|
|
Wallach, D. (2015). Developing skills: how to train adaptive modelers. Advances in Animal Biosciences, 6(01), 52–53.
|
|
|
|
Vosough Ahmadi, B., Shrestha, S., Thomson, S. G., Barnes, A. P., & Stott, A. W. (2015). Impacts of greening measures and flat rate regional payments of the Common Agricultural Policy on Scottish beef and sheep farms. J. Agric. Sci., 153(04), 676–688.
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.
|
|
|
|
Humpenöder, F., Popp, A., Dietrich, J. P., Klein, D., Lotze-Campen, H., Bonsch, M., et al. (2014). Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies. Environ. Res. Lett., 9(6), 064029.
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.
|
|
|
|
Gutzler, C., Helming, K., Balla, D., Dannowski, R., Deumlich, D., Glemnitz, M., et al. (2015). Agricultural land use changes – a scenario-based sustainability impact assessment for Brandenburg, Germany. Ecological Indicators, 48, 505–517.
Abstract: Decisions for agricultural management are taken at farm scale. However, such decisions may well impact upon regional sustainability. Two of the likely agricultural management responses to future challenges are extended use of irrigation and increased production of energy crops. The drivers for these are high commodity prices and subsidy policies for renewable energy. However, the impacts of these responses upon regional sustainability are unknown. Thus, we conducted integrated impact assessments for agricultural intensification scenarios in the federal state of Brandenburg, Germany, for 2025. One Irrigation scenario and one Energy scenario were contrasted with the Business As Usual (BAU) scenario. We applied nine indicators to analyze the economic, social and environmental effects at the regional, in this case district scale, which is the smallest administrative unit in Brandenburg. Assessment results were discussed in a stakeholder workshop involving 16 experts from the state government. The simulated area shares of silage maize for fodder and energy were 29%, 37% and 49% for the BAU, Irrigation, and Energy scenarios, respectively. The Energy scenario increased bio-electricity production to 41% of the demand of Brandenburg, and it resulted in CO2 savings of up to 3.5 million tons. However, it resulted in loss of biodiversity, loss of landscape scenery, increased soil erosion risk, and increased area demand for water protection requirements. The Irrigation scenario led to yield increases of 7% (rapeseed), 18% (wheat, sugar beet), and 40% (maize) compared to the BAU scenario. It also reduced the year-to-year yield variability. Water demand for irrigation was found to be in conflict with other water uses for two of the 14 districts. Spatial differentiation of scenario impacts showed that districts with medium to low yield potentials were more affected by negative impacts than districts with high yield potentials. In this first comprehensive sustainability impact assessment of agricultural intensification scenarios at regional level, we showed that a considerable potential for agricultural intensification exists. The intensification is accompanied by adverse environmental and socio-economic impacts. The novelty lies in the multiscale integration of comprehensive, agricultural management simulations with regional level impact assessment, which was achieved with the adequate use of indicators. It provided relevant evidence for policy decision making. Stakeholders appreciated the integrative approach of the assessment, which substantiated ongoing discussions among the government bodies. The assessment approach and the Brandenburg case study may stay exemplary for other regions in the world where similar economic and policy driving forces are likely to lead to agricultural intensification. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
|
|
Castañeda-Vera, A., Leffelaar, P. A., Álvaro-Fuentes, J., Cantero-Martínez, C., & Mínguez, M. I. (2015). Selecting crop models for decision making in wheat insurance. European Journal of Agronomy, 68, 97–116.
Abstract: In crop insurance, the accuracy with which the insurer quantifies the actual risk is highly dependent on the availability on actual yield data. Crop models might be valuable tools to generate data on expected yields for risk assessment when no historical records are available. However, selecting a crop model for a specific objective, location and implementation scale is a difficult task. A look inside the different crop and soil modules to understand how outputs are obtained might facilitate model choice. The objectives of this paper were (i) to assess the usefulness of crop models to be used within a crop insurance analysis and design and (ii) to select the most suitable crop model for drought risk assessment in semi-arid regions in Spain. For that purpose first, a pre-selection of crop models simulating wheat yield under rainfed growing conditions at the field scale was made, and second, four selected models (Aquacrop, CERES-Wheat, CropSyst and WOFOST) were compared in terms of modelling approaches, process descriptions and model outputs. Outputs of the four models for the simulation of winter wheat growth are comparable when water is not limiting, but differences are larger when simulating yields under rainfed conditions. These differences in rainfed yields are mainly related to the dissimilar simulated soil water availability and the assumed linkages with dry matter formation. We concluded that for the simulation of winter wheat growth at field scale in such semi-arid conditions, CERES-Wheat and CropSyst are preferred. WOFOST is a satisfactory compromise between data availability and complexity when detail data on soil is limited. Aquacrop integrates physiological processes in some representative parameters, thus diminishing the number of input parameters, what is seen as an advantage when observed data is scarce. However, the high sensitivity of this model to low water availability limits its use in the region considered. Contrary to the use of ensembles of crop models, we endorse that efforts be concentrated on selecting or rebuilding a model that includes approaches that better describe the agronomic conditions of the regions in which they will be applied. The use of such complex methodologies as crop models is associated with numerous sources of uncertainty, although these models are the best tools available to get insight in these complex agronomic systems. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
|
|
