|
|
Tao, F., Zhang, S., Zhang, Z., & Rötter, R. P. (2015). Temporal and spatial changes of maize yield potentials and yield gaps in the past three decades in China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ., 208, 12–20.
Abstract: The precise spatially explicit knowledge about crop yield potentials and yield gaps is essential to guide sustainable intensification of agriculture. In this study, the maize yield potentials from 1980 to 2008 across the major maize production regions of China were firstly estimated by county using ensemble simulation of a well-validated large scale crop model, i.e., MCWLA-Maize model. Then, the temporal and spatial patterns of maize yield potentials and yield gaps during 1980-2008 were presented and analyzed. The results showed that maize yields became stagnated at 32.4% of maize-growing areas during the period. In the major maize production regions, i.e., northeastern China, the North China Plain (NCP) and southwestern China, yield gap percentages were generally less than 40% and particularly less than 20% in some areas. By contrast, in northern and southern China, where actual yields were relatively lower, yield gap percentages were generally larger than 40%. The areas with yield gap percentages less than 20% and less than 40% accounted for 8.2% and 27.6% of maize-growing areas, respectively. During the period, yield potentials decreased in the NCP and southwestern China due to increase in temperature and decrease in solar radiation; by contrast, increased in northern, northeastern and southeastern China due to increases in both temperature and solar radiation. Yield gap percentages decreased generally by 2% per year across the major maize production regions, although increased in some areas in northern and northeastern China. The shrinking of yield gap was due to increases in actual yields and decreases in yield potentials in the NCP and southwestern China; and due to larger increases in actual yields than in yield potentials in northeastern and southeastern China. The results highlight the importance of sustainable intensification of agriculture to close yield gaps, as well as breeding new cultivars to increase yield potentials, to meet the increasing food demand. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Porter, J. R., Dyball, R., Dumaresq, D., Deutsch, L., & Matsuda, H. (2014). Feeding capitals: Urban food security and self-provisioning in Canberra, Copenhagen and Tokyo. Global Food Security, 3(1), 1–7.
Abstract: Most people live in cities, but most food system studies and food security issues focus on the rural poor. Urban populations differ from rural populations in their food consumption by being generally wealthier, requiring food trade for their food security, defined as the extent to which people have adequate diets. Cities rarely have the self-provisioning capacity to satisfy their own food supply, understood as the extent to which the food consumed by the city’s population is produced from the city’s local agro-ecosystems. Almost inevitably, a city’s food security is augmented by production from remote landscapes, both internal and external in terms of a state’s jurisdiction. We reveal the internal and external food flows necessary for the food security of three wealthy capital cities (Canberra, Australia; Copenhagen, Denmark; Tokyo, Japan). These cities cover two orders of magnitude in population size and three orders of magnitude in population density. From traded volumes of food and their sources into the cities, we calculate the productivity of the city’s regional and non-regional ecosystems that provide food for these cities and estimate the overall utilised land area. The three cities exhibit differing degrees of food self provisioning capacity and exhibit large differences in the areas on which they depend to provide their food. We show that, since 1965, global land area effectively imported to produce food for these cities has increased with their expanding populations, with large reductions in the percentage of demand met by local agro-ecosystems. The physical trading of food commodities embodies ecosystem services, such as water, soil fertility and pollination that are required for land-based food production. This means that the trade in these embodied ecosystem services has become as important for food security as traditional economic mechanisms such as market access and trade. A future policy question, raised by our study, is the degree to which governments will remain committed to open food trade policies in the face of national political unrest caused by food shortages. Our study demonstrates the need to determine the food security and self-provisioning capacity of a wide range of rich and poor cities, taking into account the global location of the ecosystems that are provisioning them. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Trnka, M., Hlavinka, P., & Semenov, M. A. (2015). Adaptation options for wheat in Europe will be limited by increased adverse weather events under climate change. J. R. Soc. Interface, 12(112), 20150721.
Abstract: Ways of increasing the production of wheat, the most widely grown cereal crop, will need to be found to meet the increasing demand caused by human population growth in the coming decades. This increase must occur despite the decrease in yield gains now being reported in some regions, increased price volatility and the expected increase in the frequency of adverse weather events that can reduce yields. However, if and how the frequency of adverse weather events will change over Europe, the most important wheat-growing area, has not yet been analysed. Here, we show that the accumulated probability of 11 adverse weather events with the potential to significantly reduce yield will increase markedly across all of Europe. We found that by the end of the century, the exposure of the key European wheat-growing areas, where most wheat production is currently concentrated, may increase more than twofold. However, if we consider the entire arable land area of Europe, a greater than threefold increase in risk was predicted. Therefore, shifting wheat production to new producing regions to reduce the risk might not be possible as the risk of adverse events beyond the key wheat-growing areas increases even more. Furthermore, we found a marked increase in wheat exposure to high temperatures, severe droughts and field inaccessibility compared with other types of adverse events. Our results also showed the limitations of some of the presently debated adaptation options and demonstrated the need for development of region-specific strategies. Other regions of the world could be affected by adverse weather events in the future in a way different from that considered here for Europe. This observation emphasizes the importance of conducting similar analyses for other major wheat regions.
|
|
|
|
Höhn, J., & Rötter, R. P. (2014). Impact of global warming on European cereal production. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 9(022), 1–15.
Abstract: This review examines relevant impact assessments identified by a literature search from 1991to date. A bibliographic search was applied to the CAB Abstracts database with a given searchstring. Resultant papers were checked for relevance, based on expert judgment. This yielded 91 papers, which were subjected to further analysis. Firstly, publication intensity over time and distribution by geographic location and cereal crop were examined. Next, for a given crop, the assessments and their outcomes were grouped by type and number of the change variables considered – that is, effects of climate change only, elevated CO 2 and technological progress(improved breeds, management). Finally, separately for individual countries/subregions and Europe as a whole, we examined whether and to what extent study results have changed over time, for example become more positive/negative. Based on our sample, we found that publication intensity increased exponentially during thelast 4 years, the majority of studies are Europe-wide, but some concentrated on a few countries(Italy, Spain and UK), whereby studies on wheat are clearly most popular. Taking the factor of technological progress into account has an overruling influence on results. Finally, over time, projected yield impacts have become more negative. This is in line with finding from global analyses, as reflected by the most recent comparison of agricultural impact chapters, of the 4thand 5th Assessment Reports of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group II.In the future, there is particular need to consider impacts under various incremental and transformational adaptation measures in more depth (e.g. their interconnections across scales)and with more breadth (e.g. anticipated new breeds). Follow-up reviews should also examine how projected impacts are changing with the new climate scenario data sets (CMIP5) and with improved impact models and assessment approaches.
|
|
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Höhn, J. G., & Fronzek, S. (2012). Projections of climate change impacts on crop production: A global and a Nordic perspective. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science, 62(4), 166–180.
Abstract: Global climate is changing and food production is very sensitive to weather and climate variations. Global assessments of climate change impacts on food production have been made since the early 1990s, initially with little attention to the uncertainties involved. Although there has been abundant analysis of uncertainties in future greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts on the climate system, uncertainties related to the way climate change projections are scaled down as appropriate for different analyses and in modelling crop responses to climate change, have been neglected. This review paper mainly addresses uncertainties in crop impact modelling and possibilities to reduce them. We specifically aim to (i) show ranges of projected climate change-induced impacts on crop yields, (ii) give recommendations on use of emission scenarios, climate models, regionalization and ensemble crop model simulations for different purposes and (iii) discuss improvements and a few known unknowns’ affecting crop impact projections.
|
|
