| Home | << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >> |
|
| Records | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Hamidov, A.; Helming, K.; Bellocchi, G.; Bojar, W.; Dalgaard, T.; Ghaley, B.B.; Hoffmann, C.; Holman, I.; Holzkämper, A.; Krzeminska, D.; Kværnø, S.H.; Lehtonen, H.; Niedrist, G.; Øygarden, L.; Reidsma, P.; Roggero, P.P.; Rusu, T.; Santos, C.; Seddaiu, G.; Skarbøvik, E.; Ventrella, D.; Żarski, J.; Schönhart, M. | ||||
| Title | Impacts of climate change adaptation options on soil functions: A review of European case-studies | Type | Journal Article | ||
Year  |
2018 | Publication | Land Degradation & Development | Abbreviated Journal | Land Degradation & Development |
| Volume | 29 | Issue | 8 | Pages | 2378-2389 |
| Keywords | agricultural adaptation; DPSIR; regional case-studies; soil degradation; Sustainable Development Goals; Agricultural Practices; Ecosystem Services; Land Management; Netherlands; Farm; Environment; Challenges; Catchments; Framework; Nitrogen | ||||
| Abstract | Soils are vital for supporting food security and other ecosystem services. Climate change can affect soil functions both directly and indirectly. Direct effects include temperature, precipitation, and moisture regime changes. Indirect effects include those that are induced by adaptations such as irrigation, crop rotation changes, and tillage practices. Although extensive knowledge is available on the direct effects, an understanding of the indirect effects of agricultural adaptation options is less complete. A review of 20 agricultural adaptation case-studies across Europe was conducted to assess implications to soil threats and soil functions and the link to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The major findings are as follows: (a) adaptation options reflect local conditions; (b) reduced soil erosion threats and increased soil organic carbon are expected, although compaction may increase in some areas; (c) most adaptation options are anticipated to improve the soil functions of food and biomass production, soil organic carbon storage, and storing, filtering, transforming, and recycling capacities, whereas possible implications for soil biodiversity are largely unknown; and (d) the linkage between soil functions and the SDGs implies improvements to SDG 2 (achieving food security and promoting sustainable agriculture) and SDG 13 (taking action on climate change), whereas the relationship to SDG 15 (using terrestrial ecosystems sustainably) is largely unknown. The conclusion is drawn that agricultural adaptation options, even when focused on increasing yields, have the potential to outweigh the negative direct effects of climate change on soil degradation in many European regions. | ||||
| Address | 2018-10-16 | ||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | English | Summary Language | Original Title | ||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | 1085-3278 | ISBN | Medium | ||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | XC, TradeM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5210 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Hutchings, N.J.; Özkan Gülzari, Ş.; de Haan, M.; Sandars, D. | ||||
| Title | How do farm models compare when estimating greenhouse gas emissions from dairy cattle production | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year |
2018 | Publication | Animal | Abbreviated Journal | Animal |
| Volume | 12 | Issue | 10 | Pages | 2171-2180 |
| Keywords | dairy cattle; farm-scale; model; greenhouse gas; Future Climate Scenarios; Systems-Analysis; Milk-Production; Crop; Production; Mitigation; Intensity; Impacts | ||||
| Abstract | The European Union Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR) will require a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030 compared with 2005 from the sectors not included in the European Emissions Trading Scheme, including agriculture. This will require the estimation of current and future emissions from agriculture, including dairy cattle production systems. Using a farm-scale model as part of a Tier 3 method for farm to national scales provides a more holistic and informative approach than IPCC (2006) Tier 2 but requires independent quality control. Comparing the results of using models to simulate a range of scenarios that explore an appropriate range of biophysical and management situations can support this process by providing a framework for placing model results in context. To assess the variation between models and the process of understanding differences, estimates of GHG emissions from four farm-scale models (DailyWise, FarmAC, HolosNor and SFARMMOD) were calculated for eight dairy farming scenarios within a factorial design consisting of two climates (cool/dry and warm/wet) x two soil types (sandy and clayey) x two feeding systems (grass only and grass/maize). The milk yield per cow, follower cow ratio, manure management system, nitrogen (N) fertilisation and land area were standardised for all scenarios in order to associate the differences in the results with the model structure and function. Potential yield and application of available N in fertiliser and manure were specified separately for grass and maize. Significant differences between models were found in GHG emissions at the farm-scale and for most contributory sources, although there was no difference in the ranking of source magnitudes. The farm-scale GHG emissions, averaged over the four models, was 10.6 t carbon dioxide equivalents (CO(2)e)/ha per year, with a range of 1.9 t CO(2)e/ha per year. Even though key production characteristics were specified in the scenarios, there were still significant differences between models in the annual milk production per ha and the amounts of N fertiliser and concentrate feed imported. This was because the models differed in their description of biophysical responses and feedback mechanisms, and in the extent to which management functions were internalised. We conclude that comparing the results of different farm-scale models when applied to a range of scenarios would build confidence in their use in achieving ESR targets, justifying further investment in the development of a wider range of scenarios and software tools. | ||||
