Abstract: Empirical findings on actors’ roles and responsibilities in the climate change adaptation process are rare even though cooperation between private and public actors is perceived important to foster adaptation in agriculture. We therefore developed the framework SAER (Stimuli-Actions-Effects-Responses) to investigate perceived relationships between private and public climate change adaptation in agriculture at regional scale. In particular, we explore agricultural experts’ perceptions on (i) climatic and non climatic factors stimulating private adaptation, (ii) farm adaption actions, (iii) potential on-farm and off-farm effects from adaptation, and (iv) the relationships between private and public adaptation. The SAER-framework is built on a comprehensive literature review and empirical findings from semi structured interviews with agricultural experts from two case study regions in Austria. We find that private adaptation is perceived as incremental, systemic or transformational. It is typically stimulated by a mix of bio-physical and socio-economic on-farm and off-farm factors. Stimulating factors related to climate change are perceived of highest relevance for systemic and transformational adaptation whereas already implemented adaptation is mostly perceived to be incremental. Perceived effects of private adaptation are related to the environment, weather and climate, quality and quantity of agricultural products as well as human, social and economic resources. Our results also show that public adaptation can influence factors stimulating private adaptation as well as adaptation effects through the design and development of the legal, policy and organizational environment as well as the provision of educational, informational, financial, and technical infrastructure. Hence, facilitating existing and new collaborations between private and public actors may enable farmers to adapt effectively to climate change. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract: Despite widespread application in studying climate change impacts, most crop models ignore complex interactions among air temperature, crop and soil water status, CO2 concentration and atmospheric conditions that influence crop canopy temperature. The current study extended previous studies by evaluating Tc simulations from nine crop models at six locations across environmental and production conditions. Each crop model implemented one of an empirical (EMP), an energy balance assuming neutral stability (EBN) or an energy balance correcting for atmospheric stability conditions (EBSC) approach to simulate Tc. Model performance in predicting Tc was evaluated for two experiments in continental North America with various water, nitrogen and CO2 treatments. An empirical model fit to one dataset had the best performance, followed by the EBSC models. Stability conditions explained much of the differences between modeling approaches. More accurate simulation of heat stress will likely require use of energy balance approaches that consider atmospheric stability conditions.

Abstract: Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture (DWPA) and its governance has received increased attention as a policy concern across the globe. Mitigation of DWPA is a complex problem that requires a mix of policy instruments and a multi-agency, broad societal response. In this paper, opportunities and barriers for developing co-governance, defined as collaborative societal involvement in the functions of government, and its suitability for mitigation of DWPA are reviewed using seven case studies in Europe (Poland, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands and UK), Australia (Murray-Darling Basin) and North America (State of Minnesota). An analytical framework for assessing opportunities and barriers of co-governance was developed and applied in this review. Results indicated that five key issues constitute both opportunities and barriers, and include: (i) pressure for change; (ii) connected governance structures and allocation of resources and funding; (iii) leadership and establishment of partnerships through capacity building; (iv) use and co-production of knowledge; and (v) time commitment to develop water co-governance.