4.7 Article

Application of a robust experimental method to study soil warming effects on oilseed rape

期刊

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY
卷 164, 期 -, 页码 20-28

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2012.05.004

关键词

Winter oilseed rape; Brassica napus; Climate change; Soil warming experiment; Soil temperature; Phenology

资金

  1. Ministry for Science and Culture of Lower Saxony, Germany within the research network KLIFF - climate impact in Lower Saxony

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate change is expected to cause a mean annual temperature increase in Germany of up to 4 degrees C by 2100. Hence, field manipulation experiments for the assessment of the impact of global warming on agricultural production are needed to supplement existing modeling approaches. Here, we present a soil warming facility adapted for field crops, enabling common agronomic practices, including soil tillage, to be carried out while simulating natural warming scenarios. The experimental setup consists of buried heating cables and a fully computerized temperature control and data logging system. Treatments reflected medium(up to 2050) and long-term (up to 2100) climate warming scenarios compared to the unheated (ambient) control. In a year-round experiment, there were no technical problems and the programmed temperature offset was kept stable at two levels, +1.6 degrees C (+/- 0.17 degrees C) or +3.2 degrees C (+/- 0.27 degrees C) above ambient throughout the experiment. We assessed warming effects on the plot microclimate as well as on biological parameters in a winter oilseed rape crop (Brassica napus L). Growth stages were advanced in October and April, and plant length before flowering was significantly higher in the warmest treatment compared to the unheated control plots. Overall, our method proved stable and reliable under field conditions enabling common agronomic practices to be carried out while observing the effects of increased soil temperatures. (C) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据