|
Leogrande, R., Lopedota, O., Vitti, C., Ventrella, D., & Montemurro, F. (2016). Saline water and municipal solid waste compost application on tomato crop: Effects on plant and soil. Journal of Plant Nutrition, 39(4), 491–501.
Abstract: A field experiment was conducted in Southern Italy to evaluate the effects of different water quality and fertilizers on yield performance of tomato crop. In mineral nitrogen (N) fertilizer and irrigation with fresh water (Electrical Conductivity, EC, = 0.9 dS m⁻¹) (FWF); mineral N fertilizer and irrigation with saline water (EC = 6.0 dS m⁻¹) (SWF); municipal solid waste (MSW) compost and irrigation with fresh water (EC = 0.9 dS m⁻¹) (FWC); MSW compost and irrigation with saline water (EC = 6.0 dS m⁻¹) (SWC). At harvest, weight and number of fruits and refractometric index (°Brix) were measured, total and marketable yield and dry matter of fruit were calculated. The results indicated that MSW compost, applied as amendment, could substitute the mineral fertilizer. In fact, in the treatments based on compost application, the tomato average marketable yield increased by 9% compared with treatments with mineral fertilizer. The marketable yield in the SWF and SWC treatments (with an average soil EC in two years to about 3.5 dS m⁻¹) decreased respectively of 20 and 10%, in respect to fresh water treatments. At the end of the experiment, application of compost significantly decreased the sodium absorption rate (SAR) of SWC treatment in respect of SWF (−29.9%). Significant differences were observed among the four treatments both on soil solution cations either exchangeable cations. In particular compost application increased the calcium (Ca) and potassium (K) contents in saturated soil paste respect to the SWF ones (31.4% and 59.5%, respectively). At the same time saturated soil paste sodium (Na) in SWC treatment recorded a decrease of 17.4% compared to SWF.
|
|
|
Bennetzen, E. H., Smith, P., & Porter, J. R. (2016). Agricultural production and greenhouse gas emissions from world regions—The major trends over 40 years. Glob. Environ. Change, 37, 43–55.
Abstract: Since 1970, global agricultural production has more than doubled with agriculture and land-use change now responsible for similar to 1/4 of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Yet, while greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit of agricultural product have been reduced at a global level, trends in world regions have been quantified less thoroughly. The KPI (Kaya-Porter Identity) is a novel framework for analysing trends in agricultural production and land-use change and related GHG emissions. We apply this to assess trends and differences in nine world regions over the period 1970-2007. We use a deconstructed analysis of emissions from the mix of multiple sources, and show how each is changing in terms of absolute emissions on a per area and per produced unit basis, and how the change of emissions from each source contributes to the change in total emissions over time. The doubling of global agricultural production has mainly been delivered by developing and transitional countries, and this has been mirrored by increased GHG emissions. The decoupling of emissions from production shows vast regional differences. Our estimates show that emissions per unit crop (as kg CO2-equivalents per Giga Joule crop product), in Oceania, have been reduced by 94% from 1093 to 69; in Central & South America by 57% from 849 to 362; in sub-Saharan Africa by 27% from 421 to 309, and in Europe by 56% from 86 to 38. Emissions per unit livestock (as kg CO2-eq. GJ(-1) livestock product) have reduced; in sub-Saharan Africa by 24% from 6001 to 4580; in Central & South America by 61% from 3742 to 1448; in Central & Eastern Asia by 82% from 3,205 to 591, and; in North America by 28% from 878 to 632. In general, intensive and industrialised systems show the lowest emissions per unit of agricultural production. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
|
Mínguez, M. I. (2016). Agriculture in Spain and the climate change issue (Vol. 37).
Abstract: Climate change awareness is pushing research and innovation in agriculture. Studies are booming on phenology and heat stress physiology – in parallel with improvement of their simulation in crop models- water use, irrigation requirements and improvement – be it deficit, strategic or precision irrigation-, cereal grain quality, and pest and disease evolution; large international and European research projects are working on these and mapping new areas for cultivation or species/cultivar changes.
|
|
|
Porter, J. R., & Christensen, S. (2013). Deconstructing crop processes and models via identities. Plant Cell and Environment, 36(11), 1919–1925.
Abstract: This paper is part review and part opinion piece; it has three parts of increasing novelty and speculation in approach. The first presents an overview of how some of the major crop simulation models approach the issue of simulating the responses of crops to changing climatic and weather variables, mainly atmospheric CO2 concentration and increased and/or varying temperatures. It illustrates an important principle in models of a single cause having alternative effects and vice versa. The second part suggests some features, mostly missing in current crop models, that need to be included in the future, focussing on extreme events such as high temperature or extreme drought. The final opinion part is speculative but novel. It describes an approach to deconstruct resource use efficiencies into their constituent identities or elements based on the Kaya-Porter identity, each of which can be examined for responses to climate and climatic change. We give no promise that the final part is correct’, but we hope it can be a stimulation to thought, hypothesis and experiment, and perhaps a new modelling approach.
|
|
|
Bellocchi, G., Rivington, M., Matthews, K., & Acutis, M. (2015). Deliberative processes for comprehensive evaluation of agroecological models. A review. Agron. Sust. Developm., 35(2), 589–605.
Abstract: The use of biophysical models in agroecology has increased in the last few decades for two main reasons: the need to formalize empirical knowledge and the need to disseminate model-based decision support for decision makers (such as farmers, advisors, and policy makers). The first has encouraged the development and use of mathematical models to enhance the efficiency of field research through extrapolation beyond the limits of site, season, and management. The second reflects the increasing need (by scientists, managers, and the public) for simulation experimentation to explore options and consequences, for example, future resource use efficiency (i.e., management in sustainable intensification), impacts of and adaptation to climate change, understanding market and policy responses to shocks initiated at a biophysical level under increasing demand, and limited supply capacity. Production concerns thus dominate most model applications, but there is a notable growing emphasis on environmental, economic, and policy dimensions. Identifying effective methods of assessing model quality and performance has become a challenging but vital imperative, considering the variety of factors influencing model outputs. Understanding the requirements of stakeholders, in respect of model use, logically implies the need for their inclusion in model evaluation methods. We reviewed the use of metrics of model evaluation, with a particular emphasis on the involvement of stakeholders to expand horizons beyond conventional structured, numeric analyses. Two major topics are discussed: (1) the importance of deliberative processes for model evaluation, and (2) the role computer-aided techniques may play to integrate deliberative processes into the evaluation of agroecological models. We point out that (i) the evaluation of agroecological models can be improved through stakeholder follow-up, which is a key for the acceptability of model realizations in practice, (ii) model credibility depends not only on the outcomes of well-structured, numerically based evaluation, but also on less tangible factors that may need to be addressed using complementary deliberative processes, (iii) comprehensive evaluation of simulation models can be achieved by integrating the expectations of stakeholders via a weighting system of preferences and perception, (iv) questionnaire-based surveys can help understand the challenges posed by the deliberative process, and (v) a benefit can be obtained if model evaluation is conceived in a decisional perspective and evaluation techniques are developed at the same pace with which the models themselves are created and improved. Scientific knowledge hubs are also recognized as critical pillars to advance good modeling practice in relation to model evaluation (including access to dedicated software tools), an activity which is frequently neglected in the context of time-limited framework programs.
|
|