|
|
Rolinski, S., Weindl, I., Heinke, J., Bodirsky, B. L., Biewald, A., & Lotze-Campen, H. (2015). Pasture harvest, carbon sequestration and feeding potentials under different grazing intensities. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 43–45.
|
|
|
|
Semenov, M. A., Stratonovitch, P., Alghabari, F., & Gooding, M. J. (2014). Adapting wheat in Europe for climate change. J. Ceareal Sci., 59(3), 245–256.
Abstract: Increasing cereal yield is needed to meet the projected increased demand for world food supply of about 70% by 2050. Sirius, a process-based model for wheat, was used to estimate yield potential for wheat ideotypes optimized for future climatic projections for ten wheat growing areas of Europe. It was predicted that the detrimental effect of drought stress on yield would be decreased due to enhanced tailoring of phenology to future weather patterns, and due to genetic improvements in the response of photosynthesis and green leaf duration to water shortage. Yield advances could be made through extending maturation and thereby improve resource capture and partitioning. However the model predicted an increase in frequency of heat stress at meiosis and anthesis. Controlled environment experiments quantify the effects of heat and drought at booting and flowering on grain numbers and potential grain size. A current adaptation of wheat to areas of Europe with hotter and drier summers is a quicker maturation which helps to escape from excessive stress, but results in lower yields. To increase yield potential and to respond to climate change, increased tolerance to heat and drought stress should remain priorities for the genetic improvement of wheat.
Keywords: A, maximum area of flag leaf area; ABA, abscisic acid; CV, coefficient of variation; Crop improvement; Crop modelling; FC, field capacity; GMT, Greenwich mean time; GS, growth stage; Gf, grain filling duration; HI, harvest index; HSP, heat shock protein; Heat and drought tolerance; Impact assessment; LAI, leaf area index; Ph, phylochron; Pp, photoperiod response; Ru, root water uptake; S, duration of leaf senescence; SF, drought stress factor; Sirius; Wheat ideotype
|
|
|
|
Tao, F., Zhang, S., Zhang, Z., & Rötter, R. P. (2014). Maize growing duration was prolonged across China in the past three decades under the combined effects of temperature, agronomic management, and cultivar shift. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20(12), 3686–3699.
Abstract: Maize phenology observations at 112 national agro-meteorological experiment stations across China spanning the years 1981-2009 were used to investigate the spatiotemporal changes of maize phenology, as well as the relations to temperature change and cultivar shift. The greater scope of the dataset allows us to estimate the effects of temperature change and cultivar shift on maize phenology more precisely. We found that maize sowing date advanced significantly at 26.0% of stations mainly for spring maize in northwestern, southwestern and northeastern China, although delayed significantly at 8.0% of stations mainly in northeastern China and the North China Plain (NCP). Maize maturity date delayed significantly at 36.6% of stations mainly in the northeastern China and the NCP. As a result, duration of maize whole growing period (GPw) was prolonged significantly at 41.1% of stations, although mean temperature (Tmean) during GPw increased at 72.3% of stations, significantly at 19.6% of stations, and Tmean was negatively correlated with the duration of GPw at 92.9% of stations and significantly at 42.9% of stations. Once disentangling the effects of temperature change and cultivar shift with an approach based on accumulated thermal development unit, we found that increase in temperature advanced heading date and maturity date and reduced the duration of GPw at 81.3%, 82.1% and 83.9% of stations on average by 3.2, 6.0 and 3.5 days/decade, respectively. By contrast, cultivar shift delayed heading date and maturity date and prolonged the duration of GPw at 75.0%, 94.6% and 92.9% of stations on average by 1.5, 6.5 and 6.5 days/decade, respectively. Our results suggest that maize production is adapting to ongoing climate change by shift of sowing date and adoption of cultivars with longer growing period. The spatiotemporal changes of maize phenology presented here can further guide the development of adaptation options for maize production in near future.
|
|
|
|
Nelson, G. C., Valin, H., Sands, R. D., Havlík, P., Ahammad, H., Deryng, D., et al. (2014). Climate change effects on agriculture: economic responses to biophysical shocks. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., 111(9), 3274–3279.
Abstract: Agricultural production is sensitive to weather and thus directly affected by climate change. Plausible estimates of these climate change impacts require combined use of climate, crop, and economic models. Results from previous studies vary substantially due to differences in models, scenarios, and data. This paper is part of a collective effort to systematically integrate these three types of models. We focus on the economic component of the assessment, investigating how nine global economic models of agriculture represent endogenous responses to seven standardized climate change scenarios produced by two climate and five crop models. These responses include adjustments in yields, area, consumption, and international trade. We apply biophysical shocks derived from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s representative concentration pathway with end-of-century radiative forcing of 8.5 W/m(2). The mean biophysical yield effect with no incremental CO2 fertilization is a 17% reduction globally by 2050 relative to a scenario with unchanging climate. Endogenous economic responses reduce yield loss to 11%, increase area of major crops by 11%, and reduce consumption by 3%. Agricultural production, cropland area, trade, and prices show the greatest degree of variability in response to climate change, and consumption the lowest. The sources of these differences include model structure and specification; in particular, model assumptions about ease of land use conversion, intensification, and trade. This study identifies where models disagree on the relative responses to climate shocks and highlights research activities needed to improve the representation of agricultural adaptation responses to climate change.
|
|
|
|
Nelson, G. C., van der Mensbrugghe, D., Ahammad, H., Blanc, E., Calvin, K., Hasegawa, T., et al. (2014). Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 85–101.
Abstract: Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty.
|
|
