Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorQi, Aiming
dc.date.accessioned2018-01-30T22:32:30Z
dc.date.available2018-01-30T22:32:30Z
dc.date.issued2017-09-30
dc.identifier.citationQi , A 2017 , ' Modelling productivity and resource use efficiency for grassland ecosystems in the UK ' , European Journal of Agronomy , vol. 89 , pp. 148-158 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.05.002
dc.identifier.issn1161-0301
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 13073623
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 2e7d94c2-97d5-4cee-b31a-e48af561833f
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 85019649278
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/19677
dc.descriptionPublished by Elsevier B. V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY/4.0/)
dc.description.abstractEstimating spatially resolved grassland productivity is essential for benchmarking the total UK productive potential to assess food, feed and fuel trade-offs in the context of whole systems analyses. Our objectives were to adapt and evaluate a well-known process-based model (PBM) and estimate productivity of improved (permanent, temporary) and semi-natural grassland systems using meta-models (MM) trained by extensive PBM scenario simulations. Observed dry matter (DM) yields in multi-site nitrogen (N) response (0, 150 and 300 kg N ha−1) experiments were well emulated describing the average productivity of rough grazing, permanent and temporary grassland (3.1, 7.4 and 9.8 t DM ha−1, respectively). Cross-validated with independent and long-term data (Park Grass Experiment), the PBM explained more variation when considering all systems combined (81%) than across all improved grasslands (61%) but little for rough grazing (26%). The PBM-trained MMs explained 48, 72 and 70% of the simulated yield variation in the grasslands of increasing management intensity, and 43 and 75% of observed variation in the combined improved and all three grassland systems, respectively. Considering the assessment of ecosystem services, like drainage and water productivity, PBM scenario simulations are essential. Compared to improved grassland rough grazing will result in 40% more groundwater recharge due to its lower simulated water use and water productivity (12 versus 25 and 43 kg ha−1 mm−1 for permanent and temporary grassland, respectively).en
dc.format.extent11
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Journal of Agronomy
dc.subjectimproved grassland
dc.subjectsemi-natural
dc.subjectsink-source interaction model
dc.subjectup-scaling
dc.subjectwater balance
dc.titleModelling productivity and resource use efficiency for grassland ecosystems in the UKen
dc.contributor.institutionAgriculture, Veterinary and Food Sciences
dc.contributor.institutionGeography, Environment and Agriculture
dc.contributor.institutionCrop Protection and Climate Change
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Biological and Environmental Sciences
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Life and Medical Sciences
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2017.05.002
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record