|
|
Fan, F., Henriksen, C. B., & Porter, J. (2018). Long-term effects of conversion to organic farming on ecosystem services – a model simulation case study and on-farm case study in Denmark. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 42(5), 504–529.
Abstract: Organic agriculture aims to produce food while establishing an ecological balance to augment ecosystem services (ES) and has been rapidly expanding in the world since the 1980s. Recently, however, in several European countries, including Denmark, organic farmers have converted back to conventional farming. Hence, understanding how agricultural ES are affected by the number of years since conversion to organic farming is imperative for policy makers to guide future agricultural policy. In order to investigate the long-term effects of conversion to organic farming on ES we performed i) a model simulation case study by applying the Daisy model to simulate 14 different conversion scenarios for a Danish farm during a 65 year period with increasing number of years under organic farming, and ii) an on-farm case study in Denmark with one conventional farm, one organic farm under conversion, and three organic farms converted 10, 15 and 58 years ago, respectively. Both the model simulation case study and the on-farm case study showed that non-marketable ES values increased with increasing number of years under organic farming. Trade-offs between marketable and non-marketable ES were not evident, since also marketable ES values generally showed an increasing trend, except when the price difference between organic and conventional products in the model simulation study was the smallest, and when an alfalfa pre-crop in the on-farm case study resulted in a significantly higher level of plant available nitrogen, which boosted the yield and the associated marketable ES of the subsequent winter rye crop. These results indicate a possible benefit of preserving long-term organic farms and could be used to argue for agricultural policy interventions to offset further reduction in the number of organic farms or the land area under organic farming.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
