SU(3) Landau gauge gluon and ghost propagators using the logarithmic lattice gluon field definition

We study the Landau gauge gluon and ghost propagators of SU(3) gauge theory, employing the logarithmic definition for the lattice gluon fields and implementing the corresponding form of the Faddeev-Popov matrix. This is necessary in order to consistently compare lattice data for the bare propagators with that of higher-loop numerical stochastic perturbation theory (NSPT). In this paper we provide such a comparison, and introduce what is needed for an efficient lattice study. When comparing our data for the logarithmic definition to that of the standard lattice Landau gauge we clearly see the propagators to be multiplicatively related. The data of the associated ghost-gluon coupling matches up almost completely. For the explored lattice spacings and sizes discretization artifacts, finite-size and Gribov-copy effects are small. At weak coupling and large momentum, the bare propagators and the ghost-gluon coupling are seen to be approached by those of higher-order NSPT.Comment: 18 pages, 19 figures, 5 table

Corrigendum: Projections for headwater catchments of the Tarim River reveal glacier retreat and decreasing surface water availability but uncertainties are large (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 054024)

This is a correction for 2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 05402

Performance of seasonal forecasts for the flowering and veraison of two major Portuguese grapevine varieties

Seasonal phenology forecasts are becoming increasingly demanded by winegrowers and viticulturists. Forecast performance needs to be investigated over space and time before practical applications. We assess seasonal forecast performance (skill, probability and accuracy) in predicting flowering and veraison stages of two representative varieties in Portugal over 1993–2017. The state-of-the-art forecast system ECMWF-SEAS5 provides 7-month seasonal forecasts and is coupled with a locally adapted phenology model. Overall, findings illustrate the dependence of forecast performance on initialization timings, regions and predicting subjects (stages and varieties). Forecast performance improves by delaying the initialization timing and only forecasts initialized on April 1st show better skills than climatology on predicting phenology terciles (early/normal/late). The considerable bias of daily values of seasonal climate predictions can represent the main barrier to accurate forecasts. Better prediction performance is consistently found in Central-Southern regions compared to Northern regions, attributing to an earlier phenology occurrence with a shorter forecast length. Comparable predictive skills between flowering and veraison for both varieties imply better predictability in summer. Consequently, promising seasonal phenology predictions are foreseen in Central-Southern wine regions using forecasts initialized on April 1st with approximately 1–2/3–4 months lead time for flowering/veraison: potential prediction errors are ∼2 weeks, along with an overall moderate forecast skill on categorical events. However, considerable inter-annual variability of forecast performance over the same classified phenology years reflects the substantial influence of climate variability. This may represent the main challenge for reliable forecasts in Mediterranean regions. Recommendations are suggested for methodological innovations and practical applications towards reliable regional phenology forecasts

Simultaneous Calibration of Grapevine Phenology and Yield with a Soil–Plant–Atmosphere System Model Using the Frequentist Method

Reliable estimations of parameter values and associated uncertainties are crucial for crop model applications in agro-environmental research. However, estimating many parameters simultaneously for different types of response variables is difficult. This becomes more complicated for grapevines with different phenotypes between varieties and training systems. Our study aims to evaluate how a standard least square approach can be used to calibrate a complex grapevine model for simulating both the phenology (flowering and harvest date) and yield of four different variety–training systems in the Douro Demarcated Region, northern Portugal. An objective function is defined to search for the best-fit parameters that result in the minimum value of the unweighted sum of the normalized Root Mean Squared Error (nRMSE) of the studied variables. Parameter uncertainties are estimated as how a given parameter value can determine the total prediction variability caused by variations in the other parameter combinations. The results indicate that the best-estimated parameters show a satisfactory predictive performance, with a mean bias of −2 to 4 days for phenology and −232 to 159 kg/ha for yield. The corresponding variance in the observed data was generally well reproduced, except for one occasion. These parameters are a good trade-off to achieve results close to the best possible fit of each response variable. No parameter combinations can achieve minimum errors simultaneously for phenology and yield, where the best fit to one variable can lead to a poor fit to another. The proposed parameter uncertainty analysis is particularly useful to select the best-fit parameter values when several choices with equal performance occur. A global sensitivity analysis is applied where the fruit-setting parameters are identified as key determinants for yield simulations. Overall, the approach (including uncertainty analysis) is relatively simple and straightforward without specific pre-conditions (e.g., model continuity), which can be easily applied for other models and crops. However, a challenge has been identified, which is associated with the appropriate assumption of the model errors, where a combination of various calibration approaches might be essential to have a more robust parameter estimation

