|
|
Sandhu, H., Wratten, S. D., Porter, J. R., Costanza, R., Pretty, J., & Reganold, J. P. (2016). Mainstreaming ecosystem services into future farming solutions. The Solutions Journal, 7(2), 40–47.
Abstract: Agriculture has made remarkable advances in fulfilling the food and nutritional requirement of expanding human numbers worldwide. There are several sustainable farming systems that contribute to overall biodiversity conservation and associated ecosystem services. Yet agricultural practices that have come to predominate since the second half of the 20th century have led to the overuse of fossil fuel-based inputs, unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, and loss of biodiversity. These outcomes also have high costs to human health and the environment. Continuing with largely energy-intense, wasteful, polluting, and unsustainable agriculture is no longer a viable option for future world food security and human well-being. There is an urgent need for forms of agricultural production that improve natural capital and ecosystem services (ES) in food systems worldwide. Mainstreaming ES into future agriculture requires protocols to replace some of the nonrenewable resources (e.g. fossil fuel-based pesticides and fertilizers) with renewable resources (ES such as biological control of insect pests or nitrogen fixation by legumes). The protocols presented here have been tested in different agricultural systems that enable farmland to simultaneously provide food and a range of ecosystem services. Recent research demonstrates that managed systems with these protocols exhibit higher economic value of ecosystem services. Thus, there is need to support the deployment of these protocols through various policy mechanisms for the long-term sustainability of agriculture.
|
|
|
|
Boote, K. J., Porter, C., Jones, J. W., Thorburn, P. J., Kersebaum, K. C., Hoogenboom, G., et al. (2015). Sentinel site data for crop model improvement – definition and characterization. In J. L. Hatfield, & D. Fleisher (Eds.), (Vol. Advances in Agricultural Systems Modeling (7)). Madison, WI: ASA, CSSA, and SSSA.
|
|
|
|
Mendes, L. B., Herrero, M., Havlík, P., Mosnier, A., Balieiro, S. F., Moreira, R. E. M., et al. (2016). Simulation of enteric methane emissions from individual beef cattle in tropical pastures of improving quality: a case study with the model RUMINANT. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 233–234.
|
|
|
|
van der Linden, A., van de Ven, G. W. J., Oosting, S. J., van Ittersum, M. K., & de Boer, I. J. M. (2016). Exploring grass-based beef production under climate change by integration of grass and cattle growth models. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7(03), 224–226.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Overview paper on comprehensive framework for assessment of error and uncertainty in crop model predictions (Vol. 8).
Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. Several ways of quantifying prediction uncertainty have been explored in the literature, but there have been no studies of how the different approaches are related to one another, and how they are related to some overall measure of prediction uncertainty. Here we show that all the different approaches can be related to two different viewpoints about the model; either the model is treated as a fixed predictor with some average error, or the model can be treated as a random variable with uncertainty in one or more of model structure, model inputs and model parameters. We discuss the differences, and show how mean squared error of prediction can be estimated in both cases. The results can be used to put uncertainty estimates into a more general framework and to relate different uncertainty estimates to one another and to overall prediction uncertainty. This should lead to a better understanding of crop model prediction uncertainty and the underlying causes of that uncertainty. This study was published as (Wallach et al. 2016)
|
|
