|
Zimmermann, A., & Witzke, P. (2013). MACSUR-TradeM Baseline Scenario in CAPRI..
|
|
Zimmermann, A., Britz, W., Adenäuer, M., & Heckelei, T. (2013). Food Security Assessment with CAPRI..
|
|
Zimmermann, A., & Adenäuer, M. (2014). Exploring yield trends and gaps in the EU.. Hurdal (Norway).
|
Moraru, P. I., Rusu, T., Guș, P., Bogdan, I., & Pop, A. I. (2015). The role of minimum tillage in protecting environmental resources of the Transylvanian Plain, Romania. Romanian Agricultural Research, 32, 127–135.
Abstract: Conservative tillage systems tested in the hilly area of the Transylvanian Plain (Romania), confirms the possibility of improving the biological, physical, chemical and technologizcal properties of the soil. Conservative components include minimum tillage systems and surface incorporation of crop residues. The minimum tillage soil systems with paraplow, chisel or rotary harrow are polyvalent alternatives for basic preparation, germination bed preparation and sowing, for fields and crops with moderate loose requirements being optimized technologies for: soil natural fertility activation and rationalization, reduction of erosion, increasing the accumulation capacity for water and realization of sowing in the optimal period. The minimum tillage systems ensure an adequate aerial-hydrical regime for the biological activity intensity and for the nutrients solubility equilibrium. The vegetal material remaining at the soil surface or superficially incorporated has its contribution to intensifying the biological activity, being an important resource of organic matter. Humus content increases by 0.41%. The minimum tillage systems rebuild the soil structure (hydrostable macroagregate content increases up to 2.2% to 5.2%), improving the global drainage of soil which allows a rapid infiltration of water in soil. Water reserve, accumulated in the 0-50 cm depth is with 1-32 m(3) ha(-1) higher in the minimum tillage variants. The result is a more productive soil, better protected against wind and water erosion and needing less fuel for preparing the germination bed.
|
Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2012). Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research, 133, 23–36.
Abstract: In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