Projected climate change and its impacts on glaciers and water resources in the headwaters of the Tarim River, NW China/Kyrgyzstan

This study was conducted within the project SuMaRiO (Sustainable Management of River Oases along the Tarim River; http://www.sumario.de/), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF grants 01LL0918J, 01LL0918I and 01LL0918B). T. Bolch acknowledges funding by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, BO3199/2–1). Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.Glacierised river catchments are highly sensitive to climate change, while large populations may depend on their water resources. The irrigation agriculture and the communities along the Tarim River, NW China, strongly depend on the discharge from the glacierised catchments surrounding the Taklamakan Desert. While recent increasing discharge has been beneficial for the agricultural sector, future runoff under climate change is uncertain. We assess three climate change scenarios by forcing two glacio-hydrological models with output of eight general circulation models. The models have different glaciological modelling approaches but were both calibrated to discharge and glacier mass balance observations. Projected changes in climate, glacier cover and river discharge are examined over the twenty-first century and generally point to warmer and wetter conditions. The model ensemble projects median temperature and precipitation increases of + 1.9–5.3 °C and + 9–24%, respectively, until the end of the century compared to the 1971–2000 reference period. Glacier area is projected to shrink by 15–73% (model medians, range over scenarios), depending on the catchment. River discharge is projected to first increase by about 20% in the Aksu River catchments with subsequent decreases of up to 20%. In contrast, discharge in the drier Hotan and Yarkant catchments is projected to increase by 15–60% towards the end of the century. The large uncertainties mainly relate to the climate model ensemble and the limited observations to constrain the glacio-hydrological models. Sustainable water resource management will be key to avert the risks associated with the projected changes and their uncertainties.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Climate impact emergence and flood peak synchronization projections in the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna basins under CMIP5 and CMIP6 scenarios

The densely populated delta of the three river systems of the Ganges, Brahmaputra and Meghna is highly prone to floods. Potential climate change-related increases in flood intensity are therefore of major societal concern as more than 40 million people live in flood-prone areas in downstream Bangladesh. Here we report on new flood projections using a hydrological model forced by bias-adjusted ensembles of the latest-generation global climate models of CMIP6 (SSP5-8.5/SSP1-2.6) in comparison to CMIP5 (RCP8.5/RCP2.6). Results suggest increases in peak flow magnitude of 36% (16%) on average under SSP5-8.5 (SSP1-2.6), compared to 60% (17%) under RCP8.5 (RCP2.6) by 2070-2099 relative to 1971-2000. Under RCP8.5/SSP5-8.5 (2070-2099), the largest increase in flood risk is projected for the Ganges watershed, where higher flood peaks become the ‘new norm’ as early as mid-2030 implying a relatively short time window for adaptation. In the Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers, the climate impact signal on peak flow emerges after 2070 (CMIP5 and CMIP6 projections). Flood peak synchronization, when annual peak flow occurs simultaneously at (at least) two rivers leading to large flooding events within Bangladesh, show a consistent increase under both projections. While the variability across the ensemble remains high, the increases in flood magnitude are robust in the study basins. Our findings emphasize the need of stringent climate mitigation policies to reduce the climate change impact on peak flows (as presented using SSP1-2.6/RCP2.6) and to subsequently minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts and adaptation costs. Considering Bangladesh’s high overall vulnerability to climate change and its downstream location, synergies between climate change adaptation and mitigation and transboundary cooperation will need to be strengthened to improve overall climate resilience and achieve sustainable development

Heat stress risk in European dairy cattle husbandry under different climate change scenarios - uncertainties and potential impacts

