|
|
Kebreab, E., Tedeschi, L., Dijkstra, J., Ellis, J. L., Bannink, A., & France, J. (2016). Modeling Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Enteric Fermentation. In E. Kebreab (Ed.), Advances in Agricultural Systems (Vol. 6, pp. 173–196). Synthesis and Modeling of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Carbon Storage in Agricultural and Forest Systems to Guide Mitigation and Adaptation, Advances in Agricultural Systems (6).
Abstract: Livestock directly contribute to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions mainly through methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions. For cost and practicality reasons, quantification of GHG has been through development of various types of mathematical models. This chapter addresses the utility and limitations of mathematical models used to estimate enteric CH4 emissions from livestock production. Models used in GHG quantification can be broadly classified into either empirical or mechanistic models. Empirical models might be easier to use because they require fewer input variables compared with mechanistic models. However, their applicability in assessing mitigation options such as dietary manipulation may be limited. The major driving variables identified for both types of models include feed intake, lipid and nonstructural carbohydrate content of the feed, and animal variables. Knowledge gaps identified in empirical modeling were that some of the assumptions might not be valid because of geographical location, health status of animals, genetic differences, or production type. In mechanistic modeling, errors related to estimating feed intake, stoichiometry of volatile fatty acid (VFA) production, and acidity of rumen contents are limitations that need further investigation. Model prediction uncertainty was also investigated, and, depending on the intensity and source of the prediction uncertainty, the mathematical model may inaccurately predict the observed values with more or less variability. In conclusion, although there are quantification tools available, global collaboration is required to come to a consensus on quantification protocols. This can be achieved through developing various types of models specific to region, animal, and production type using large global datasets developed through international collaboration.
|
|
|
|
Mittenzwei, K., Persson, T., Höglind, M., & Kværnø, S. (2017). Combined effects of climate change and policy uncertainty on the agricultural sector in Norway. Agric. Syst., 153, 118–126.
Abstract: Highlights • A framework to study climate and policy uncertainty in agriculture is presented. • Combining both sources of uncertainty has ambiguous effects on agriculture. • Uncertainty needs to be highlighted in modelling tools for policy analysis. Abstract Farmers are exposed to climate change and uncertainty about how that change will develop. As farm incomes, in Norway and elsewhere, greatly depend on government subsidies, the risk of a policy change constitutes an additional uncertainty source. Hence, climate and policy uncertainty could substantially impact agricultural production and farm income. However, these sources of uncertainty have, so far, rarely been combined in food production analyses. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of a combination of policy and climate uncertainty on agricultural production, land use, and social welfare in Norway. Output yield distributions of spring wheat and timothy, a major forage grass, from simulations with the weather-driven crop models, CSM-CERES-Wheat and, LINGRA, were processed in the a stochastic version Jordmod, a price-endogenous spatial economic sector model of the Norwegian agriculture. To account for potential effects of climate uncertainty within a given future greenhouse gas emission scenario on farm profitability, effects on conditions that represented the projected climate for 2050 under the emission scenario A1B from the 4th assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and four Global Climate Models (GCM) was investigated. The uncertainty about the level of payment rates at the time farmers make their management decisions was handled by varying the distribution of payment rates applied in the Jordmod model. These changes were based on the change in the overall level of agricultural support in the past. Three uncertainty scenarios were developed and tested: one with climate change uncertainty, another with payment rate uncertainty, and a third where both types of uncertainty were combined. The three scenarios were compared with results from a deterministic scenario where crop yields and payment rates were constant. Climate change resulted in on average 9% lower cereal production, unchanged grass production and more volatile crop yield as well as 4% higher farm incomes on average compared to the deterministic scenario. The scenario with a combination of climate change and policy uncertainty increased the mean farm income more than a scenario with only one source of uncertainty. On the other hand, land use and farm labour were negatively affected under these conditions compared to the deterministic case. Highlighting the potential influence of climate change and policy uncertainty on the performance of the farm sector our results underline the potential error in neglecting either of these two uncertainties in studies of agricultural production, land use and welfare.
