uri,href,identifier,attrs.Abstract,attrs.Author,attrs.DOI,attrs.Date,attrs.ISSN,attrs.Journal,attrs.Title,"attrs.Type of Article",attrs.Year,attrs._record_number,attrs._uuid,attrs.reftype,child_publication
/reference/82a91188-b255-4485-8e65-0417131e5c25,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/82a91188-b255-4485-8e65-0417131e5c25,82a91188-b255-4485-8e65-0417131e5c25,"We assess the benefits of climate change mitigation for global maize and wheat production over the 21st century by comparing outcomes under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 as simulated by two large initial condition ensembles from NCAR’s Community Earth System Model. We use models of the relation between climate variables, CO2 concentrations, and yields built on observations and then project this relation on the basis of simulated future temperature and precipitation and CO2 trajectories under the two scenarios, for short (2021–2040), medium (2041–2060) and long (2061–2080) time horizons. We focus on projected mean yield impacts, chances of significant slowdowns in yield, and exposure to damaging heat during critical periods of the growing seasons, the last of which is not explicitly considered in yield impacts by most models, including ours. We find that substantial benefits from mitigation would be achieved throughout the 21st century for maize, in terms of reducing (1) the size of average yield impacts, with mean losses for maize under RCP8.5 reduced under RCP4.5 by about 25 %, 40 % and 50 % as the time horizon lengthens over the 21st century; (2) the risk of major slowdowns over a 10 or 20 year period, with maize chances under RCP4.5 being reduced up to ~75 % by the end of the century compared to those estimated under RCP8.5; and (3) exposure to critical or “lethal” heat extremes, with the number of extremely hot days under RCP8.5 roughly triple current levels by end of century, compared to a doubling for RCP4.5. For wheat, we project small or occasionally negative effects of mitigation for projected yields, because of stronger CO2 fertilization effects than in maize, but substantial benefits of mitigation remain in terms of exposure to extremely high temperatures.","Tebaldi, Claudia; Lobell, David",10.1007/s10584-015-1537-5,"October 28",1573-1480,"Climatic Change","Estimated impacts of emission reductions on wheat and maize crops","journal article",2015,23583,82a91188-b255-4485-8e65-0417131e5c25,"Journal Article",/article/10.1007/s10584-015-1537-5
/reference/831b4c27-416e-4b98-94e6-3969a3b34031,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/831b4c27-416e-4b98-94e6-3969a3b34031,831b4c27-416e-4b98-94e6-3969a3b34031,"The global livestock industry is charged with providing sufficient animal source foods to supply the global population while improving the environmental sustainability of animal production. Improved productivity within dairy and beef systems has demonstrably reduced resource use and greenhouse gas emissions per unit of food over the past century through the dilution of maintenance effect. Further environmental mitigation effects have been gained through the current use of technologies and practices that enhance milk yield or growth in ruminants; however, the social acceptability of continued intensification and use of productivity-enhancing technologies is subject to debate. As the environmental impact of food production continues to be a significant issue for all stakeholders within the field, further research is needed to ensure that comparisons among foods are made based on both environmental impact and nutritive value to truly assess the sustainability of ruminant products.","Capper, Judith L.; Dale E. Bauman",10.1146/annurev-animal-031412-103727,,,"Annual Review of Animal Biosciences","The role of productivity in improving the environmental sustainability of ruminant production systems",,2013,26135,831b4c27-416e-4b98-94e6-3969a3b34031,"Journal Article",/article/10.1146/annurev-animal-031412-103727
