|
|
Ebrahimi, E., Manschadi, A. M., Neugschwandtner, R. W., Eitzinger, J., Thaler, S., & Kaul, H. - P. (2016). Assessing the impact of climate change on crop management in winter wheat – a case study for Eastern Austria. J. Agric. Sci., 154(07), 1153–1170.
Abstract: Climate change is expected to affect optimum agricultural management practices for autumn-sown wheat, especially those related to sowing date and nitrogen (N) fertilization. To assess the direction and quantity of these changes for an important production region in eastern Austria, the agricultural production systems simulator was parameterized, evaluated and subsequently used to predict yield production and grain protein content under current and future conditions. Besides a baseline climate (BL, 1981–2010), climate change scenarios for the period 2035–65 were derived from three Global Circulation Models (GCMs), namely CGMR, IPCM4 and MPEH5, with two emission scenarios, A1B and B1. Crop management scenarios included a combination of three sowing dates (20 September, 20 October, 20 November) with four N fertilizer application rates (60, 120, 160, 200 kg/ha). Each management scenario was run for 100 years of stochastically generated daily weather data. The model satisfactorily simulated productivity as well as water and N use of autumn- and spring-sown wheat crops grown under different N supply levels in the 2010/11 and 2011/12 experimental seasons. Simulated wheat yields under climate change scenarios varied substantially among the three GCMs. While wheat yields for the CGMR model increased slightly above the BL scenario, under IPCM4 projections they were reduced by 29 and 32% with low or high emissions, respectively. Wheat protein appears to increase with highest increments in the climate scenarios causing the largest reductions in grain yield (IPCM4 and MPEH-A1B). Under future climatic conditions, maximum wheat yields were predicted for early sowing (September 20) with 160 kg N/ha applied at earlier dates than the current practice.
|
|
|
|
Kersebaum, K., Kroes, J., Gobin, A., Takáč, J., Hlavinka, P., Trnka, M., et al. (2016). Assessing uncertainties of water footprints using an ensemble of crop growth models on winter wheat. Water, 8(12), 571.
Abstract: Crop productivity and water consumption form the basis to calculate the water footprint (WF) of a specific crop. Under current climate conditions, calculated evapotranspiration is related to observed crop yields to calculate WF. The assessment of WF under future climate conditions requires the simulation of crop yields adding further uncertainty. To assess the uncertainty of model based assessments of WF, an ensemble of crop models was applied to data from five field experiments across Europe. Only limited data were provided for a rough calibration, which corresponds to a typical situation for regional assessments, where data availability is limited. Up to eight models were applied for wheat. The coefficient of variation for the simulated actual evapotranspiration between models was in the range of 13%–19%, which was higher than the inter-annual variability. Simulated yields showed a higher variability between models in the range of 17%–39%. Models responded differently to elevated CO2 in a FACE (Free-Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment) experiment, especially regarding the reduction of water consumption. The variability of calculated WF between models was in the range of 15%–49%. Yield predictions contributed more to this variance than the estimation of water consumption. Transpiration accounts on average for 51%–68% of the total actual evapotranspiration.
|
|
|
|
Braunmiller, K., & Köchy, M. (2013). Background information on Shared Socioeconomic Pathways for use in MACSUR case studies (Vol. 2).
Abstract: This document is intended to aid in the development of regional Representative Agricultural Pathways in Europe for use in MACSUR case studies, especially the regional pilot studies. We present overviews of existing characterisations of RCPs, SSPs, SPAs, RAPs and more detailed descriptions of the scenarios and assumptions relevant for MACSUR. No Label
|
|
|
|
Kipling, R. P., Saetnan, E. R., Van den Pol-van Dasselaar, A., & Scollan, N. G. (2014). Building modelling capacity for livestock systems: progress in LiveM. FACCE MACSUR Mid-term Scientific Conference, 3(S) Sassari, Italy.
Abstract: MACSUR provides an opportunity to connect disparate research groups and disciplines in livestock and grassland modelling. Within the livestock theme (LiveM) of MACSUR, grassland modelling capabilities have been significantly improved through joint modelling exercises, and grassland modellers have exploited their methodological overlaps with CropM to make important contributions to regional pilot studies. Animal health researchers have been contributing to the southern regional pilot, and modelling resources have been identified for livestock systems at the animal and farm-scales. Here, the priorities for the next steps for livestock and grassland modelling are discussed, and for the role of MACSUR in addressing the challenges facing the sector. While crop and grassland modelling deals with primary production, livestock modelling examines the complexity of secondary production. The unique position of livestock modelling presents challenges and opportunities. The diversity of livestock models (in scale and approach) makes model inter-comparisons and collaborative work challenging, while the range of variables involved in livestock systems provide many opportunities for increasing systemic efficiency and robustness to the impacts of climate change. Closer integration of experimental research and modelling teams also has the potential to increase the capability of livestock and grassland models to predict the impact of European adaptation strategies on livestock farming systems, and on the contribution of these systems to global food security.
|
|
|
|
Sándor, R., Ehrhardt, F., Basso, B., Bellocchi, G., Bhatia, A., Brilli, L., et al. (2016). C and N models Intercomparison – benchmark and ensemble model estimates for grassland production. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 245–247.
|
|
