Abstract: This study evaluates the effect of planting three cover crops (CCs) (barley, Hordeum vulgare L.; vetch, Vicia villosa L.; rape, Brassica napus L.) on the direct emission of N(2)O, CO(2) and CH(4) in the intercrop period and the impact of incorporating these CCs on the emission of greenhouse gas (GHG) from the forthcoming irrigated maize (Zea mays L.) crop. Vetch and barley were the CCs with the highest N(2)O and CO(2) losses (75 and 47% increase compared with the control, respectively) in the fallow period. In all cases, fluxes of N(2)O were increased through N fertilization and the incorporation of barley and rape residues (40 and 17% increase, respectively). The combination of a high C:N ratio with the addition of an external source of mineral N increased the fluxes of N(2)O compared with -Ba and -Rp. The direct emissions of N(2)O were lower than expected for a fertilized crop (0.10% emission factor, EF) compared with other studies and the IPCC EF. These results are believed to be associated with a decreased NO(3)(-) pool due to highly denitrifying conditions and increased drainage. The fluxes of CO(2) were in the range of other fertilized crops (i.e., 1118.71-1736.52 kg CO(2)-Cha(-1)). The incorporation of CC residues enhanced soil respiration in the range of 21-28% for barley and rape although no significant differences between treatments were detected. Negative CH(4) fluxes were measured and displayed an overall sink effect for all incorporated CC (mean values of -0.12 and -0.10 kg CH(4)-Cha(-1) for plots with and without incorporated CCs, respectively).

Abstract: The empirical evidence of decline in ecosystem services (ES) over the last century has reinforced the call for ES quantification, monitoring and valuation. Usually, only provisioning ES are marketable and accounted for, whereas regulating, supporting and cultural ES are typically non-marketable and overlooked in connection with land-use or management decisions. The objective of this study was to quantify and value total ES (marketable and non-marketable) of diverse production systems and management intensities in Denmark to provide a basis for decisions based on economic values. The production systems were conventional wheat (Cwheat), a combined food and energy (CFE) production system and beech forest. Marketable (provisioning ES) and non-marketable ES (supporting, regulating and cultural) ES were quantified by dedicated on-site field measurements supplemented by literature data. The value of total ES was highest in CFE (US$ 3142 ha(-1) yr(-1)) followed by Cwheat (US$ 2767 ha (1) yr(-1)) and beech forest (US$ 2328 ha(-1) yr(-1)). As the production system shifted from Cwheat – CFE-beech, the marketable ES share decreased from 88% to 75% in CFE and 55% in beech whereas the non-marketable ES share increased to 12%, 25% and 45% of total ES in Cwheat, CFE and beech respectively, demonstrating production system and management effects on ES values. Total ES valuation, disintegrated into marketable and non-marketable share is a potential way forward to value ES and `tune’ our production systems for enhanced ES provision. Such monetary valuation can be used by policy makers and land managers as a tool to assess ES value and monitor the sustained flow of ES. The application of ES-based valuation for land management can enhance ES provision for maintaining the productive capacity of the land without depending on the external fossil-based fertilizer and chemical input. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: The phenological development of cereal crops from emergence through flowering to maturity is largely controlled by temperature, but also affected by day length and potential physiological stresses. Responses may vary between species and varieties. Climate change will affect the timing of cereal crop development, but exact changes will also depend on changes in varieties as affected by plant breeding and variety choices. This study aimed to assess changes in timing of major phenological stages of cereal crops in Northern and Central Europe under climate change. Records on dates of sowing, flowering, and maturity of wheat, oats and maize were collected from field experiments conducted during the period 1985-2009. Data for spring wheat and spring oats covered latitudes from 46 to 64°N, winter wheat from 46 to 61°N, and maize from 47 to 58°N. The number of observations (site-year-variety combinations) varied with phenological phase, but exceeded 2190, 227, 2076 and 1506 for winter wheat, spring wheat, spring oats and maize, respectively. The data were used to fit simple crop development models, assuming that the duration of the period until flowering depends on temperature and day length for wheat and oats, and on temperature for maize, and that the duration of the period from flowering to maturity in all species depends on temperature only. Species-specific base temperatures were used. Sowing date of spring cereals was estimated using a threshold temperature for the mean air temperature during 10 days prior to sowing. The mean estimated temperature thresholds for sowing were 6.1, 7.1 and 10.1°C for oats, wheat and maize, respectively. For spring oats and wheat the temperature threshold increased with latitude. The effective temperature sums required for both flowering and maturity increased with increasing mean annual temperature of the location, indicating that varieties are well adapted to given conditions. The responses of wheat and oats were largest for the period from flowering to maturity. Changes in timing of cereal phenology by 2040 were assessed for two climate model projections according to the observed dependencies on temperature and day length. The results showed advancements of sowing date of spring cereals by 1-3 weeks depending on climate model and region within Europe. The changes were largest in Northern Europe. Timing of flowering and maturity were projected to advance by 1-3 weeks. The changes were largest for grain maize and smallest for winter wheat, and they were generally largest in the western and northern part of the domain. There were considerable differences in predicted timing of sowing, flowering and maturity between the two climate model projections applied.