/reference/83a3b10a-7eeb-4b2e-a3c0-4cf8fb10de7a,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/83a3b10a-7eeb-4b2e-a3c0-4cf8fb10de7a,83a3b10a-7eeb-4b2e-a3c0-4cf8fb10de7a,"Maize (Zea mays L.) and soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) are the dominant grain crops across the Midwest and are grown on 75% of the arable land with small but economically important crops of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and oats (Avena sativa L.) but economically important crops. Historically, there have been variations in annual yields for maize and soybean related to the seasonal weather patterns. Key concerns are the impacts of future climate change on maize and soybean production and their vulnerability to future climate changes. To evaluate these, we analyzed the yield gaps as the difference between the attainable and actual yield at the county level and observed meteorological data to determine which seasonal meteorological variables were dominant in quantifying the actual/attainable yields. July maximum temperatures, August minimum temperatures, and July–August total precipitation were found to be the significant factors affecting the yield gap. These relationships were used to estimate the change in the yield gap through 2100 using both the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 climate scenarios for these variables for selected counties across the Midwest. Yield gaps increased with time for maize across the Midwest with the largest increases in the southern portion of the Corn Belt showing a large north-south gradient in the increase of the yield gap and minimal east-west gradient. Soybean was not as sensitive as maize because the projected temperatures do not exceed optimum temperature ranges for growth and reductions in production that are more sensitive to precipitation changes during the reproductive stages. Adaptation strategies for maize and soybean will require more innovation than simple agronomic management and require the linkage between geneticists, agronomists, and agricultural meteorologists to develop innovative strategies to preserve production in the Midwest.","Hatfield, J. L.; Wright-Morton, Lois; Hall, Beth",10.1007/s10584-017-1997-x,"June 12",1573-1480,"Climatic Change","Vulnerability of grain crops and croplands in the Midwest to climatic variability and adaptation strategies","journal article",2018,23530,83a3b10a-7eeb-4b2e-a3c0-4cf8fb10de7a,"Journal Article",/article/10.1007/s10584-017-1997-x
/reference/859ab7f2-4df6-4c76-9fea-6bf0a3bdd7e4,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/859ab7f2-4df6-4c76-9fea-6bf0a3bdd7e4,859ab7f2-4df6-4c76-9fea-6bf0a3bdd7e4,"Maize water production functions measured in a 4-year field trial in the US central high plains were curvilinear with 2.0 kg m−3 water productivity at full irrigation that resulted from 12.5 Mg ha−1 grain yields with 630 mm of crop evapotranspiration, ETc. The curvilinear functions show decreasing yield but relatively constant water productivity up to 25% ETc reduction. Water productivity declined rapidly with ETc reductions greater than 25% and was zero at about 40% of full ETc because about 270 mm of ETc was required to produce the first unit of grain yield. These results corroborate those of previous studies that show reduction in irrigated area rather than deficit irrigation will usually provide higher net returns if water consumption (ETc) is limited. Water balance techniques adequately estimated ETc when precision irrigation was carefully scheduled and seasonal precipitation was low. Water productivity relationships based on ETc are more transferable than those based on irrigation water applied.","Trout, Thomas J.; DeJonge, Kendall C.",10.1007/s00271-017-0540-1,"May 01",1432-1319,"Irrigation Science","Water productivity of maize in the US high plains","journal article",2017,25534,859ab7f2-4df6-4c76-9fea-6bf0a3bdd7e4,"Journal Article",/article/10.1007/s00271-017-0540-1
/reference/861917c1-26d0-4d54-98eb-da50a55ba587,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/861917c1-26d0-4d54-98eb-da50a55ba587,861917c1-26d0-4d54-98eb-da50a55ba587,,"ERS,",,,,,"Nonmetro Population Change, 2010-17 [chart]",,2018,26132,861917c1-26d0-4d54-98eb-da50a55ba587,"Web Page",/webpage/27745d8b-38d0-4bc9-a182-e8b03caff45e
