| Home | [41–50] << 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 >> [61–70] |
|
Cirillo, V., Masin, R., Maggio, A., & Zanin, G. (2018). Crop-weed interactions in saline environments. Europ. J. Agron., 99, 51–61.
Abstract: Soil salinization is one of the most critical environmental factors affecting crop yield. It is estimated that 20% of cultivated land and 33% of irrigated agricultural land are affected by salinity. In the last decades, considerable effort to manage saline agro-ecosystems has focused on 1) controlling soil salinity to minimize/reduce the accumulation of salts in the root zone and 2) improving plants ability to cope with osmotic and ionic stress. Less attention has been given to other components of the agro-ecosystem including weed populations, which also react and adapt to soil salinization and indirectly affect plant growth and yield. Weeds represent an increasing challenge for crop systems since they have high genetic resilience and adaptation ability to adverse environmental conditions such as soil salinization. In this review, we assess current knowledge on salinity tolerance of weeds in agricultural contexts and discuss critical components of crop-weed interactions that may increase weeds competitiveness under salinity. Compared to crop species, weeds generally exhibit greater salt tolerance due to high intraspecific variability, associated with diverse physiological adaptation mechanisms (e.g. phenotipic plasticity, seed heteromorphism, allelopathy). Weed competitiveness in saline soils may be enhanced by their earlier emergence, faster growth rates and synergies occurring between soil salts and allelochemicals released by weeds. In the future, a better understanding of crop-weed relationships and molecular, physiological and agronomic stress responses under salinity is essential to design efficient strategies to achieve weed control under altered climatic and environmental conditions.
|
|
Schils, R., Olesen, J. E., Kersebaum, K. - C., Rijk, B., Oberforster, M., Kalyada, V., et al. (2018). Cereal yield gaps across Europe. Europ. J. Agron., 101, 109–120.
Abstract: Europe accounts for around 20% of the global cereal production and is a net exporter of ca. 15% of that production. Increasing global demand for cereals justifies questions as to where and by how much Europe’s production can be increased to meet future global market demands, and how much additional nitrogen (N) crops would require. The latter is important as environmental concern and legislation are equally important as production aims in Europe. Here, we used a country-by-country, bottom-up approach to establish statistical estimates of actual grain yield, and compare these to modelled estimates of potential yields for either irrigated or rainfed conditions. In this way, we identified the yield gaps and the opportunities for increased cereal production for wheat, barley and maize, which represent 90% of the cereals grown in Europe. The combined mean annual yield gap of wheat, barley, maize was 239 Mt, or 42% of the yield potential. The national yield gaps ranged between 10 and 70%, with small gaps in many north-western European countries, and large gaps in eastern and south-western Europe. Yield gaps for rainfed and irrigated maize were consistently lower than those of wheat and barley. If the yield gaps of maize, wheat and barley would be reduced from 42% to 20% of potential yields, this would increase annual cereal production by 128 Mt (39%). Potential for higher cereal production exists predominantly in Eastern Europe, and half of Europe’s potential increase is located in Ukraine, Romania and Poland. Unlocking the identified potential for production growth requires a substantial increase of the crop N uptake of 4.8 Mt. Across Europe, the average N uptake gaps, to achieve 80% of the yield potential, were 87, 77 and 43 kg N ha(-1) for wheat, barley and maize, respectively. Emphasis on increasing the N use efficiency is necessary to minimize the need for additional N inputs. Whether yield gap reduction is desirable and feasible is a matter of balancing Europe’s role in global food security, farm economic objectives and environmental targets.
|
|
Semenov, M. A., & Stratonovitch, P. (2016). Local-scale CMIP5-based climate scenarios for MACSUR2 (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Climate sensitivity of GCMs was used to select 5 GCMs from the CMIP5 ensemble for impact studies in MACSUR2. Selected GCMs for MACSUR2 are EC-EARTH (7), GFDL-CM3 (8) HadGEM2-ES (10), MIROC5 (13), and MPI-ESM-MR (15). These GCMs are evenly distributed among CMIP5 (Fig 1) and should capture, in principal, climate uncertainty of the CMIP5 ensemble. Using 5 GCMs will enable us to assess uncertainties in impacts related to uncertainty in climate projections. The selection of GCMs in MACSUR2 has a good overlap with selections of GCMs used in CORDEX and AgMIP projects. We used the LARS-WG generator to construct local-scale CMIP5-based climate scenarios for Europe (Semenov & Stratonovitch, 2015). Fifteen sites were selected in Europe for MACSUR2. For each site and each selected GCM, 100 yrs climate daily data were generated by LARS-WG for RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 emission scenarios and for baseline and 3 future periods: near-term (2021-2040), mid-term (2041-2060) and long-term (2081-2100).
Keywords: CropM
|
|
Wallach, D., & Rivington, M. (2014). A framework structure to integrate improved methods for uncertainty evaluation, and protocols for methods application (Vol. 3).
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. Several ways of quantifying prediction uncertainty have been explored in the literature, but there have been no studies of how the different approaches are related to one another, and how they are related to some overall measure of prediction uncertainty. Here we show that all the different approaches can be related to two different viewpoints about the model; either the model is treated as a fixed predictor with some average error, or the model can be treated as a random variable with uncertainty in one or more of model structure, model inputs and model parameters. We discuss the differences, and show how mean squared error of prediction can be estimated in both cases. The results can be used to put uncertainty estimates into a more general framework and to relate different uncertainty estimates to one another and to overall prediction uncertainty. This should lead to a better understanding of crop model prediction uncertainty and the underlying causes of that uncertainty. This study was published as (Wallach et al. 2016)
Keywords: MACSUR_ACK; CropM
|