|
|
Wu, L., Whitmore, A. P., & Bellocchi, G. (2015). Modelling the impact of environmental changes on grassland systems with SPACSYS. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 37–39.
|
|
|
|
Lindeskog, M., Arneth, A., Bondeau, A., Waha, K., Seaquist, J., Olin, S., et al. (2013). Implications of accounting for land use in simulations of ecosystem carbon cycling in Africa. Earth System Dynamics, 4(2), 385–407.
Abstract: Dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) are important tools for modelling impacts of global change on ecosystem services. However, most models do not take full account of human land management and land use and land cover changes (LULCCs). We integrated croplands and pasture and their management and natural vegetation recovery and succession following cropland abandonment into the LPJ-GUESS DGVM. The revised model was applied to Africa as a case study to investigate the implications of accounting for land use on net ecosystem carbon balance (NECB) and the skill of the model in describing agricultural production and reproducing trends and patterns in vegetation structure and function. The seasonality of modelled monthly fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (FPAR) was shown to agree well with satellite-inferred normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI). In regions with a large proportion of cropland, the managed land addition improved the FPAR vs. NDVI fit significantly. Modelled 1991-1995 average yields for the seven most important African crops, representing potential optimal yields limited only by climate forcings, were generally higher than reported FAO yields by a factor of 2-6, similar to previous yield gap estimates. Modelled inter-annual yield variations during 1971-2005 generally agreed well with FAO statistics, especially in regions with pronounced climate seasonality. Modelled land-atmosphere carbon fluxes for Africa associated with land use change (0.07 PgC yr(-1) release to the atmosphere for the 1980s) agreed well with previous estimates. Cropland management options (residue removal, grass as cover crop) were shown to be important to the land-atmosphere carbon flux for the 20th century.
|
|
|
|
Rolinski, S., Weindl, I., Heinke, J., Bodirsky, B. L., Biewald, A., & Lotze-Campen, H. (2015). Pasture harvest, carbon sequestration and feeding potentials under different grazing intensities. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 43–45.
|
|
|
|
Gutierrez, L., Piras, F., & Roggero, P. P. (2015). A global vector autoregression model for the analysis of wheat export prices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97(5), 1494–1511.
Abstract: Food commodity price fluctuations have an important impact on poverty and food insecurity across the world. Conventional models have not provided a complete picture of recent price spikes in agricultural commodity markets, and there is an urgent need for appropriate policy responses. Perhaps new approaches are needed to better understand international spill-overs, the feedback between the real and the financial sectors, as well as the link between food and energy prices. In this article, we present the results from a new worldwide dynamic model that provides the short and long-run impulse responses of the international wheat price to various real and financial shocks.
|
|
|
|
Robinson, S., van Meijl, H., Willenbockel, D., Valin, H., Fujimori, S., Masui, T., et al. (2014). Comparing supply-side specifications in models of global agriculture and the food system. Agric. Econ., 45(1), 21–35.
Abstract: This article compares the theoretical and functional specification of production in partial equilibrium (PE) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) models of the global agricultural and food system included in the AgMIP model comparison study. The two model families differ in their scopepartial versus economy-wideand in how they represent technology and the behavior of supply and demand in markets. The CGE models are deep structural models in that they explicitly solve the maximization problem of consumers and producers, assuming utility maximization and profit maximization with production/cost functions that include all factor inputs. The PE models divide into two groups on the supply side: (1) shallow structural models, which essentially specify area/yield supply functions with no explicit maximization behavior, and (2) deep structural models that provide a detailed activity-analysis specification of technology and explicit optimizing behavior by producers. While the models vary in their specifications of technology, both within and between the PE and CGE families, we consider two stylized theoretical models to compare the behavior of crop yields and supply functions in CGE models with their behavior in shallow structural PE models. We find that the theoretical responsiveness of supply to changes in prices can be similar, depending on parameter choices that define the behavior of implicit supply functions over the domain of applicability defined by the common scenarios used in the AgMIP comparisons. In practice, however, the applied models are more complex and differ in their empirical sensitivity to variations in specificationcomparability of results given parameter choices is an empirical question. To illustrate the issues, sensitivity analysis is done with one global CGE model, MAGNET, to indicate how the results vary with different specification of technical change, and how they compare with the results from PE models.
|
|