/reference/86940208-c0d6-4624-96a6-fc4762a40ce8,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/86940208-c0d6-4624-96a6-fc4762a40ce8,86940208-c0d6-4624-96a6-fc4762a40ce8,"The fragility of a single-source, geographically concentrated supply of natural rubber, a critical material of the modern economy, has brought guayule (Parthenium argentatum A. Gray) to the forefront as an alternative source of natural rubber. The improvement of guayule for commercial-scale production has been limited by the lack of genomic tools and well-characterized genetic resources required for genomics-assisted breeding. To address this issue, we developed nearly 50,000 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genetic markers and genotyped 69 accessions of guayule and its sister taxa mariola (Parthenium incanum Kunth), representing the entire available NALPGRU germplasm collection. We identified multiple interspecific hybrid accessions previously considered guayule, including six guayule-mariola hybrids and non-mariola interspecific hybrid accessions AZ-2 and AZ-3, two commonly used high-yielding cultivars. We dissected genetic diversity within the collection to identify a highly diverse subset of guayule accessions, and showed that wild guayule stands in Big Bend National Park, Texas, USA have the potential to provide hitherto untapped guayule genetic diversity. Together, these results provide the most thorough genetic characterization of guayule germplasm to date and lay the foundation for rapid genetic improvement of commercial guayule germplasm.","Ilut, Daniel C.; Sanchez, Paul L.; Coffelt, Terry A.; Dyer, John M.; Jenks, Matthew A.; Gore, Michael A.",10.1101/147256,,,bioRxiv,"A century of guayule: Comprehensive genetic characterization of the guayule (Parthenium argentatum A. Gray) USDA germplasm collection",,2017,25560,86940208-c0d6-4624-96a6-fc4762a40ce8,"Journal Article",/generic/a44b1c35-1584-4d41-9d44-6e94f624a294
/reference/8745c974-334a-45d8-add8-31d2424d1dd2,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/8745c974-334a-45d8-add8-31d2424d1dd2,8745c974-334a-45d8-add8-31d2424d1dd2,,"Garner, J. B.; Douglas, M. L.; Williams, S. R. O.; Wales, W. J.; Marett, L. C.; Nguyen, T. T. T.; Reich, C. M.; Hayes, B. J.",10.1038/srep34114,09/29/online,,"Scientific Reports","Genomic selection improves heat tolerance in dairy cattle",Article,2016,23521,8745c974-334a-45d8-add8-31d2424d1dd2,"Journal Article",/article/10.1038/srep34114
/reference/89491e17-4e39-4437-a489-e2020c2411bd,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/89491e17-4e39-4437-a489-e2020c2411bd,89491e17-4e39-4437-a489-e2020c2411bd,"Dedicated energy crops and crop residues will meet herbaceous feedstock demands for the new bioeconomy in the Central and Eastern USA. Perennial warm-season grasses and corn stover are well-suited to the eastern half of the USA and provide opportunities for expanding agricultural operations in the region. A suite of warm-season grasses and associated management practices have been developed by researchers from the Agricultural Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) and collaborators associated with USDA Regional Biomass Research Centers. Second generation biofuel feedstocks provide an opportunity to increase the production of transportation fuels from recently fixed plant carbon rather than from fossil fuels. Although there is no “one-size-fits-all” bioenergy feedstock, crop residues like corn (Zea mays L.) stover are the most readily available bioenergy feedstocks. However, on marginally productive cropland, perennial grasses provide a feedstock supply while enhancing ecosystem services. Twenty-five years of research has demonstrated that perennial grasses like switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) are profitable and environmentally sustainable on marginally productive cropland in the western Corn Belt and Southeastern USA.","Mitchell, R. B.; Schmer, M. R.; Anderson, W. F.; Jin, V.; Balkcom, K. S.; Kiniry, J.; Coffin, A.; White, P.",10.1007/s12155-016-9734-2,"June 01",1939-1242,"BioEnergy Research","Dedicated energy crops and crop residues for bioenergy feedstocks in the central and eastern USA","journal article",2016,25546,89491e17-4e39-4437-a489-e2020c2411bd,"Journal Article",/article/10.1007/s12155-016-9734-2
