| Home | << 1 2 3 4 >> |
|
Ghaley, B. B., Vesterdal, L., & Porter, J. R. (2014). Quantification and valuation of ecosystem services in diverse production systems for informed decision-making. Environmental Science & Policy, 39, 139–149.
Abstract: The empirical evidence of decline in ecosystem services (ES) over the last century has reinforced the call for ES quantification, monitoring and valuation. Usually, only provisioning ES are marketable and accounted for, whereas regulating, supporting and cultural ES are typically non-marketable and overlooked in connection with land-use or management decisions. The objective of this study was to quantify and value total ES (marketable and non-marketable) of diverse production systems and management intensities in Denmark to provide a basis for decisions based on economic values. The production systems were conventional wheat (Cwheat), a combined food and energy (CFE) production system and beech forest. Marketable (provisioning ES) and non-marketable ES (supporting, regulating and cultural) ES were quantified by dedicated on-site field measurements supplemented by literature data. The value of total ES was highest in CFE (US$ 3142 ha(-1) yr(-1)) followed by Cwheat (US$ 2767 ha (1) yr(-1)) and beech forest (US$ 2328 ha(-1) yr(-1)). As the production system shifted from Cwheat – CFE-beech, the marketable ES share decreased from 88% to 75% in CFE and 55% in beech whereas the non-marketable ES share increased to 12%, 25% and 45% of total ES in Cwheat, CFE and beech respectively, demonstrating production system and management effects on ES values. Total ES valuation, disintegrated into marketable and non-marketable share is a potential way forward to value ES and `tune’ our production systems for enhanced ES provision. Such monetary valuation can be used by policy makers and land managers as a tool to assess ES value and monitor the sustained flow of ES. The application of ES-based valuation for land management can enhance ES provision for maintaining the productive capacity of the land without depending on the external fossil-based fertilizer and chemical input. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
Castañeda-Vera, A., Leffelaar, P. A., Álvaro-Fuentes, J., Cantero-Martínez, C., & Mínguez, M. I. (2015). Selecting crop models for decision making in wheat insurance. European Journal of Agronomy, 68, 97–116.
Abstract: In crop insurance, the accuracy with which the insurer quantifies the actual risk is highly dependent on the availability on actual yield data. Crop models might be valuable tools to generate data on expected yields for risk assessment when no historical records are available. However, selecting a crop model for a specific objective, location and implementation scale is a difficult task. A look inside the different crop and soil modules to understand how outputs are obtained might facilitate model choice. The objectives of this paper were (i) to assess the usefulness of crop models to be used within a crop insurance analysis and design and (ii) to select the most suitable crop model for drought risk assessment in semi-arid regions in Spain. For that purpose first, a pre-selection of crop models simulating wheat yield under rainfed growing conditions at the field scale was made, and second, four selected models (Aquacrop, CERES-Wheat, CropSyst and WOFOST) were compared in terms of modelling approaches, process descriptions and model outputs. Outputs of the four models for the simulation of winter wheat growth are comparable when water is not limiting, but differences are larger when simulating yields under rainfed conditions. These differences in rainfed yields are mainly related to the dissimilar simulated soil water availability and the assumed linkages with dry matter formation. We concluded that for the simulation of winter wheat growth at field scale in such semi-arid conditions, CERES-Wheat and CropSyst are preferred. WOFOST is a satisfactory compromise between data availability and complexity when detail data on soil is limited. Aquacrop integrates physiological processes in some representative parameters, thus diminishing the number of input parameters, what is seen as an advantage when observed data is scarce. However, the high sensitivity of this model to low water availability limits its use in the region considered. Contrary to the use of ensembles of crop models, we endorse that efforts be concentrated on selecting or rebuilding a model that includes approaches that better describe the agronomic conditions of the regions in which they will be applied. The use of such complex methodologies as crop models is associated with numerous sources of uncertainty, although these models are the best tools available to get insight in these complex agronomic systems. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
Sanz-Cobena, A., Misselbrook, T. H., Hernaiz, P., & Vallejo, A. (2019). Impact of rainfall to the effectiveness of pig slurry shallow injection method for NH3 mitigation in a Mediterranean soil. Atm. Environ., 216, 116913.
