Abstract: The latest Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reforms could bring substantial changes to Scottish farming communities. Two major components of this reform package, an introduction of environmental measures into the Pillar 1 payments and a move away from historical farm payments towards regionalized area payments, would have a significant effect on altering existing support structures for Scottish farmers, as it would for similar farm types elsewhere in Europe where historic payments are used. An optimizing farm-level model was developed to explore how Scottish beef and sheep farms might be affected by the greening and flat rate payments under the current CAP reforms. Nine different types of beef and sheep farms were identified and detailed biophysical and financial farm-level data for these farm types were used to parameterize the model. Results showed that the greening measures of the CAP did not have much impact on net margins of most of the beef and sheep farm businesses, except for ‘Beef Finisher’ farm types where the net margins decreased by 3%. However, all farm types were better off adopting the greening measures than not qualifying for the greening payments through non-compliance with the measures. The move to regionalized farm payments increased the negative financial impact of greening on most of the farms but it was still substantially lower than the financial sacrifice of not adopting greening measures. Results of maximizing farm net margin, under a hypothetical assumption of excluding farm payments, showed that in most of the mixed (sheep and cattle) and beef suckler cattle farms the optimum stock numbers predicted by the model were lower than actual figures on farm. When the regionalized support payments were allocated to each farm, the proportion of the mixed farms that would increase their stock numbers increased whereas this proportion decreased for beef suckler farms and no impact was predicted in sheep farms. Also under the regionalized support payments, improvements in profitability were found in mixed farms and sheep farms. Some of the specialized beef suckler farms also returned a profit when CAP support was added.

Abstract: Ultraviolet (UV) radiation directly regulates a multitude of herbivore life processes, in addition to indirectly affecting insect success via changes in plant chemistry and morphogenesis. Here we looked at plant and insect (aphid and whitefly) exposure to supplemental UV-A radiation in the glasshouse environment and investigated effects on insect population growth. Glasshouse grown peppers and eggplants were grown from seed inside cages covered by novel plastic filters, one transparent and the other opaque to UV-A radiation. At a 10-true leaf stage for peppers (53 days) and 4-true leaf stage for eggplants (34 days), plants were harvested for chemical analysis and infested by aphids and whiteflies, respectively. Clip-cages were used to introduce and monitor the insect fitness and populations of the pests studied. Insect pre-reproductive period, fecundity, fertility and intrinsic rate of natural increase were assessed. Crop growth was monitored weekly for 7 and 12 weeks throughout the crop cycle of peppers and eggplants, respectively. At the end of the insect fitness experiment, plants were harvested (68 days and 18-true leaf stage for peppers, and 104 days and 12-true leaf stage for eggplants) and leaves analysed for secondary metabolites, soluble carbohydrates, amino acids, total proteins and photosynthetic pigments. Our results demonstrate for the first time, that UV-A modulates plant chemistry with implications for insect pests. Both plant species responded directly to UV-A by producing shorter stems but this effect was only significant in pepper whilst UV-A did not affect the leaf area of either species. Importantly, in pepper, the UV-A treated plants contained higher contents of secondary metabolites, leaf soluble carbohydrates, free amino acids and total content of protein. Such changes in tissue chemistry may have indirectly promoted aphid performance. For eggplants, chlorophylls a and b, and carotenoid levels decreased with supplemental UV-A over the entire crop cycle but UV-A exposure did not affect leaf secondary metabolites. However, exposure to supplemental UV-A had a detrimental effect on whitefly development, fecundity and fertility presumably not mediated by plant cues as compounds implied in pest nutrition – proteins and sugars – were unaltered.

Abstract: Agricultural vulnerability to climate change is likely to vary considerably between agro-environmental regions. Exemplified on Austrian cropland, we aim at (i) quantifying climate change impacts on agricultural vulnerability which is approximated by the indicators crop yields and gross margins, (ii) developing robust crop production portfolios for adaptation, and (iii) analyzing the effect of agricultural policies and risk aversion on the choice of crop production portfolios. We have employed a spatially explicit, integrated framework to assess agricultural vulnerability and adaptation. It combines a statistical climate change model for Austria and the period 2010-2040, a crop rotation model, the bio-physical process model EPIC (Environmental Policy Integrated Climate), and a portfolio optimization model. We find that under climate change, crop production portfolios include higher shares of intensive crop management practices, increasing average crop yields by 2-15% and expected gross margins by 3-18%, respectively. The results depend on the choice of adaptation measures and on the level of risk aversion and vary by region. In the semi-arid eastern parts of Austria, average dry matter crop yields are lower but gross margins are higher than in western Austria due to bio-physical and agronomic heterogeneities. An abolishment of decoupled farm payments and a threefold increase in agri-environmental premiums would reduce nitrogen inputs by 23-33%, but also crop yields and gross margins by 18-37%, on average. From a policy perspective, a twofold increase in agri-environmental premiums could effectively reduce the trade-offs between crop production and environmental impacts. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.