| |
Records |
Links |
|
Author |
Zimmermann, A.; Webber, H.; Zhao, G.; Ewert, F.; Kros, J.; Wolf, J.; Britz, W.; de Vries, W. |
|
| |
Title |
Climate change impacts on crop yields, land use and environment in response to crop sowing dates and thermal time requirements |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year  |
2017 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Syst. |
|
| |
Volume |
157 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
81-92 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Integrated assessment; Crop management; Climate change; Europe; INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT; EUROPEAN AGRICULTURE; FOOD SECURITY; HEAT-STRESS; ADAPTATION; SYSTEMS; TEMPERATURE; SCENARIOS; WHEAT; PRODUCTIVITY; Vries W., 2011, ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION, V159, P3254 |
|
| |
Abstract |
Impacts of climate change on European agricultural production, land use and the environment depend on its impact on crop yields. However, many impact studies assume that crop management remains unchanged in future scenarios, while farmers may adapt their sowing dates and cultivar thermal time requirements to minimize yield losses or realize yield gains. The main objective of this study was to investigate the sensitivity of climate change impacts on European crop yields, land use, production and environmental variables to adaptations in crops sowing dates and varieties’ thermal time requirements. A crop, economic and environmental model were coupled in an integrated assessment modelling approach for six important crops, for 27 countries of the European Union (EU27) to assess results of three SRES climate change scenarios to 2050. Crop yields under climate change were simulated considering three different management cases; (i) no change in crop management from baseline conditions (NoAd), (ii) adaptation of sowing date and thermal time requirements to give highest yields to 2050 (Opt) and (iii) a more conservative adaptation of sowing date and thermal time requirements (Act). Averaged across EU27, relative changes in water-limited crop yields due to climate change and increased CO2 varied between -6 and + 21% considering NoAd management, whereas impacts with Opt management varied between + 12 and + 53%, and those under Act management between 2 and + 27%. However, relative yield increases under climate change increased to + 17 and + 51% when technology progress was also considered. Importantly, the sensitivity to crop management assumptions of land use, production and environmental impacts were less pronounced than for crop yields due to the influence of corresponding market, farm resource and land allocation adjustments along the model chain acting via economic optimization of yields. We conclude that assumptions about crop sowing dates and thermal time requirements affect impact variables but to a different extent and generally decreasing for variables affected by economic drivers. |
|
| |
Address |
2017-11-02 |
|
| |
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 |
0308-521x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
article |
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5178 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Weindl, I.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Rolinski, S.; Biewald, A.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Muller, C.; Dietrich, J.P.; Humpenoder, F.; Stevanovic, M.; Schaphoff, S.; Popp, A. |
|
| |
Title |
Livestock production and the water challenge of future food supply: Implications of agricultural management and dietary choices |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions |
Abbreviated Journal |
Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions |
|
| |
Volume |
47 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
121-132 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Livestock; Productivity; Dietary changes; Consumptive water use; Water scarcity; Water resources; Climate-Change Mitigation; Greenhouse-Gas Emissions; Global Vegetation; Model; Land-Use; Comprehensive Assessment; Fresh-Water; Systems; Requirements; Irrigation; Carbon |
|
| |
Abstract |
Human activities use more than half of accessible freshwater, above all for agriculture. Most approaches for reconciling water conservation with feeding a growing population focus on the cropping sector. However, livestock production is pivotal to agricultural resource use, due to its low resource-use efficiency upstream in the food supply chain. Using a global modelling approach, we quantify the current and future contribution of livestock production, under different demand-and supply-side scenarios, to the consumption of “green” precipitation water infiltrated into the soil and “blue” freshWater withdrawn from rivers, lakes and reservoirs. Currently, cropland feed production accounts for 38% of crop water consumption and grazing involves 29% of total agricultural water consumption (9990 km(3) yr(-1)). Our analysis shows that changes in diets and livestock productivity have substantial implications for future consumption of agricultural blue water (19-36% increase compared to current levels) and green water (26-69% increase), but they can, at best, slow down trends of rising water requirements for decades to come. However, moderate productivity reductions in highly intensive livestock systems are possible without aggravating water scarcity. Productivity gains in developing regions decrease total agricultural water consumption, but lead to expansion of irrigated agriculture, due to the shift from grassland/green water to cropland/blue water resources. While the magnitude of the livestock water footprint gives cause for concern, neither dietary choices nor changes in livestock productivity will solve the water challenge of future food supply, unless accompanied by dedicated water protection policies. |
|
| |
Address |
2018-01-08 |
|
| |
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 |
0959-3780 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
LiveM, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5183 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Hoffmann, M.P.; Haakana, M.; Asseng, S.; Höhn, J.G.; Palosuo, T.; Ruiz-Ramos, M.; Fronzek, S.; Ewert, F.; Gaiser, T.; Kassie, B.T.; Paff, K.; Rezaei, E.E.; Rodríguez, A.; Semenov, M.; Srivastava, A.K.; Stratonovitch, P.; Tao, F.; Chen, Y.; Rötter, R.P. |
|
| |
Title |