[EN] In the last decades, a global warming trend was observed. Along with the temperature increase, modifications in the humidity and wind regime amplify the regional and local impacts on livestock husbandry. Direct impacts include the occurrence of climatic stress conditions. In Europe, cows are economically highly relevant and are mainly kept in naturally ventilated buildings that are most susceptible to climate change. The high-yielding cows are particularly vulnerable to heat stress. Modifications in housing management are the main measures taken to improve the ability of livestock to cope with these conditions. Measures are typically taken in direct reaction to uncomfortable conditions instead of in anticipation of a long-term risk for climatic stress. Measures that balance welfare, environmental and economic issues are barely investigated in the context of climate change and are thus almost not available for commercial farms. Quantitative analysis of the climate change impacts on animal welfare and linked economic and environmental factors is rare. Therefore, we used a numerical modeling approach to estimate the future heat stress risk in such dairy cattle husbandry systems. The indoor climate was monitored inside three reference barns in central Europe and the Mediterranean regions. An artificial neuronal network (ANN) was trained to relate the outdoor weather conditions provided by official meteorological weather stations to the measured indoor microclimate. Subsequently, this ANN model was driven by an ensemble of regional climate model projections with three different greenhouse gas concentration scenarios. For the evaluation of the heat stress risk, we considered the number and duration of heat stress events. Based on the changes in the heat stress events, various economic and environmental impacts were estimated. The impacts of the projected increase in heat stress risk varied among the barns due to different locations and designs as well as the anticipated climate change (considering different climate models and future greenhouse gas concentrations). There was an overall increasing trend in number and duration of heat stress events. At the end of the century, the number of annual stress events can be expected to increase by up to 2000, while the average duration of the events increases by up to 22 h compared to the end of the last century. This implies strong impacts on economics, environment and animal welfare and an urgent need for mid-term adaptation strategies. We anticipated that up to one-tenth of all hours of a year, correspondingly one-third of all days, will be classified as critical heat stress conditions. Due to heat stress, milk yield may decrease by about 2.8 % relative to the present European milk yield, and farmers may expect financial losses in the summer season of about 5.4 % of their monthly income. In addition, an increasing demand for emission reduction measures must be expected, as an emission increase of about 16 Gg of ammonia and 0.1 Gg of methane per year can be expected under the anticipated heat stress conditions. The cattle respiration rate increases by up to 60 %, and the standing time may be prolonged by 1 h. This causes health issues and increases the probability of medical treatments. The various impacts imply feedback loops in the climate system which are presently underexplored. Hence, future in-depth studies on the different impacts and adaptation options at different stress levels are highly recommended.This research has been supported by the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture (BMEL) through the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE) (grant nos. 2814ERA02C and 2814ERA03C), the Instituto Nacional de Investigacion Tecnologia Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA) (grant no. 618105), the Basque Government (grant no. BERC 2018-2021), the Spanish Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness MINECO (grant nos. MDM-2017-0714, FJCI-2016-30263, and RYC-2017-22143), and the Innovation Foundation Denmark (grant no. 4215-00004B).Hempel, S.; Menz, C.; Pinto, S.; Galán, E.; Janke, D.; Estellés, F.; Müschner-Siemens, T.... (2019). Heat stress risk in European dairy cattle husbandry under different climate change scenarios - uncertainties and potential impacts. Earth System Dynamics. 10(4):859-884. