toggle visibility Search & Display Options

Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print
  Records Links (down)
Author Schmitz, C.; Kreidenweis, U.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Popp, A.; Krause, M.; Dietrich, J.P.; Müller, C. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Agricultural trade and tropical deforestation: interactions and related policy options Type Journal Article
  Year 2014 Publication Regional Environmental Change Abbreviated Journal Reg Environ Change  
  Volume 15 Issue 8 Pages 1757-1772  
  Keywords Land-use change; Trade liberalisation; Tropical deforestation; Forest; protection; Agricultural productivity growth; land-use; brazilian amazon; co2 concentrations; carbon emissions; conservation; climate; mitigation; forests; impact; growth; Environmental Sciences & Ecology  
  Abstract The extensive clearing of tropical forests throughout past decades has been partly assigned to increased trade in agricultural goods. Since further trade liberalisation can be expected, remaining rainforests are likely to face additional threats with negative implications for climate mitigation and the local environment. We apply a spatially explicit economic land-use model coupled to a biophysical vegetation model to examine linkages and associated policies between trade and tropical deforestation in the future. Results indicate that further trade liberalisation leads to an expansion of deforestation in Amazonia due to comparative advantages of agriculture in South America. Globally, between 30 and 60 million ha (5-10 %) of tropical rainforests would be cleared additionally, leading to 20-40 Gt additional emissions by 2050. By applying different forest protection policies, those values could be reduced substantially. Most effective would be the inclusion of avoided deforestation into a global emissions trading scheme. Carbon prices corresponding to the concentration target of 550 ppm would prevent deforestation after 2020. Investing in agricultural productivity reduces pressure on tropical forests without the necessity of direct protection. In general, additional trade-induced demand from developed and emerging countries should be compensated by international efforts to protect natural resources in tropical regions.  
  Address 2016-10-31  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN 1436-3798 1436-378x ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4810  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Kyle, P.; Müller, C.; Calvin, K.; Thomson, A. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Meeting the radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways in a world with agricultural climate impacts Type Journal Article
  Year 2014 Publication Earth’s Future Abbreviated Journal Earth’s Future  
  Volume 2 Issue Pages 83-98  
  Keywords integrated assessment; climate impacts; emissions mitigation; representative concentration pathway; land-use; carbon; stabilization; cmip5  
  Abstract This study assesses how climate impacts on agriculture may change the evolution of the agricultural and energy systems in meeting the end-of-century radiative forcing targets of the representative concentration pathways (RCPs). We build on the recently completed Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISI-MIP) exercise that has produced global gridded estimates of future crop yields for major agricultural crops using climate model projections of the RCPs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5). For this study we use the bias-corrected outputs of the HadGEM2-ES climate model as inputs to the LPJmL crop growth model, and the outputs of LPJmL to modify inputs to the GCAM integrated assessment model. Our results indicate that agricultural climate impacts generally lead to an increase in global cropland, as compared with corresponding emissions scenarios that do not consider climate impacts on agricultural productivity. This is driven mostly by negative impacts on wheat, rice, other grains, and oil crops. Still, including agricultural climate impacts does not significantly increase the costs or change the technological strategies of global, whole-system emissions mitigation. In fact, to meet the most aggressive climate change mitigation target (2.6W/m(2) in 2100), the net mitigation costs are slightly lower when agricultural climate impacts are considered. Key contributing factors to these results are (a) low levels of climate change in the low-forcing scenarios, (b) adaptation to climate impacts simulated in GCAM through inter-regional shifting in the production of agricultural goods, and (c) positive average climate impacts on bioenergy crop yields.  
  Address  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN 2328-4277 ISBN Medium Article  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes CropM, ft_macsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4531  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Hutchings, N.J.; Özkan Gülzari, Ş.; de Haan, M.; Sandars, D. doi  openurl
  Title How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production Type Journal Article
  Year 2018 Publication Animal Abbreviated Journal Animal  
  Volume 12 Issue 10 Pages 2171-2180  
  Keywords dairy cattle; farm-scale; model; greenhouse gas; Future Climate Scenarios; Systems-Analysis; Milk-Production; Crop; Production; Mitigation; Intensity; Impacts  
  Abstract The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools.  
