Search

This review paper addresses the importance of increasing agrobiodiversity to cope with climate change and, at the same time, providing a sufficient amount of healthy food. This is in agreement with the messages from ecology and medicine indicating the advantages of biodiversity in general and agrobiodiversity in particular for the planet and for our health. Plant breeding is considered to be one of the causes of the decline in agrobiodiversity, and therefore, this paper illustrates alternatives to the commonly used approach based on centralized selection. The first alternative is decentralized participatory breeding, which adapts crops to both different agronomic environments and client preferences, representing an "option by context" model of research. The second alternative is evolutionary breeding, which is a more dynamic strategy than participatory plant breeding because it merges the advantages of decentralization with the ability of dynamic mixtures and evolutionary populations to cope with biotic and abiotic stresses and evolve, thus adapting to climate change and to the associated changes in the spectrum of pests. A crop capable of evolving as the environment around it evolves appears to be the most ideal way of responding to climate change and increasing agricultural biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper presents the estimated changes in the soil water content, the total runoff, the sediment yield and the actual evapotranspiration for the small Bystra catchment in the east of Poland. The findings are based on the results of three simulations covering the years of 2041–2050. The simulations were based on a calibrated and validated SWAT model (2010–2017). The first variant covers just the climate change and the existing structure of soil cultivation for the three regional climate models supported by the EC-EARTH global climate model in the emission scenarios RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. Variants two and three are based on the first variant in terms of the changing climate. The second variant, however, involves placing a pond in each farm in the catchment, while the third variant involves designing huge reservoirs as a result of land consolidation. Variants two and three occur in five adaptation scenarios each. The first adaptation scenario (V2.1 and V3.1) involves only increasing the number of ponds on the farm or increasing the number of reservoirs for non-irrigated arable land crops, i.e., WWHT (winter cereals), BARL (spring cereals), CANP (rapeseed) and CRDY (other crops). The second adaptation scenario (V2.2 and V3.2) involves growing vegetables without irrigation (instead of cereals). The third adaptation scenario (V2.3 and V3.3) involves growing vegetables with irrigation (instead of cereals). The fourth adaptation scenario (V2.4 and V3.4) involves partial cultivation of vegetables and cereals. The fifth adaptation scenario (V2.5 and V3.5) involves partial cultivation of orchards and cereals. The adaptation scenarios of the irrigation of vegetables from deep water-bearing layers (second variant) or reservoirs (third variant) contribute to the increase in water content in the soil, especially in summer, in comparison with the adaptation scenarios for vegetable cultivation without irrigation. What is more, the actual evapotranspiration was higher in the adaptation scenarios involving irrigation than in scenarios without irrigation. It is known that the changes in water content in soil and the intensification of water erosion are gravely affected by modifications in crops and soil cultivation. A change from cereal cultivation to irrigated vegetable cultivation or orchards increased the water content in the soil in most climatic projections. However, the increase in the number of ponds in the second variant had little impact on the soil water content, actual evapotranspiration and overall runoff, while the erosion loss decreased. With the lower precipitation levels in the years 2041–2050 relative to 2010–2017, as presented in the emissive scenario RCP 4.5, the soil water content decreases by up to 14% for most variants. Total runoff for most variants will also be lower by 4–35%. The percentage change in sediment yield will fluctuate between −86% and 116%. On the other hand, the actual evapotranspiration for most variants will be higher. With higher precipitation levels in the years 2041–2050 relative to 2010–2017, as presented in the emissive scenario RCP 8.5, the soil water content changes slightly from −7% to +3%. Total runoff for most variants will also be higher by as much as 43%. Sediment yield for most scenarios may increase by 226%. The actual evapotranspiration for most variants will also be higher. Irrigation variants tend to increase soil available water while increasing evapotranspiration and total outflow in the catchment as compared to non-irrigated LULC. The largest increase in the soil water content is observed in most irrigation variants for RCP 4.5 (annual average 316–319 mm) (V2.3-V2.5, V3.2, and V3.3) and RCP 8.5 (annual average 326–327 mm) (V2.3-V2.5 and V3.3) as compared to V1 (BaU) (315 mm–RCP 4.5 and 324 mm–RCP 8.5) for the years 2041–2050. On the other hand, the lowest increase in soil water content is observed in the V3.5 variant, with an annual average of 292 mm for RCP 4.5 and an annual average of 311 mm for RCP 8.5. Thus, for future climate change scenarios, irrigation with water reservoirs (ponds and storage reservoirs) should be considered. The study proves the rationale behind building ponds in small catchments in order to increase water resources in a landscape and also to counteract adverse effects of climate changes, i.e., sediment outflow and surface water erosion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The interconnectedness between climate change and development has generated an increasing interest amongst development organisations to integrate adaptation into government rural development plans in a way that effectively increases resilience at a local level. However, the nature of climate change resilience is widely debated in the literature, and there is a knowledge gap regarding the best way to address adaptation at the interface with development objectives as part of mainstreaming. This paper aims to address this knowledge gap via a case study of a community-based, Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) project in Vietnam. A case study approach was applied with fieldwork at one project site, complemented by semi-structured interviews with government stakeholders, key experts, and project leaders of related projects. The analysis identifies five key factors that enhance rural resilience in a smallholder agricultural context: (i) engaging local governments as partners, (ii) considering broader landscape issues such as markets, (iii) providing farmers with support to facilitate adoption of CSA practices, (iv) fostering community capacity building, and (v) promoting adaptive management and scenario planning to deal with uncertainty. The paper concludes that resilience is multidimensional and not solely in line with any one of the approaches dominant in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]