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-10-859-2019S859884104Acatincăi, S., Gavojdian, D., Stanciu, G., Cziszter, L. T., Tripon, I., and Baul, S.: Study Regarding Rumination Behavior in Cattle–Position Adopted by Cows During Rumination Process, Scientific Papers Animal Science and Biotechnologies, 43, 199–202, 2010. aAllen, J., Anderson, S., Collier, R., and Smith, J.: Managing heat stress and its impact on cow behavior, in: 28th Annual Southwest Nutrition and Management Conference, 6–8 March 2013, Reno, Nevada, USA, 2013. aAllen, J., Hall, L., Collier, R., and Smith, J.: Effect of core body temperature, time of day, and climate conditions on behavioral patterns of lactating dairy cows experiencing mild to moderate heat stress, J. Dairy Sci., 98, 118–127, 2015. a, bAmon, B., Kryvoruchko, V., Fröhlich, M., Amon, T., Pöllinger, A., Mösenbacher, I., and Hausleitner, A.: Ammonia and greenhouse gas emissions from a straw flow system for fattening pigs: Housing and manure storage, Livest. Sci., 112, 199–207, 2007. aAnderson, S., Bradford, B., Harner, J., Tucker, C., Choi, C., Allen, J., Hall, L., Rungruang, S., Collier, R., and Smith, J.: Effects of adjustable and stationary fans with misters on core body temperature and lying behavior of lactating dairy cows in a semiarid climate, J. Dairy Sci., 96, 4738–4750, 2013. a, bAngrecka, S. and Herbut, P.: Conditions for cold stress development in dairy cattle kept in free stall barn during severe frosts, Czech J. Anim. Sci., 60, 81–87, https://doi.org/10.17221/7978-CJAS, 2015. aBailey, K., Jones, C., and Heinrichs, A.: Economic returns to Holstein and Jersey herds under multiple component pricing, J. Dairy Sci., 88, 2269–2280, 2005. aBerman, A.: Estimates of heat stress relief needs for Holstein dairy cows 1, J. Anim. Sci., 83, 1377–1384, 2005. aBerman, A., Folman, Y., Kaim, M., Mamen, M., Herz, Z., Wolfenson, D., Arieli, A., and Graber, Y.: Upper critical temperatures and forced ventilation effects for high-yielding dairy cows in a subtropical climate, J. Dairy Sci., 68, 1488–1495, 1985. aBernabucci, U., Biffani, S., Buggiotti, L., Vitali, A., Lacetera, N., and Nardone, A.: The effects of heat stress in Italian Holstein dairy cattle, J. Dairy Sci., 97, 471–486, 2014. a, bBianca, W.: Relative importance of dry- and wet-bulb temperatures in causing heat stress in cattle, Nature, 195, 251–252, 1962. aBohmanova, J., Misztal, I., and Cole, J.: Temperature-humidity indices as indicators of milk production losses due to heat stress, J. Dairy Sci., 90, 1947–1956, 2007. a, b, c, dBouraoui, R., Lahmar, M., Majdoub, A., Djemali, M., and Belyea, R.: The relationship of temperature-humidity index with milk production of dairy cows in a Mediterranean climate, Anim. Res., 51, 479–491, 2002. a, bBroucek, J.: Production of methane emissions from ruminant husbandry: a review, J. Environ. Prot., 5, 1482–1493, https://doi.org/10.4236/jep.2014.515141, 2014. aBrouček, J., Letkovičová, M., and Kovalčuj, K.: Estimation of cold stress effect on dairy cows, Int. J. Biometeorol., 35, 29–32, 1991. aBroucek, J., Ryba, S., Mihina, S., Uhrincat, M., and Kisac, P.: Impact of thermal-humidity index on milk yield under conditions of different dairy management, J. Anim. Feed Sci., 16, 329–344, https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/66755/2007, 2007. a, bBrown-Brandl, T., Eigenberg, R., Nienaber, J., and Hahn, G. L.: Dynamic response indicators of heat stress in shaded and non-shaded feedlot cattle, Part 1: Analyses of indicators, Biosyst. Eng., 90, 451–462, 2005. aBrügemann, K., Gernand, E., König von Borstel, U., and König, S.: Defining and evaluating heat stress thresholds in different dairy cow production systems, Arch. Anim. Breed., 55, 13–24, 2012. aCannon, A. J.: Multivariate quantile mapping bias correction: an N-dimensional probability density function transform for climate model simulations of multiple variables, Clim. Dynam., 50, 31–49, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3580-6, 2018. aCarabano, M.-J., Logar, B., Bormann, J., Minet, J., Vanrobays, M.-L., Diaz, C., Tychon, B., Gengler, N., and Hammami, H.: Modeling heat stress under different environmental conditions, J. Dairy Sci., 99, 3798–3814, 2016. a, b, cChristensen, J., Hewitson, B., Busuioc, A., Chen, A., Gao, X., Held, I., Jones, R., Kolli, R., Kwon, W.