|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Tao, F., Roetter, R. P., Palosuo, T., Diaz-Ambrona, C. G. H., Ines Minguez, M., Semenov, M. A., et al. (2017). Designing future barley ideotypes using a crop model ensemble. Europ. J. Agron., 82, 144–162.
Abstract: Climate change and its associated higher frequency and severity of adverse weather events require genotypic adaptation. Process-based ecophysiological modelling offers a powerful means to better target and accelerate development of new crop cultivars. Barley (Hordeum vulgare L) is an important crop throughout the world, and a good model for study of the genetics of stress adaptation because many quantitative trait loci and candidate genes for biotic and abiotic stress tolerance have been identified in it. Here, we developed a new approach to design future crop ideotypes using an ensemble of eight barley simulation models (i.e. APSIM, CropSyst, HERMES, MCWLA, MONICA, SIMPLACE, Sirius Quality, and WOFOST), and applied it to design climate-resilient barley ideotypes for Boreal and Mediterranean climatic zones in Europe. The results showed that specific barley genotypes, represented by sets of cultivar parameters in the crop models, could be promising under future climate change conditions, resulting in increased yields and low inter-annual yield variability. In contrast, other genotypes could result in substantial yield declines. The most favorable climate-zone-specific barley ideotypes were further proposed, having combinations of several key genetic traits in terms of phenology, leaf growth, photosynthesis, drought tolerance, and grain formation. For both Boreal and Mediterranean climatic zones, barley ideotypes under future climatic conditions should have a longer reproductive growing period, lower leaf senescence rate, larger radiation use efficiency or maximum assimilation rate, and higher drought tolerance. Such characteristics can produce substantial positive impacts on yields under contrasting conditions. Moreover, barley ideotypes should have a low photoperiod and high vernalization sensitivity for the Boreal climatic zone; for the Mediterranean, in contrast, it should have a low photoperiod and low vernalization sensitivity. The drought-tolerance trait is more beneficial for the Mediterranean than for the Boreal climatic zone. Our study demonstrates a sound approach to design future barley ideotypes based on an ensemble of well-tested, diverse crop models and on integration of knowledge from multiple disciplines. The robustness of model-aided ideotypes design can be further enhanced by continuously improving crop models and enhancing information exchange between modellers, agro-meteorologists, geneticists, physiologists, and plant breeders. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Ventrella, D., Stellacci, A. M., Castrignanò, A., Charfeddine, M., & Castellini, M. (2016). Effects of crop residue management on winter durum wheat productivity in a long term experiment in Southern Italy. European Journal of Agronomy, 77, 188–198.
Abstract: A long-term experiment comparing different crop residue (CR) managements was established in 1977 in Foggia (Apulia region, southern Italy). The objective of this study was to investigate the long-term effects of different types of crop residue management on main yield response parameters in a continuous cropping system of winter durum wheat. In order to correctly interpret the results, models accounting for spatial error autocorrelation were used and compared with ordinary least square models. Eight crop residue management treatments, based on burning of wheat straw and stubble or their incorporation with or without N fertilization and irrigation, were compared. The experimental design was a complete randomized block with five replicates. Results indicated that the dynamics of yield, grain protein content and hectolitric weight of winter durum wheat did not show any decline as usually expected when a monoculture is carried out for a long time. In addition, the temporal variability of productivity was more affected by meteorological factors, such as air temperature and rainfall, than CR management treatments. Higher wheat grain yields and hectolitric weights quite frequently occurred after burning of wheat straw compared with straw incorporation without nitrogen fertilization and autumn irrigation and this was attributed to temporary mineral N immobilization in the soil. The rate of 50 kg ha(-1) of N seemed to counterbalance this negative effect when good condition of soil moisture occurred in the autumn period, so yielding the same productive level of straw burning treatment. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
|
Seddaiu, G., Iocola, I., Farina, R., Orsini, R., Iezzi, G., & Roggero, P. P. (2016). Long term effects of tillage practices and N fertilization in rainfed Mediterranean cropping systems: durum wheat, sunflower and maize grain yield. European Journal of Agronomy, 77, 166–178.
