|   | 
Details
   web
Records
Author Humpenöder, F.; Popp, A.; Dietrich, J.P.; Klein, D.; Lotze-Campen, H.; Bonsch, M.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Weindl, I.; Stevanovic, M.; Müller, C.
Title Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies Type Journal Article
Year 2014 Publication Environmental Research Letters Abbreviated Journal Environ. Res. Lett.
Volume 9 Issue 6 Pages (down) 064029
Keywords climate change mitigation; afforestation; bioenergy; carbon capture and storage; land-use modeling; land-based mitigation; carbon sequestration; land-use change; crop productivity; carbon capture; energy; storage; model; food; conservation; agriculture; scenarios
Abstract The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2 emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2 emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600-700 GtCO(2)), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO(2)) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial.
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 1748-9326 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, TradeM Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4627
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Siebert, S.; Webber, H.; Zhao, G.; Ewert, F.; Siebert, S.; Webber, H.; Zhao, G.; Ewert, F.
Title Heat stress is overestimated in climate impact studies for irrigated agriculture Type Journal Article
Year 2017 Publication Environmental Research Letters Abbreviated Journal Environ. Res. Lett.
Volume 12 Issue 5 Pages (down) 054023
Keywords heat stress; climate change impact assessment; irrigation; canopy temperature; CANOPY TEMPERATURE; WINTER-WHEAT; WATER-STRESS; CROP YIELDS; GROWTH; MAIZE; DROUGHT; UNCERTAINTY; ENVIRONMENT; PHENOLOGY
Abstract Climate change will increase the number and severity of heat waves, and is expected to negatively affect crop yields. Here we show for wheat and maize across Europe that heat stress is considerably reduced by irrigation due to surface cooling for both current and projected future climate. We demonstrate that crop heat stress impact assessments should be based on canopy temperature because simulations with air temperatures measured at standard weather stations cannot reproduce differences in crop heat stress between irrigated and rainfed conditions. Crop heat stress was overestimated on irrigated land when air temperature was used with errors becoming larger with projected climate change. Corresponding errors in mean crop yield calculated across Europe for baseline climate 1984-2013 of 0.2 Mg yr(-1) (2%) and 0.6 Mg yr(-1) (5%) for irrigated winter wheat and irrigated grain maize, respectively, would increase to up to 1.5 Mg yr (1) (16%) for irrigated winter wheat and 4.1 Mg yr (1) (39%) for irrigated grain maize, depending on the climate change projection/GCM combination considered. We conclude that climate change impact assessments for crop heat stress need to account explicitly for the impact of irrigation.
Address 2017-06-22
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 1748-9326 ISBN Medium
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 5035
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Reidsma, P.; Wolf, J.; Kanellopoulos, A.; Schaap, B.F.; Mandryk, M.; Verhagen, J.; van Ittersum, M.K.
Title Climate change impact and adaptation research requires integrated assessment and farming systems analysis: a case study in the Netherlands Type Journal Article
Year 2015 Publication Environmental Research Letters Abbreviated Journal Environ. Res. Lett.
Volume 10 Issue 4 Pages (down) 045004
Keywords climate change adaptation; scenario; farm diversity; crop simulation; bio-economic farm modelling; european-union; crop yields; agriculture; responses; models; wheat; variability; improvement; strategies; scenarios
Abstract Rather than on crop modelling only, climate change impact assessments in agriculture need to be based on integrated assessment and farming systems analysis, and account for adaptation at different levels. With a case study for Flevoland, the Netherlands, we illustrate that (1) crop models cannot account for all relevant climate change impacts and adaptation options, and (2) changes in technology, policy and prices have had and are likely to have larger impacts on farms than climate change. While crop modelling indicates positive impacts of climate change on yields of major crops in 2050, a semiquantitative and participatory method assessing impacts of extreme events shows that there are nevertheless several climate risks. A range of adaptation measures are, however, available to reduce possible negative effects at crop level. In addition, at farm level farmers can change cropping patterns, and adjust inputs and outputs. Also farm structural change will influence impacts and adaptation. While the 5th IPCC report is more negative regarding impacts of climate change on agriculture compared to the previous report, also for temperate regions, our results show that when putting climate change in context of other drivers, and when explicitly accounting for adaptation at crop and farm level, impacts may be less negative in some regions and opportunities are revealed. These results refer to a temperate region, but an integrated assessment may also change perspectives on climate change for other parts of the world.