-T., Laprise, R., Magaña Rueda, V., Mearns, L., Menéndez, C., Räisänen, J., Rinke, A., Sarr, A., and Whetton, P.: Regional Climate Projections, in: IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, edited by: Solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Hen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K., Tignor, M., and Miller, H., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 2007. aCollier, R. J., Hall, L. W., Rungruang, S., and Zimbleman, R. B.: Quantifying heat stress and its impact on metabolism and performance, Proc. Florida Ruminant Nutrition Symp, Department of Animal Sciences, University of Arizona, Gainesville, USA, p. 68, 2012. a, b, cCook, N., Mentink, R., Bennett, T., and Burgi, K.: The effect of heat stress and lameness on time budgets of lactating dairy cows, J. Dairy Sci., 90, 1674–1682, 2007. a, bCurtis, A., Scharf, B., Eichen, P., and Spiers, D.: Relationships between ambient conditions, thermal status, and feed intake of cattle during summer heat stress with access to shade, J. Therm. Biol., 63, 104–111, 2017. ada Costa, A. N. L., Feitosa, J. V., Montezuma, P. A., de Souza, P. T., and de Araújo, A. A.: Rectal temperatures, respiratory rates, production, and reproduction performances of crossbred Girolando cows under heat stress in northeastern Brazil, Int. J. Biometeorol., 59, 1647–1653, 2015. a, bDa Silva, R. G., Maia, A. S. C., and de Macedo Costa, L. L.: Index of thermal stress for cows (ITSC) under high solar radiation in tropical environments, Int. J. Biometeorol., 59, 551–559, 2015. aDavison, T., Jonsson, N., Mayer, D., Gaughan, J., Ehrlich, W., and McGowan, M.: Comparison of the impact of six heat-load management strategies on thermal responses and milk production of feed-pad and pasture fed dairy cows in a subtropical environment, Int. J. Biometeorol., 60, 1961–1968, 2016. aDel Prado A., Scholefield D., Chadwick D., Misselbrook T., Haygarth P., Hopkins A., Dewhurst R., Jones R., Moorby J., Davison P., Lord E., Turner M., Aikman P., and Schröder J.: A modelling framework to identify new integrated dairy production systems, in: 21st General Meeting of the European Grassland Federation (EGF), 3–6 April 2006, Badajoz, Spain, 766–768, 2006. aDe Rensis, F. and Scaramuzzi, R. J.: Heat stress and seasonal effects on reproduction in the dairy cow – a review, Theriogenology, 60, 1139–1151, 2003. aDe Rensis, F., Garcia-Ispierto, I., and López-Gatius, F.: Seasonal heat stress: Clinical implications and hormone treatments for the fertility of dairy cows, Theriogenology, 84, 659–666, 2015. aDiepen, C. v., Wolf, J., Keulen, H. V., and Rappoldt, C.: WOFOST: a simulation model of crop production, Soil Use Manage., 5, 16–24, 1989. aDikmen, S. and Hansen, P.: Is the temperature-humidity index the best indicator of heat stress in lactating dairy cows in a subtropical environment?, J. Dairy Sci., 92, 109–116, 2009. a, bDirksen, G., Gründer, H., Grunert, E., Krause, D., and Stöber, M.: Clinical examination of cattle, 3rd edn., Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin, Germany, 1990. aDosio, A.: Projections of climate change indices of temperature and precipitation from an ensemble of bias-adjusted high-resolution EURO-CORDEX regional climate models, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 5488–5511, 2016. aEfron, B.: Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife, Ann. Stat., 7, 1–26, https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552, 1979. aEfron, B. and Tibshirani, R.: Bootstrap Methods for Standard Errors, Confidence Intervals, and Other Measures of Statistical Accuracy, Stat. Sci., 1, 54–75, https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177013815, 1986. aEuropean Commission – EU FADN: EU Dairy Farms Report Based on 2016 FADN Data, avaialble at: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/fadn_en (last access: 11 April 2019), 2018. aFiedler, A., Fischer, J., Hempel, S., Saha, C., Loebsin, C., Berg, W., Amon, B., Brunsch, R., and Amon, T.: Flow fields within a dairy barn – Measurements, physical modelling and numerical simulation, in: Proceedings of the International Conference of Agricultural Engineering AgEng, 6–10 July 2014, Zürich, Switzerland, 1–5, 2014. a, bFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO): The Impact of Disasters on Agriculture – Assessing the information gap, available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i7279e.pdf (last access: 10 September 2018), 2017. aFord, B.: An Overview of Hot-Deck Procedures, in: Incomplete Data in Sample Surveys: Theory and Bibliographies, edited by: Madow, W., Olkin, I., and Rubin, D., Academic Press, New York, USA, 1983. aFournel, S., Ouellet, V., and Charbonneau, É.: Practices for alleviating heat stress of dairy cows in humid continental climates: a literature review, Animals, 7, 37, https://doi.org/10.3390/ani7050037, 2017. aGalán, E., Llonch, P., Villagrá, A., Levit, H., Pinto, S., and del Prado, A.: A systematic review of non-productivity-related animal-based indicators of heat stress resilience in dairy