Sakschewski, B., von Bloh, W., Huber, V., Müller, C., & Bondeau, A. (2014). Feeding 10 billion people under climate change: How large is the production gap of current agricultural systems. Ecol. Model., 288, 103–111.
Abstract: The human population is projected to reach more than 10 billion in the year 2100. Together with changing consumption pattern, population growth will lead to increasing food demand. The question arises whether or not the Earth is capable of fulfilling this demand. In this study, we approach this question by estimating the carrying capacity of current agricultural systems (K-C), which does not measure the maximum number of people the Earth is likely to feed in the future, but rather allows for an indirect assessment of the increases in agricultural productivity required to meet demands. We project agricultural food production under progressing climate change using the state-of-the-art dynamic global vegetation model LPJmL, and input data of 3 climate models. For 1990 to 2100 the worldwide annual caloric yield of the most important 11 crop types is simulated. Model runs with and without elevated atmospheric CO2 concentrations are performed in order to investigate CO2 fertilization effects. Country-specific per-capita caloric demands fixed at current levels and changing demands based on future GDP projections are considered to assess the role of future dietary shifts. Our results indicate that current population projections may considerably exceed the maximum number of people that can be fed globally if climate change is not accompanied by significant changes in land use, agricultural efficiencies and/or consumption pathways. We estimate the gap between projected population size and K-C to reach 2 to 6.8 billion people by 2100. We also present possible caloric self-supply changes between 2000 and 2100 for all countries included in this study. The results show that predominantly developing countries in tropical and subtropical regions will experience vast decreases of self-supply. Therefore, this study is important for planning future large-scale agricultural management, as well as the critical assessment of population projections, which should take food-mediated climate change feedbacks into account
|
|
Zylowska, K., Nieróbca, A., Kozyra, J., & Syp, A. (2014). Climatic condition for yielding of maize in Poland in the period 1971-2010..
|
|
Zimmermann, A., Britz, W., Adenäuer, M., & Heckelei, T. (2013). Food Security Assessment with CAPRI..
|
Ruiz-Ramos, M., Rodriguez, A., Dosio, A., Goodess, C. M., Harpham, C., Minguez, M. I., et al. (2016). Comparing correction methods of RCM outputs for improving crop impact projections in the Iberian Peninsula for 21st century. Clim. Change, 134(1-2), 283–297.
Abstract: Assessment of climate change impacts on crops in regions of complex orography such as the Iberian Peninsula (IP) requires climate model output which is able to describe accurately the observed climate. The high resolution of output provided by Regional Climate Models (RCMs) is expected to be a suitable tool to describe regional and local climatic features, although their simulation results may still present biases. For these reasons, we compared several post-processing methods to correct or reduce the biases of RCM simulations from the ENSEMBLES project for the IP. The bias-corrected datasets were also evaluated in terms of their applicability and consequences in improving the results of a crop model to simulate maize growth and development at two IP locations, using this crop as a reference for summer cropping systems in the region. The use of bias-corrected climate runs improved crop phenology and yield simulation overall and reduced the inter-model variability and thus the uncertainty. The number of observational stations underlying each reference observational dataset used to correct the bias affected the correction performance. Although no single technique showed to be the best one, some methods proved to be more adequate for small initial biases, while others were useful when initial biases were so large as to prevent data application for impact studies. An initial evaluation of the climate data, the bias correction/reduction method and the consequences for impact assessment would be needed to design the most robust, reduced uncertainty ensemble for a specific combination of location, crop, and crop management.
|
Mandryk, M., Reidsma, P., Kanellopoulos, A., Groot, J. C. J., & van Ittersum, M. K. (2014). The role of farmers’ objectives in current farm practices and adaptation preferences: a case study in Flevoland, the Netherlands. Reg Environ Change, 14(4), 1463–1478.
Abstract: The diversity in farmers’ objectives and responses to external drivers is usually not considered in integrated assessment studies that investigate impacts and adaptation to climate and socio-economic change. Here, we present an approach to assess how farmers’ stated objectives relate to their currently implemented practices and to preferred adaptation options, and we discuss what this implies for assessments of future changes. We based our approach on a combination of multi-criteria decision-making methods. We consistently assessed the importance of farmers’ objectives and adaptation preferences from what farmers say (based on interviews), from what farmers actually do (by analysing current farm performance) and from what farmers want (through a selected alternative farm plan). Our study was performed for six arable farms in Flevoland, a province in the Netherlands. Based on interviews with farmers, we reduced the long list of possible objectives to the most important ones. The objectives we assessed included maximization of economic result and soil organic matter, and minimization of gross margin variance, working hours and nitrogen balance. In our sample, farmers’ stated preferences in objectives were often not fully reflected in realized farming practices. Adaptation preferences of farmers largely resembled their current performance, but generally involved a trend towards stated preferences. Our results suggest that in Flevoland, although farmers do have more objectives, in practical decision-making they focus on economic result maximization, while for strategic decision-making they account for objectives influencing long-term performance and indicators associated with sustainability, in this case soil organic matter.
|
