|
|
Olesen, J. E., Jabloun, M., & Schelde, K. (2014). Reconciling estimates of climate change effects on nitrate leaching from agricultural crops. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: Nitrate leaching from agricultural systems constitutes a severe environmental effect in regions with valuable groundwater resources and vulnerable aquatic ecosystems. Therefore cropping systems should in many parts of Europe reduce the amount of nitrate leached from the root zone. Since soil nitrogen transformation and loss processes are highly influenced by climate, including temperature and precipitation, estimates of climate change effects on nitrate leaching is in high demand for evaluating future groundwater and surface water protection policies. Modelling studies using both the FASSET and Daisy models for cereal crops as well as arable crop rotations in Denmark have shown increased nitrate leaching under projected climate change. Sensitivity analyses using these models have shown a higher response to changes in temperature than to precipitation, although in particular precipitation responses differ between soil types. Simulations for crop rotations show that current catch crop management may not be sufficient to maintain low nitrate leaching levels in future. These effects of temperature and precipitation as well as crop management are confirmed in an empirical analysis of nitrate leaching from a long-term cropping system experiment in Denmark. The main uncertainties on climate change effects on future nitrate leaching appears to be related to effects of climate change on soil organic matter and thus on the amount of soil total N available for mineralization as well as the effects of enhanced atmospheric CO2 concentration on crop residue quality and N mineralization.
|
|
|
|
Wang, E., Martre, P., Zhao, Z., Ewert, F., Maiorano, A., Rötter, R. P., et al. (2017). The uncertainty of crop yield projections is reduced by improved temperature response functions. Nature Plants, 3, 17102.
Abstract: Increasing the accuracy of crop productivity estimates is a key element in planning adaptation strategies to ensure global food security under climate change. Process-based crop models are effective means to project climate impact on crop yield, but have large uncertainty in yield simulations. Here, we show that variations in the mathematical functions currently used to simulate temperature responses of physiological processes in 29 wheat models account for >50% of uncertainty in simulated grain yields for mean growing season temperatures from 14 °C to 33 °C. We derived a set of new temperature response functions that when substituted in four wheat models reduced the error in grain yield simulations across seven global sites with different temperature regimes by 19% to 50% (42% average). We anticipate the improved temperature responses to be a key step to improve modelling of crops under rising temperature and climate change, leading to higher skill of crop yield projections. Erratum: doi: 10.1038/nplants.2017.125
|
|
|
|
Webber, H., Ewert, F., Olesen, J. E., Müller, C., Fronzek, S., Ruane, A. C., et al. (2018). Diverging importance of drought stress for maize and winter wheat in Europe. Nat. Comm., 9, 4249.
Abstract: Understanding the drivers of yield levels under climate change is required to support adaptation planning and respond to changing production risks. This study uses an ensemble of crop models applied on a spatial grid to quantify the contributions of various climatic drivers to past yield variability in grain maize and winter wheat of European cropping systems (1984-2009) and drivers of climate change impacts to 2050. Results reveal that for the current genotypes and mix of irrigated and rainfed production, climate change would lead to yield losses for grain maize and gains for winter wheat. Across Europe, on average heat stress does not increase for either crop in rainfed systems, while drought stress intensifies for maize only. In low-yielding years, drought stress persists as the main driver of losses for both crops, with elevated CO2 offering no yield benefit in these years.
|
|
