Abstract: Dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) are important tools for modelling impacts of global change on ecosystem services. However, most models do not take full account of human land management and land use and land cover changes (LULCCs). We integrated croplands and pasture and their management and natural vegetation recovery and succession following cropland abandonment into the LPJ-GUESS DGVM. The revised model was applied to Africa as a case study to investigate the implications of accounting for land use on net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB) and the skill of the model in describing agricultural production and reproducing trends and patterns in vegetation structure and function. The seasonality of modelled monthly fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (FPAR) was shown to agree well with satellite-inferred normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI). In regions with a large proportion of cropland, the managed land addition improved the FPAR vs. NDVI fit significantly. Modelled 1991-1995 average yields for the seven most important African crops, representing potential optimal yields limited only by climate forcings, were generally higher than reported FAO yields by a factor of 2-6, similar to previous yield gap estimates. Modelled inter-annual yield variations during 1971-2005 generally agreed well with FAO statistics, especially in regions with pronounced climate seasonality. Modelled land-atmosphere carbon fluxes for Africa associated with land use change (0.07 PgC yr(-1) release to the atmosphere for the 1980s) agreed well with previous estimates. Cropland management options (residue removal, grass as cover crop) were shown to be important to the land-atmosphere carbon flux for the 20th century.

Abstract: The sustainable development of agricultural systems is currently challenged by many complex agro-environmental issues. These are characterized by an incomplete understanding of the situation and the problems that arise, and the conflicting opinions that result, issues over boundaries that are often difficult to define, and controversy over the multiple goals and uncertain outcomes. Added to these characteristics, we also have the slow and often inadequate uptake and implementation of research outcomes in this complex, real world. In order to improve sustainability of agro-ecosystems, agronomic research must move away from the linear research approaches and extension practices adopted so far that have focused purely on biophysical agro-ecosystems. The theoretical operational space of agronomic research must be transformed by considering agronomic issues as part of a broader social-agro-ecosystem. One aspect of this transformation is the inclusion of knowledge collected on a local level with the participation of farmers on the ground. The integration of local experiential knowledge with traditional agronomic research is by necessity based on the participation of many different stakeholders and there can be no single blueprint for how best to develop and use the input received. However, agronomists and policy advisors require general guidelines drawn up from actual experience in order to accelerate positive agronomic change. We address this need through a comparative analysis of two case studies; one involves multi-stakeholder research in a cropping system in the dairy district of Arborea, Sardinia, Italy. The central question was: How can high crop production be maintained while also achieving the EU target water quality and minimizing the production costs? The second case is a multi-stakeholder soil health project from south-eastern Australia. Here the central question was: How can soil decline be prevented and reversed in this district, and soils made more resilient to future challenges? The Social Learning for the Integrated Management and sustainable use of water (SLIM) framework, a useful heuristic tool for exploring the dynamics of transformational change, guided the analysis of the case studies. Within this framework, a key indicator of success is the emergence of new knowledge from the creation of new spaces for learning between researchers and local stakeholders. The Italian case study appears to have been the most successful in this sense, as opportunities for joint exploration of research data allowed new potential farming responses to the central question to emerge. The multi-stakeholder processes in the Australian case focused more on providing public openings for individual learning, and missed the opportunity for new knowledge to emerge through joint exploration. We conclude that participatory approaches may enable transformative practice through knowledge integration, but that this process is not an automatic outcome of increased community participation.

Abstract: We propose a generic framework to characterize climate change adaptation uncertainty according to three dimensions: level, source and nature. Our framework is different, and in this respect more comprehensive, than the present UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) approach and could be used to address concerns that the IPCC approach is oversimplified. We have studied the role of uncertainty in climate change adaptation planning using examples from four Danish water related sectors. The dominating sources of uncertainty differ greatly among issues; most uncertainties on impacts are epistemic (reducible) by nature but uncertainties on adaptation measures are complex, with ambiguity often being added to impact uncertainties. Strategies to deal with uncertainty in climate change adaptation should reflect the nature of the uncertainty sources and how they interact with risk level and decision making: (i) epistemic uncertainties can be reduced by gaining more knowledge; (ii) uncertainties related to ambiguity can be reduced by dialogue and knowledge sharing between the different stakeholders; and (iii) aleatory uncertainty is, by its nature, non-reducible. The uncertainty cascade includes many sources and their propagation through technical and socio-economic models may add substantially to prediction uncertainties, but they may also cancel each other. Thus, even large uncertainties may have small consequences for decision making, because multiple sources of information provide sufficient knowledge to justify action in climate change adaptation.