Adapting to change: more realistic quantification of impacts and better informed adaptation alternatives. Daniel Rodriguez

Uploaded on

Presentation from the WCCA 2011 conference in Brisbane, Australia.

Presentation from the WCCA 2011 conference in Brisbane, Australia.

More in: Education , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Adapting to change: more realistic quantification of impacts and better informed adaptation alternatives Daniel Rodriguez, Peter deVoil, Brendan Power, Howard Cox
  • 2. Focus of the work Increase our (both researchers and the farming community) understanding (...we are all learning...) on what is changing (climate) and what are the likely consequences if those changes would persist; Work with our farmers and agronomists towards reducing their exposure to change (now and the next 5- 10 years), by increasing our understanding on what farming systems are more profitable and less risky
  • 3. Components of adaptation Outcomes ADAPTEDNESS Systems disturbances INCREMENTAL TRANSFORMATION Adaptation SYSTEMS Generates a new social- processes ecological systems ADJUSTMENTS System RESILIENCE characteristics Capacity to absorb change and performAfter Nelson et al., 2007
  • 4. Resilient farming systems by design • (Management) Systems that are more opportunistic- flexible-plastic versus systems that are more rigid or calendar driven • Systems that can change function e.g. systems that produce grain / fibre / meat • Systems that can change scale or intensity e.g. irrigated • Systems that are more diverse versus systems that are more like monocultures / products
  • 5. Case studies Emerald, rainfed cropping Roma, grain & graze Dalby, cotton-grains . Goondiwindi, rainfed cropping
  • 6. Case studiesRainfed Whe1,2,.. C Rainfed SF SFcropping cropping(plastic) S 1,2,.. W 1,2,.. W1,2,.. (rigid) Sorg1,2,.. Fallow Maize SF SF WF C WF Chick S 1,2,.. Cropping cycle Maize Chickpea Fallow WheatMixed grain - Irrigated Fallow Fallow Sorggrazing Buffel Grazing cycle cropping grass Forage oats Soy Wheat Fallow Leucaena Cotton Forage Mung sorghum Fallow
  • 7. The APSFarm model Whole farm configuration of the APSIM model Simulates the impacts (i.e. biophysical, economic, environmental) of alternative allocations of limited resources (e.g. land, labour, time, irrigation water, livestock, machinery, and finance), at the whole farm level. System disturbance 2030Rodriguez et al., 2011; Power et al., 2011 A1FI and A2, MRI-GCM232 and MIROC-H
  • 8. Sensitivity analysis
  • 9. Sensitivity analysis • Less land to cropping Climatology • More forages fewer pastures A1FI 2030 MRI-GCM232
  • 10. Allocation of resources
  • 11. Conclusions • Our case study farmers proved to be very good operators • Percent reductions on farm profit can easily exceed percent changes on individual crop yields (not shown) • Farms and farmers already operating on the efficiency frontier, would have fewer “easier” options to adapt • More transformational changes will need to be explored • Impact assessments and the identification of opportunities for adaptation to climate change should (also) be conducted at the whole farm level
  • 12. Come to our SIMLESA workshops Thank you