/reference/89e08a41-6091-45fa-a92e-6168a90a8151,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/89e08a41-6091-45fa-a92e-6168a90a8151,89e08a41-6091-45fa-a92e-6168a90a8151,"California is currently in the midst of a record-setting drought. The drought began in 2012 and now includes the lowest calendar-year and 12-mo precipitation, the highest annual temperature, and the most extreme drought indicators on record. The extremely warm and dry conditions have led to acute water shortages, groundwater overdraft, critically low streamflow, and enhanced wildfire risk. Analyzing historical climate observations from California, we find that precipitation deficits in California were more than twice as likely to yield drought years if they occurred when conditions were warm. We find that although there has not been a substantial change in the probability of either negative or moderately negative precipitation anomalies in recent decades, the occurrence of drought years has been greater in the past two decades than in the preceding century. In addition, the probability that precipitation deficits co-occur with warm conditions and the probability that precipitation deficits produce drought have both increased. Climate model experiments with and without anthropogenic forcings reveal that human activities have increased the probability that dry precipitation years are also warm. Further, a large ensemble of climate model realizations reveals that additional global warming over the next few decades is very likely to create ∼100% probability that any annual-scale dry period is also extremely warm. We therefore conclude that anthropogenic warming is increasing the probability of co-occurring warm–dry conditions like those that have created the acute human and ecosystem impacts associated with the “exceptional” 2012–2014 drought in California.","Diffenbaugh, Noah S.; Swain, Daniel L.; Touma, Danielle",10.1073/pnas.1422385112,"March 31, 2015",,"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","Anthropogenic warming has increased drought risk in California",,2015,19545,89e08a41-6091-45fa-a92e-6168a90a8151,"Journal Article",/article/10.1073/pnas.1422385112
/reference/89e6d677-42f9-4661-b33c-3f6235ef6f1a,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/89e6d677-42f9-4661-b33c-3f6235ef6f1a,89e6d677-42f9-4661-b33c-3f6235ef6f1a,,"Araya, A.; Kisekka, I.; Lin, X.; Vara Prasad, P. V.; Gowda, P. H.; Rice, C.; Andales, A.",10.1016/j.crm.2017.08.001,2017/01/01/,2212-0963,"Climate Risk Management","Evaluating the impact of future climate change on irrigated maize production in Kansas",,2017,23496,89e6d677-42f9-4661-b33c-3f6235ef6f1a,"Journal Article",/article/10.1016/j.crm.2017.08.001
/reference/8ae42581-294f-4427-b071-37ddaf97e41a,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/8ae42581-294f-4427-b071-37ddaf97e41a,8ae42581-294f-4427-b071-37ddaf97e41a,"Six Bos taurus (Hereford) steers (body weight 324 ± 22 kg) were used in a 45-day study with a replicated 3 × 3 Latin-square design. Three treatments [ad libitum feeding (ADLIB); limit feeding, 85% of ad libitum (LIMIT); bunk management feeding where steers were only given access to feed from 1600 to 0800 hours the following day (BUNK)] were imposed over 3 periods, with 2 steers assigned to each treatment in each period. Cattle were managed in a temperature-controlled metabolism unit and were exposed to both thermoneutral (17.7°C–26.1°C) and hot (16.7°C–32.9°C) environmental conditions. By design, during the thermoneutral period, the ADLIB cattle displayed greater intake (P < 0.05) than the LIMIT group, with the BUNK group being intermediate. However, during the hot period, both the LIMIT and BUNK treatment groups increased feed intake 4–5%, whereas feed intake of the ADLIB treatment group declined nearly 2%. During both periods respiration rate (RR, breath/min) followed the same pattern that was observed for feed intake, with the greatest (P < 0.05) RR found in the ADLIB treatment group (81.09 and 109.55, thermoneutral and hot, respectively) and lowest (P < 0.05) RR in the LIMIT treatment group (74.47 and 102.76, thermoneutral and hot, respectively). Rectal temperature (RT) did not differ among treatments during the thermoneutral period or the first hot day, although during the thermoneutral period the ADLIB treatment group did tend to display a lower RT, possibly as a result of other physiological processes (pulse rate and RR) aiding to keep RT lower. During the hot period, differences in RT were found on Day 5, with the LIMIT cattle having lower (P < 