“Dryland Systems”
 Key tradeoffs questions and
       tools for CRP1.1

   Anthony M. Whitbread
Crop Production Systems in the
           Tropics
   University of Göttingen,
          Germany

W. Payne (ICARDA), T. Gerik (TA&M), D. White
(CSIRO), P. Lecomte (UMR-SELMET), H. Belhouchette
(CIHEAM-IAMM), G. Hammer (QCCA)
Integrated Agricultural Production Systems for
   Improved Food Security and Livelihoods in Dry Areas

   “Dryland Systems”
Dryland Systems targets the
poor and highly vulnerable
populations of dry areas in
developing countries and the
agricultural production
systems on which they depend
for food and livelihoods
Dryland Systems- key features

•   65 % of the worlds agricultural lands fall
    into the category of drylands

•   The majority of the poorest people live in
    semi-arid areas.

•   Mixed farming systems

•   High climate variability and, in-
    general, high vulnerability to changes in
    climate.

•   Already extensive degradation

•   Systems analysis needs
Targets 2 Strategic Research Themes..
     production systems where:
 Reduced vulnerability and
  increased resilience to
  shocks (SRT2)

 Sustainable intensification
  to reduce food security
  and generate income
  (SRT3)
Conceptual Framework and Steps in Impact Pathway


SRT1: Approaches and models for
strengthening innovation
systems, building stakeholder
innovation capacity, and linking
knowledge to
policy action

SRT2: Reducing vulnerability and
managing risk

SRT3: Sustainable intensification
for more productive, profitable and
diversified dryland agriculture with
well-established linkages to
markets

SRT4: Measuring impacts and
cross-regional synthesis
Tradeoffs and scale
                                              Markets



                                                              Community,
                                                              watershed,
                                                              region…


                              Markets
                                                 Farm, household, l
                                                 ivelihood…




                       Field, flock, forest




       Microbe-plant
Key tradeoffs and tools: plant to field scale

 Examples
 • High and low harvest index (fodder, building material Vs grain)
 • Short duration risk avoidance Vs longer duration higher yielding
 • Effect of stay green traits in sorghum across environment

 Tools
 • Detailed crop models that capture interactions between environment
   and genotype….and phenotype

 e.g. Hammer et al. (2010) uses “….sufficient physiological rigour for complex
 phenotypic traits to become emergent properties of the model dynamics.”
 [Hammer et al. 2010. J. Exp. Botany 61(8), 2185-2202.]




          Microbe-plant
Simulating consequences on grain yield- sorghum
Yield consequences reflect trends in field data (e.g. Dalby)




Source: Hammer pers. comm
Key tradeoffs and tools: Field to farm scale

 Examples:
 • Fallow weed control and consequences for soil water at sowing (&
   labour tradeoffs)
 • Quantifying the riskiness of various intervention strategies (e.g.
   fertiliser response x season)
 • Comparing decisions around crop type/variety and time of planting

 Tools
 • Crop-soil models that capture interactions between environment and
   genotype (e.g. APSIM, DSSAT)
 • Summary models that capture model output statically (e.g. IAT)
 • Farm level models that capture interactions (e.g. APSFARM, NUANCES)
Effect of variations in PAW and seeding opportunity on
    percentage of modelled yields – South Australian wheat
    belt                                      Upper tercile (white)
                                                  Middle tercile (grey)
                                                  Lower tercile (black)




Planting opportunity:   Early      Late
Fertilizer response in extra bags grain for one bag
               applied AN (15 kg N/ha)
                                                    a                       b
Sowing window from                             1 Nov                  1 Dec
                                                d          c
Plant population (/m2)                       2.0       3.5          2.0            3.5
                                                    e
    Weed control                          good poor good poor    good poor      good poor
      Soil Depth         Soil fertility
   Shallow (50 cm)       low              10    1        3   0     8    1        2    0
                         mod               9    3        9   1     7    3        6    1
                         high              7    4        8   2     5    3        5    1
  Medium (100 cm)        low              17    5       14   1    15    4       11    0
                         mod              11    6       16   5    11    7       15    5
                         high              9    6       14   6     8    7       13    6
  Deep (>150 cm)         low              16    6       17   2    15    0       15    2
                         mod              11    7       17   7    10    8       15    8
                         high              8    6       14   8     8    6       13    9



     very low risk (one year in 10)
     medium risk (one year in 5)
     high risk situations
Key tradeoffs and tools: Farm to
watershed or regional scales…


Examples:
• Impacts of soil conservation measures (buffers, etc.) in watershed to
  national level erosion assessments (e.g. USDA)
• Impacts of widely adopted agronomic interventions on watershed
  processes (e.g. Lake Tana in NW Ethiopia).



