| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Schils, R.; Olesen, J.E.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Rijk, B.; Oberforster, M.; Kalyada, V.; Khitrykau, M.; Gobin, A.; Kirchev, H.; Manolova, V.; Manolov, I.; Trnka, M.; Hlavinka, P.; Palosuo, T.; Peltonen-Sainio, P.; Jauhiainen, L.; Lorgeou, J.; Marrou, H.; Danalatos, N.; Archontoulis, S.; Fodor, N.; Spink, J.; Roggero, P.P.; Bassu, S.; Pulina, A.; Seehusen, T.; Uhlen, A.K.; Zylowska, K.; Nierobca, A.; Kozyra, J.; Silva, J.V.; Macas, B.M.; Coutinho, J.; Ion, V.; Takac, J.; Ines Minguez, M.; Eckersten, H.; Levy, L.; Herrera, J.M.; Hiltbrunner, J.; Kryvobok, O.; Kryvoshein, O.; Sylvester-Bradley, R.; Kindred, D.; Topp, C.F.E.; Boogaard, H.; de Groot, H.; Lesschen, J.P.; van Bussel, L.; Wolf, J.; Zijlstra, M.; van Loon, M.P.; van Ittersum, M.K. |
|
| |
Title |
Cereal yield gaps across Europe |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2018 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
Europ. J. Agron. |
|
| |
Volume |
101 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
109-120 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Wheat, Barley, Grain maize, Crop modelling, Yield potential, Nitrogen; Nitrogen Use Efficiency; Sustainable Intensification; Climate-Change; Land-Use; Wheat; Soil; Agriculture; Impacts; Fertility; Emissions |
|
| |
Abstract |
Europe accounts for around 20% of the global cereal production and is a net exporter of ca. 15% of that production. Increasing global demand for cereals justifies questions as to where and by how much Europe’s production can be increased to meet future global market demands, and how much additional nitrogen (N) crops would require. The latter is important as environmental concern and legislation are equally important as production aims in Europe. Here, we used a country-by-country, bottom-up approach to establish statistical estimates of actual grain yield, and compare these to modelled estimates of potential yields for either irrigated or rainfed conditions. In this way, we identified the yield gaps and the opportunities for increased cereal production for wheat, barley and maize, which represent 90% of the cereals grown in Europe. The combined mean annual yield gap of wheat, barley, maize was 239 Mt, or 42% of the yield potential. The national yield gaps ranged between 10 and 70%, with small gaps in many north-western European countries, and large gaps in eastern and south-western Europe. Yield gaps for rainfed and irrigated maize were consistently lower than those of wheat and barley. If the yield gaps of maize, wheat and barley would be reduced from 42% to 20% of potential yields, this would increase annual cereal production by 128 Mt (39%). Potential for higher cereal production exists predominantly in Eastern Europe, and half of Europe’s potential increase is located in Ukraine, Romania and Poland. Unlocking the identified potential for production growth requires a substantial increase of the crop N uptake of 4.8 Mt. Across Europe, the average N uptake gaps, to achieve 80% of the yield potential, were 87, 77 and 43 kg N ha(-1) for wheat, barley and maize, respectively. Emphasis on increasing the N use efficiency is necessary to minimize the need for additional N inputs. Whether yield gap reduction is desirable and feasible is a matter of balancing Europe’s role in global food security, farm economic objectives and environmental targets. |
|
| |
Address |
2019-01-07 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN  |
1161-0301 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5213 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Liu, B.; Martre, P.; Ewert, F.; Porter, J.R.; Challinor, A.J.; Mueller, C.; Ruane, A.C.; Waha, K.; Thorburn, P.J.; Aggarwal, P.K.; Ahmed, M.; Balkovic, J.; Basso, B.; Biernath, C.; Bindi, M.; Cammarano, D.; De Sanctis, G.; Dumont, B.; Espadafor, M.; Rezaei, E.E.; Ferrise, R.; Garcia-Vila, M.; Gayler, S.; Gao, Y.; Horan, H.; Hoogenboom, G.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Jones, C.D.; Kassie, B.T.; Kersebaum, K.C.; Klein, C.; Koehler, A.-K.; Maiorano, A.; Minoli, S.; San Martin, M.M.; Kumar, S.N.; Nendel, C.; O’Leary, G.J.; Palosuo, T.; Priesack, E.; Ripoche, D.; Roetter, R.P.; Semenov, M.A.; Stockle, C.; Streck, T.; Supit, I.; Tao, F.; Van der Velde, M.; Wallach, D.; Wang, E.; Webber, H.; Wolf, J.; Xiao, L.; Zhang, Z.; Zhao, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Asseng, S. |