How does inter-annual variability of attainable yield affect the magnitude of yield gaps for wheat and maize? An analysis at ten sites |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Agricultural Systems |
Abbreviated Journal |
Agric. Syst. |
|
| |
Volume |
159 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
199-208 |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
Highlights • The larger simulated attainable yield for a specific crop season, the larger the yield gap. • Average size of the yield gap is not affected by the inter-annual variability of attainable yield. • Technology levels (resource input and accessibility) determine average yield gap. • To reduce yield gaps in rainfed environments, farmers need to improve season-specific crop management. Abstract Provision of food security in the face of increasing global food demand requires narrowing of the gap between actual farmer’s yield and maximum attainable yield. So far, assessments of yield gaps have focused on average yield over 5–10 years, but yield gaps can vary substantially between crop seasons. In this study we hypothesized that climate-induced inter-annual yield variability and associated risk is a major barrier for farmers to invest, i.e. increase inputs to narrow the yield gap. We evaluated the importance of inter-annual attainable yield variability for the magnitude of the yield gap by utilizing data for wheat and maize at ten sites representing some major food production systems and a large range of climate and soil conditions across the world. Yield gaps were derived from the difference of simulated attainable yields and regional recorded farmer yields for 1981 to 2010. The size of the yield gap did not correlate with the amplitude of attainable yield variability at a site, but was rather associated with the level of available resources such as labor, fertilizer and plant protection inputs. For the sites in Africa, recorded yield reached only 20% of the attainable yield, while for European, Asian and North American sites it was 56–84%. Most sites showed that the higher the attainable yield of a specific season the larger was the yield gap. This significant relationship indicated that farmers were not able to take advantage of favorable seasonal weather conditions. To reduce yield gaps in the different environments, reliable seasonal weather forecasts would be required to allow farmers to manage each seasonal potential, i.e. overcoming season-specific yield limitations. |
|
| |
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 |
0308521x |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
CropM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5185 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Weindl, I.; Popp, A.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Rolinski, S.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Biewald, A.; Humpenoeder, F.; Dietrich, J.P.; Stevanovic, M. |
|
| |
Title |
Livestock and human use of land: Productivity trends and dietary choices as drivers of future land and carbon dynamics |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2017 |
Publication |
Global and Planetary Change |
Abbreviated Journal |
Global And Planetary Change |
|
| |
Volume |
159 |
Issue |
|
Pages |
1-10 |
|
| |
Keywords |
Livestock productivity; Diets; Land use; Deforestation; Carbon emissions; Greenhouse gas mitigation; Greenhouse-Gas Emissions; Climate-Change Mitigation; Food-Demand; Crop; Productivity; Cover Change; Systems; Agriculture; Intensification; Environment; Deforestation |
|
| |
Abstract |
Land use change has been the primary driving force of human alteration of terrestrial ecosystems. With 80% of agricultural land dedicated to livestock production, the sector is an important lever to attenuate land requirements for food production and carbon emissions from land use change. In this study, we quantify impacts of changing human diets and livestock productivity on land dynamics and depletion of carbon stored in vegetation, litter and soils. Across all investigated productivity pathways, lower consumption of livestock products can substantially reduce deforestation (47-55%) and cumulative carbon losses (34-57%). On the supply side, already minor productivity growth in extensive livestock production systems leads to substantial CO2 emission abatement, but the emission saving potential of productivity gains in intensive systems is limited, also involving trade-offs with soil carbon stocks. If accounting for uncertainties related to future trade restrictions, crop yields and pasture productivity, the range of projected carbon savings from changing diets increases to 23-78%. Highest abatement of carbon emissions (63-78%) can be achieved if reduced consumption of animal-based products is combined with sustained investments into productivity increases in plant production. Our analysis emphasizes the importance to integrate demand- and supply-side oriented mitigation strategies and to combine efforts in the crop and livestock sector to enable synergies for climate protection. |
|
| |
Address |
2018-01-25 |
|
| |
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 |
0921-8181 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
LiveM, TradeM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
5188 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
| |
|
| |
|
Author |
Sándor, R.; Ehrhardt, F.; Basso, B.; Bellocchi, G.; Bhatia, A.; Brilli, L.; Migliorati, M.D.A.; Doltra, J.; Dorich, C.; Doro, L.; Fitton, N.; Giacomini, S.J.; Grace, P.; Grant, B.; Harrison, M.T.; Jones, S.; Kirschbaum, M.U.F.; Klumpp, K.; Laville, P.; Léonard, J.; Liebig, M.; Lieffering, M.; Martin, R.; McAuliffe, R.; Meier, E.; Merbold, L.; Moore, A.; Myrgiotis, V.; Newton, P.; Pattey, E.; Recous, S.; Rolinski, S.; Sharp, J.; Massad, R.S.; Smith, P.; Smith, W.; Snow, V.; Wu, L.; Zhang, Q.; Soussana, J.F. |
|
| |
Title |
C and N models Intercomparison – benchmark and ensemble model estimates for grassland production |
Type |
Journal Article |
| |
Year |
2016 |
Publication |
Advances in Animal Biosciences |
Abbreviated Journal |
Advances in Animal Biosciences |
|
| |
Volume |
7 |
Issue |
03 |
Pages |
245-247 |
|
| |
Keywords |
|
|
| |
Abstract |
|
|
| |
Address |
|
|
| |
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 |
2040-4700 |
ISBN |
|
Medium |
|
|
| |
Area |
|
Expedition |
|
Conference |
|
|
| |
Notes |
LiveM, ft_macsur |
Approved |
no |
|
| |
Call Number |
MA @ admin @ |
Serial |
4868 |
|
| Permanent link to this record |