0.10) RT (38.92°C) than the ADLIB (39.18°C) cattle, with BUNK cattle RT (39.14°C) being intermediate. However, when hourly data were examined, the ADLIB cattle had greater (P < 0.05) RT than the BUNK and LIMIT at 1800 hours and greater RT (P < 0.05) than the LIMIT group at 1400, 1500, and 1600 hours. Clearly, a change in diurnal RT pattern was obtained by using the LIMIT and BUNK feeding regimen. Both of these groups displayed a peak RT during the hot conditions, between 2100 and 2200 hours, whereas the ADLIB group displayed a peak RT between 1400 and 1500 hours, a time very close to when peak climatic stress occurs.Based on these results it is apparent that feedlot managers could alleviate the effects of adverse hot weather on cattle by utilising either a limit-feeding regimen or altering bunk management practices to prevent feed from being consumed several hours prior to the hottest portion of the day.","Holt, Simone M.; Gaughan, John. B.; Mader, Terry L.",10.1071/AR03261,,,"Australian Journal of Agricultural Research","Feeding strategies for grain-fed cattle in a hot environment",,2004,23533,8ae42581-294f-4427-b071-37ddaf97e41a,"Journal Article",/article/10.1071/AR03261
/reference/8df33787-ee0c-42f1-aec2-b095f3895bf3,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/8df33787-ee0c-42f1-aec2-b095f3895bf3,8df33787-ee0c-42f1-aec2-b095f3895bf3,"Heat stress has a significant impact on all livestock and poultry species causing economic losses and animal well-being concerns. Providing shade is one heat-abatement strategy that has been studied for years. Material selected to provide shade for animals greatly influences the overall stress reduction provided by shade. A study was conducted to quantify both the environment and animal response, when cattle had no shade access during summertime exposure or were given access to shade provided by three different materials. A total of 32 Black Angus heifers were assigned to one of the four treatment pens according to weight (eight animals per pen). Each pen was assigned a shade treatment: No Shade, Snow Fence, 60% Aluminet Shade Cloth and 100% Shade Cloth. In the shaded treatment pens, the shade structure covered ~40% of the pen (7.5 m2/animal). Animals were moved to a different treatment every 2 weeks in a 4×4 Latin square design to ensure each treatment was applied to each group of animals. Both environmental parameters and physiological responses were measured during the experiment. Environmental parameters included dry-bulb temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, black globe temperature (BGT), solar radiation (SR) and feedlot surface temperature. Animal response measurements included manual respiration rate (RRm), electronic respiration rate (RRe), vaginal temperature (body temperature (BT)), complete blood count (CBC) and plasma cortisol. The environmental data demonstrated changes proportional to the quality of shade offered. However, the animal responses did not follow this same trend. Some of the data suggest that any amount of shade was beneficial to the animals. However, Snow Fence may not offer adequate protection to reduce BT. For some of the parameters (BT, CBC and cortisol), 60% Aluminet and 100% Shade Cloth offers similar protection. The 60% Aluminet lowered RRe the most during extreme conditions. When considering all parameters, environmental and physiological, 60% Aluminet Shade Cloth offered reductions of BGT, SR, feedlot surface temperature and the best (or equal to the best) overall protection for the animals (RRe, RRm, BT, blood parameters).","Brown-Brandl, T. M.; Chitko-McKown, C. G.; Eigenberg, R. A.; Mayer, J. J.; Welsh, T. H.; Davis, J. D.; Purswell, J. L.",10.1017/S1751731116002664,,1751-7311,Animal,"Physiological responses of feedlot heifers provided access to different levels of shade",,2017,23507,8df33787-ee0c-42f1-aec2-b095f3895bf3,"Journal Article",/article/10.1017/S1751731116002664
/reference/8e18ab12-1505-4f37-83fd-6da142422a43,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/8e18ab12-1505-4f37-83fd-6da142422a43,8e18ab12-1505-4f37-83fd-6da142422a43,,"Mader, Terry L.; Griffin, Dee",10.1016/j.cvfa.2015.03.006,,0749-0720,"Veterinary Clinics: Food Animal Practice","Management of cattle exposed to adverse environmental conditions",,2015,23556,8e18ab12-1505-4f37-83fd-6da142422a43,"Journal Article",/article/10.1016/j.cvfa.2015.03.006
