|
|
Ventrella, D., Giglio, L., Charfeddine, M., Lopez, R., Castellini, M., Sollitto, D., et al. (2012). Climate change impact on crop rotations of winter durum wheat and tomato in southern Italy: yield analysis and soil fertility. Ital. J. Agron., 7(1), 15.
Abstract: Cropping systems are affected by climate change because of the strong relationship between crop development, growth, yield, CO2 atmospheric concentration and climate conditions. The increasing temperatures and the reduction of available water resources may result in negative impacts on the agricultural activity in Mediterranean environments than other areas. In this study the CERES-Wheat and CROPGRO-Tomato models were used to assess the effects of climate change on winter wheat (Triticum durum L.) and processing tomato (Lycopersicon aesculentum Mill.) in one of most productive areas of Italy, located in the northern part of the Puglia region. In particular we have compared three different General Circulation Models (HadCM3, CCSM3, ECHAM5) subjected to a statistical downscaling under two future IPCC scenarios (B1 and A2). The analysis was carried out at regional scale repeating the simulations for seven homogeneous area characterizing the spatial variability of the region. In the second part of the study, considering only HadCM3 data set, climate change impact on long-term sequences of the two crops combined in three crop rotations were evaluated in terms of yield performances and soil fertility as indicated by the soil organic content of carbon and nitrogen. The comparison between GCMs showed no significant differences for winter durum wheat yield, while noticeable differences were found for yield and irrigation requirements of tomato. Under future scenarios, the production levels were reduced for tomato, whereas positive yield effects were observed for winter durum wheat. For winter durum wheat the simulation indicated that two- and three-year rotations, including one year of tomato cultivation, improved the cereal yield and this positive effect maintained its validity also in future scenarios. For both crops higher requirements of water and nitrogen were predicted under future scenarios. This result coupled with the decrease of yield caused negative reduction of water use efficiency and nitrogen use efficiency for tomato cultivation.
|
|
|
|
Faye, B., Webber, H., Naab, J. B., MacCarthy, D. S., Adam, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2018). Impacts of 1.5 versus 2.0 degrees C on cereal yields in the West African Sudan Savanna. Environ. Res. Lett., 13(3), 034014.
Abstract: To reduce the risks of climate change, governments agreed in the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to less than 2.0 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, with the ambition to keep warming to 1.5 degrees C. Charting appropriate mitigation responses requires information on the costs of mitigating versus associated damages for the two levels of warming. In this assessment, a critical consideration is the impact on crop yields and yield variability in regions currently challenged by food insecurity. The current study assessed impacts of 1.5 degrees C versus 2.0 degrees C on yields of maize, pearl millet and sorghum in the West African Sudan Savanna using two crop models that were calibrated with common varieties from experiments in the region with management reflecting a range of typical sowing windows. As sustainable intensification is promoted in the region for improving food security, simulations were conducted for both current fertilizer use and for an intensification case (fertility not limiting). With current fertilizer use, results indicated 2% units higher losses for maize and sorghum with 2.0 degrees C compared to 1.5 degrees C warming, with no change in millet yields for either scenario. In the intensification case, yield losses due to climate change were larger than with current fertilizer levels. However, despite the larger losses, yields were always two to three times higher with intensification, irrespective of the warming scenario. Though yield variability increased with intensification, there was no interaction with warming scenario. Risk and market analysis are needed to extend these results to understand implications for food security.
|
|