Tools
• SWAT-APEX-EPIC (http://swat.tamu.edu/ http://apex.tamu.edu/)
• Bio-economic modelling frameworks (farm to regional) e.g. or
  Integrated Agricultural Assessment Tools (IAAT) (CIRAD & CIHEAM)
• Hydrologic analysis showed sufficient water for dry season irrigation
• Crop yields responded strongly to N, dry season irrigation, improved
  varieties
• Major environmental consequences due to increased yields - reductions
  in soil erosion and sedimentation
Conclusions
This CRP has aims at agro-ecosystems where:
(i) systems are highly vulnerable ….increase resilience to shocks
(ii) systems where some sustainable intensification options are available

Mixed (crop-livestock) farming systems are dominant and therefore key tradeoffs
at field/farm level include enterprise selection/ labour/ residues/ investment/
climate risk management…

Tools available (defined largely by the interested partners):
• pasture-tree-crop-soil modelling (CSIRO, APSRU group, Australia)
• whole farm/watershed management (Texas A&M, USA)
• Animal (CIRAD) and whole farm to regional economic modelling (CIHEAM-
   Montpellier)
• Underpinned by efforts to develop research methods support (Reading
   University)
            A community of practice of model expertise underpinning many of
            the CRP1.1 activities.

Systems analysis is not just about the tools, its also how they are applied (e.g.
Whitbread et al 2010, Ag. Systems show 4 distinct modes of use in SSA)
Dryland Systems focuses on two
agro-ecosystems (SRT2 and SRT3)

