Safer selection and use of pesticides: Integrating risk assessment, monitoring and management of pesticides

Crop Production/Industries,

40 Years Theory and Model at Wageningen UR

"Theorie en model" zo luidde de titel van de inaugurele rede van CT de Wit (1968). Reden genoeg voor een (theoretische) terugblik op zijn wer

Ecohydrological Modeling in Agroecosystems: Examples and Challenges

Human societies are increasingly altering the water and biogeochemical cycles to both improve ecosystem productivity and reduce risks associated with the unpredictable variability of climatic drivers. These alterations, however, often cause large negative environmental consequences, raising the question as to how societies can ensure a sustainable use of natural resources for the future. Here we discuss how ecohydrological modeling may address these broad questions with special attention to agroecosystems. The challenges related to modeling the two‐way interaction between society and environment are illustrated by means of a dynamical model in which soil and water quality supports the growth of human society but is also degraded by excessive pressure, leading to critical transitions and sustained societal growth‐collapse cycles. We then focus on the coupled dynamics of soil water and solutes (nutrients or contaminants), emphasizing the modeling challenges, presented by the strong nonlinearities in the soil and plant system and the unpredictable hydroclimatic forcing, that need to be overcome to quantitatively analyze problems of soil water sustainability in both natural and agricultural ecosystems. We discuss applications of this framework to problems of irrigation, soil salinization, and fertilization and emphasize how optimal solutions for large‐scale, long‐term planning of soil and water resources in agroecosystems under uncertainty could be provided by methods from stochastic control, informed by physically and mathematically sound descriptions of ecohydrological and biogeochemical interactions

Quantitative modelling of the human–Earth System a new kind of science?

The five grand challenges set out for Earth System Science by the International Council for Science in 2010 require a true fusion of social science, economics and natural science—a fusion that has not yet been achieved. In this paper we propose that constructing quantitative models of the dynamics of the human–Earth system can serve as a catalyst for this fusion. We confront well-known objections to modelling societal dynamics by drawing lessons from the development of natural science over the last four centuries and applying them to social and economic science. First, we pose three questions that require real integration of the three fields of science. They concern the coupling of physical planetary boundaries via social processes; the extension of the concept of planetary boundaries to the human–Earth System; and the possibly self-defeating nature of the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals. Second, we ask whether there are regularities or ‘attractors’ in the human–Earth System analogous to those that prompted the search for laws of nature. We nominate some candidates and discuss why we should observe them given that human actors with foresight and intentionality play a fundamental role in the human–Earth System. We conclude that, at sufficiently large time and space scales, social processes are predictable in some sense. Third, we canvass some essential mathematical techniques that this research fusion must incorporate, and we ask what kind of data would be needed to validate or falsify our models. Finally, we briefly review the state of the art in quantitative modelling of the human–Earth System today and highlight a gap between so-called integrated assessment models applied at regional and global scale, which could be filled by a new scale of model

Evolution: Complexity, uncertainty and innovation

Complexity science provides a general mathematical basis for evolutionary thinking. It makes us face the inherent, irreducible nature of uncertainty and the limits to knowledge and prediction. Complex, evolutionary systems work on the basis of on-going, continuous internal processes of exploration, experimentation and innovation at their underlying levels. This is acted upon by the level above, leading to a selection process on the lower levels and a probing of the stability of the level above. This could either be an organizational level above, or the potential market place. Models aimed at predicting system behaviour therefore consist of assumptions of constraints on the micro-level – and because of inertia or conformity may be approximately true for some unspecified time. However, systems without strong mechanisms of repression and conformity will evolve, innovate and change, creating new emergent structures, capabilities and characteristics. Systems with no individual freedom at their lower levels will have predictable behaviour in the short term – but will not survive in the long term. Creative, innovative, evolving systems, on the other hand, will more probably survive over longer times, but will not have predictable characteristics or behaviour. These minimal mechanisms are all that are required to explain (though not predict) the co-evolutionary processes occurring in markets, organizations, and indeed in emergent, evolutionary communities of practice. Some examples will be presented briefly