|
|
Foskolos, A., & Moorby, J. M. (2016). Lifetime nitrogen use efficiency of dairy cattle: model description and sensitivity analysis. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 256–258.
|
|
|
|
Mas, K., Pardo, G., Galán, E., & del Prado, A. (2016). Assessing dairy farm sustainability using whole-farm modelling and life cycle analysis. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 259–260.
|
|
|
|
Hempel, S., Janke, D., König, M., Menz, C., Englisch, A., Pinto, S., et al. (2016). Integrated modelling to assess optimisation potentials for cattle housing climate. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 261–262.
|
|
|
|
Nguyen, T., Mula, L., Cortignani, R., Seddaiu, G., Dono, G., Virdis, S., et al. (2016). Perceptions of present and future climate change impacts on water availability for agricultural systems in the western Mediterranean region. Water, 8(11), 523 (18 pp).
Abstract: Many Mediterranean countries have experienced water shortages during the last 20 years and future climate change projections foresee further pressure on water resources. This will have significant implications for irrigation water management in agricultural systems in the future. Through qualitative and quantitative empirical research methods carried out on a case study on four Mediterranean farming systems located in Oristano, Italy, we sought to understand the relationship between farmers’ perceptions of climate change (i.e., increased temperature and decreased precipitation) and of present and future water availability for agriculture as forecasted by climatic and crop models. We also explored asymmetries between farmers’ perceptions and present and future climate change and water scenarios as well as factors influencing perceptions. Our hypotheses were that farmers’ perceptions are the main drivers of actual water management practices and that sustainable practices can emerge from learning spaces designed from the understanding of the gaps between perceptions and scientific evidences. Results showed that most farmers perceived that climate change is occurring or will occur in their area. They also perceived that there has been an increased temperature trend, but also increased precipitation. Therefore, they are convinced that they have and will have enough irrigation water for agriculture in the near future, while climate change projections foresee an increasing pressure on water resources in the Mediterranean region. Such results suggest the need for (i) irrigation management policies that take into account farmers’ perceptions in order to promote virtuous behaviors and improve irrigation water use efficiency; (ii) new, well-designed learning spaces to improve the understanding on climate change expectations in the near future in order to support effective adaptive responses at the farm and catchment scales.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
