|
|
Graef, F., Sieber, S., Mutabazi, K., Asch, F., Biesalski, H. K., Bitegeko, J., et al. (2014). Framework for participatory food security research in rural food value chains. Global Food Security, 3(1), 8–15.
Abstract: Enhancing food security for poor and vulnerable people requires adapting rural food systems to various driving factors. Food security-related research should apply participatory action research that considers the entire food value chain to ensure sustained success. This article presents a research framework that focusses on determining, prioritising, testing, adapting and disseminating food securing upgrading strategies across the multiple components of rural food value chains. These include natural resources, Food production, processing, markets, consumption and waste management. Scientists and policy makers jointly use tools developed for assessing potentials for enhancing regional food security at multiple spatial and temporal scales. The research is being conducted in Tanzania as a case study for Sub-Saharan countries and is done in close collaboration with local, regional and national stakeholders, encompassing all activities across all different food sectors. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Ghaley, B. B., & Porter, J. R. (2014). Ecosystem function and service quantification and valuation in a conventional winter wheat production system with the DAISY model in Denmark. Ecosystem Services, 10, 79–83.
Abstract: With inevitable link between ecosystem function (EF), ecosystem services (ES) and agricultural productivity, there is a need for quantification and valuation of EF and ES in agro-ecosystems. Management practices have significant effects on soil organic matter (SOM), affecting productivity, EF and ES provision. The objective was to quantify two EF: soil water storage and nitrogen mineralization and three ES: food and fodder production and carbon sequestration, in a conventional winter wheat production system at 2.6% SOM compared to 50% lower (1.3%) and 50% higher (3.9%) SOM in Denmark by DAISY model. At 2.6% SOM, the food and fodder production was 649 and 6.86 t ha(-1) year(-1) respectively whereas carbon sequestration and soil water storage was 9.73 t ha(-1) year and 684 mm ha(-1) year(-1) respectively and nitrogen mineralisation was 83.58 kg ha(-1) year(-1), AL 2.6% SOM, the two EF and three ES values were US$ 177 and US$ 2542 ha(-1) year respectively equivalent to US$ 96 and US$1370 million year(-1) respectively in Denmark. The EF and ES quantities and values were positively correlated with SOM content. Hence, the quantification and valuation of EF and ES provides an empirical tool for optimising the Er. and ES provision for agricultural productivity. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved
|
|
|
|
Witkowska-Walczak, B., Sławiński, C., Bartmiński, P., Melke, J., & Cymerman, J. (2014). Water conductivity of arctic zone soils (Spitsbergen). International Agrophysics, 28(4), 529–535.
Abstract: The water conductivity of arctic zone soils derived in different micro-relief forms was determined. The greatest water conductivity at the 0-5 cm depth for the higher values of water potentials (> -7 kJ m(-3)) was shown by tundra polygons (Brunic-Turbic Cryosol, Arenic) – 904-0.09 cm day(-1), whereas the lowest were exhibited by Turbic Cryosols – 95-0.05 cm day(-1). Between -16 and -100 kJ m(-3), the water conductivity for tundra polygons rapidly decreased to 0.0001 cm day(-1), whereas their decrease for the other forms was much lower and in consequence the values were 0.007, 0.04, and 0.01 cm day(-1) for the mud boils (Turbic Cryosol (Siltic, Skeletic)), cell forms (Turbic Cryosol (Siltic, Skeletic)), and sorted circles (Turbic Cryosol (Skeletic)), respectively. In the 10-15 cm layer, the shape of water conductivity curves for the higher values of water potentials is nearly the same as for the upper layer. Similarly, the water conductivity is the highest -0.2 cm day(-1) for tundra polygons. For the lower water potentials, the differences in water conductivity increase to the decrease of soil water potential. At the lowest potential the water conductivity is the highest for sorted circles -0.02 cm day(-1) and the lowest in tundra polygons -0.00002 cm day(-1).
|
|
|
|
Kyle, P., Müller, C., Calvin, K., & Thomson, A. (2014). Meeting the radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways in a world with agricultural climate impacts. Earth’s Future, 2, 83–98.
Abstract: This study assesses how climate impacts on agriculture may change the evolution of the agricultural and energy systems in meeting the end-of-century radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways (RCPs). We build on the recently completed Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP) exercise that has produced global gridded estimates of future crop yields for major agricultural crops using climate model projections of the RCPs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). For this study we use the bias-corrected outputs of the HadGEM2-ES climate model as inputs to the LPJmL crop growth model, and the outputs of LPJmL to modify inputs to the GCAM integrated assessment model. Our results indicate that agricultural climate impacts generally lead to an increase in global cropland, as compared with corresponding emissions scenarios that do not consider climate impacts on agricultural productivity. This is driven mostly by negative impacts on wheat, rice, other grains, and oil crops. Still, including agricultural climate impacts does not significantly increase the costs or change the technological strategies of global, whole-system emissions mitigation. In fact, to meet the most aggressive climate change mitigation target (2.6W/m(2) in 2100), the net mitigation costs are slightly lower when agricultural climate impacts are considered. Key contributing factors to these results are (a) low levels of climate change in the low-forcing scenarios, (b) adaptation to climate impacts simulated in GCAM through inter-regional shifting in the production of agricultural goods, and (c) positive average climate impacts on bioenergy crop yields.
|
|
