|
|
Bourgeois, C., Fradj, N. B., & Jayet, P. - A. (2014). How cost-effective is a mixed policy targeting the management of three agricultural N-pollutants. Environmental Modelling & Assessment, 19(5), 389–405.
Abstract: This paper assesses the cost-effectiveness of a mixed policy in attempts to reduce the presence of three nitrogen pollutants: NO (3), N O-2, and NH (3). The policy under study combines a tax on nitrogen input and incentives promoting perennial crops assumed to require low input. We show that the mixed policy improves the cost-effectiveness of regulation with regard to nitrates, whereas no improvement occurs, except for a very low level of subsidy in some cases, for gas pollutants. A quantitative analysis provides an assessment of impacts in terms of land use, farmers’ income, and nitrogen losses throughout France and at river-basin scale.
|
|
|
|
Jayet, P., & Petsakos, A. (2013). Evaluating the efficiency of a uniform N-input tax under different policy scenarios at different scales. Environmental Modelling & Assessment, 18(1), 57–72.
Abstract: Nitrate pollution from agriculture is an important environmental externality, caused by the excessive use of fertilizers. The internalization of this problem, via a tax on mineral nitrogen, could lead to a second best solution, reducing nitrate emissions. Several authors suggest that a reduction in agricultural support could produce similar results. In this paper, we examine the effects of different levels of a uniformly implemented nitrogen tax in France under two policy scenarios, corresponding to post Agenda 2000 and 2003 Luxembourg reforms of European Union ’ s Common Agricultural Policy, in order to reveal the synergies and conflicts between the tax and the policy scenarios in terms of nitrate emissions abatement. The analysis is performed at different geographical scales, from the national to the regional and is based on a bioeconomic approach that involves the coupling of the economic model AROPAj with the crop model STICS. Results show that the efficiency of the N-tax varies according to the geographical scale of the analysis and the type of farming. Furthermore, we prove that a uniform implementation may lead to perverse effects that should always be taken into account when introducing second-best instruments.
|
|
|
|
Ruane, A. C., Hudson, N. I., Asseng, S., Camarrano, D., Ewert, F., Martre, P., et al. (2016). Multi-wheat-model ensemble responses to interannual climate variability. Env. Model. Softw., 81, 86–101.
Abstract: We compare 27 wheat models’ yield responses to interannual climate variability, analyzed at locations in Argentina, Australia, India, and The Netherlands as part of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) Wheat Pilot. Each model simulated 1981-2010 grain yield, and we evaluate results against the interannual variability of growing season temperature, precipitation, and solar radiation. The amount of information used for calibration has only a minor effect on most models’ climate response, and even small multi-model ensembles prove beneficial. Wheat model clusters reveal common characteristics of yield response to climate; however models rarely share the same cluster at all four sites indicating substantial independence. Only a weak relationship (R-2 <= 0.24) was found between the models’ sensitivities to interannual temperature variability and their response to long-term warming, suggesting that additional processes differentiate climate change impacts from observed climate variability analogs and motivating continuing analysis and model development efforts. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
|
|
|
|
Wallach, D., Thorburn, P., Asseng, S., Challinor, A. J., Ewert, F., Jones, J. W., et al. (2016). Estimating model prediction error: Should you treat predictions as fixed or random. Env. Model. Softw., 84, 529–539.
Abstract: Crop models are important tools for impact assessment of climate change, as well as for exploring management options under current climate. It is essential to evaluate the uncertainty associated with predictions of these models. We compare two criteria of prediction error; MSEPfixed, which evaluates mean squared error of prediction for a model with fixed structure, parameters and inputs, and MSEPuncertain(X), which evaluates mean squared error averaged over the distributions of model structure, inputs and parameters. Comparison of model outputs with data can be used to estimate the former. The latter has a squared bias term, which can be estimated using hindcasts, and a model variance term, which can be estimated from a simulation experiment. The separate contributions to MSEPuncertain(X) can be estimated using a random effects ANOVA. It is argued that MSEPuncertain(X) is the more informative uncertainty criterion, because it is specific to each prediction situation.
|
|
|
|
Dumont, B., Basso, B., Bodson, B., Destain, J. - P., & Destain, M. - F. (2016). Assessing and modeling economic and environmental impact of wheat nitrogen management in Belgium. Env. Model. Softw., 79, 184–196.
Abstract: Future progress in wheat yield will rely on identifying genotypes & management practices better adapted to the fluctuating environment Nitrogen (N) fertilization is probably the most important practice impacting crop growth. However, the adverse environmental impacts of inappropriate N management (e.g., lixiviation) must be considered in the decision-making process. A formal decisional algorithm was developed to tactically optimize the economic & environmental N fertilization in wheat. Climatic uncertainty analysis was performed using stochastic weather time-series (LARS-WG). Crop growth was simulated using STICS model. Experiments were conducted to support the algorithm recommendations: winter wheat was sown between 2008 & 2014 in a classic loamy soil of the Hesbaye Region, Belgium (temperate climate). Results indicated that, most of the time, the third N fertilization applied at flag-leaf stage by farmers could be reduced. Environmental decision criterion is most of the time the limiting factor in comparison to the revenues expected by farmers. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
