|
|
Sinabell, F., Heinschink, K., & Tribl, C. (2016). Explicit cost accounting for analyses on climate change adaptation, mitigation and ecosystem service provision in agriculture. In S. Sauvage, J. M. Sánchez-Pérez, & A. E. Rizzoli (Eds.),. 8th International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software.
|
|
|
|
Olesen, J. E. (2016). Socio-economic impacts – agricultural systems. In M. Quante, & F. Colijn (Eds.), (pp. 397–407). North Sea Region climate change assessment, Regional Climate Studies.
|
|
|
|
Kebreab, E., Tedeschi, L., Dijkstra, J., Ellis, J. L., Bannink, A., & France, J. (2016). Modeling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Enteric Fermentation. In E. Kebreab (Ed.), Advances in Agricultural Systems (Vol. 6, pp. 173–196). Synthesis and Modeling of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Storage in Agricultural and Forest Systems to Guide Mitigation and Adaptation, Advances in Agricultural Systems (6).
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.
|
|
|
|
Boote, K. J., Porter, C., Jones, J. W., Thorburn, P. J., Kersebaum, K. C., Hoogenboom, G., et al. (2016). Sentinel site data for crop model improvement—definition and characterization. In J. L. Hatfield, & D. Fleisher (Eds.), Improving Modeling Tools to Assess Climate Change Effects on Crop Response. Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling, 7.
Abstract: Crop models are increasingly being used to assess the impacts of future climate change on production and food security. High quality, site-specific data on weather, soils, management, and cultivar are needed for those model applications. Also important is that model development, evaluation, improvement, and calibration require additional high quality, site-specific measurements on crop yield, growth, phenology, and ancillary traits. We review the evolution of minimum data set requirements for agroecosystem modeling and then describe the characteristics and ranking of sentinel site data needed for crop model improvement, calibration, and application. We in the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP), propose to rank sentinel site data sets as platinum, gold, silver, and copper, based on the degree of true site-specific measurement of weather, soils, management, crop yield, as well as the quality, comprehensiveness, quantity, accuracy, and value. For example, to be ranked platinum, the weather and soil characterization must be measured on-site, and all management inputs must be known. Dataset ranking will be lower for weather measured off-site or soil traits estimated from soil mapping. Ranking also depends on the intended purposes for data use. If the purpose is to improve a crop model for response to water or N, then additional observations are necessary, such as initial soil water, initial soil inorganic N, and plant N uptake during the growing season to be ranked platinum. Rankings are enhanced by presence of multiple treatments and sites. Examples of platinum-, gold-, and silver-quality data sets for model improvement and calibration uses are illustrated.
|
|
|
|
Ewert, F., Boote, K. J., Rötter, R. P., Thorburn, P., & Nendel, C. (Eds.). (2016). Crop modelling for agriculture and food security under global change. Abstracts. International Crop Modelling Symposium iCROPM2016, 15-17 March 2016, Berlin, Germany. Berlin.
|
|