| Address | 2019-01-07 | ||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | English | Summary Language | Original Title | ||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | 1751-7311 | ISBN | Medium | ||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | TradeM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5212 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Ruiu, L.M.; Maurizi, S.; Sassu, S.; Seddaiu, G.; Zuin, O.; Blackmore, C.; Roggero, P.P. | ||||
| Title | Re-Staging La Rasgioni: lessons learned from transforming a traditional form of conflict resolution to engage stakeholders in agricultural water governance | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year |
2017 | Publication | Water | Abbreviated Journal | Water |
| Volume | 9 | Issue | 4 | Pages | 297 |
| Keywords | co-researching; dairy farming; ecosystem perception; systemic governance; governance learning; irrigation; knowledge co-production; nitrate pollution; social learning; stakeholders; theatre | ||||
| Abstract | This paper presents an informal process inspired by a public practice of conflict mediation used until a few decades ago in Gallura (NE Sardinia, Italy), named La Rasgioni (The Reason). The aim is twofold: (i) to introduce an innovative method that translates the complexity of water-related conflicts into a “dialogical tool”, aimed at enhancing social learning by adopting theatrical techniques; and (ii) to report the outcomes that emerged from the application of this method in Arborea, the main dairy cattle district and the only nitrate-vulnerable zone in Sardinia, to mediate contrasting positions between local entrepreneurs and representatives of the relevant institutions. We discuss our results in the light of four pillars, adopted as research lenses in the International research Project CADWAGO (Climate Change Adaptation and Water Governance), which consider the specific “social–ecological” components of the Arborea system, climate change adaptability in water governance institutions and organizations, systemic governance (relational) practices, and governance learning. The combination of the four CADWAGO pillars and La Rasgioni created an innovative dialogical space that enabled stakeholders and researchers to collectively identify barriers and opportunities for effective governance practices. Potential wider implications and applications of La Rasgioni process are also discussed in the paper. | ||||
| Address | 2017-04-24 | ||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | Original Title | |||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | 2073-4441 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, LiveM, ft_macsur | Approved | yes | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4944 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Özkan Gülzari, Ş.; Åby, B.A.; Persson, T.; Höglind, M.; Mittenzwei, K. | ||||
| Title | Combining models to estimate the impacts of future climate scenarios on feed supply, greenhouse gas emissions and economic performance on dairy farms in Norway | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year |
2017 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Syst. |
| Volume | 157 | Issue | Pages | 157-169 | |
| Keywords | Climate change; Dairy farming; Dry matter yield; Economics; Greenhouse gas emission; Modelling | ||||
| Abstract | • This study combines crop, livestock and economic models. • Models interaction is through use of relevant input and output variables. • Future climate change will result in increased grass and wheat dry matter yields. • Changes in grass, wheat and milk yields in future reduce farm emissions intensity. • Changes in future dry matter yields and emissions lead to increased profitability. There is a scientific consensus that the future climate change will affect grass and crop dry matter (DM) yields. Such yield changes may entail alterations to farm management practices to fulfill the feed requirements and reduce the farm greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from dairy farms. While a large number of studies have focused on the impacts of projected climate change on a single farm output (e.g. GHG emissions or economic performance), several attempts have been made to combine bio-economic systems models with GHG accounting frameworks. In this study, we aimed to determine the physical impacts of future climate scenarios on grass and wheat DM yields, and demonstrate the effects such changes in future feed supply may have on farm GHG emissions and decision-making processes. For this purpose, we combined four models: BASGRA and CSM-CERES-Wheat models for simulating forage grass DM and wheat DM grain yields respectively; HolosNor for