|
|
Bernardoni, E., Acutis, M., & Ventrella, D. (2012). Long-term durum wheat monoculture: modelling and future projection. Ital. J. Agron., 7(1), 13.
|
|
|
|
Ventrella, D., Giglio, L., Charfeddine, M., Lopez, R., Castellini, M., Sollitto, D., et al. (2012). Climate change impact on crop rotations of winter durum wheat and tomato in southern Italy: yield analysis and soil fertility. Ital. J. Agron., 7(1), 15.
Abstract: Cropping systems are affected by climate change because of the strong relationship between crop development, growth, yield, CO2 atmospheric concentration and climate conditions. The increasing temperatures and the reduction of available water resources may result in negative impacts on the agricultural activity in Mediterranean environments than other areas. In this study the CERES-Wheat and CROPGRO-Tomato models were used to assess the effects of climate change on winter wheat (Triticum durum L.) and processing tomato (Lycopersicon aesculentum Mill.) in one of most productive areas of Italy, located in the northern part of the Puglia region. In particular we have compared three different General Circulation Models (HadCM3, CCSM3, ECHAM5) subjected to a statistical downscaling under two future IPCC scenarios (B1 and A2). The analysis was carried out at regional scale repeating the simulations for seven homogeneous area characterizing the spatial variability of the region. In the second part of the study, considering only HadCM3 data set, climate change impact on long-term sequences of the two crops combined in three crop rotations were evaluated in terms of yield performances and soil fertility as indicated by the soil organic content of carbon and nitrogen. The comparison between GCMs showed no significant differences for winter durum wheat yield, while noticeable differences were found for yield and irrigation requirements of tomato. Under future scenarios, the production levels were reduced for tomato, whereas positive yield effects were observed for winter durum wheat. For winter durum wheat the simulation indicated that two- and three-year rotations, including one year of tomato cultivation, improved the cereal yield and this positive effect maintained its validity also in future scenarios. For both crops higher requirements of water and nitrogen were predicted under future scenarios. This result coupled with the decrease of yield caused negative reduction of water use efficiency and nitrogen use efficiency for tomato cultivation.
|
|
|
|
Orsini, F., Alnayef, M., Bona, S., Maggio, A., & Gianquinto, G. (2012). Low stomatal density and reduced transpiration facilitate strawberry adaptation to salinity. Environmental and Experimental Botany, 81, 1–10.
Abstract: Water and soil salinization are major constraints to agricultural productions because plant adaptation to hyperosmotic environments is generally associated to reduced growth and ultimately yield loss. Understanding the physiological/molecular mechanisms that link adaptation and growth is one of the greatest challenges in plant stress research since it would allow us to better define strategies to improve crop salt tolerance. In this study we attempted to establish a functional link between morphological and physiological traits in strawberry in order to identify margins to “uncouple” plant growth and stress adaptation. Two strawberry cultivars, Elsanta and Elsinore, were grown under 0, 10.20 and 40 mM NaCl. Upon salinization Elsanta plants maintained a larger and more functional leaf area compared to Elsinore plants, which were irreversibly damaged at 40 mM NaCl. The tolerance of Elsanta was correlated with a constitutive reduced transpirational flux due to low stomata! density (173 vs. 234 stomata mm(-2) in Elsanta and Elsinore, respectively), which turned out to be critical to pre-adapt plants to the oncoming stress. The reduced transpiration rate of Elsanta (14.7 g H2O plant(-1) h(-1)) respect to Elsinore (17.7 g H2O plant(-1) h(-1)) most likely delayed the accumulation of toxic ions into the leaves, preserved tissues dehydration and consented to adjust more effectively to the hyperosmotic environment. Although we cannot rule out the contribution of other physiological and molecular mechanisms to the relatively higher tolerance of Elsanta, here we demonstrate that low stomatal density may be beneficial for cultivars prescribed to be used in marginal environments in terms of salinity and/or drought. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K. C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., et al. (2012). Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe: A comparison of nine crop models. Field Crops Research, 133, 23–36.
Abstract: In this study, the performance of nine widely used and accessible crop growth simulation models (APES-ACE, CROPSYST, DAISY, DSSAT-CERES, FASSET, HERMES, MONICA, STICS and WOFOST) was compared during 44 growing seasons of spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L) at seven sites in Northern and Central Europe. The aims of this model comparison were to examine how different process-based crop models perform at multiple sites across Europe when applied with minimal information for model calibration of spring barley at field scale, whether individual models perform better than the multi-model mean, and what the uncertainty ranges are in simulated grain yields. The reasons for differences among the models and how results for barley compare to winter wheat are discussed. Regarding yield estimation, best performing based on the root mean square error (RMSE) were models HERMES, MONICA and WOFOST with lowest values of 1124, 1282 and 1325 (kg ha(-1)), respectively. Applying the index of agreement (IA), models WOFOST, DAISY and HERMES scored best having highest values (0.632, 0.631 and 0.585, respectively). Most models systematically underestimated yields, whereby CROPSYST showed the highest deviation as indicated by the mean bias error (MBE) (-1159 kg ha(-1)). While the wide range of simulated yields across all sites and years shows the high uncertainties in model estimates with only restricted calibration, mean predictions from the nine models agreed well with observations. Results of this paper also show that models that were more accurate in predicting phenology were not necessarily the ones better estimating grain yields. Total above-ground biomass estimates often did not follow the patterns of grain yield estimates and, thus, harvest indices were also different. Estimates of soil moisture dynamics varied greatly. In comparison, even though the growing cycle for winter wheat is several months longer than for spring barley, using RMSE and IA as indicators, models performed slightly, but not significantly, better in predicting wheat yields. Errors in reproducing crop phenology were similar, which in conjunction with the shorter growth cycle of barley has higher effects on accuracy in yield prediction. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Rötter, R. P., Höhn, J. G., & Fronzek, S. (2012). Projections of climate change impacts on crop production: A global and a Nordic perspective. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science, 62(4), 166–180.
Abstract: Global climate is changing and food production is very sensitive to weather and climate variations. Global assessments of climate change impacts on food production have been made since the early 1990s, initially with little attention to the uncertainties involved. Although there has been abundant analysis of uncertainties in future greenhouse gas emissions and their impacts on the climate system, uncertainties related to the way climate change projections are scaled down as appropriate for different analyses and in modelling crop responses to climate change, have been neglected. This review paper mainly addresses uncertainties in crop impact modelling and possibilities to reduce them. We specifically aim to (i) show ranges of projected climate change-induced impacts on crop yields, (ii) give recommendations on use of emission scenarios, climate models, regionalization and ensemble crop model simulations for different purposes and (iii) discuss improvements and a few known unknowns’ affecting crop impact projections.
|
|
