|
|
Yin, X., Olesen, J. E., Wang, M., Öztürk, I., Zhang, H., & Chen, F. (2016). Impacts and adaptation of the cropping systems to climate change in the Northeast Farming Region of China. European Journal of Agronomy, 78, 60–72.
Abstract: The Northeast Farming Region of China (NFR) is a very important crop growing area, comprising seven sub-regions: Xing’anling (XA), Sanjiang (SJ), Northwest Songliao (NSL), Central Songliao (CSL), Southwest Songliao (SSL), Changbaishan (CB) and Liaodong (LD), which has been severely affected by extreme climate events and climatic change. Therefore, a set of expert survey has been done to identify current and project future climate limitations to crop production and explore appropriate adaptation measures in NFR. Droughts have been the largest limitation for maize (Zea mays L.) in NSL and SSL, and for soybean (Glycine max L Merr.) in SSL. Chilling damage has been the largest limitation for rice (Oryza sativa L) production in XA, SJ and CB. Projected climate change is expected to be beneficial for expanding the crop growing season, and to provide more suitable conditions for sowing and harvest. Autumn frost will occur later in most parts of NFR, and chilling damage will also decrease, particularly for rice production in XA and SJ. Drought and heat stress are expected to become more severe for maize and soybean production in most parts of NFR. Also, plant diseases, pests and weeds are considered to become more severe for crop production under climate change. Adaptation measures that have already been implemented in recent decades to cope with current climatic limitations include changes in timing of cultivation, variety choice, soil tillage practices, crop protection, irrigation and use of plastic film for soil cover. With the projected climate change and increasing risk of climatic extremes, additional adaptation measures will become relevant for sustaining and improving productivity of crops in NFR to ensure food security in China. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Webber, H., Zhao, G., Wolf, J., Britz, W., Vries, W. de, Gaiser, T., et al. (2015). Climate change impacts on European crop yields: Do we need to consider nitrogen limitation. European Journal of Agronomy, 71, 123–134.
Abstract: Global climate impact studies with crop models suggest that including nitrogen and water limitation causes greater negative climate change impacts on actual yields compared to water-limitation only. We simulated water limited and nitrogen water limited yields across the EU-27 to 2050 for six key crops with the SIMPLACE<LINTUL5, DRUNIR, HEAT> model to assess how important consideration of nitrogen limitation is in climate impact studies for European cropping systems. We further investigated how crop nitrogen use may change under future climate change scenarios. Our results suggest that inclusion of nitrogen limitation hardly changed crop yield response to climate for the spring-sown crops considered (grain maize, potato, and sugar beet). However, for winter-sown crops (winter barley, winter rapeseed and winter wheat), simulated impacts to 2050 were more negative when nitrogen limitation was considered, especially with high levels of water stress. Future nitrogen use rates are likely to decrease due to climate change for spring-sown crops, largely in parallel with their yields. These results imply that climate change impact studies for winter-sown crops should consider N-fertilization. Specification of future N fertilization rates is a methodological challenge that is likely to need integrated assessment models to address.
|
|
|
|
Rusu, T., Moraru, P. I., Bogdan, I., Pop, A., Coste, C., Marin, D. I., et al. (2013). Impacts of climate change on agricultural technology management in the Transylvanian Plain, Romania. Scientific Papers, Series A. Agronomy, Lvi, 113–118.
Abstract: The Transylvanian Plain, Romania is an important region for agronomic productivity. However, limited soils data and adoption of best management practices hinder land productivity. Soil temperatures of the Transylvanian Plain were evaluated using a set of twenty datalogging stations positioned throughout the plain. Each station stores electronic data of ground temperature on 3 different levels of depth (10, 30 and 50 cm), of soil humidity at a depth of 10 cm, of the air temperature at 1 meter and of precipitation. Monitoring the thermal and hydric regime of the area is essential in order to identify and implement sets of measures of adjustment to the impact of climatic changes. After analyzing the recorded data, thermic and hydric, in the Transylvanian Plain, we recommend as optimal sowing period, advancing those known in the literature, with 5 days for corn and soybeans, and maintaining the same optimum period for sunflower and sugar beet. Water requirements are provided in an optimum, of 58.8 to 62.1% for the spring weeding crops during the growing season, thus irrigation is necessary to ensure optimum production potential. The amount of biological active degrees registered in Transylvanian Plain shows the necessity to reconstruct crop zoning, known in the literature, for the analyzed crops: wheat, corn, soy, sunflower and sugar beet.
|
|
|
|
Dumont, B., Basso, B., Bodson, B., Destain, J. - P., & Destain, M. - F. (2015). Climatic risk assessment to improve nitrogen fertilisation recommendations: A strategic crop model-based approach. European Journal of Agronomy, 65, 10–17.
Abstract: Within the context of nitrogen (N) management, since 1950, with the rapid intensification of agriculture, farmers have often applied much larger fertiliser quantities than what was required to reach the yield potential. However, to prevent pollution of surface and groundwater induced by nitrates, The European Community launched The European Nitrates Directive 91/6/76/EEC. In 2002, in Wallonia (Belgium), the Nitrates Directive has been transposed under the Sustainable Nitrogen Management in Agriculture Program (PGDA), with the aim of maintaining productivity and revenue for the country’s farmers, while reducing the environmental impact of excessive N application. A feasible approach for addressing climatic uncertainty lies in the use of crop models such as the one commonly known as STICS (simulateur multidisciplinaire pour les cultures standard). These models allow the impact on crops of the interaction between cropping systems and climatic records to be assessed. Comprehensive historical climatic records are rare, however, and therefore the yield distribution values obtained using such an approach can be discontinuous. In order to obtain better and more detailed yield distribution information, the use of a high number of stochastically generated climate time series was proposed, relying on the LARS-Weather Generator. The study focused on the interactions between varying N practices and climatic conditions. Historically and currently, Belgian farmers apply 180 kg N ha(-1), split into three equal fractions applied at the tillering, stem elongation and flag-leaf stages. This study analysed the effectiveness of this treatment in detail, comparing it to similar practices where only the N rates applied at the flag-leaf stage were modified. Three types of farmer decision-making were analysed. The first related to the choice of N strategy for maximising yield, the second to obtaining the highest net revenue, and the third to reduce the environmental impact of potential N leaching, which carries the likelihood of taxation if inappropriate N rates are applied. The results showed reduced discontinuity in the yield distribution values thus obtained. In general, the modulation of N levels to accord with current farmer practices showed considerable asymmetry. In other words, these practices maximised the probability of achieving yields that were at least superior to the mean of the distribution values, thus reducing risk for the farmers. The practice based on applying the highest amounts (60-60-100 kg N ha(-1)) produced the best yield distribution results. When simple economical criteria were computed, the 60-60-80 kg N ha(-1) protocol was found to be optimal for 80-90% of the time. There were no statistical differences, however, between this practice and Belgian farmers’ current practice. When the taxation linked to a high level of potentially leachable N remaining in the soil after harvest was considered, this methodology clearly showed that, in 3 years out of 4,30 kg N ha(-1) could systematically be saved in comparison with the usual practice.
|
|
|
|
Bellocchi, G., Rivington, M., Matthews, K., & Acutis, M. (2015). Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review. Agron. Sust. Developm., 35(2), 589–605.
Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.
|
|
