|
|
Challinor, A. J., Müller, C., Asseng, S., Deva, C., Nicklin, K. J., Wallach, D., et al. (2017). Improving the use of crop models for risk assessment and climate change adaptation. Agric. Syst., 159, 296–306.
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.
|
|
|
|
Savary, S., Jouanin, C., Félix, I., Gourdain, E., Piraux, F., Brun, F., et al. (2016). Assessing plant health in a network of experiments on hardy winter wheat varieties in France: patterns of disease-climate associations. Eur. J. Plant Pathol., 146, 741–755.
Abstract: A data set generated by a multi-year (2003–2010) and multi-site network of experiments on winter wheat varieties grown at different levels of crop management is analysed in order to assess the importance of climate on the variability of wheat health. Wheat health is represented by the multiple pathosystem involving five components: leaf rust, yellow rust, fusarium head blight, powdery mildew, and septoria tritici blotch. An overall framework of associations between multiple diseases and climate variables is developed. This framework involves disease levels in a binary form (i.e. epidemic vs. non-epidemic) and synthesis variables accounting for climate over spring and early summer. The multiple disease-climate pattern of associations of this framework conforms to disease-specific knowledge of climate effects on the components of the pathosystem. It also concurs with a (climate-based) risk factor approach to wheat diseases. This report emphasizes the value of large scale data in crop health assessment and the usefulness of a risk factor approach for both tactical and strategic decisions for crop health management.
|
|
|
|
Liu, X., Lehtonen, H., Purola, T., Pavlova, Y., Rötter, R., & Palosuo, T. (2016). Dynamic economic modelling of crop rotations with farm management practices under future pest pressure. Agricultural Systems, 144, 65–76.
Abstract: Agricultural practice is facing multiple challenges under volatile commodity markets, inevitable climate change, mounting pest pressure and various other environment-related constraints. The objective of this research is to present a dynamic optimization model of crop rotations and farm management and show its suitability for economic analysis over a 30 year time period. In this model, we include management practices such as fertilization, fungicide treatment and liming, and apply it in a region in Southwestern Finland. Results show that (i) growing pest pressure favours the cultivation of wheat-oats and wheat-oilseeds combinations, while (ii) market prices largely determine the crops in the rotation plan and the specific management practices adopted. The flexibility of our model can also be utilized in evaluating the value of other management options such as new cultivars under different projections of future climate and market conditions.
|
|
|
|
Nguyen, T. P. L., Seddaiu, G., Virdis, S. G. P., Tidore, C., Pasqui, M., & Roggero, P. P. (2016). Perceiving to learn or learning to perceive? Understanding farmers’ perceptions and adaptation to climate uncertainties. Agricultural Systems, 143, 205–216.
Abstract: Perception not only shapes knowledge but knowledge also shapes perception. Humans adapt to the natural world through a process of learning in which they interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment and act accordingly. In this research, we examined how farmers’ decision making is shaped in the context of changing climate. Using empirical data (face-to-face semi-structured interviews and questionnaires) on four Mediterranean farming systems from a case study located in Oristano (Sardinia, Italy) we sought to understand farmers’ perception of climate change and their behaviors in adjustment of farming practices. We found different perceptions among farmer groups were mainly associated with the different socio-cultural and institutional settings and perceived relationships between climate factors and impacts on each farming systems. The research findings on different perceptions among farmer groups can help to understand farmers’ current choices and attitudes of adaptation for supporting the development of appropriate adaptation strategies. In addition, the knowledge of socio-cultural and economic factors that lead to biases in climate perceptions can help to integrate climate communication into adaptation research for making sense of climate impacts and responses at farm level.
|
|
|
|
Kässi, P., Känkänen, H., Niskanen, O., Lehtonen, H., & Höglind, M. (2015). Farm level approach to manage grass yield variation under climate change in Finland and north-western Russia. Biosystems Engineering, 140, 11–22.
Abstract: Cattle feeding in Northern Europe is based on grass silage, but grass growth is highly dependent on weather conditions. If ensuring sufficient silage availability in every situation is prioritised, the lowest expected yield level determines the cultivated area in farmers’ decision-making. One way to manage the variation in grass yield is to increase grass production and silage storage capacity so that they exceed the annual consumption at the farm. The cost of risk management in the current and the projected future climate was calculated taking into account grassland yield and yield variability for three study areas under current and mid-21st century climate conditions. The dataset on simulated future grass yields used as input for the risk management calculations were taken from a previously published simulation study. Strategies investigated included using up to 60% more silage grass area than needed in a year with average grass yields, and storing silage for up to 6 months more than consumed in a year (buffer storage). According to the results, utilising an excess silage grass area of 20% and a silage buffer storage capacity of 6 months were the most economic ways of managing drought risk in both the baseline climate and the projected climate of 2046-2065. It was found that the silage yield risk due to drought is likely to decrease in all studied locations, but the drought risk and costs implied still remain significant. (C) 2015 IAgrE. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