|
| |
Title |
Global wheat production with 1.5 and 2.0 degrees C above pre-industrial warming |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2019 |
Publication |
Global Change Biology |
Abbreviated Journal |
Glob. Chang. Biol. |
|
| |
Volume |
25 |
Issue |
4 |
Pages |
1428-1444 |
|
| |
Keywords |
1.5 degrees C warming; climate change; extreme low yields; food security; model ensemble; wheat production; Climate-Change; Crop Yield; Impacts; Co2; Adaptation; Responses; Models; Agriculture; Simulation; Growth |
|
| |
Abstract |
Efforts to limit global warming to below 2 degrees C in relation to the pre-industrial level are under way, in accordance with the 2015 Paris Agreement. However, most impact research on agriculture to date has focused on impacts of warming >2 degrees C on mean crop yields, and many previous studies did not focus sufficiently on extreme events and yield interannual variability. Here, with the latest climate scenarios from the Half a degree Additional warming, Prognosis and Projected Impacts (HAPPI) project, we evaluated the impacts of the 2015 Paris Agreement range of global warming (1.5 and 2.0 degrees C warming above the pre-industrial period) on global wheat production and local yield variability. A multi-crop and multi-climate model ensemble over a global network of sites developed by the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) for Wheat was used to represent major rainfed and irrigated wheat cropping systems. Results show that projected global wheat production will change by -2.3% to 7.0% under the 1.5 degrees C scenario and -2.4% to 10.5% under the 2.0 degrees C scenario, compared to a baseline of 1980-2010, when considering changes in local temperature, rainfall, and global atmospheric CO2 concentration, but no changes in management or wheat cultivars. The projected impact on wheat production varies spatially; a larger increase is projected for temperate high rainfall regions than for moderate hot low rainfall and irrigated regions. Grain yields in warmer regions are more likely to be reduced than in cooler regions. Despite mostly positive impacts on global average grain yields, the frequency of extremely low yields (bottom 5 percentile of baseline distribution) and yield inter-annual variability will increase under both warming scenarios for some of the hot growing locations, including locations from the second largest global wheat producer-India, which supplies more than 14% of global wheat. The projected global impact of warming <2 degrees C on wheat production is therefore not evenly distributed and will affect regional food security across the globe as well as food prices and trade. |
|
| |
Address |
2019-04-27 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
1354-1013 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5219 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Kipling, R.P.; Topp, C.F.E.; Bannink, A.; Bartley, D.J.; Blanco-Penedo, I.; Cortignani, R.; del Prado, A.; Dono, G.; Faverdin, P.; Graux, A.-I.; Hutchings, N.J.; Lauwers, L.; Gulzari, S.O.; Reidsma, P.; Rolinski, S.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Sandars, D.L.; Sandor, R.; Schoenhart, M.; Seddaiu, G.; van Middelkoop, J.; Shrestha, S.; Weindl, I.; Eory, V. |
|
| |
Title |
To what extent is climate change adaptation a novel challenge for agricultural modellers |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2019 |
Publication |
Environmental Modelling & Software |
Abbreviated Journal |
Env. Model. Softw. |
|
| |
Volume |
120 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
Unsp 104492 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Adaptation; Agricultural modelling; Climate change; Research challenges; greenhouse-gas emissions; farm-level adaptation; land-use; food; security; adapting agriculture; livestock production; decision-making; change impacts; dairy farms; crop |
|
| |
Abstract |
