1,298 publications from this institution
Abstract Miscanthus has been identified as one of the most promising perennial grasses for renewable energy generation in Europe and the United States [ Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 9 (2004) 433]. However, the decision to use Miscanthus depends to a considerable degree on its economic and environmental performance [ Soil Use and Management 24 (2008) 235; Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (2009) 1230]. This article assessed the spatial distribution of the economic and greenhouse gas ( GHG ) costs of producing and supplying Miscanthus in the UK . The average farm‐gate production cost of Miscanthus in the UK is estimated to be 40 £ per oven‐dried tonne (£ odt −1 ), and the average GHG emissions from the production of Miscanthus are 1.72 kg carbon equivalent per oven‐dried tonnes per year (kg CE odt −1 yr −1 ). The production cost of Miscanthus varies from 35 to 55 £ odt −1 with the lowest production costs in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the highest costs in Scotland. Sensitivity analysis shows that yield of Miscanthus is the most influential factor in its production cost, with precipitation the most crucial input in determining yield. GHG emissions from the production of Miscanthus range from 1.24 to 2.11 kg CE odt −1 yr −1 . To maximize the GHG benefit, Miscanthus should be established preferentially on croplands, though other considerations obviously arise concerning suitability and value of the land for food production.
1Minstead, Hampshire Political Intellectuals and Public Identities in Britain Since 1850 JuliaStapleton ManchesterManchester U.P. 2001220£40
Abstract Measurements of nitrous oxide (N 2 O) emissions from agriculture are essential for understanding the complex soil–crop–climate processes, but there are practical and economic limits to the spatial and temporal extent over which measurements can be made. Therefore, N 2 O models have an important role to play. As models are comparatively cheap to run, they can be used to extrapolate field measurements to regional or national scales, to simulate emissions over long time periods, or to run scenarios to compare mitigation practices. Process‐based models can also be used as an aid to understanding the underlying processes, as they can simulate feedbacks and interactions that can be difficult to distinguish in the field. However, when applying models, it is important to understand the conceptual process differences in models, how conceptual understanding changed over time in various models, and the model requirements and limitations to ensure that the model is well suited to the purpose of the investigation and the type of system being simulated. The aim of this paper is to give the reader a high‐level overview of some of the important issues that should be considered when modeling. This includes conceptual understanding of widely used models, common modeling techniques such as calibration and validation, assessing model fit, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty assessment. We also review examples of N 2 O modeling for different purposes and describe three commonly used process‐based N 2 O models (APSIM, DayCent, and DNDC).
Agriculture is the largest anthropogenic source of methane (CH 4 ), emitting 145 Tg CH 4 y −1 to the atmosphere in 2017. The main sources are enteric fermentation, manure management, rice cultivation and residue burning. There is significant potential to reduce CH 4 from these sources, with bottom-up mitigation potentials of approximately 10.6, 10, 2 and 1 Tg CH 4 y −1 from rice management, enteric fermentation, manure management and residue burning. Other system-wide studies have assumed even higher potentials of 4.8–47.2 Tg CH 4 y −1 from reduced enteric fermentation, and 4–36 Tg CH 4 y −1 from improved rice management. Biogas (a methane-rich gas mixture generated from the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter and used for energy) also has the potential to reduce unabated CH 4 emissions from animal manures and human waste. In addition to these supply side measures, interventions on the demand-side (shift to a plant-based diet and a reduction in total food loss and waste by 2050) would also significantly reduce methane emissions, perhaps in the order of greater than 50 Tg CH 4 y −1 . While there is a pressing need to reduce emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases (CO 2 and N 2 O) due to their persistence in the atmosphere, despite CH 4 being a short-lived greenhouse gas, the urgency of reducing warming means we must reduce any GHG emissions we can as soon as possible. Because of this, mitigation actions should focus on reducing emissions of all the three main anthropogenic greenhouse gases, including CH 4 . This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Rising methane: is warming feeding warming? (part1)'.
Abstract Feeding 9–10 billion people by 2050 and preventing dangerous climate change are two of the greatest challenges facing humanity. Both challenges must be met while reducing the impact of land management on ecosystem services that deliver vital goods and services, and support human health and well‐being. Few studies to date have considered the interactions between these challenges. In this study we briefly outline the challenges, review the supply‐ and demand‐side climate mitigation potential available in the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use AFOLU sector and options for delivering food security. We briefly outline some of the synergies and trade‐offs afforded by mitigation practices, before presenting an assessment of the mitigation potential possible in the AFOLU sector under possible future scenarios in which demand‐side measures codeliver to aid food security. We conclude that while supply‐side mitigation measures, such as changes in land management, might either enhance or negatively impact food security, demand‐side mitigation measures, such as reduced waste or demand for livestock products, should benefit both food security and greenhouse gas ( GHG ) mitigation. Demand‐side measures offer a greater potential (1.5–15.6 Gt CO 2 ‐eq. yr −1 ) in meeting both challenges than do supply‐side measures (1.5–4.3 Gt CO 2 ‐eq. yr −1 at carbon prices between 20 and 100 US$ t CO 2 ‐eq. yr −1 ), but given the enormity of challenges, all options need to be considered. Supply‐side measures should be implemented immediately, focussing on those that allow the production of more agricultural product per unit of input. For demand‐side measures, given the difficulties in their implementation and lag in their effectiveness, policy should be introduced quickly, and should aim to codeliver to other policy agenda, such as improving environmental quality or improving dietary health. These problems facing humanity in the 21st Century are extremely challenging, and policy that addresses multiple objectives is required now more than ever.