/reference/8e30bef3-ce8e-4df4-879b-21f809b02998,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/8e30bef3-ce8e-4df4-879b-21f809b02998,8e30bef3-ce8e-4df4-879b-21f809b02998,"Extreme heat is a significant public health challenge in urban environments that disproportionally impacts vulnerable members of society. In this research, demographic, economic and climate projections are brought together with a statistical approach linking extreme heat and mortality in Houston, Texas. The sensitivity of heat-related non-accidental mortality to future changes of demographics, income and climate is explored. We compare climate change outcomes associated with two different Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, which describe alternate future scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations. For each RCP, we explore demographic and economic scenarios for two plausible Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), SSP3 and SSP5. Our findings suggest that non-accidental mortality in 2061–2080 may increase for all combinations of RCP and SSP scenarios compared to a historical reference period spanning 1991–2010. Notably, increased heat-related non-accidental mortality is associated with changes in the size and age of the population, but the degree of sensitivity is highly uncertain given the breadth of plausible socioeconomic scenarios. Beyond socioeconomic changes, climate change is also important. For each socioeconomic scenario, non-accidental mortality associated with the lower emissions RCP4.5 scenario is projected to be 50 % less than mortality projected under the higher emissions RCP8.5 scenario.","Marsha, A.; Sain, S. R.; Heaton, M. J.; Monaghan, A. J.; Wilhelmi, O.V.",10.1007/s10584-016-1775-1,"August 30",1573-1480,"Climatic Change","Influences of climatic and population changes on heat-related mortality in Houston, Texas, USA","journal article",2016,23558,8e30bef3-ce8e-4df4-879b-21f809b02998,"Journal Article",/article/10.1007/s10584-016-1775-1
/reference/8e77c2a4-9af8-428f-b5fd-67bf2ece89cb,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/8e77c2a4-9af8-428f-b5fd-67bf2ece89cb,8e77c2a4-9af8-428f-b5fd-67bf2ece89cb,"The Great Plains region of the United States is an agricultural production center for the global market and, as such, an important source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This article uses historical agricultural census data and ecosystem models to estimate the magnitude of annual GHG fluxes from all agricultural sources (e.g., cropping, livestock raising, irrigation, fertilizer production, tractor use) in the Great Plains from 1870 to 2000. Here, we show that carbon (C) released during the plow-out of native grasslands was the largest source of GHG emissions before 1930, whereas livestock production, direct energy use, and soil nitrous oxide emissions are currently the largest sources. Climatic factors mediate these emissions, with cool and wet weather promoting C sequestration and hot and dry weather increasing GHG release. This analysis demonstrates the long-term ecosystem consequences of both historical and current agricultural activities, but also indicates that adoption of available alternative management practices could substantially mitigate agricultural GHG fluxes, ranging from a 34% reduction with a 25% adoption rate to as much as complete elimination with possible net sequestration of C when a greater proportion of farmers adopt new agricultural practices.","Parton, William J.; Gutmann, Myron P.; Merchant, Emily R.; Hartman, Melannie D.; Adler, Paul R.; McNeal, Frederick M.; Lutz, Susan M.",10.1073/pnas.1416499112,"August 25, 2015",,"Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America","Measuring and mitigating agricultural greenhouse gas production in the US Great Plains, 1870–2000",,2015,23566,8e77c2a4-9af8-428f-b5fd-67bf2ece89cb,"Journal Article",/article/10.1073/pnas.1416499112