Abstract: Ammonia emission from fertilized cropping systems is an important concern for stakeholders, particularly in regions with high livestock densities producing large amounts of manure. Application of pig slurries can result in very large losses of N through NH3 volatilization, thus decreasing the N use efficiency (NUE) of the applied manure. Shallow incorporation has been shown to significantly abate these losses. In this field study, we assessed the impact of contrasting weather conditions on the effectiveness of shallow injection to abate NH3 emissions from pig slurry application to a Mediterranean soil. As potential trade-offs of NH3 abatement, greenhouse gas emissions were also measured under conditions of high soil moisture. Compared with surface application of slurry, shallow injection effectively and significantly decreased NH3 losses independently of weather conditions, but reductions of NH3 emission were greater after heavy rainfall. In contrast, under these conditions, shallow injection triggered higher emissions of N2O and CH4. Our findings reinforce the idea that any single-pollutant abatement strategy needs to be designed and assessed in a regional context and considering potential trade-offs in the form of other pollutants.
|
|
Tao, F., Palosuo, T., Roetter, R. P., Hernandez Diaz-Ambrona, C. G., Ines Minguez, M., Semenov, M. A., et al. (2020). Why do crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections? A comprehensive analysis based on eight barley crop models. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 281, 107851.
Abstract: Robust projections of climate impact on crop growth and productivity by crop models are key to designing effective adaptations to cope with future climate risk. However, current crop models diverge strongly in their climate impact projections. Previous studies tried to compare or improve crop models regarding the impact of one single climate variable. However, this approach is insufficient, considering that crop growth and yield are affected by the interactive impacts of multiple climate change factors and multiple interrelated biophysical processes. Here, a new comprehensive analysis was conducted to look holistically at the reasons why crop models diverge substantially in climate impact projections and to investigate which biophysical processes and knowledge gaps are key factors affecting this uncertainty and should be given the highest priorities for improvement. First, eight barley models and eight climate projections for the 2050s were applied to investigate the uncertainty from crop model structure in climate impact projections for barley growth and yield at two sites: Jokioinen, Finland (Boreal) and Lleida, Spain (Mediterranean). Sensitivity analyses were then conducted on the responses of major crop processes to major climatic variables including temperature, precipitation, irradiation, and CO2, as well as their interactions, for each of the eight crop models. The results showed that the temperature and CO2 relationships in the models were the major sources of the large discrepancies among the models in climate impact projections. In particular, the impacts of increases in temperature and CO2 on leaf area development were identified as the major causes for the large uncertainty in simulating changes in evapotranspiration, above-ground biomass, and grain yield. Our findings highlight that advancements in understanding the basic processes and thresholds by which climate warming and CO2 increases will affect leaf area development, crop evapotranspiration, photosynthesis, and grain formation in contrasting environments are needed for modeling their impacts.
|
|
Palosuo, T., Rotter, R. P., Salo, T., Peltonen-Sainio, P., Tao, F., & Lehtonen, H. (2015). Effects of climate and historical adaptation measures on barley yield trends in Finland. Clim. Res., 65, 221–236.
Abstract: In this study, the WOFOST crop simulation model was used together with comprehensive empirical databases on barley Hordeum vulgare L. to study the contributions of different yield-determining and -limiting factors to observed trends of barley yield in Finland from 1988 to 2008. Simulations were performed at 3 study sites representing different agro-ecological zones, and compared with the data from experimental sites and that reported by local farmers. Yield gaps between simulated potential yields and farmers’ yields and their trends were assessed. Positive observed yield trends of Finnish barley mostly resulted from the development and usage of new, high-yielding cultivars. Simulated trends in climatic potential and water-limited potential yields of individual cultivars showed a slight declining trend. Yield gaps showed an increasing trend in 2 out of 3 study areas. Since the mid-1990s, a major reason for this has been the lack of market and policy incentives favouring crop management decisions, i.e. annual fertilisation, soil maintenance, drainage and crop rotation decisions, aiming for higher yields. The study indicates potential options for increasing or maintaining barley yields in the future. The breeding of new climate-resilient cultivars is the primary option. However, this needs to work alongside overall adjustments to farm management and must be supported by financial incentives for farmers to increase yields.
|