  Address 2019-01-07  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN 1751-7311 ISBN Medium  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes TradeM, ft_macsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 5212  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Weindl, I.; Popp, A.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Rolinski, S.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Biewald, A.; Humpenoeder, F.; Dietrich, J.P.; Stevanovic, M. doi  openurl
  Title Livestock and human use of land: Productivity trends and dietary choices as drivers of future land and carbon dynamics Type Journal Article
  Year 2017 Publication Global and Planetary Change Abbreviated Journal Global And Planetary Change  
  Volume 159 Issue Pages 1-10  
  Keywords Livestock productivity; Diets; Land use; Deforestation; Carbon emissions; Greenhouse gas mitigation; Greenhouse-Gas Emissions; Climate-Change Mitigation; Food-Demand; Crop; Productivity; Cover Change; Systems; Agriculture; Intensification; Environment; Deforestation  
  Abstract Land use change has been the primary driving force of human alteration of terrestrial ecosystems. With 80% of agricultural land dedicated to livestock production, the sector is an important lever to attenuate land requirements for food production and carbon emissions from land use change. In this study, we quantify impacts of changing human diets and livestock productivity on land dynamics and depletion of carbon stored in vegetation, litter and soils. Across all investigated productivity pathways, lower consumption of livestock products can substantially reduce deforestation (47-55%) and cumulative carbon losses (34-57%). On the supply side, already minor productivity growth in extensive livestock production systems leads to substantial CO2 emission abatement, but the emission saving potential of productivity gains in intensive systems is limited, also involving trade-offs with soil carbon stocks. If accounting for uncertainties related to future trade restrictions, crop yields and pasture productivity, the range of projected carbon savings from changing diets increases to 23-78%. Highest abatement of carbon emissions (63-78%) can be achieved if reduced consumption of animal-based products is combined with sustained investments into productivity increases in plant production. Our analysis emphasizes the importance to integrate demand- and supply-side oriented mitigation strategies and to combine efforts in the crop and livestock sector to enable synergies for climate protection.  
  Address 2018-01-25  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN 0921-8181 ISBN Medium  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes LiveM, TradeM, ft_macsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 5188  
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Weindl, I.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Rolinski, S.; Biewald, A.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Muller, C.; Dietrich, J.P.; Humpenoder, F.; Stevanovic, M.; Schaphoff, S.; Popp, A. doi  openurl
  Title Livestock production and the water challenge of future food supply: Implications of agricultural management and dietary choices Type Journal Article
  Year 2017 Publication Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions Abbreviated Journal Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions  
  Volume 47 Issue Pages 121-132  
  Keywords Livestock; Productivity; Dietary changes; Consumptive water use; Water scarcity; Water resources; Climate-Change Mitigation; Greenhouse-Gas Emissions; Global Vegetation; Model; Land-Use; Comprehensive Assessment; Fresh-Water; Systems; Requirements; Irrigation; Carbon  
  Abstract Human activities use more than half of accessible freshwater, above all for agriculture. Most approaches for reconciling water conservation with feeding a growing population focus on the cropping sector. However, livestock production is pivotal to agricultural resource use, due to its low resource-use efficiency upstream in the food supply chain. Using a global modelling approach, we quantify the current and future contribution of livestock production, under different demand-and supply-side scenarios, to the consumption of “green” precipitation water infiltrated into the soil and “blue” freshWater withdrawn from rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Currently, cropland feed production accounts for 38% of crop water consumption and grazing involves 29% of total agricultural water consumption (9990 km(3) yr(-1)). Our analysis shows that changes in diets and livestock productivity have substantial implications for future consumption of agricultural blue water (19-36% increase compared to current levels) and green water (26-69% increase), but they can, at best, slow down trends of rising water requirements for decades to come. However, moderate productivity reductions in highly intensive livestock systems are possible without aggravating water scarcity. Productivity gains in developing regions decrease total agricultural water consumption, but lead to expansion of irrigated agriculture, due to the shift from grassland/green water to cropland/blue water resources. While the magnitude of the livestock water footprint gives cause for concern, neither dietary choices nor changes in livestock productivity will solve the water challenge of future food supply, unless accompanied by dedicated water protection policies.  
  Address 2018-01-08  
  Corporate Author Thesis  
  Publisher Place of Publication Editor  
  Language English Summary Language Original Title  
  Series Editor Series Title Abbreviated Series Title  
  Series Volume Series Issue Edition  
  ISSN 0959-3780 ISBN Medium  
  Area Expedition Conference  
  Notes LiveM, TradeM, ft_macsur Approved no  
  Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 5183  
Permanent link to this record
Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print

Save Citations:
Export Records: