|
Leclère, D., & Havlík, P. (2016). Modelling heat stress on livestock: how can we reach long-term and global coverage (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Conference presentation PDF
|
|
|
Porter, J. R., Durand, J. L., & Elmayan, T. (2016). Edited plants should not be patented. Nature, 530, 33.
|
|
|
Webber, H., Martre, P., Asseng, S., Kimball, B., White, J., Ottman, M., et al. (2017). Canopy temperature for simulation of heat stress in irrigated wheat in a semi-arid environment: A multi-model comparison. Field Crops Research, 202, 21–35.
Abstract: Even brief periods of high temperatures occurring around flowering and during grain filling can severely reduce grain yield in cereals. Recently, ecophysiological and crop models have begun to represent such phenomena. Most models use air temperature (Tair) in their heat stress responses despite evidence that crop canopy temperature (Tc) better explains grain yield losses. Tc can deviate significantly from Tair based on climatic factors and the crop water status. The broad objective of this study was to evaluate whether simulation of Tc improves the ability of crop models to simulate heat stress impacts on wheat under irrigated conditions. Nine process-based models, each using one of three broad approaches (empirical, EMP; energy balance assuming neutral atmospheric stability, EBN; and energy balance correcting for the atmospheric stability conditions, EBSC) to simulate Tc, simulated grain yield under a range of temperature conditions. The models varied widely in their ability to reproduce the measured Tc with the commonly used EBN models performing much worse than either EMP or EBSC. Use of Tc to account for heat stress effects did improve simulations compared to using only Tair to a relatively minor extent, but the models that additionally use Tc on various other processes as well did not have better yield simulations. Models that simulated yield well under heat stress had varying skill in simulating Tc. For example, the EBN models had very poor simulations of Tc but performed very well in simulating grain yield. These results highlight the need to more systematically understand and model heat stress events in wheat.
|
|
|
Virkajärvi, P., Lehtonen, H., & Järvenranta, K. (2015). Regional impacts of climate change, observations and projections. Finnish Pilot study: North Savo region. (Vol. 6, pp. SP6–5). Brussels.
Abstract: Regional adjustment of regulation is important (eg. water protection) Due to expected growing yield potential fertilisation restrictions need adjustmentNitrate directive restricts efficient and sustainable grass productionGreening practices have only slight – and partly negative – impact on ruminant production (permanent grassland not suitable for northern conditions)Inefficient markets for agricultural land cause difficulties for farms that are increasing their productionCapitalisation of area payments to land prices + incentives for extensification (e.g. nature management and other set aside schemes under pillar 2) fit better part-time crop farms, not full-time livestock farmsthey express frustration on weak land supplyProduction based support for suckler cows and (dairy originated) beef production is vital for producersNo significant increase in production expected, budgetary limits of coupled supports No Label
|
|
|
Pulina, A., Bellocchi, G., Seddaiu, G., & Roggero, P. P. (2016). Scenario analysis of alternative management options on the forage production and greenhouse gas emissions in Mediterranean grasslands. (Vol. 116, pp. 263–266).
|
|