| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Seddaiu, G.; Iocola, I.; Farina, R.; Orsini, R.; Iezzi, G.; Roggero, P.P. |
|
| |
Title |
Long term effects of tillage practices and N fertilization in rainfed Mediterranean cropping systems: durum wheat, sunflower and maize grain yield |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year  |
2016 |
Publication |
European Journal of Agronomy |
Abbreviated Journal |
European Journal of Agronomy |
|
| |
Volume |
77 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
166-178 |
|
| |
Keywords |
No tillage; Minimum tillage; Silty-clay soil; Yield stability; Recursive partitioning analysis; Rainfed cropping systems; northern Great-Plains; clay loam soil; nitrogen-fertilization; conventional tillage; winter-wheat; growth; quality; rotation; crops; water |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
Address |
2016-07-22 |
|
| |
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 |
4722 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
D’Ottavio, P.; Francioni, M.; Trozzo, L.; Sedic, E.; Budimir, K.; Avanzolini, P.; Trombetta, M.F.; Porqueddu, C.; Santilocchi, R.; Toderi, M. |
|
| |
Title |
Trends and approaches in the analysis of ecosystem services provided by grazing systems: A review |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Grass and Forage Science |
Abbreviated Journal |
Grass Forage Sci. |
|
| |
Volume |
73 |
Issue |
1 |
Pages |
15-25 |
|
| |
Keywords |
climate regulation; food, habitat services; land degradation prevention; moderation of extreme events; natural (landscape) heritage; primary production; regulation of water flows; water quality regulation; Grassland Management; Plant-Communities; Land Degradation; Inner-Mongolia; Trade-Offs; Biodiversity; Provision; Impact; Consequences; Conservation |
|
| |
Abstract |
The ecosystem services (ES) approach is a framework for describing the benefits of nature to human well-being, and this has become a popular instrument for assessment and evaluation of ecosystems and their functions. Grazing lands can provide a wide array of ES that depend on their management practices and intensity. This article reviews the trends and approaches used in the analysis of some relevant ES provided by grazing systems, in line with the framework principles of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). The scientific literature provides reports of many studies on ES in general, but the search here focused on grazing systems, which returned only sixty-two papers. This review of published papers highlights that: (i) in some papers, the concept of ES as defined by the MA is misunderstood (e.g., lack of anthropocentric vision); (ii) 34% of the papers dealt only with one ES, which neglects the need for the multisectoral approach suggested by the MA; (iii) few papers included stakeholder involvement to improve local decision-making processes; (iv) cultural ES have been poorly studied despite being considered the most relevant for local and general stakeholders; and (v) stakeholder awareness of well-being as provided by ES in grazing systems can foster both agri-environmental schemes and the willingness to pay for these services. |
|
| |
Address |
2018-03-02 |
|
| |
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 |
0142-5242 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
Review |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5191 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Graversgaard, M.; Hedelin, B.; Smith, L.; Gertz, F.; Höjberg, A.L.; Langford, J.; Martinez, G.; Mostert, E. |
|
| |
Title |
Opportunities and Barriers for Water Co-Governance – A Critical Analysis of Seven Cases of Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture in Europe, Australia and North America |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2018 |
Publication |
Sustainability |
Abbreviated Journal |
Sustainability |
|
| |
Volume |
10 |
Issue |
5 |
Pages |
1634 |
|
| |
Keywords |
collaborative governance; decentralized decision-making; non-point source pollution; nutrient management; water governance; management; policy; river; eutrophication; phosphorus; resources; nitrogen; hypoxia; quality; options |
|
| |
Abstract |
Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture (DWPA) and its governance has received increased attention as a policy concern across the globe. Mitigation of DWPA is a complex problem that requires a mix of policy instruments and a multi-agency, broad societal response. In this paper, opportunities and barriers for developing co-governance, defined as collaborative societal involvement in the functions of government, and its suitability for mitigation of DWPA are reviewed using seven case studies in Europe (Poland, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands and UK), Australia (Murray-Darling Basin) and North America (State of Minnesota). An analytical framework for assessing opportunities and barriers of co-governance was developed and applied in this review. Results indicated that five key issues constitute both opportunities and barriers, and include: (i) pressure for change; (ii) connected governance structures and allocation of resources and funding; (iii) leadership and establishment of partnerships through capacity building; (iv) use and co-production of knowledge; and (v) time commitment to develop water co-governance. |
|
| |
Address |
2018-07-12 |
|
| |
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 |
2071-1050 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5205 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
