| Home | << 1 >> |
|
| Records | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Challinor, A.J.; Müller, C.; Asseng, S.; Deva, C.; Nicklin, K.J.; Wallach, D.; Vanuytrecht, E.; Whitfield, S.; Ramirez-Villegas, J.; Koehler, A.-K. | ||||
| Title | Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2017 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Syst. |
| Volume | 159 | Issue | Pages | 296-306 | |
| Keywords | Crop model; Risk assessment; Climate change impacts; Adaptation; Climate models; Uncertainty | ||||
| Abstract | Highlights • 14 criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk • Working with stakeholders to identify timing of risks is key to risk assessments. • Multiple methods needed to critically assess the use of climate model output • Increasing transparency and inter-comparability needed in risk assessments Abstract Crop models are used for an increasingly broad range of applications, with a commensurate proliferation of methods. Careful framing of research questions and development of targeted and appropriate methods are therefore increasingly important. In conjunction with the other authors in this special issue, we have developed a set of criteria for use of crop models in assessments of impacts, adaptation and risk. Our analysis drew on the other papers in this special issue, and on our experience in the UK Climate Change Risk Assessment 2017 and the MACSUR, AgMIP and ISIMIP projects. The criteria were used to assess how improvements could be made to the framing of climate change risks, and to outline the good practice and new developments that are needed to improve risk assessment. Key areas of good practice include: i. the development, running and documentation of crop models, with attention given to issues of spatial scale and complexity; ii. the methods used to form crop-climate ensembles, which can be based on model skill and/or spread; iii. the methods used to assess adaptation, which need broadening to account for technological development and to reflect the full range options available. The analysis highlights the limitations of focussing only on projections of future impacts and adaptation options using pre-determined time slices. Whilst this long-standing approach may remain an essential component of risk assessments, we identify three further key components: 1. Working with stakeholders to identify the timing of risks. What are the key vulnerabilities of food systems and what does crop-climate modelling tell us about when those systems are at risk? 2. Use of multiple methods that critically assess the use of climate model output and avoid any presumption that analyses should begin and end with gridded output. 3. Increasing transparency and inter-comparability in risk assessments. Whilst studies frequently produce ranges that quantify uncertainty, the assumptions underlying these ranges are not always clear. We suggest that the contingency of results upon assumptions is made explicit via a common uncertainty reporting format; and/or that studies are assessed against a set of criteria, such as those presented in this paper. |
||||
| 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 | CropM | Expedition | Conference | ||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 5175 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Nelson, G.C.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Calvin, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; van Meijl, H.; Müller, C.; Reilly, J.; Robertson, R.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Takahashi, K.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D. | ||||
| Title | Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2014 | Publication | Agricultural Economics | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Econ. |
| Volume | 45 | Issue | 1 | Pages | 85-85 |
| Keywords | climate change impacts; economic models of agriculture; scenarios; system model; demand; cmip5 | ||||
| Abstract | Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty. | ||||
| 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 | 0169-5150 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4796 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Nelson, G.C.; van der Mensbrugghe, D.; Ahammad, H.; Blanc, E.; Calvin, K.; Hasegawa, T.; Havlik, P.; Heyhoe, E.; Kyle, P.; Lotze-Campen, H.; von Lampe, M.; Mason, d’C., Daniel; van Meijl, H.; Müller, C.; Reilly, J.; Robertson, R.; Sands, R.D.; Schmitz, C.; Tabeau, A.; Takahashi, K.; Valin, H.; Willenbockel, D. | ||||
| Title | Agriculture and climate change in global scenarios: why don’t the models agree | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2014 | Publication | Agricultural Economics | Abbreviated Journal | Agric. Econ. |
| Volume | 45 | Issue | 1 | Pages | 85-101 |
| Keywords | climate change impacts; economic models of agriculture; scenarios; system model; demand; CMIP5 | ||||
