|
|
Challinor, A., Martre, P., Asseng, S., Thornton, P., & Ewert, F. (2014). Making the most of climate impacts ensembles. Nat. Clim. Change, 4(2), 77–80.
Abstract: Increasing use of regionally and globally oriented impacts studies, coordinated across international modelling groups, promises to bring about a new era in climate impacts research. Coordinated cycles of model improvement and projection are needed to make the most of this potential.
|
|
|
|
Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J. W., Hatfield, J. L., Ruane, A. C., et al. (2013). Uncertainty in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change, 3(9), 827–832.
Abstract: Projections of climate change impacts on crop yields are inherently uncertain(1). Uncertainty is often quantified when projecting future greenhouse gas emissions and their influence on climate(2). However, multi-model uncertainty analysis of crop responses to climate change is rare because systematic and objective comparisons among process-based crop simulation models(1,3) are difficult(4). Here we present the largest standardized model intercomparison for climate change impacts so far. We found that individual crop models are able to simulate measured wheat grain yields accurately under a range of environments, particularly if the input information is sufficient. However, simulated climate change impacts vary across models owing to differences in model structures and parameter values. A greater proportion of the uncertainty in climate change impact projections was due to variations among crop models than to variations among downscaled general circulation models. Uncertainties in simulated impacts increased with CO2 concentrations and associated warming. These impact uncertainties can be reduced by improving temperature and CO2 relationships in models and better quantified through use of multi-model ensembles. Less uncertainty in describing how climate change may affect agricultural productivity will aid adaptation strategy development and policymaking.
|
|
|
|
Bodirsky, B. L., Popp, A., Lotze-Campen, H., Dietrich, J. P., Rolinski, S., Weindl, I., et al. (2014). Reactive nitrogen requirements to feed the world in 2050 and potential to mitigate nitrogen pollution. Nat. Comm., 5, 3858.
Abstract: Reactive nitrogen (Nr) is an indispensable nutrient for agricultural production and human alimentation. Simultaneously, agriculture is the largest contributor to Nr pollution, causing severe damages to human health and ecosystem services. The trade-off between food availability and Nr pollution can be attenuated by several key mitigation options, including Nr efficiency improvements in crop and animal production systems, food waste reduction in households and lower consumption of Nr-intensive animal products. However, their quantitative mitigation potential remains unclear, especially under the added pressure of population growth and changes in food consumption. Here we show by model simulations, that under baseline conditions, Nr pollution in 2050 can be expected to rise to 102-156% of the 2010 value. Only under ambitious mitigation, does pollution possibly decrease to 36-76% of the 2010 value. Air, water and atmospheric Nr pollution go far beyond critical environmental thresholds without mitigation actions. Even under ambitious mitigation, the risk remains that thresholds are exceeded.
|
|
|
|
Gobin, A., Kersebaum, K., Eitzinger, J., Trnka, M., Hlavinka, P., Takáč, J., et al. (2017). Variability in the Water Footprint of Arable Crop Production across European Regions. Water, 9(2), 93.
Abstract: Crop growth and yield are affected by water use during the season: the green water footprint (WF) accounts for rain water, the blue WF for irrigation and the grey WF for diluting agri-chemicals. We calibrated crop yield for FAO’s water balance model “Aquacrop” at field level. We collected weather, soil and crop inputs for 45 locations for the period 1992–2012. Calibrated model runs were conducted for wheat, barley, grain maize, oilseed rape, potato and sugar beet. The WF of cereals could be up to 20 times larger than the WF of tuber and root crops; the largest share was attributed to the green WF. The green and blue WF compared favourably with global benchmark values (R² = 0.64–0.80; d = 0.91–0.95). The variability in the WF of arable crops across different regions in Europe is mainly due to variability in crop yield (c̅v̅ = 45%) and to a lesser extent to variability in crop water use (c̅v̅ = 21%). The WF variability between countries (c̅v̅ = 14%) is lower than the variability between seasons (c̅v̅ = 22%) and between crops (c̅v̅ = 46%). Though modelled yields increased up to 50% under sprinkler irrigation, the water footprint still increased between 1% and 25%. Confronted with drainage and runoff, the grey WF tended to overestimate the contribution of nitrogen to the surface and groundwater. The results showed that the water footprint provides a measurable indicator that may support European water governance.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
