|
|
Gobin, A., Kersebaum, K., Eitzinger, J., Trnka, M., Hlavinka, P., Takáč, J., et al. (2017). Variability in the Water Footprint of Arable Crop Production across European Regions. Water, 9(2), 93.
Abstract: Crop growth and yield are affected by water use during the season: the green water footprint (WF) accounts for rain water, the blue WF for irrigation and the grey WF for diluting agri-chemicals. We calibrated crop yield for FAO’s water balance model “Aquacrop” at field level. We collected weather, soil and crop inputs for 45 locations for the period 1992–2012. Calibrated model runs were conducted for wheat, barley, grain maize, oilseed rape, potato and sugar beet. The WF of cereals could be up to 20 times larger than the WF of tuber and root crops; the largest share was attributed to the green WF. The green and blue WF compared favourably with global benchmark values (R² = 0.64–0.80; d = 0.91–0.95). The variability in the WF of arable crops across different regions in Europe is mainly due to variability in crop yield (c̅v̅ = 45%) and to a lesser extent to variability in crop water use (c̅v̅ = 21%). The WF variability between countries (c̅v̅ = 14%) is lower than the variability between seasons (c̅v̅ = 22%) and between crops (c̅v̅ = 46%). Though modelled yields increased up to 50% under sprinkler irrigation, the water footprint still increased between 1% and 25%. Confronted with drainage and runoff, the grey WF tended to overestimate the contribution of nitrogen to the surface and groundwater. The results showed that the water footprint provides a measurable indicator that may support European water governance.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Soussana, J. - F., Fereres, E., Long, S. P., Mohren, F. G. M. J., Pandya-Lorch, R., Peltonen-Sainio, P., et al. (2012). A European science plan to sustainably increase food security under climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol., 18(11), 3269–3271.
|
|
|
|
Porter, J. R., Soussana, J. - F., Fereres, E., Long, S., Mohren, F., Peltonen-Sainio, P., et al. (2012). European Perspectives: An Agronomic Science Plan for Food Security in a Changing Climate. In D. Hillel, & C. Rosenzweig (Eds.),. Handbook of Climate Change and Agroecosystems: Global and Regional Aspects and Implications, ICP Series on Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation, . Co-Published With Imperial College Press.
|
|
|
|
Palosuo, T., Rotter, R. P., Salo, T., Peltonen-Sainio, P., Tao, F., & Lehtonen, H. (2015). Effects of climate and historical adaptation measures on barley yield trends in Finland. Clim. Res., 65, 221–236.
Abstract: In this study, the WOFOST crop simulation model was used together with comprehensive empirical databases on barley Hordeum vulgare L. to study the contributions of different yield-determining and -limiting factors to observed trends of barley yield in Finland from 1988 to 2008. Simulations were performed at 3 study sites representing different agro-ecological zones, and compared with the data from experimental sites and that reported by local farmers. Yield gaps between simulated potential yields and farmers’ yields and their trends were assessed. Positive observed yield trends of Finnish barley mostly resulted from the development and usage of new, high-yielding cultivars. Simulated trends in climatic potential and water-limited potential yields of individual cultivars showed a slight declining trend. Yield gaps showed an increasing trend in 2 out of 3 study areas. Since the mid-1990s, a major reason for this has been the lack of market and policy incentives favouring crop management decisions, i.e. annual fertilisation, soil maintenance, drainage and crop rotation decisions, aiming for higher yields. The study indicates potential options for increasing or maintaining barley yields in the future. The breeding of new climate-resilient cultivars is the primary option. However, this needs to work alongside overall adjustments to farm management and must be supported by financial incentives for farmers to increase yields.
|
|
