|
|
Ruiz-Ramos, M., Ferrise, R., & Rötter, R. (2015). Concepts and methods developed for probabilistic evaluation of a number of alternative adaptation options (Vol. 6).
Abstract: The purpose of this document is to define the protocol for a second study (IRS2) based on impact response surfaces (IRSs) in the frame of CropM/WP4. General considerations of IRS construction are described in the protocol developed for Phase I of the IRS analysis (IRS1)Access to the full document is restricted to MACSUR members until 2015-11-01. No Label
|
|
|
|
Savary, S., Nelson, A. D., Djurle, A., Esker, P., Sparks, A., Amorim, L., et al. (2017). Concepts, approaches, and avenues for modelling crop health and crop losses (Vol. 10).
Abstract: Main text in preparation for publication in a peer-reviewed journal)
|
|
|
|
Schönhart, M. (2015). Contributions from bio-eocnomic farm models to the analysis of climate change adaptation: lessons from MACSUR regional pilot studies (Vol. 4).
|
|
|
|
Ewert, F., Rötter, R. P., Bindi, M., Webber, H., Trnka, M., Kersebaum, K., et al. (2015). Crop modelling for integrated assessment of risk to food production from climate change (Vol. 6).
Abstract: The complexity of risks posed by climate change and possible adaptations for crop production has called for integrated assessment and modelling (IAM) approaches linking biophysical and economic models. This paper attempts to provide an overview of the present state of crop modelling to assess climate change risks to food production and to which extent crop models comply with IAM demands. Considerable progress has been made in modelling effects of climate variables, where crop models best satisfy IAM demands. Demands are partly satisfied for simulating commonly required assessment variables. However, progress on the number of simulated crops, uncertainty propagation related to model parameters and structure, adaptations and scaling are less advanced and lagging behind IAM demands. The limitations are considered substantial and apply to a different extent to all crop models. Overcoming these limitations will require joint efforts, and consideration of novel modelling approaches. No Label
|
|
|
|
Zimmermann, A. (2015). Crop yield trends and variability in the EU (Vol. 5).
Abstract: Agreeing that increased future global food demand will have to be met by production intensification rather than land use expansion (e.g. Hertel, 2011), scientists have moved to empirically analyse the causes for differences between potentially attainable yields and actually realized yields – the yield gap (e.g. van Ittersum et al., 2013, Neumann et al., 2010). In the long run, we aim at disentangling the effects of biophysical, economic and political impacts and farmers’ response to them on crop yields by analysing yield gaps at regional scale in the European Union. Apart from generally improving our understanding of yield gaps and their drivers in the EU, our analysis will contribute to the integration of economic and biophysical models at a later stage of our research. As a first step towards an advanced yield gap analysis, the current paper will give an overview of yield developments in the EU27. The overview will be based on regional yield trend and yield variability estimates derived from socioeconomic panel data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN). The analysis will continue and extend the work of Ewert et al. (2005) and Reidsma et al. (2009) in terms of drawing on single farm instead of country level/farm type data, including the new EU member states and most recent years (until 2011). The EU-wide analysis of yield trends and variability will serve as a basis for the later analysis of yield gaps. No Label
|
|