Modelling is key to adapting agriculture to climate change (CC), facilitating evaluation of the impacts and efficacy of adaptation measures, and the design of optimal strategies. Although there are many challenges to modelling agricultural CC adaptation, it is unclear whether these are novel or, whether adaptation merely adds new motivations to old challenges. Here, qualitative analysis of modellers’ views revealed three categories of challenge: Content, Use, and Capacity. Triangulation of findings with reviews of agricultural modelling and Climate Change Risk Assessment was then used to highlight challenges specific to modelling adaptation. These were refined through literature review, focussing attention on how the progressive nature of CC affects the role and impact of modelling. Specific challenges identified were: Scope of adaptations modelled, Information on future adaptation, Collaboration to tackle novel challenges, Optimisation under progressive change with thresholds, and Responsibility given the sensitivity of future outcomes to initial choices under progressive change. |
|
| |
Address |
2020-02-14 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
1364-8152 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5223 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Holman, I.P.; Brown, C.; Carter, T.R.; Harrison, P.A.; Rounsevell, M. |
|
| |
Title |
Improving the representation of adaptation in climate change impact models |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2019 |
Publication |
Regional Environmental Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Reg. Environ. Change |
|
| |
Volume |
19 |
Issue |
3 |
Pages |
711-721 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Adaptive capacity; Limits; Water; Land; Decision making; Integrated assessment; Land-Cover Change; Global Change; River-Basin; Integrated Assessment; Adaptive Capacity; Vulnerability; Variability; Precautionary; Agriculture; Management |
|
| |
Abstract |
Climate change adaptation is a complex human process, framed by uncertainties and constraints, which is difficult to capture in existing assessment models. Attempts to improve model representations are hampered by a shortage of systematic descriptions of adaptation processes and their relevance to models. This paper reviews the scientific literature to investigate conceptualisations and models of climate change adaptation, and the ways in which representation of adaptation in models can be improved. The review shows that real-world adaptive responses can be differentiated along a number of dimensions including intent or purpose, timescale, spatial scale, beneficiaries and providers, type of action, and sector. However, models of climate change consequences for land use and water management currently provide poor coverage of these dimensions, instead modelling adaptation in an artificial and subjective manner. While different modelling approaches do capture distinct aspects of the adaptive process, they have done so in relative isolation, without producing improved unified representations. Furthermore, adaptation is often assumed to be objective, effective and consistent through time, with only a minority of models taking account of the human decisions underpinning the choice of adaptation measures (14%), the triggers that motivate actions (38%) or the time-lags and constraints that may limit their uptake and effectiveness (14%). No models included adaptation to take advantage of beneficial opportunities of climate change. Based on these insights, transferable recommendations are made on directions for future model development that may enhance realism within models, while also advancing our understanding of the processes and effectiveness of adaptation to a changing climate. |
|
| |
Address |
2019-04-27 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
1436-3798 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5220 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Hutchings, N.J.; Özkan Gülzari, Ş.; de Haan, M.; Sandars, D. |
|
| |
Title |
How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Animal |
Abbreviated Journal |
Animal |
|
| |
Volume |
12 |
Issue |
10 |
Pages |
2171-2180 |
|
| |
Keywords |
dairy cattle; farm-scale; model; greenhouse gas; Future Climate Scenarios; Systems-Analysis; Milk-Production; Crop; Production; Mitigation; Intensity; Impacts |
|
| |
Abstract |
The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools. |
|
| |
Address |
2019-01-07 |
|
| |
Corporate Author |
|
Thesis |
|
|
| |
Publisher |
|
Place of Publication |
|
Editor |
|
|
| |
Language |
English |
Summary Language |
|
Original Title |
|
|
| |
Series Editor |
|
Series Title |
|
Abbreviated Series Title |
|
|
| |
Series Volume |
|
Series Issue |
|
Edition |
|
|
| |
ISSN |
1751-7311 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5212 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
