|
|
Castañeda-Vera, A., Leffelaar, P. A., Álvaro-Fuentes, J., Cantero-Martínez, C., & Mínguez, M. I. (2015). Selecting crop models for decision making in wheat insurance. European Journal of Agronomy, 68, 97–116.
Abstract: In crop insurance, the accuracy with which the insurer quantifies the actual risk is highly dependent on the availability on actual yield data. Crop models might be valuable tools to generate data on expected yields for risk assessment when no historical records are available. However, selecting a crop model for a specific objective, location and implementation scale is a difficult task. A look inside the different crop and soil modules to understand how outputs are obtained might facilitate model choice. The objectives of this paper were (i) to assess the usefulness of crop models to be used within a crop insurance analysis and design and (ii) to select the most suitable crop model for drought risk assessment in semi-arid regions in Spain. For that purpose first, a pre-selection of crop models simulating wheat yield under rainfed growing conditions at the field scale was made, and second, four selected models (Aquacrop, CERES-Wheat, CropSyst and WOFOST) were compared in terms of modelling approaches, process descriptions and model outputs. Outputs of the four models for the simulation of winter wheat growth are comparable when water is not limiting, but differences are larger when simulating yields under rainfed conditions. These differences in rainfed yields are mainly related to the dissimilar simulated soil water availability and the assumed linkages with dry matter formation. We concluded that for the simulation of winter wheat growth at field scale in such semi-arid conditions, CERES-Wheat and CropSyst are preferred. WOFOST is a satisfactory compromise between data availability and complexity when detail data on soil is limited. Aquacrop integrates physiological processes in some representative parameters, thus diminishing the number of input parameters, what is seen as an advantage when observed data is scarce. However, the high sensitivity of this model to low water availability limits its use in the region considered. Contrary to the use of ensembles of crop models, we endorse that efforts be concentrated on selecting or rebuilding a model that includes approaches that better describe the agronomic conditions of the regions in which they will be applied. The use of such complex methodologies as crop models is associated with numerous sources of uncertainty, although these models are the best tools available to get insight in these complex agronomic systems. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Zimmermann, A., & Britz, W. (2016). European farms’ participation in agri-environmental measures. Land Use Policy, 50, 214–228.
Abstract: Due to their diversity and voluntariness, agri-environmental measures (AEMs) are among the Common Agricultural Policy instruments that are most difficult to assess. We provide an EU-wide analysis of AEM adoption and farm’s total AEM support over total Utilised Agricultural Area using a Heckman sample selection approach and single farm data. Our analysis covers 22 Member States over the 2000-2009 period, assesses the entire portfolio of AEMs and focuses on the relationship between AEM participation and farming system. Results show that participation in AEMs is more likely in less intensive production systems, where, however, per committed hectare AEM premiums tend to be lower. Member States group into three categories: high/low intensity farming systems with low/high AEM enrollment rates, respectively, and large high diversity countries with medium AEM enrollment rates. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Katajajuuri, J. - M., Pulkkinen, H., Hietala, S., Järvenranta, K., Virkajärvi, P., Nousiainen, J. I., et al. (2015). A holistic, dynamic model to quantify and mitigate the environmental impacts of cattle farming. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 35–36.
|
|
|
|
Kässi, P., Känkänen, H., Niskanen, O., Lehtonen, H., & Höglind, M. (2015). Farm level approach to manage grass yield variation under climate change in Finland and north-western Russia. Biosystems Engineering, 140, 11–22.
Abstract: Cattle feeding in Northern Europe is based on grass silage, but grass growth is highly dependent on weather conditions. If ensuring sufficient silage availability in every situation is prioritised, the lowest expected yield level determines the cultivated area in farmers’ decision-making. One way to manage the variation in grass yield is to increase grass production and silage storage capacity so that they exceed the annual consumption at the farm. The cost of risk management in the current and the projected future climate was calculated taking into account grassland yield and yield variability for three study areas under current and mid-21st century climate conditions. The dataset on simulated future grass yields used as input for the risk management calculations were taken from a previously published simulation study. Strategies investigated included using up to 60% more silage grass area than needed in a year with average grass yields, and storing silage for up to 6 months more than consumed in a year (buffer storage). According to the results, utilising an excess silage grass area of 20% and a silage buffer storage capacity of 6 months were the most economic ways of managing drought risk in both the baseline climate and the projected climate of 2046-2065. It was found that the silage yield risk due to drought is likely to decrease in all studied locations, but the drought risk and costs implied still remain significant. (C) 2015 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Reidsma, P., Wolf, J., Kanellopoulos, A., Schaap, B. F., Mandryk, M., Verhagen, J., et al. (2015). Climate change impact and adaptation research requires integrated assessment and farming systems analysis: a case study in the Netherlands. Environ. Res. Lett., 10(4), 045004.
Abstract: Rather than on crop modelling only, climate change impact assessments in agriculture need to be based on integrated assessment and farming systems analysis, and account for adaptation at different levels. With a case study for Flevoland, the Netherlands, we illustrate that (1) crop models cannot account for all relevant climate change impacts and adaptation options, and (2) changes in technology, policy and prices have had and are likely to have larger impacts on farms than climate change. While crop modelling indicates positive impacts of climate change on yields of major crops in 2050, a semi-quantitative and participatory method assessing impacts of extreme events shows that there are nevertheless several climate risks. A range of adaptation measures are, however, available to reduce possible negative effects at crop level. In addition, at farm level farmers can change cropping patterns, and adjust inputs and outputs. Also farm structural change will influence impacts and adaptation. While the 5th IPCC report is more negative regarding impacts of climate change on agriculture compared to the previous report, also for temperate regions, our results show that when putting climate change in context of other drivers, and when explicitly accounting for adaptation at crop and farm level, impacts may be less negative in some regions and opportunities are revealed. These results refer to a temperate region, but an integrated assessment may also change perspectives on climate change for other parts of the world.
|
|
