| Home | [41–50] << 51 >> |
|
Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K., Christian,, & Olesen, J. E. (2015). Description of the compiled experimental data available in the MACSUR CropM database (Vol. 6).
Abstract: The input data necessary for crop model simulations and data for their calibration/validation (and thus requirements for observations and measurements in suitable experiments) have been collected through out the project together with data for additional analysis of abiotic factors influencing yields. A list of possible dataset was collated in the first year of project however very few of the existing datasets were found usable for the crop model simulation as they fell short of the requirements defined in the part 2.3. However database has been populated as planned with the results of the ongoing MACSUR studies and will serve in the same way for the MACSUR 2 duration. No Label
|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Bindi, M., Webber, H., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K., et al. (2015). Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change (Vol. 6).
Abstract: The complexity of risks posed by climate change and possible adaptations for crop production has called for integrated assessment and modelling (IAM) approaches linking biophysical and economic models. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the present state of crop modelling to assess climate change risks to food production and to which extent crop models comply with IAM demands. Considerable progress has been made in modelling effects of climate variables, where crop models best satisfy IAM demands. Demands are partly satisfied for simulating commonly required assessment variables. However, progress on the number of simulated crops, uncertainty propagation related to model parameters and structure, adaptations and scaling are less advanced and lagging behind IAM demands. The limitations are considered substantial and apply to a different extent to all crop models. Overcoming these limitations will require joint efforts, and consideration of novel modelling approaches. No Label
|
|
Köchy, M. (2015). Climate-change impacts on farming systems in the next decades: Why worry when you have CAP? A workshop for decisionmakers. Workshop Programme (Vol. 6).
Abstract: Local agricultural production is strongly affected by the weather. Climate change is likely to cause increases in extreme weather events, as well as underlying changes in average conditions. If agriculture is to be sustainable and profitable, farmers will need to adapt to these changes. What impacts could climate change have on farming systems across Europe, and how important are they likely to be compared to the impacts of policies?In order to better answer these questions, the FACCE JPI knowledge hub MACSUR, comprising more than 300 researchers in 18 countries, is assessing the current state of the art in the modelling of agricultural systems for food security.At this workshop we invited policymakers and other stakeholders to learn about regional impacts of climate change on European agriculture relative to policies and to inform researchers about the consultation needs of stakeholders. No Label
|
|
Biewald, A. (2016). Representative Agricultural Pathways for Europe (Vol. 9 C6 -).
Abstract: Agricultural aspects have been covered in the scenario process on shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs), but only to a limited extent. In order to analyze the future dynamics of agricultural development they need to be complemented and specified by Representative Agricultural Pathways (RAPs), which cover different aspects of agricultural development as for example European agricultural and domestic policy, environmental policies, different livestock management systems, cropping systems or irrigation efficiencies.In this paper we will develop a general framework for RAPs where we define for each SSP the corresponding specific agricultural development. Some aspects of the above mentioned specifics can be derived from the definitions in the SSPs, as for example irrigation efficiencies which are linked to technological development. Agricultural policies on the other hand are not included in the SSP definitions. Here we will define agricultural and environmental policies, including the available funding in each area of the common agricultural policy (CAP) (pillars 1 and 2). As RAPs can only to a small degree be developed as European guidelines and implemented unilaterally, it is important to translate the overall storylines into specific scenario parameterization at national levels. Concerned by this are 1. national policies, as well as the agri-environmental schemes of the CAP in Pillar II, 2. livestock efficiencies and the development of extensive and intensive farm management, and 3. crop management systems.Additionally we will define which respresentative concentration pathways (RCPs) will match best the future agricultural and agro-economic trajectories. The following 5 preliminary RAPs for Europe will be further developed in our analysis:EU-RAP1 (Sustainable Europe) : strong CAP, strong shift on environmental regulation, no producer support, green CAP with strong mititgation componentEU-RAP2 (Middle of the road): BAU or things will stay as they are.EU-RAP3 (Fragmented Europe): Europe breaks up, rich countries support farmers with national subsidies, poor countries do not. There is no CAP anymoreEU-RAP4 (Two Europes): Europe is divided in a poor and a rich part. In the rich part a green and environmental friendly CAP will be implemented, in the poor part of Europe, the CAP will cease to existEU-RAP5(Fossil fueled Europe): free market world, strong institutions, weak on enviromental regulations, low domestic polices? Local green CAP without mitigation
|