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, M. P., Haakana, M., Asseng, S., Höhn, J. G., Palosuo, T., Ruiz-Ramos, M., et al. (2017). How does inter-annual variability of attainable yield affect the magnitude of yield gaps for wheat and maize? An analysis at ten sites. Agric. Syst., , in press.
Abstract: Highlights • The larger simulated attainable yield for a specific crop season, the larger the yield gap. • Average size of the yield gap is not affected by the inter-annual variability of attainable yield. • Technology levels (resource input and accessibility) determine average yield gap. • To reduce yield gaps in rainfed environments, farmers need to improve season-specific crop management. Abstract Provision of food security in the face of increasing global food demand requires narrowing of the gap between actual farmer’s yield and maximum attainable yield. So far, assessments of yield gaps have focused on average yield over 5–10 years, but yield gaps can vary substantially between crop seasons. In this study we hypothesized that climate-induced inter-annual yield variability and associated risk is a major barrier for farmers to invest, i.e. increase inputs to narrow the yield gap. We evaluated the importance of inter-annual attainable yield variability for the magnitude of the yield gap by utilizing data for wheat and maize at ten sites representing some major food production systems and a large range of climate and soil conditions across the world. Yield gaps were derived from the difference of simulated attainable yields and regional recorded farmer yields for 1981 to 2010. The size of the yield gap did not correlate with the amplitude of attainable yield variability at a site, but was rather associated with the level of available resources such as labor, fertilizer and plant protection inputs. For the sites in Africa, recorded yield reached only 20% of the attainable yield, while for European, Asian and North American sites it was 56–84%. Most sites showed that the higher the attainable yield of a specific season the larger was the yield gap. This significant relationship indicated that farmers were not able to take advantage of favorable seasonal weather conditions. To reduce yield gaps in the different environments, reliable seasonal weather forecasts would be required to allow farmers to manage each seasonal potential, i.e. overcoming season-specific yield limitations.
|
|
|
|
Hoffmann, M. P., Haakana, M., Asseng, S., Höhn, J. G., Palosuo, T., Ruiz-Ramos, M., et al. (2017). How does inter-annual variability of attainable yield affect the magnitude of yield gaps for wheat and maize? An analysis at ten sites. Agric. Syst., 159, 199–208.
Abstract: Highlights • The larger simulated attainable yield for a specific crop season, the larger the yield gap. • Average size of the yield gap is not affected by the inter-annual variability of attainable yield. • Technology levels (resource input and accessibility) determine average yield gap. • To reduce yield gaps in rainfed environments, farmers need to improve season-specific crop management. Abstract Provision of food security in the face of increasing global food demand requires narrowing of the gap between actual farmer’s yield and maximum attainable yield. So far, assessments of yield gaps have focused on average yield over 5–10 years, but yield gaps can vary substantially between crop seasons. In this study we hypothesized that climate-induced inter-annual yield variability and associated risk is a major barrier for farmers to invest, i.e. increase inputs to narrow the yield gap. We evaluated the importance of inter-annual attainable yield variability for the magnitude of the yield gap by utilizing data for wheat and maize at ten sites representing some major food production systems and a large range of climate and soil conditions across the world. Yield gaps were derived from the difference of simulated attainable yields and regional recorded farmer yields for 1981 to 2010. The size of the yield gap did not correlate with the amplitude of attainable yield variability at a site, but was rather associated with the level of available resources such as labor, fertilizer and plant protection inputs. For the sites in Africa, recorded yield reached only 20% of the attainable yield, while for European, Asian and North American sites it was 56–84%. Most sites showed that the higher the attainable yield of a specific season the larger was the yield gap. This significant relationship indicated that farmers were not able to take advantage of favorable seasonal weather conditions. To reduce yield gaps in the different environments, reliable seasonal weather forecasts would be required to allow farmers to manage each seasonal potential, i.e. overcoming season-specific yield limitations.
|
|