estimating the farm GHG emissions; and JORDMOD for calculating the impacts of changes in the climate and management on land use and farm economics. Four locations, with varying climate and soil conditions were included in the study: south-east Norway, south-west Norway, central Norway and northern Norway. Simulations were carried out for baseline (1961–1990) and future (2046–2065) climate conditions (projections based on two global climate models and the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) A1B GHG emission scenario), and for production conditions with and without a milk quota. The GHG emissions intensities (kilogram carbon dioxide equivalent: kgCO2e emissions per kg fat and protein corrected milk: FPCM) varied between 0.8 kg and 1.23 kg CO2e (kg FPCM)− 1, with the lowest and highest emissions found in central Norway and south-east Norway, respectively. Emission intensities were generally lower under future compared to baseline conditions due mainly to higher future milk yields and to some extent to higher crop yields. The median seasonal above-ground timothy grass yield varied between 11,000 kg and 16,000 kg DM ha− 1 and was higher in all projected future climate conditions than in the baseline. The spring wheat grain DM yields simulated for the same weather conditions within each climate projection varied between 2200 kg and 6800 kg DM ha− 1. Similarly, the farm profitability as expressed by total national land rents varied between 1900 million Norwegian krone (NOK) for median yields under baseline climate conditions up to 3900 million NOK for median yield under future projected climate conditions. |
||||
| Address | |||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | Summary Language | phase 2 | Original Title | ||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | ISBN | Medium | |||
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, LiveM, TradeM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5172 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Yin, X.; Olesen, J.E.; Wang, M.; Kersebaum, K.-C.; Chen, H.; Baby, S.; Öztürk, I.; Chen, F. | ||||
| Title | Adapting maize production to drought in the Northeast Farming Region of China | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year |
2016 | Publication | European Journal of Agronomy | Abbreviated Journal | European Journal of Agronomy |
| Volume | 77 | Issue | Pages | 47-58 | |
| Keywords | Drought; Maize production; Adaptation strategies; Household characteristics; Policy support; The Northeast Farming Region of China; climate change; Jilin province; water-stress; sowing date; yield; risk; tolerance; impacts; corn; agriculture | ||||
| Abstract | Maize (Zea mays L.) is the most prominent crop in the Northeast Farming Region of China (NFR), and drought has been the largest limitation for maize production in this area during recent decades. The question of how to adapt maize production to drought has received great attention from policy makers, researchers and farmers. In order to evaluate the effects of adaptation strategies against drought and examine the influences of policy supports and farmer households’ characteristics on adopting decisions, a large scale household survey was conducted in five representative maize production counties across NFR. Our survey results indicated that using variety diversification, drought resistant varieties and dibbling irrigation are the three major adaptation strategies against drought in spring, and farmers also adopted changes in sowing time, conservation tillage and mulching to cope with drought in spring. About 20% and 18% of households enhanced irrigation against drought in summer and autumn, respectively. Deep loosening tillage and organic fertilizer are also options for farmers to resist drought in summer. Maize yield was highly dependent on soil qualities, with yields on land of high soil quality approximately 1050 kg/ha and 2400 kg/ha higher than for normal and poor soil conditions, respectively. Using variety diversification and drought resistant varieties can respectively increase maize yield by approximately 150 and 220 kg/ha under drought. Conservation tillage increased maize yield by 438–459 kg/ha in drought years. Irrigation improved maize yield by 419–435 kg/ha and 444–463 kg/ha against drought in summer and autumn, respectively. Offering information service, financial and technical support can greatly increase the use of adaptation strategies for farmers to cope with drought. However, only 46% of households received information service, 43% of households received financial support, and 26% of households received technical support against drought from the local government. The maize acreage and the irrigation access are the major factors that influenced farmers’ decisions to apply adaptation strategies to cope with drought in each season, but only 25% of households have access to irrigation. This indicates the need for enhanced public support for farmers to better cope with drought in maize production, particularly through improving access to irrigation. | ||||
| Address | 2016-10-31 | ||||
| Corporate Author | Thesis | ||||
| Publisher | Place of Publication | Editor | |||
| Language | English | Summary Language | Original Title | ||
| Series Editor | Series Title | Abbreviated Series Title | |||
| Series Volume | Series Issue | Edition | |||
| ISSN | 1161-0301 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4825 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||