|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Kipling, R. P., Topp, C. F. E., Bannink, A., Bartley, D. J., Blanco-Penedo, I., Cortignani, R., et al. (2019). To what extent is climate change adaptation a novel challenge for agricultural modellers. Env. Model. Softw., 120, Unsp 104492.
Abstract: Modelling is key to adapting agriculture to climate change (CC), facilitating evaluation of the impacts and efficacy of adaptation measures, and the design of optimal strategies. Although there are many challenges to modelling agricultural CC adaptation, it is unclear whether these are novel or, whether adaptation merely adds new motivations to old challenges. Here, qualitative analysis of modellers’ views revealed three categories of challenge: Content, Use, and Capacity. Triangulation of findings with reviews of agricultural modelling and Climate Change Risk Assessment was then used to highlight challenges specific to modelling adaptation. These were refined through literature review, focussing attention on how the progressive nature of CC affects the role and impact of modelling. Specific challenges identified were: Scope of adaptations modelled, Information on future adaptation, Collaboration to tackle novel challenges, Optimisation under progressive change with thresholds, and Responsibility given the sensitivity of future outcomes to initial choices under progressive change.
|
|
|
|
Klein, D., Luderer, G., Kriegler, E., Strefler, J., Bauer, N., Leimbach, M., et al. (2014). The value of bioenergy in low stabilization scenarios: an assessment using REMIND-MAgPIE. Clim. Change, 123(3-4), 705–718.
Abstract: This study investigates the use of bioenergy for achieving stringent climate stabilization targets and it analyzes the economic drivers behind the choice of bioenergy technologies. We apply the integrated assessment framework REMIND-MAgPIE to show that bioenergy, particularly if combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a crucial mitigation option with high deployment levels and high technology value. If CCS is available, bioenergy is exclusively used with CCS. We find that the ability of bioenergy to provide negative emissions gives rise to a strong nexus between biomass prices and carbon prices. Ambitious climate policy could result in bioenergy prices of 70 $/GJ (or even 430 $/GJ if bioenergy potential is limited to 100 EJ/year), which indicates a strong demand for bioenergy. For low stabilization scenarios with BECCS availability, we find that the carbon value of biomass tends to exceed its pure energy value. Therefore, the driving factor behind investments into bioenergy conversion capacities for electricity and hydrogen production are the revenues generated from negative emissions, rather than from energy production. However, in REMIND modern bioenergy is predominantly used to produce low-carbon fuels, since the transport sector has significantly fewer low-carbon alternatives to biofuels than the power sector. Since negative emissions increase the amount of permissible emissions from fossil fuels, given a climate target, bioenergy acts as a complement to fossils rather than a substitute. This makes the short-term and long-term deployment of fossil fuels dependent on the long-term availability of BECCS.
|
|
|
|
Wolf, J., Kanellopoulos, A., Kros, J., Webber, H., Zhao, G., Britz, W., et al. (2015). Combined analysis of climate, technological and price changes on future arable farming systems in Europe. Agricultural Systems, 140, 56–73.
Abstract: In this study, we compare the relative importance of climate change to technological, management, price and policy changes on European arable farming systems. This required linking four models: the SIMPLACE crop growth modelling framework to calculate future yields under climate change for arable crops; the CAPRI model to estimate impacts on global agricultural markets, specifically product prices; the bio-economic farm model FSSIM to calculate the future changes in cropping patterns and farm net income at the farm and regional level; and the environmental model INTEGRATOR to calculate nitrogen (N) uptake and losses to air and water. First, the four linked models were applied to analyse the effect of climate change only or a most likely baseline (i.e. B1) scenario for 2050 as well as for two alternative scenarios with, respectively, strong (i.e. A1-b1) and weak economic growth (B2) for five regions/countries across Europe (i.e. Denmark, Flevoland, Midi Pyrenees, Zachodniopomorsld and Andalucia). These analyses Were repeated but assuming in addition to climate change impacts, also the effects of changes in technology and management on crop yields, the effects of changes in prices and policies in 2050, and the effects of all factors together. The outcomes show that the effects of climate change to 2050 result in higher farm net incomes in the Northern and Northern-Central EU regions, in practically unchanged farm net incomes in the Central and Central-Southern EU regions, and in much lower farm net incomes in Southern EU regions compared to those in the base year. Climate change in combination with improved technology and farm management and/or with price changes towards 2050 results in a higher to much higher farm net incomes. Increases in farm net income for the B1 and A1-b1 scenarios are moderately stronger than those for the B2 scenario, due to the smaller increases in product prices and/or yields for the B2 scenario. Farm labour demand slightly to moderately increases towards 2050 as related to changes in cropping patterns. Changes in N2O emissions and N leaching compared to the base year are mainly caused by changes in total N inputs from the applied fertilizers and animal manure, which in turn are influenced by changes in crop yields and cropping patterns, whereas NH3 emissions are mainly determined by assumed improvements in manure application techniques. N emissions and N leaching strongly increase in Denmark and Zachodniopomorski, slightly decrease to moderately increase in Flevoland and Midi-Pyrenees, and strongly decrease in Andalucia, except for NH3 emissions which zero to moderately decrease in Flevoland and Denmark. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All tights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Reidsma, P., Bakker, M. M., Kanellopoulos, A., Alam, S. J., Paas, W., Kros, J., et al. (2015). Sustainable agricultural development in a rural area in the Netherlands? Assessing impacts of climate and socio-economic change at farm and landscape level. Agricultural Systems, 141, 160–173.
Abstract: Changes in climate, technology, policy and prices affect agricultural and rural development. To evaluate whether this development is sustainable, impacts of these multiple drivers need to be assessed for multiple indicators. In a case study area in the Netherlands, a bio-economic farm model, an agent-based land-use change model, and a regional emission model have been used to simulate rural development under two plausible global change scenarios at both farm and landscape level. Results show that in this area, climate change will have mainly negative economic impacts (dairy gross margin, arable gross margin, economic efficiency, milk production) in the warmer and drier W+ scenario, while impacts are slightly positive in the G scenario with moderate climate change. Dairy farmers are worse off than arable farmers in both scenarios. Conversely, when the W+ scenario is embedded in the socio-economic Global Economy (GE) scenario, changes in technology, prices, and policy are projected to have a positive economic impact, more than offsetting the negative climate impacts. Important is, however, that environmental impacts (global warming, terrestrial and aquatic eutrophication) are largely negative and social impacts (farm size, number of farms, nature area, odour) are mixed. In the G scenario combined with the socio-economic Regional Communities (RC) scenario the average dairy gross margin in particular is negatively affected. Social impacts are similarly mixed as in the GE scenario, while environmental impacts are less severe. Our results suggest that integrated assessments at farm and landscape level can be used to guide decision-makers in spatial planning policies and climate change adaptation. As there will always be trade-offs between economic, social, and environmental impacts stakeholders need to interact and decide upon most important directions for policies. This implies a choice between production and income on the one hand and social and environmental services on the other hand
|
|
