|
|
Bodirsky, B. L., Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Dietrich, J. P., Rolinski, S., Weindl, I., et al. (2014). Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and potential to mitigate nitrogen pollution. Nat. Comm., 5, 3858.
Abstract: Reactive nitrogen (Nr) is an indispensable nutrient for agricultural production and human alimentation. Simultaneously, agriculture is the largest contributor to Nr pollution, causing severe damages to human health and ecosystem services. The trade-off between food availability and Nr pollution can be attenuated by several key mitigation options, including Nr efficiency improvements in crop and animal production systems, food waste reduction in households and lower consumption of Nr-intensive animal products. However, their quantitative mitigation potential remains unclear, especially under the added pressure of population growth and changes in food consumption. Here we show by model simulations, that under baseline conditions, Nr pollution in 2050 can be expected to rise to 102-156% of the 2010 value. Only under ambitious mitigation, does pollution possibly decrease to 36-76% of the 2010 value. Air, water and atmospheric Nr pollution go far beyond critical environmental thresholds without mitigation actions. Even under ambitious mitigation, the risk remains that thresholds are exceeded.
|
|
|
|
Bodirsky, B. L., & Müller, C. (2014). Robust relationship between yields and nitrogen inputs indicates three ways to reduce nitrogen pollution. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(11), 111005.
Abstract: Historic increases in agricultural production came at the expense of substantial environmental burden through nitrogen pollution. Lassaletta et al (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 105011) examine the historic relationship of crop yields and nitrogen fertilizer inputs globally and find a simple and robust relationship of declining nitrogen use efficiency with increasing nitrogen inputs. This general relationship helps to understand the dilemma between increased agricultural production and nitrogen pollution and allows identifying pathways towards more sustainable agricultural production and necessary associated policies.
|
|
|
|
Bassu, S., Brisson, N., Durand, J. - L., Boote, K., Lizaso, J., Jones, J. W., et al. (2014). How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors. Glob. Chang. Biol., 20(7), 2301–2320.
Abstract: Potential consequences of climate change on crop production can be studied using mechanistic crop simulation models. While a broad variety of maize simulation models exist, it is not known whether different models diverge on grain yield responses to changes in climatic factors, or whether they agree in their general trends related to phenology, growth, and yield. With the goal of analyzing the sensitivity of simulated yields to changes in temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations [CO2 ], we present the largest maize crop model intercomparison to date, including 23 different models. These models were evaluated for four locations representing a wide range of maize production conditions in the world: Lusignan (France), Ames (USA), Rio Verde (Brazil) and Morogoro (Tanzania). While individual models differed considerably in absolute yield simulation at the four sites, an ensemble of a minimum number of models was able to simulate absolute yields accurately at the four sites even with low data for calibration, thus suggesting that using an ensemble of models has merit. Temperature increase had strong negative influence on modeled yield response of roughly -0.5 Mg ha(-1) per °C. Doubling [CO2 ] from 360 to 720 μmol mol(-1) increased grain yield by 7.5% on average across models and the sites. That would therefore make temperature the main factor altering maize yields at the end of this century. Furthermore, there was a large uncertainty in the yield response to [CO2 ] among models. Model responses to temperature and [CO2 ] did not differ whether models were simulated with low calibration information or, simulated with high level of calibration information.
|
|
|
|
Waha, K., Müller, C., & Rolinski, S. (2013). Separate and combined effects of temperature and precipitation change on maize yields in sub-Saharan Africa for mid- to late-21st century. Global and Planetary Change, 106, 1–12.
Abstract: Maize (Zea mays L) is one of the most important food crops and very common in all parts of sub-Saharan Africa. In 2010 53 million tons of maize were produced in sub-Saharan Africa on about one third of the total harvested cropland area (similar to 33 million ha). Our aim is to identify the limiting agroclimatic variable for maize growth and development in sub-Saharan Africa by analyzing the separated and combined effects of temperature and precipitation. Under changing climate, both climate variables are projected to change severely, and their impacts on crop yields are frequently assessed using process-based crop models. However it is often unclear which agroclimatic variable will have the strongest influence on crop growth and development under climate change and previous studies disagree over this question. We create synthetic climate data in order to study the effect of large changes in the length of the wet season and the amount of precipitation during the wet season both separately and in combination with changes in temperature. The dynamic global vegetation model for managed land LPJmL is used to simulate maize yields under current and future climatic conditions for the two 10-year periods 2056-2065 and 2081-2090 for three climate scenarios for the A1b emission scenario but without considering the beneficial CO2 fertilization effect. The importance of temperature and precipitation effects on maize yields varies spatially and we identify four groups of crop yield changes: regions with strong negative effects resulting from climate change (<-33% yield change), regions with moderate (-33% to -10% yield change) or slight negative effects (-10% to +6% yield change), and regions with positive effects arising from climate change mainly in currently temperature-limited high altitudes (>+6% yield change). In the first three groups temperature increases lead to maize yield reductions of 3 to 20%, with the exception of mountainous and thus cooler regions in South and East Africa. A reduction of the wet season precipitation causes decreases in maize yield of at least 30% and prevails over the effect of increased temperatures in southern parts of Mozambique and Zambia, the Sahel and parts of eastern Africa in the two projection periods. This knowledge about the limiting abiotic stress factor in each region will help to prioritize future research needs in modeling of agricultural systems as well as in drought and heat stress breeding programs and to identify adaption options in agricultural development projects. On the other hand the study enhances the understanding of temperature and water stress effects on crop yields in a global vegetation model in order to identify future research and model development needs. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Müller, C. (2013). African lessons on climate change risks for agriculture. Ann. Rev. Nutr., 33(1), 395–411.
Abstract: Climate change impact assessments on agriculture are subject to large uncertainties, as demonstrated in the present review of recent studies for Africa. There are multiple reasons for differences in projections, including uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions and patterns of climate change; assumptions on future management, aggregation, and spatial extent; and methodological differences. Still, all projections agree that climate change poses a significant risk to African agriculture. Most projections also see the possibility of increasing agricultural production under climate change, especially if suitable adaptation measures are assumed. Climate change is not the only projected pressure on African agriculture, which struggles to meet demand today and may need to feed an additional one billion individuals by 2050. Development strategies are urgently needed, but they will need to consider future climate change and its inherent uncertainties. Science needs to show how existing synergies between climate change adaptation and development can be exploited.
|
|
