Dumont, B., Basso, B., Bodson, B., Destain, J. - P., & Destain, M. - F. (2016). Assessing and modeling economic and environmental impact of wheat nitrogen management in Belgium. Env. Model. Softw., 79, 184–196.
Abstract: Future progress in wheat yield will rely on identifying genotypes & management practices better adapted to the fluctuating environment Nitrogen (N) fertilization is probably the most important practice impacting crop growth. However, the adverse environmental impacts of inappropriate N management (e.g., lixiviation) must be considered in the decision-making process. A formal decisional algorithm was developed to tactically optimize the economic & environmental N fertilization in wheat. Climatic uncertainty analysis was performed using stochastic weather time-series (LARS-WG). Crop growth was simulated using STICS model. Experiments were conducted to support the algorithm recommendations: winter wheat was sown between 2008 & 2014 in a classic loamy soil of the Hesbaye Region, Belgium (temperate climate). Results indicated that, most of the time, the third N fertilization applied at flag-leaf stage by farmers could be reduced. Environmental decision criterion is most of the time the limiting factor in comparison to the revenues expected by farmers. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
Matthews, A. (2016). Is agriculture off the hook in the EU’s 2030 Climate Policy (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: EU climate policy and AFOLU•Overall 2030 level of ambition agreed by European Council October 2014•Commission ESR proposal July 2016 – sharing of effort in NETS across MS plus trading mechanisms•Commission LULUCF proposal – integration of LULUCF into climate policy•AFOLU mitigation pursued through CAP as well as flanking environmental policies•No specific EU targets for agricultural mitigation in NETS•Ultimately, how AFOLU mitigation is pursued will depend on MS decisions2Implications of EU bubble•Commission has put in place trading mechanisms in NETS sectors to ensure least-cost fulfilment of overall EU targets•Challenge of MS ESR targets also depends on use MS make of trading mechanisms•MS have not to date made use of these mechanisms and prefer to meet targets domestically•A number of MS have domestic targets in addition to EU targets•ESR IA looked at adding central information site, central market place for AEA transfers or mandatory auctioning•Links with annual monitoring and 5-year legal compliance checks (2027 and 2032)
|
Fulu, T. (2016). Case 5: Design future climate-resilient barley cultivars using crop model ensembles.. Rotterdam (Netherlands).
Abstract: Presentation SC 2.10 Farming systems. Case 5: Design future climate-resilient barley cultivars using crop model ensembles, Tao Fulu, Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE), Finland (2016). Presented at the international conference Adaptation Futures 2016, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. No Label
|
|
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.
|
Niemi, J. (2016). Framework of stochastic gross margin volatility modeling of crop rotation with farm management practices (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: DP models with risk aversion through meanvariancespecification is already implemented inLuke and applied in North Savo regionHOWEVER climate change, e.g. changes in mean andvariance of crop yiels, still not yet taken into account– Recently, such crop modelling results have becomeavailble for wheat as well, not only for barley– Still CC impact available for 2 cereals crops only, whilemost farms cultivate more than 2 crops Some early conclusions• The suggested approach is consistent in terms of DPprinciples and mean-variance approach and can provideconsistent results for farm scale risk analysis• It is however hard to utilise the approach except assuming afarm with only few crops (those with crop modelling / otherresults of climate change effects on mean and (co-variance)© Natural Resources Institute Finland• Assuming no change in price (co)variability is a majorsimplification results show farm level (or local) effects ofchanges in mean yields and yield (co)variability only
|
