| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >> |
|
Rötter, R. P., Appiah, M., Fichtler, E., Kersebaum, K. C., Trnka, M., & Hoffmann, M. P. (2018). Linking modelling and experimentation to better capture crop impacts of agroclimatic extremes-A review. Field Crops Research, 221, 142–156.
Abstract: Climate change implies higher frequency and magnitude of agroclimatic extremes threatening plant production and the provision of other ecosystem services. This review is motivated by a mismatch between advances made regarding deeper understanding of abiotic stress physiology and its incorporation into ecophysiological models in order to more accurately quantifying the impacts of extreme events at crop system or higher aggregation levels. Adverse agroclimatic extremes considered most detrimental to crop production include drought, heat, heavy rains/hail and storm, flooding and frost, and, in particular, combinations of them. Our core question is: How have and could empirical data be exploited to improve the capability of widely used crop simulation models in assessing crop impacts of key agroclimatic extremes for the globally most important grain crops? To date there is no comprehensive review synthesizing available knowledge for a broad range of extremes, grain crops and crop models as a basis for identifying research gaps and prospects. To address these issues, we selected eight major grain crops and performed three systematic reviews using SCOPUS for period 1995-2016. Furthermore, we amended/complemented the reviews manually and performed an in-depth analysis using a sub-sample of papers. Results show that by far the majority of empirical studies (1631 out of 1772) concentrate on the three agroclimatic extremes drought, heat and heavy rain and on the three major staples wheat, maize and rice (1259 out of 1772); the concentration on just a few has increased over time. With respect to modelling studies two model families, i.e. CERES-DSSAT and APSIM, are dearly dominating for wheat and maize; for rice, ORYZA2000 and CERES-Rice predominate and are equally strong. For crops other than maize and wheat the number of studies is small. Empirical and modelling papers don’t differ much in the proportions the various extreme events are dealt with drought and heat stress together account for approx. 80% of the studies. There has been a dramatic increase in the number of papers, especially after 2010. As a way forward, we suggest to have very targeted and well-designed experiments on the specific crop impacts of a given extreme as well as of combinations of them. This in particular refers to extremes addressed with insufficient specificity (e.g. drought) or being under-researched in relation to their economic importance (heavy rains/storm and flooding). Furthermore, we strongly recommend extending research to crops other than wheat, maize and rice.
|
|
Schils, R., Olesen, J. E., Kersebaum, K. - C., Rijk, B., Oberforster, M., Kalyada, V., et al. (2018). Cereal yield gaps across Europe. Europ. J. Agron., 101, 109–120.
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.
|
|
Tao, F., Zhang, Z., Zhang, S., Rötter, R. P., Shi, W., Xiao, D., et al. (2016). Historical data provide new insights into response and adaptation of maize production systems to climate change/variability in China. Field Crops Research, 185, 1–11.
Abstract: Extensive studies had been conducted to investigate the impacts of climate change on maize growth and yield in recent decades; however, the dynamics of crop husbandry in response and adaptation to climate change were not taken into account. Based on field observations spanning from 1981 to 2009 at 167 agricultural meteorological stations across China, we found that solar radiation and temperature over the observed maize growth period had decreasing trends during 1981-2009, and maize yields were positively correlated with these climate variables in major production regions. The decreasing trends in solar radiation and temperature during maize growth period were mainly ascribed to the adoption of late maturity cultivars with longer reproductive growth period (RGP). The adoption of late maturing cultivars with longer RGP contributed substantially to grain yield increase during the last three decades. The climate trends during maize growth period varied among different production areas. During 1981-2009, decreases in mean temperature, precipitation and solar radiation over maize growth period jointly reduced yield most by 13.2-17.3% in southwestern China, by contrast in northwestern China increases in mean temperature, precipitation and solar radiation jointly increased yield most by 12.9-14.4%. Our findings highlight that the adaptations of maize production system to climate change through shifts of sowing date and genotypes are underway and should be taken into accounted when evaluating climate change impacts. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
Toscano, P., Genesio, L., Crisci, A., Vaccari, F. P., Ferrari, E., La Cava, P., et al. (2015). Empirical modelling of regional and national durum wheat quality. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 204, 67–78.
Abstract: The production of durum wheat in the Mediterranean basin is expected to experience increased variability in yield and quality as a consequence of climate change. To assess how environmental variables and agronomic practices affect grain protein content (GPC), a novel approach based on monthly gridded input data has been implemented to develop empirical model, and validated on historical time series to assess its capability to reproduce observed spatial and inter-annual GPC variability. The model was applied in four Italian regions and at the whole national scale and proved reliable and usable for operational purposes also in a forecast ‘real-time’ mode before harvesting. Precipitable water during autumn to winter and air temperature from anthesis to harvest were extremely important influences on GPC; these and additional variables, included in a linear model, were able to account for 95% of the variability in GPC that has occurred in the last 15 years in Italy. Our results are a unique example of the use of modelling as a predictive real-time platform and are a useful tool to understand better and forecast the impacts of future climate change projections on durum wheat production and quality.
|
|
Ventrella, D., Stellacci, A. M., Castrignanò, A., Charfeddine, M., & Castellini, M. (2016). Effects of crop residue management on winter durum wheat productivity in a long term experiment in Southern Italy. European Journal of Agronomy, 77, 188–198.
Abstract: A long-term experiment comparing different crop residue (CR) managements was established in 1977 in Foggia (Apulia region, southern Italy). The objective of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of different types of crop residue management on main yield response parameters in a continuous cropping system of winter durum wheat. In order to correctly interpret the results, models accounting for spatial error autocorrelation were used and compared with ordinary least square models. Eight crop residue management treatments, based on burning of wheat straw and stubble or their incorporation with or without N fertilization and irrigation, were compared. The experimental design was a complete randomized block with five replicates. Results indicated that the dynamics of yield, grain protein content and hectolitric weight of winter durum wheat did not show any decline as usually expected when a monoculture is carried out for a long time. In addition, the temporal variability of productivity was more affected by meteorological factors, such as air temperature and rainfall, than CR management treatments. Higher wheat grain yields and hectolitric weights quite frequently occurred after burning of wheat straw compared with straw incorporation without nitrogen fertilization and autumn irrigation and this was attributed to temporary mineral N immobilization in the soil. The rate of 50 kg ha(-1) of N seemed to counterbalance this negative effect when good condition of soil moisture occurred in the autumn period, so yielding the same productive level of straw burning treatment. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|