|
|
Schönhart, M., Schauppenlehner, T., Kuttner, M., & Schmid, E. (2015). Integrated Assessment of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Impacts at Landscape level: Mostviertel, Austria. In FACCE MACSUR Reports (Vol. 6, SPp. 6). Brussels.
Abstract: ConclusionsIncreasing productivity can increase intensification pressuresThreatened permanent (extensive) grasslands and landscape elements, butsubject to resource constraints, costs and prices andfuture production potential to increase global food supplyFuture RDP and environmental policy design (e.g. WFD) should take changing productivity into accountHeterogeneity matters at farm and regional levelChanging relative competitiveness of farmsFuture research: analyze uncertainties No Label
|
|
|
|
Scollan, N., Bannink, A., Kipling, R., Saetnan, E., & Van Middelkoop, J. (2015). Livestock and feed production, especially dairy and beef. In FACCE MACSUR Reports (Vol. 6, pp. Sp6–3). Brussels.
Abstract: Improving health and welfare is an important adaptation and mitigation strategyDeveloping process based modelling, responsive to adaptationLinks to climate and land use change modelling are essential Livestock systems likely to be hit hardest by climate changeNeed to develop animal health models that respond to adaptation by farmersBringing together direct and indirect impacts of climate change vitalAdaptation and mitigation need to be considered and modelled togetherLinking models across scales is important to support policy decisionsLearning between sectors carries potential for novel solutions and methodological advancesEffective communication of outcomes to stakeholders (how?) No Label
|
|
|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R., & Brüser, K. (2015). CropM: Understanding and Modelling Impacts of Climate Change on Crop Production. In FACCE MACSUR Reports (Vol. 6, pp. SP6–2). Brussels.
Abstract: Key ambition:To developa shared comprehensive information system on the impacts of climate change on European crop production and food securityfirst shared pan-continental assessments and tools(Full) range of important crops and important crop rotationsImproved management and analysis of dataModel improvement (stresses and factors not yet accounted for)Advanced scaling methodsAdvanced link to farm and sector modelsComprehensive uncertainty assessment and reportingTo train integrative crop modelerData. for better understanding and modelling climate change impactEvaluation of data quality (platinum, gold, silver)Quantify data gaps for modellingEmpirical analysis of crop responses to past climate variability and changeObserved adaptation options and their efficacyEffect of extreme events (past analysis and projections)Climate change scenariosConcept for data management, data journalUncertaintyMethodology & protocols for uncertainty analysisMethodology for standardized model evaluationLocal-scale climate scenarios & uncertainties in climate projectionsBasic methodology for probabilistic assessment of CC impacts using impact response surfacesMethodology for probabilistic evaluation of alternative adaptation options Main aims in MACSUR2:Improve crop model to better capture extremesComplement knowledge from crop models with empirical crop-weather analysisConsider management variables in simulationsFull range of methods for analysing uncertainty in climate impact assessmentsEvaluate potential adaptation optionsContributing to cross-cutting issues and case studies.Further the links with other modelling activitiesLink local to European and global responses No Label
|
|
|
|
Banse, M. (2015). Climate-change impacts on farming systems in the next decades: Why worry when you have CAP? A FACCE MACSUR workshop for policymakers – Introduction. In FACCE MACSUR Reports (Vol. 6, pp. SP6–1). Brussels.
Abstract: MACSUR’s aims•To analyze the effects of climate change for farming conditions in European regions •To identify risks for farmers, to jointly develop mitigation and adaptation options•To analyze consequences of mitigation and adaptation for farming competitiveness, the environment and rural developmentMACSUR’S mission •improve and integratemodels – crop and livestock production, farms, and national & international agri-food markets•demonstrate integration and links – models for selected farming systems and regions •provide hands-on training- young and experienced researchers in integrative modelingProgramme of the workshop•Presentation of current achievements—Regional Pilots on climate adaptation —EU-level assessments •Intensive discussion with all participants—What are your knowledge needs ?—What can MACSUR-2 contribute ?—How to collaborate ?—Next steps of interaction No Label
|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
