| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> [11–12] |
|
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.
|
|
Nguyen, T. P. L., Seddaiu, G., & Roggero, P. P. (2019). Declarative or procedural knowledge? Knowledge for enhancing farmers’ mitigation and adaptation behaviour to climate change. Journal of Rural Studies, 67, 46–56.
Abstract: Climate change poses a major challenge for farmers, but agricultural sustainability, mitigation, and adaptation can effectively decrease climate impacts on agricultural systems. Changes in farming practices are necessary to reduce emissions and to adapt to climate change. However, such modifications to common practices depend, to a large extent, on farmers’ knowledge and attitudes towards climate risks. An empirical study of farmers’ attitudes and knowledge of climate change mitigation and adaptation practices is useful to understand how farmers’ knowledge influences their attitudes and practices towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. Based on a case study characterised by four agricultural farming systems (extensive dairy sheep, intensive dairy cattle, horticultural farming, and rice farming) in the Province of Oristano in Italy, this study contains an investigation of (i) farmers’ knowledge of climate change causes and effects, how they construct such knowledge, and how they adapt to the phenomenon; (ii) what and how are farmers’ attitudes towards climate change causes are shaped under their contextual social interests and values; and (iii) if their practices in responding to climate variability are influenced by their constructed knowledge. The research results showed that farmers’ declarative knowledge of climate change did not affect their adaptation practices but directed farmers’ attitudes towards climate change causes. The findings also underscore the necessity of facilitating social learning spaces for enhancing virtuous behaviours towards climate change mitigation and the sharing and co-production of procedural knowledge for developing shared sustainable climate adaptation practices at the farm level.
Keywords: Farming systems; Knowledge; Attitude; Practice; Social construction
|
|
Constantin, J., Raynal, H., Casellas, E., Hoffman, H., Bindi, M., Doro, L., et al. (2019). Management and spatial resolution effects on yield and water balance at regional scale in crop models. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 275, 184–195.
Abstract: Due to the more frequent use of crop models at regional and national scale, the effects of spatial data input resolution have gained increased attention. However, little is known about the influence of variability in crop management on model outputs. A constant and uniform crop management is often considered over the simulated area and period. This study determines the influence of crop management adapted to climatic conditions and input data resolution on regional-scale outputs of crop models. For this purpose, winter wheat and maize were simulated over 30 years with spatially and temporally uniform management or adaptive management for North Rhine-Westphalia ((similar to)34 083 km(2)), Germany. Adaptive management to local climatic conditions was used for 1) sowing date, 2) N fertilization dates, 3) N amounts, and 4) crop cycle length. Therefore, the models were applied with four different management sets for each crop. Input data for climate, soil and management were selected at five resolutions, from 1 x 1 km to 100 x 100 km grid size. Overall, 11 crop models were used to predict regional mean crop yield, actual evapotranspiration, and drainage. Adaptive management had little effect (< 10% difference) on the 30-year mean of the three output variables for most models and did not depend on soil, climate, and management resolution. Nevertheless, the effect was substantial for certain models, up to 31% on yield, 27% on evapotranspiration, and 12% on drainage compared to the uniform management reference. In general, effects were stronger on yield than on evapotranspiration and drainage, which had little sensitivity to changes in management. Scaling effects were generally lower than management effects on yield and evapotranspiration as opposed to drainage. Despite this trend, sensitivity to management and scaling varied greatly among the models. At the annual scale, effects were stronger in certain years, particularly the management effect on yield. These results imply that depending on the model, the representation of management should be carefully chosen, particularly when simulating yields and for predictions on annual scale.
|
|
König, H. J., Helming, K., Seddaiu, G., Kipling, R., Köchy, M., Graversgaard, M., et al. Stakeholder participation in agricultural research: Who should be involved, why, and how?.
Abstract: Research in sustainable agricultural management requires appropriate participatory processes and tools enabling efficient dialogue and cooperation to allow researchers and stakeholders to co-produce knowledge. Research approaches that encourage stakeholder participation are in high demand because they allow a better understanding of human-nature interactions and interdependencies between actors. Participatory approaches also support multiple goals of agricultural management: improved productivity, food security, climate change adaptation, environmental conservation, rural development and policy decision making. Approaches to stakeholder engagement in the field of agricultural management research are manifold. Therefore, selecting the “right” approach depends on the specific purpose and contextualized issues at stake. We analyzed ten stakeholder approaches and propose a new framework with which to identify and select appropriate approaches for stakeholder engagement. The framework consists of three components: whom to engage (i.e., stakeholder type and mandate), why to engage (i.e., research purpose: consult, inform, collaborate), and how to engage (i.e., different methodological approaches). We identified different stakeholder groups (who?): farmers, agricultural actors, land users, and policymakers; different purposes (why?): facilitate engagement process, inform stakeholders, and obtain stakeholder perceptions; and different types of engagement methods (how?): participatory field experiments, desk simulations, interviews, panel discussions and different types of workshops. The framework was applied to arrange these approaches, organize them to improve understanding of their main strengths, weaknesses and supports for identifying and selecting an appropriate approach. We conclude that understanding the different facets of available approaches is crucial for selecting an appropriate stakeholder engagement approach. ;
|
|
Dono, G., Cortignani, R., Giraldo, L., & Roggero, P. P. Climate change and irrigated farming in the Mediterranean: lower expectation of favorable conditions to profitability rather than harshening of adverse conditions.
|