, maize, sugar beet and potato, but very limited for barley, rice and rye. The implications for supporting climate adaptation policy and informing climate impacts crop science research in Europe are discussed.

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.