| Abstract | Agriculture is unique among economic sectors in the nature of impacts from climate change. The production activity that transforms inputs into agricultural outputs involves direct use of weather inputs (temperature, solar radiation available to the plant, and precipitation). Previous studies of the impacts of climate change on agriculture have reported substantial differences in outcomes such as prices, production, and trade arising from differences in model inputs and model specification. This article presents climate change results and underlying determinants from a model comparison exercise with 10 of the leading global economic models that include significant representation of agriculture. By harmonizing key drivers that include climate change effects, differences in model outcomes were reduced. The particular choice of climate change drivers for this comparison activity results in large and negative productivity effects. All models respond with higher prices. Producer behavior differs by model with some emphasizing area response and others yield response. Demand response is least important. The differences reflect both differences in model specification and perspectives on the future. The results from this study highlight the need to more fully compare the deep model parameters, to generate a call for a combination of econometric and validation studies to narrow the degree of uncertainty and variability in these parameters and to move to Monte Carlo type simulations to better map the contours of economic uncertainty. | ||||
| Address | |||||
| 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 | 0169-5150 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, TradeM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4536 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Schönhart, M.; Schauppenlehner, T.; Kuttner, M.; Kirchner, M.; Schmid, E. | ||||
| Title | Climate change impacts on farm production, landscape appearance, and the environment: Policy scenario results from an integrated field-farm-landscape model in Austria | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2016 | Publication | Agricultural Systems | Abbreviated Journal | Agricultural Systems |
| Volume | 145 | Issue | Pages | 39-50 | |
| Keywords | Integrated land use modeling; Climate change impacts; Mitigation; Adaptation; Field-farm-landscape; Environment; agricultural landscapes; land-use; netherlands; adaptation; indicators; management; responses | ||||
| Abstract | Climate change is among the major drivers of agricultural land use change and demands autonomous farm adaptation as well as public mitigation and adaptation policies. In this article, we present an integrated land use model (ILM) mainly combining a bio-physical model and a bio-economic farm model at field, farm and landscape levels. The ILM is applied to a cropland dominated landscape in Austria to analyze impacts of climate change and mitigation and adaptation policy scenarios on farm production as well as on the abiotic environment and biotic environment. Changes in aggregated total farm gross margins from three climate change scenarios for 2040 range between + 1% and + 5% without policy intervention” and compared to a reference situation under the current climate. Changes in aggregated gross margins are even higher if adaptation policies are in place. However, increasing productivity from climate change leads to deteriorating environmental conditions such as declining plant species richness and landscape appearance. It has to be balanced by mitigation and adaptation policies taking into account effects from the considerable spatial heterogeneity such as revealed by the ILM. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. | ||||
| Address | |||||
| 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 | 4767 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||
| Author | Semenov, M.A.; Stratonovitch, P. | ||||
| Title | Designing high-yielding wheat ideotypes for a changing climate | Type | Journal Article | ||
| Year | 2013 | Publication | Food and Energy Security | Abbreviated Journal | Food Energy Secur. |
| Volume | 2 | Issue | 3 | Pages | 185-196 |
| Keywords | Climate change impacts; crop modeling; LARS-WG; Sirius; wheat | ||||
| Abstract | Global warming is characterized by shifts in weather patterns and increases in climatic variability and extreme events. New wheat cultivars will be required for a rapidly changing environment, putting severe pressure on breeders who must select for climate conditions which can only be predicted with a great degree of uncertainty. To assist breeders to identify key wheat traits for improvements under climate change, wheat ideotypes can be designed and tested in silico using a wheat simulation model for a wide range of future climate scenarios predicted by global climate models. A wheat ideotype is represented by a set of cultivar parameters in a model, which could be optimized for best wheat performance under projected climate change. As an example, high-yielding wheat ideotypes were designed at two contrasting European sites for the 2050 (A1B) climate scenario. Simulations showed that wheat yield potential can be substantially increased for new ideotypes compared with current wheat varieties under climate change. The main factors contributing to yield increase were improvement in light conversion efficiency, extended duration of grain filling resulting in a higher harvest index, and optimal phenology. | ||||
| Address | |||||
| 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 | 2048-3694 | ISBN | Medium | Article | |
| Area | Expedition | Conference | |||
| Notes | CropM, ft_macsur | Approved | no | ||
| Call Number | MA @ admin @ | Serial | 4505 | ||
| Permanent link to this record | |||||