|
Lai, R., Seddaiu, G., Gennaro, L., & Roggero, P. P. (2012). Effects of nitrogen fertilizer sources and temperature on soil CO2 efflux in Italian ryegrass crop under Mediterranean conditions. Ital. J. Agron., 7(2), 27.
|
van Lingen, H. J., Plugge, C. M., Fadel, J. G., Kebreab, E., Bannink, A., & Dijkstra, J. (2016). Correction: Thermodynamic Driving Force of Hydrogen on Rumen Microbial Metabolism: A Theoretical Investigation (Vol. 11(12)).
Abstract: [This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161362.].
|
Kebreab, E., Tedeschi, L., Dijkstra, J., Ellis, J. L., Bannink, A., & France, J. (2016). Modeling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Enteric Fermentation. In E. Kebreab (Ed.), Advances in Agricultural Systems (Vol. 6, pp. 173–196). Synthesis and Modeling of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Storage in Agricultural and Forest Systems to Guide Mitigation and Adaptation, Advances in Agricultural Systems (6).
Abstract: Livestock directly contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mainly through methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. For cost and practicality reasons, quantification of GHG has been through development of various types of mathematical models. This chapter addresses the utility and limitations of mathematical models used to estimate enteric CH4 emissions from livestock production. Models used in GHG quantification can be broadly classified into either empirical or mechanistic models. Empirical models might be easier to use because they require fewer input variables compared with mechanistic models. However, their applicability in assessing mitigation options such as dietary manipulation may be limited. The major driving variables identified for both types of models include feed intake, lipid and nonstructural carbohydrate content of the feed, and animal variables. Knowledge gaps identified in empirical modeling were that some of the assumptions might not be valid because of geographical location, health status of animals, genetic differences, or production type. In mechanistic modeling, errors related to estimating feed intake, stoichiometry of volatile fatty acid (VFA) production, and acidity of rumen contents are limitations that need further investigation. Model prediction uncertainty was also investigated, and, depending on the intensity and source of the prediction uncertainty, the mathematical model may inaccurately predict the observed values with more or less variability. In conclusion, although there are quantification tools available, global collaboration is required to come to a consensus on quantification protocols. This can be achieved through developing various types of models specific to region, animal, and production type using large global datasets developed through international collaboration.
|
Reidsma, P., Janssen, S., Jansen, J., & van Ittersum, M. (2017). On the development and use of farm models for policy impact assessment in the European Union – A review. Agric. Syst., 159, 111–125.
Abstract: • Evidence use in EU Impact Assessment reports is limited. • Many scientific studies used farm models for assessment of policies in the EU. • Scientific challenges include understanding farmer decision-making and interactions. • Model codes and data should be published, including evaluation. • Stronger science-policy interaction is required. Farm models are potentially relevant tools for policy impact assessment. Governments and international organizations use impact assessment (IA) as an ex-ante policy process and procedure to evaluate impacts of policy options as part of the introduction of new policies. IA is increasingly used. This paper reviews both the use of farm models in such policy IAs in the European Commission, and the development and use of farm models for policy IA by the scientific community over the past decade. A systematic review was performed, based on 202 studies from the period 2007–2015 and results were discussed in a science-policy workshop. Based on the literature review and the workshop, this paper describes progress in the development of farm models, challenges in their use in policy processes and a research and cooperation agenda. We conclude that main issues for a research agenda include: 1) better understanding of farmer decision-making and effects of the social milieu, with increased focus on the interactions between farmers and other actors, the link to the value chain, and farm structural change; 2) thorough and consistent model evaluation and model comparison, with increased attention for model sensitivity and uncertainty, and 3) the organization of a network of farm modellers. In addition, the agenda for science-policy cooperation emphasizes the need for: 4) synthesizing research evidence into systematic reviews as an institutional element in the existing science-policy-interfaces for agricultural systems, 5) improved and timely data collection, allowing to assess heterogeneity in farm objectives, management and indicators, and 6) stronger science-policy interaction, moving from a research-driven to a user-driven approach.
|
|
Sándor, R., Ehrhardt, F., Basso, B., Bellocchi, G., Bhatia, A., Brilli, L., et al. (2016). C and N models Intercomparison – benchmark and ensemble model estimates for grassland production. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 245–247.
|