/reference/8ee0df47-ffba-46a4-a233-7942a996792c,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/8ee0df47-ffba-46a4-a233-7942a996792c,8ee0df47-ffba-46a4-a233-7942a996792c,"Miscanthus represents a key candidate energy crop for use in biomass‐to‐liquid fuel‐conversion processes and biorefineries to produce a range of liquid fuels and chemicals; it has recently attracted considerable attention. Its yield, elemental composition, carbohydrate and lignin content and composition are of high importance to be reviewed for future biofuel production and development. Starting from Miscanthus, various pre‐treatment technologies have recently been developed in the literature to break down the lignin structure, disrupt the crystalline structure of cellulose, and enhance its enzyme digestibility. These technologies included chemical, physicochemical, and biological pre‐treatments. Due to its significantly lower concentrations of moisture and ash, Miscanthus also represents a key candidate crop for use in biomass‐to‐liquid conversion processes to produce a range of liquid fuels and chemicals by thermochemical conversion. The goal of this paper is to review the current status of the technology for biofuel production from this crop within a biorefinery context.","Brosse, Nicolas; Dufour, Anthony; Meng, Xianzhi; Sun, Qining; Ragauskas, Arthur",10.1002/bbb.1353,,,"Biofuels, Bioproducts and Biorefining","Miscanthus: A fast‐growing crop for biofuels and chemicals production",,2012,25587,8ee0df47-ffba-46a4-a233-7942a996792c,"Journal Article",/article/10.1002/bbb.1353
/reference/8fd88741-58fd-4753-ae35-af3a2ed38915,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/8fd88741-58fd-4753-ae35-af3a2ed38915,8fd88741-58fd-4753-ae35-af3a2ed38915,"Observations show global sea level is rising due to climate change, with the highest rates in the tropical Pacific Ocean where many of the world’s low-lying atolls are located. Sea-level rise is particularly critical for low-lying carbonate reef-lined atoll islands; these islands have limited land and water available for human habitation, water and food sources, and ecosystems that are vulnerable to inundation from sea-level rise. Here we demonstrate that sea-level rise will result in larger waves and higher wave-driven water levels along atoll islands’ shorelines than at present. Numerical model results reveal waves will synergistically interact with sea-level rise, causing twice as much land forecast to be flooded for a given value of sea-level rise than currently predicted by current models that do not take wave-driven water levels into account. Atolls with islands close to the shallow reef crest are more likely to be subjected to greater wave-induced run-up and flooding due to sea-level rise than those with deeper reef crests farther from the islands’ shorelines. It appears that many atoll islands will be flooded annually, salinizing the limited freshwater resources and thus likely forcing inhabitants to abandon their islands in decades, not centuries, as previously thought.","Storlazzi, Curt D.; Elias, Edwin P. L.; Berkowitz, Paul",10.1038/srep14546,2015/09/25/,2045-2322,"Scientific Reports","Many atolls may be uninhabitable within decades due to climate change",,2015,22521,8fd88741-58fd-4753-ae35-af3a2ed38915,"Journal Article",/article/10.1038/srep14546
/reference/909a0b17-06fc-4995-a5b2-d837cabc4b6d,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/909a0b17-06fc-4995-a5b2-d837cabc4b6d,909a0b17-06fc-4995-a5b2-d837cabc4b6d,,"EPA,",,,,,"Climate Change Indicators: Heavy Precipitation",,2016,23645,909a0b17-06fc-4995-a5b2-d837cabc4b6d,"Web Page",/webpage/c46ca30e-8070-4226-aa7c-9546d6990ebf
/reference/90c9d28c-4d1c-403c-8418-483c0fd939e8,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/90c9d28c-4d1c-403c-8418-483c0fd939e8,90c9d28c-4d1c-403c-8418-483c0fd939e8,,"Maresch, Wayne; Walbridge, Mark R.; Kugler, Daniel",10.2489/jswc.63.6.198A,"November 1, 2008",,"Journal of Soil and Water Conservation","Enhancing conservation on agricultural landscapes: A new direction for the Conservation Effects Assessment Project",,2008,26127,90c9d28c-4d1c-403c-8418-483c0fd939e8,"Journal Article",/article/10.2489/jswc.63.6.198A
/reference/9183bef5-0e8c-4126-859c-15075554448a,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/9183bef5-0e8c-4126-859c-15075554448a,9183bef5-0e8c-4126-859c-15075554448a,,"Blanc, Elodie; Caron, Justin; Fant, Charles; Monier, Erwan",10.1002/2016EF000473,,2328-4277,"Earth's Future","Is current irrigation sustainable in the United States? An integrated assessment of climate change impact on water resources and irrigated crop yields",,2017,21470,9183bef5-0e8c-4126-859c-15075554448a,"Journal Article",/article/10.1002/2016EF000473