Workshop Trade-off Analysis - CGIAR_19 Feb 2013_CRP 1.1_Anthony Whitbread

  • 1.
    “Dryland Systems” Keytradeoffs questions and tools for CRP1.1 Anthony M. Whitbread Crop Production Systems in the Tropics University of Göttingen, Germany W. Payne (ICARDA), T. Gerik (TA&M), D. White (CSIRO), P. Lecomte (UMR-SELMET), H. Belhouchette (CIHEAM-IAMM), G. Hammer (QCCA)
  • 2.
    Integrated Agricultural ProductionSystems for Improved Food Security and Livelihoods in Dry Areas “Dryland Systems” Dryland Systems targets the poor and highly vulnerable populations of dry areas in developing countries and the agricultural production systems on which they depend for food and livelihoods
  • 3.
    Dryland Systems- keyfeatures • 65 % of the worlds agricultural lands fall into the category of drylands • The majority of the poorest people live in semi-arid areas. • Mixed farming systems • High climate variability and, in- general, high vulnerability to changes in climate. • Already extensive degradation • Systems analysis needs
  • 4.
    Targets 2 StrategicResearch Themes.. production systems where:  Reduced vulnerability and increased resilience to shocks (SRT2)  Sustainable intensification to reduce food security and generate income (SRT3)
  • 6.
    Conceptual Framework andSteps in Impact Pathway SRT1: Approaches and models for strengthening innovation systems, building stakeholder innovation capacity, and linking knowledge to policy action SRT2: Reducing vulnerability and managing risk SRT3: Sustainable intensification for more productive, profitable and diversified dryland agriculture with well-established linkages to markets SRT4: Measuring impacts and cross-regional synthesis
  • 7.
    Tradeoffs and scale Markets Community, watershed, region… Markets Farm, household, l ivelihood… Field, flock, forest Microbe-plant
  • 8.
    Key tradeoffs andtools: plant to field scale Examples • High and low harvest index (fodder, building material Vs grain) • Short duration risk avoidance Vs longer duration higher yielding • Effect of stay green traits in sorghum across environment Tools • Detailed crop models that capture interactions between environment and genotype….and phenotype e.g. Hammer et al. (2010) uses “….sufficient physiological rigour for complex phenotypic traits to become emergent properties of the model dynamics.” [Hammer et al. 2010. J. Exp. Botany 61(8), 2185-2202.] Microbe-plant
  • 9.
    Simulating consequences ongrain yield- sorghum Yield consequences reflect trends in field data (e.g. Dalby) Source: Hammer pers. comm
  • 10.
    Key tradeoffs andtools: Field to farm scale Examples: • Fallow weed control and consequences for soil water at sowing (& labour tradeoffs) • Quantifying the riskiness of various intervention strategies (e.g. fertiliser response x season) • Comparing decisions around crop type/variety and time of planting Tools • Crop-soil models that capture interactions between environment and genotype (e.g. APSIM, DSSAT) • Summary models that capture model output statically (e.g. IAT) • Farm level models that capture interactions (e.g. APSFARM, NUANCES)
  • 11.
    Effect of variationsin PAW and seeding opportunity on percentage of modelled yields – South Australian wheat belt Upper tercile (white) Middle tercile (grey) Lower tercile (black) Planting opportunity: Early Late
  • 12.
    Fertilizer response inextra bags grain for one bag applied AN (15 kg N/ha) a b Sowing window from 1 Nov 1 Dec d c Plant population (/m2) 2.0 3.5 2.0 3.5 e Weed control good poor good poor good poor good poor Soil Depth Soil fertility Shallow (50 cm) low 10 1 3 0 8 1 2 0 mod 9 3 9 1 7 3 6 1 high 7 4 8 2 5 3 5 1 Medium (100 cm) low 17 5 14 1 15 4 11 0 mod 11 6 16 5 11 7 15 5 high 9 6 14 6 8 7 13 6 Deep (>150 cm) low 16 6 17 2 15 0 15 2 mod 11 7 17 7 10 8 15 8 high 8 6 14 8 8 6 13 9 very low risk (one year in 10) medium risk (one year in 5) high risk situations
  • 13.
    Key tradeoffs andtools: Farm to watershed or regional scales… Examples: • Impacts of soil conservation measures (buffers, etc.) in watershed to national level erosion assessments (e.g. USDA) • Impacts of widely adopted agronomic interventions on watershed processes (e.g. Lake Tana in NW Ethiopia). Tools • SWAT-APEX-EPIC (http://swat.tamu.edu/ http://apex.tamu.edu/) • Bio-economic modelling frameworks (farm to regional) e.g. or Integrated Agricultural Assessment Tools (IAAT) (CIRAD & CIHEAM)
  • 14.
    • Hydrologic analysisshowed sufficient water for dry season irrigation • Crop yields responded strongly to N, dry season irrigation, improved varieties • Major environmental consequences due to increased yields - reductions in soil erosion and sedimentation
  • 15.
    Conclusions This CRP hasaims at agro-ecosystems where: (i) systems are highly vulnerable ….increase resilience to shocks (ii) systems where some sustainable intensification options are available Mixed (crop-livestock) farming systems are dominant and therefore key tradeoffs at field/farm level include enterprise selection/ labour/ residues/ investment/ climate risk management… Tools available (defined largely by the interested partners): • pasture-tree-crop-soil modelling (CSIRO, APSRU group, Australia) • whole farm/watershed management (Texas A&M, USA) • Animal (CIRAD) and whole farm to regional economic modelling (CIHEAM- Montpellier) • Underpinned by efforts to develop research methods support (Reading University) A community of practice of model expertise underpinning many of the CRP1.1 activities. Systems analysis is not just about the tools, its also how they are applied (e.g. Whitbread et al 2010, Ag. Systems show 4 distinct modes of use in SSA)
  • 16.
    Dryland Systems focuseson two agro-ecosystems (SRT2 and SRT3)

Editor's Notes

  • #2 1) Increasing resilience to biophysical and socioeconomic shocks despite marginal conditions; and 2) Sustainable intensification of production systems to reduce food insecurity and generate more income.
  • #3 1) Increasing resilience to biophysical and socioeconomic shocks despite marginal conditions; and 2) Sustainable intensification of production systems to reduce food insecurity and generate more income.
  • #4 1) Increasing resilience to biophysical and socioeconomic shocks despite marginal conditions; and 2) Sustainable intensification of production systems to reduce food insecurity and generate more income.
  • #5 1) Increasing resilience to biophysical and socioeconomic shocks despite marginal conditions; and 2) Sustainable intensification of production systems to reduce food insecurity and generate more income.
  • #6 Some problems with map—political sensibilities