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 1748-9326 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4800
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Reidsma, P.; Wolf, J.; Kanellopoulos, A.; Schaap, B.F.; Mandryk, M.; Verhagen, J.; van Ittersum, M.K.
Title Climate change impact and adaptation research requires integrated assessment and farming systems analysis: a case study in the Netherlands Type Journal Article
Year 2015 Publication Environmental Research Letters Abbreviated Journal Environ. Res. Lett.
Volume 10 Issue 4 Pages (down) 045004
Keywords climate change adaptation; scenario; farm diversity; crop simulation; bio-economic farm modelling; european-union; crop yields; agriculture; responses; models; wheat; variability; improvement; strategies; scenarios
Abstract Rather than on crop modelling only, climate change impact assessments in agriculture need to be based on integrated assessment and farming systems analysis, and account for adaptation at different levels. With a case study for Flevoland, the Netherlands, we illustrate that (1) crop models cannot account for all relevant climate change impacts and adaptation options, and (2) changes in technology, policy and prices have had and are likely to have larger impacts on farms than climate change. While crop modelling indicates positive impacts of climate change on yields of major crops in 2050, a semi-quantitative and participatory method assessing impacts of extreme events shows that there are nevertheless several climate risks. A range of adaptation measures are, however, available to reduce possible negative effects at crop level. In addition, at farm level farmers can change cropping patterns, and adjust inputs and outputs. Also farm structural change will influence impacts and adaptation. While the 5th IPCC report is more negative regarding impacts of climate change on agriculture compared to the previous report, also for temperate regions, our results show that when putting climate change in context of other drivers, and when explicitly accounting for adaptation at crop and farm level, impacts may be less negative in some regions and opportunities are revealed. These results refer to a temperate region, but an integrated assessment may also change perspectives on climate change for other parts of the world.
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 1748-9326 ISBN Medium Article
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, ftnotmacsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 4649
Permanent link to this record
 

 
Author Faye, B.; Webber, H.; Naab, J.B.; MacCarthy, D.S.; Adam, M.; Ewert, F.; Lamers, J.P.A.; Schleussner, C.-F.; Ruane, A.; Gessner, U.; Hoogenboom, G.; Boote, K.; Shelia, V.; Saeed, F.; Wisser, D.; Hadir, S.; Laux, P.; Gaiser, T.
Title Impacts of 1.5 versus 2.0 degrees C on cereal yields in the West African Sudan Savanna Type Journal Article
Year 2018 Publication Environmental Research Letters Abbreviated Journal Environ. Res. Lett.
Volume 13 Issue 3 Pages (down) 034014
Keywords 1.5 degrees C; West Africa; food security; climate change; DSSAT; SIMPLACE; Climate-Change Impacts; Sub-Saharan Africa; Food Security; Heat-Stress; Canopy Temperature; Paris Agreement; Pearl-Millet; Maize Yield; Crop; Yields; Model; MACSUR or FACCE acknowledged.
Abstract To reduce the risks of climate change, governments agreed in the Paris Agreement to limit global temperature rise to less than 2.0 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, with the ambition to keep warming to 1.5 degrees C. Charting appropriate mitigation responses requires information on the costs of mitigating versus associated damages for the two levels of warming. In this assessment, a critical consideration is the impact on crop yields and yield variability in regions currently challenged by food insecurity. The current study assessed impacts of 1.5 degrees C versus 2.0 degrees C on yields of maize, pearl millet and sorghum in the West African Sudan Savanna using two crop models that were calibrated with common varieties from experiments in the region with management reflecting a range of typical sowing windows. As sustainable intensification is promoted in the region for improving food security, simulations were conducted for both current fertilizer use and for an intensification case (fertility not limiting). With current fertilizer use, results indicated 2% units higher losses for maize and sorghum with 2.0 degrees C compared to 1.5 degrees C warming, with no change in millet yields for either scenario. In the intensification case, yield losses due to climate change were larger than with current fertilizer levels. However, despite the larger losses, yields were always two to three times higher with intensification, irrespective of the warming scenario. Though yield variability increased with intensification, there was no interaction with warming scenario. Risk and market analysis are needed to extend these results to understand implications for food security.
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 1748-9326 ISBN Medium
Area Expedition Conference
Notes CropM, ft_macsur Approved no
Call Number MA @ admin @ Serial 5196
Permanent link to this record