/reference/9282485a-e4e4-42d8-b8c5-2cd00eecb3fd,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/9282485a-e4e4-42d8-b8c5-2cd00eecb3fd,9282485a-e4e4-42d8-b8c5-2cd00eecb3fd,,"Lobell, D.B.; Schlenker, W.; Costa-Roberts, J.",10.1126/science.1204531,,0036-8075,Science,"Climate trends and global crop production since 1980",,2011,14290,9282485a-e4e4-42d8-b8c5-2cd00eecb3fd,"Journal Article",/article/10.1126/science.1204531
/reference/94c2d912-8ac9-4c32-958c-6918f5cc079a,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/94c2d912-8ac9-4c32-958c-6918f5cc079a,94c2d912-8ac9-4c32-958c-6918f5cc079a,"Cover crops have long been touted for their ability to reduce erosion, fix atmospheric nitrogen, reduce nitrogen leaching, and improve soil health. In recent decades, there has been resurgence in cover crop adoption that is synchronous with a heightened awareness of climate change. Climate change mitigation and adaptation may be additional, important ecosystem services provided by cover crops, but they lie outside of the traditional list of cover cropping benefits. Here, we review the potential for cover crops to mitigate climate change by tallying all of the positive and negative impacts of cover crops on the net global warming potential of agricultural fields. Then, we use lessons learned from two contrasting regions to evaluate how cover crops affect adaptive management for precipitation and temperature change. Three key outcomes from this synthesis are (1) Cover crop effects on greenhouse gas fluxes typically mitigate warming by ~100 to 150 g CO2 e/m2/year, which is higher than mitigation from transitioning to no-till. The most important terms in the budget are soil carbon sequestration and reduced fertilizer use after legume cover crops. (2) The surface albedo change due to cover cropping, calculated for the first time here using case study sites in central Spain and Pennsylvania, USA, may mitigate 12 to 46 g CO2 e/m2/year over a 100-year time horizon. And (3) Cover crop management can also enable climate change adaptation at these case study sites, especially through reduced vulnerability to erosion from extreme rain events, increased soil water management options during droughts or periods of soil saturation, and retention of nitrogen mineralized due to warming. Overall, we found very few tradeoffs between cover cropping and climate change mitigation and adaptation, suggesting that ecosystem services that are traditionally expected from cover cropping can be promoted synergistically with services related to climate change.","Kaye, Jason P.; Quemada, Miguel",10.1007/s13593-016-0410-x,"January 19",1773-0155,"Agronomy for Sustainable Development","Using cover crops to mitigate and adapt to climate change. A review","journal article",2017,23545,94c2d912-8ac9-4c32-958c-6918f5cc079a,"Journal Article",/article/10.1007/s13593-016-0410-x
/reference/95a21b96-f699-4b5c-8281-e1d6e2c8398f,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/95a21b96-f699-4b5c-8281-e1d6e2c8398f,95a21b96-f699-4b5c-8281-e1d6e2c8398f,,"Frank, Dorothea; Reichstein, Markus; Bahn, Michael; Thonicke, Kirsten; Frank, David; Mahecha, Miguel D.; Smith, Pete; van der Velde, Marijn; Vicca, Sara; Babst, Flurin; Beer, Christian; Buchmann, Nina; Canadell, Josep G.; Ciais, Philippe; Cramer, Wolfgang; Ibrom, Andreas; Miglietta, Franco; Poulter, Ben; Rammig, Anja; Seneviratne, Sonia I.; Walz, Ariane; Wattenbach, Martin; Zavala, Miguel A.; Zscheischler, Jakob",10.1111/gcb.12916,,1365-2486,"Global Change Biology","Effects of climate extremes on the terrestrial carbon cycle: Concepts, processes and potential future impacts",,2015,19777,95a21b96-f699-4b5c-8281-e1d6e2c8398f,"Journal Article",/article/10.1111/gcb.12916
/reference/95ab23a5-e563-4867-b5e6-de459c24ffa5,https://data.globalchange.gov/reference/95ab23a5-e563-4867-b5e6-de459c24ffa5,95ab23a5-e563-4867-b5e6-de459c24ffa5,,"U.S. Federal Government,",,,,,"U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit: Coastal Erosion [web page]",,2016,26126,95ab23a5-e563-4867-b5e6-de459c24ffa5,"Web Page",/webpage/2ac7b155-1ee1-4c12-98f7-efa90aee0917