Abstract: Long term investigations on the combined effects of tillage systems and other agronomic practices such as mineral N fertilization under Mediterranean conditions on durum wheat are very scanty and findings are often contradictory. Moreover, no studies are available on the long term effect of the adoption of conservation tillage on grain yield of maize and sunflower grown in rotation with durum wheat under rainfed Mediterranean conditions. This paper reports the results of a 20-years experiment on a durum wheat-sunflower (7 years) and durum wheat–maize (13 years) two-year rotation, whose main objective was to quantify the long term effects of different tillage practices (CT = conventional tillage; MT = minimum tillage; NT = no tillage) combined with different nitrogen fertilizer rates (N0, N1, N2 corresponding to 0, 45 and 90 kg N ha−1 for sunflower, and 0, 90 and 180 kg N ha−1 for wheat and maize) on grain yield, yield components and yield stability for the three crops. In addition, the influence of meteorological factors on the interannual variability of studied variables was also assessed. For durum wheat, NT did not allow substantial yield benefits leading to comparable yields with respect to CT in ten out of twenty years. For both sunflower and maize, NT under rainfed conditions was not a viable options, because of the unsuitable (i.e., too wet) soil conditions of the clayish soil at sowing. Both spring crops performed well with MT. No significant N × tillage interaction was found for the three crops. As expected, the response of durum wheat and maize grain yield to N was remarkable, while sunflower grain yield was not significantly influenced by N rate. Wheat yield was constrained by high temperatures in January during tillering and drought in April during heading. The interannual yield variability of sunflower was mainly associated to soil water deficit at flowering and air temperature during seed filling. Heavy rains during this latter phase strongly constrained sunflower grain yield. Maize grain yield was negatively affected by high temperatures in June and drought in July, this latter factor was particularly important in the fertilized maize. Considering both yield and yield stability, durum wheat and sunflower performed better under MT and N1 while maize performed better under both CT and MT and with N2 rates. The results of this long term study are suitable for supporting policies on sustainable Mediterranean rainfed cropping systems and also for cropping system modelling.
|
|
|
|
Castañeda-Vera, A., Leffelaar, P. A., Álvaro-Fuentes, J., Cantero-Martínez, C., & Mínguez, M. I. (2015). Selecting crop models for decision making in wheat insurance. European Journal of Agronomy, 68, 97–116.
Abstract: In crop insurance, the accuracy with which the insurer quantifies the actual risk is highly dependent on the availability on actual yield data. Crop models might be valuable tools to generate data on expected yields for risk assessment when no historical records are available. However, selecting a crop model for a specific objective, location and implementation scale is a difficult task. A look inside the different crop and soil modules to understand how outputs are obtained might facilitate model choice. The objectives of this paper were (i) to assess the usefulness of crop models to be used within a crop insurance analysis and design and (ii) to select the most suitable crop model for drought risk assessment in semi-arid regions in Spain. For that purpose first, a pre-selection of crop models simulating wheat yield under rainfed growing conditions at the field scale was made, and second, four selected models (Aquacrop, CERES-Wheat, CropSyst and WOFOST) were compared in terms of modelling approaches, process descriptions and model outputs. Outputs of the four models for the simulation of winter wheat growth are comparable when water is not limiting, but differences are larger when simulating yields under rainfed conditions. These differences in rainfed yields are mainly related to the dissimilar simulated soil water availability and the assumed linkages with dry matter formation. We concluded that for the simulation of winter wheat growth at field scale in such semi-arid conditions, CERES-Wheat and CropSyst are preferred. WOFOST is a satisfactory compromise between data availability and complexity when detail data on soil is limited. Aquacrop integrates physiological processes in some representative parameters, thus diminishing the number of input parameters, what is seen as an advantage when observed data is scarce. However, the high sensitivity of this model to low water availability limits its use in the region considered. Contrary to the use of ensembles of crop models, we endorse that efforts be concentrated on selecting or rebuilding a model that includes approaches that better describe the agronomic conditions of the regions in which they will be applied. The use of such complex methodologies as crop models is associated with numerous sources of uncertainty, although these models are the best tools available to get insight in these complex agronomic systems. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
