|
Höglind, M. (2014). Europeisk landbruk i et klima i endring (MACSUR)..
|
|
Virkajärvi, P., Korhonen, P., Bellocchi, G., Curnel, Y., Wu, L., Jégo, G., et al. (2016). Modelling responses of forages to climate change with a focus on nutritive value. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 227–228.
|
|
Korhonen, P., Palosuo, T., Höglind, M., Persson, T., Oijen, M. V., Jégo, G., et al. (2016). Intercomparison of timothy models in northern countries.. Berlin (Germany).
|
Höglind, M., & the partners of LiveM task L1.3. (2017). Bringing together grassland and farm scale modelling. Part 1. Characterizing grasslands in farm scale modelling (Vol. 10).
Abstract: This report provides an overview of how grasslands are represented in six different farmscale models represented in MACSUR. A survey was conducted, followed by a workshop in which modellers discussed the results of the survey, and identified research challenges and knowledge gaps. The workshop was attended by grassland as well as livestock specialists. The investigated models differed largely with respect to how grasslands were represented, e.g. as regards weather and management factors accounted for, spatial and temporal resolution, and output variables. All models had grassland modules that simulate DM yield and herbage N content (or crude protein (CP) content = N content x 6.25). Many models also simulate P content, whereas only one simulate K content. About half of the model simulate herbage energy value and/or herbage fibre content and fibre and/or dry matter digestibility. Critical input data required from grassland models to simulate ruminant productivity and GHG emissions at farm scale was identified by the workshop participants. The different types of input data required were ranked in order of importance as regards their influence on important system outputs. For simulation of ruminant productivity and GHG emissions, herbage DM yield was ranked as the most important input variable from grassland models, followed by CP content together with at least one variable describing herbage fibre characteristics. These findings suggest that work on improving the ability of the current grassland models with respect to simulation of fibre/energy should be prioritized in farm-scale modelling aiming at quantifying livestock production and GHG emissions under different management regimes and climate conditions. More work is also needed on model evaluation, a task that has not been prioritized yet for some models.
|
Mittenzwei, K., Persson, T., Höglind, M., & Kværnø, S. (2017). Combined effects of climate change and policy uncertainty on the agricultural sector in Norway. Agric. Syst., 153, 118–126.
Abstract: Highlights • A framework to study climate and policy uncertainty in agriculture is presented. • Combining both sources of uncertainty has ambiguous effects on agriculture. • Uncertainty needs to be highlighted in modelling tools for policy analysis. Abstract Farmers are exposed to climate change and uncertainty about how that change will develop. As farm incomes, in Norway and elsewhere, greatly depend on government subsidies, the risk of a policy change constitutes an additional uncertainty source. Hence, climate and policy uncertainty could substantially impact agricultural production and farm income. However, these sources of uncertainty have, so far, rarely been combined in food production analyses. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of a combination of policy and climate uncertainty on agricultural production, land use, and social welfare in Norway. Output yield distributions of spring wheat and timothy, a major forage grass, from simulations with the weather-driven crop models, CSM-CERES-Wheat and, LINGRA, were processed in the a stochastic version Jordmod, a price-endogenous spatial economic sector model of the Norwegian agriculture. To account for potential effects of climate uncertainty within a given future greenhouse gas emission scenario on farm profitability, effects on conditions that represented the projected climate for 2050 under the emission scenario A1B from the 4th assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and four Global Climate Models (GCM) was investigated. The uncertainty about the level of payment rates at the time farmers make their management decisions was handled by varying the distribution of payment rates applied in the Jordmod model. These changes were based on the change in the overall level of agricultural support in the past. Three uncertainty scenarios were developed and tested: one with climate change uncertainty, another with payment rate uncertainty, and a third where both types of uncertainty were combined. The three scenarios were compared with results from a deterministic scenario where crop yields and payment rates were constant. Climate change resulted in on average 9% lower cereal production, unchanged grass production and more volatile crop yield as well as 4% higher farm incomes on average compared to the deterministic scenario. The scenario with a combination of climate change and policy uncertainty increased the mean farm income more than a scenario with only one source of uncertainty. On the other hand, land use and farm labour were negatively affected under these conditions compared to the deterministic case. Highlighting the potential influence of climate change and policy uncertainty on the performance of the farm sector our results underline the potential error in neglecting either of these two uncertainties in studies of agricultural production, land use and welfare.
|