cattle, PloS one, 13, e0206520, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206520, 2018. a, b, c, dGaughan, J., Mader, T. L., Holt, S., and Lisle, A.: A new heat load index for feedlot cattle, J. Anim. Sci., 86, 226–234, 2008. aGebremedhin, K. and Wu, B.: Simulation of flow field of a ventilated and occupied animal space with different inlet and outlet conditions, J. Therm. Biol., 30, 343–353, 2005. aGiorgi, F. and Gutowski Jr., W. J.: Regional dynamical downscaling and the CORDEX initiative, Annu. Rev. Env. Resour., 40, 467–490, 2015. aGroenestein, C., Hutchings, N., Haenel, H., Amon, B., Menzi, H., Mikkelsen, M., Misselbrook, T., van Bruggen, C., Kupper, T., and Webb, J.: Comparison of ammonia emissions related to nitrogen use efficiency of livestock production in Europe, J. Clean. Prod., 211, 1162–1170, 2019. aGurney, K.: An Introduction to Neural Networks, UCL Press Limited an imprint of Taylor & Francis group, London, UK, 1997. aHahn, G.: Dynamic responses of cattle to thermal heat loads, J. Anim. Sci., 77, 10–20, 1999. aHammami, H., Carabaño, M.-J., Logar, B., Vanrobays, M.-L., and Gengler, N.: Genotype x Climate interactions for protein yield using four European Holstein Populations, in: Proceedings of 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, 17–22 August 2014, Vancouver, Canada, 2014. aHeaton, J.: Artificial Intelligence for Humans, Volume 3: Deep Learning and Neural Networks, Artificial Intelligence for Humans Series, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Heaton Research, Inc., Chesterfield, USA, 2015. aHeinicke, J., Hoffmann, G., Ammon, C., Amon, B., and Amon, T.: Effects of the daily heat load duration exceeding determined heat load thresholds on activity traits of lactating dairy cows, J. Therm. Biol., 77, 67–74, 2018. a, b, c, dHeinicke, J., Ibscher, S., Belik, V., and Amon, T.: Cow individual activity response to the accumulation of heat load duration, J. Therm. Biol., 82, 23–32, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtherbio.2019.03.011, 2019. aHempel, S. and Menz, C.: Indoor climate projections for European cattle barns, Mendeley Data, v1, https://doi.org/10.17632/tjp8h523p7.1, 2019. aHempel, S., Frieler, K., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J., and Piontek, F.: A trend-preserving bias correction – the ISI-MIP approach, Earth Syst. Dynam., 4, 219–236, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-4-219-2013, 2013. aHempel, S., Wiedemann, L amd Ammon, C., Fiedler, A., Saha, C.and Janke, D. L. C., Fischer, J., Amon, B., Hoffmann, G., Menz, C., Zhang, G., Halachmi, I., Del Prado, A., Estelles, F., Berg, W., Brunsch, R., and Amon, T.: Determine the flow characteristics of naturally ventilated dairy barns to optimize barn climate, in: 12. Tagung: Bau, Technik und Umwelt 2015 in der landwirtschaftlichen Nutztierhaltung, 8–10 September, 2015, KTBL, Darmstadt, Germany, 346–351, 2015a. aHempel, S., Wiedemann, L., Ammon, C., Fiedler, M., Saha, C., Loebsin, C., Fischer, J., Berg, W., Brunsch, R., and Amon, T.: Assessment of the through-flow patterns in naturally ventilated dairy barns – Three methods, one complex approach, in: RAMIRAN 2015 – Rural-Urban Symbiosis, edited by: Körner, I., TC-O_16, TUTech Verlag, Hamburg, Germany, Hamburg University of Technology, Germany, 356–359, e-book, 2015b. aHempel, S., Janke, D., König, M., Menz, C., Englisch, A., Pinto, S., Sibony, V., Halachmi, I., Rong, L., Zong, C., Zhang, G., Sanchis, E., Estelle, F., Calvet, S., Galan, E., del Prado, A., Ammon, C., Amon, B., and Amon, T.: Integrated modelling to assess optimisation potentials for cattle housing climate, Advances in Animal Biosciences, 7, 261–262, https://doi.org/10.1017/S2040470016000352, 2016a. a, bHempel, S., Saha, C. K., Fiedler, M., Berg, W., Hansen, C., Amon, B., and Amon, T.: Non-linear temperature dependency of ammonia and methane emissions from a naturally ventilated dairy barn, Biosyst. Eng., 145, 10–21, 2016b. a, b, c, dHempel, S., Menz, C., Halachmi, I., Zhang, G., del Prado, A., Estelles, F., Amon, B., and Amon, T.: Report on FACCE-JPI valorisation meeting, available at: https://www.faccejpi.com/content/download/5161/48933/version/1/file/FACCE-JPI_Synthesis-valorisation-survey-results-FINAL.pdf (last access: 11 April 2019), 2017a. aHempel, S., Menz, C., Halachmi, I., Zhang, G., del Prado, A., Estelles, F., Amon, B., and Amon, T.: Report on ERANET+ mid-term meeting, available at: https://www.faccejpi.com/content/download/5163/48955/version/2/file/Projects+booklet_updated+08+May+2017.pdf (last access: 11 April 2019), 2017b. aHempel, S., Menz, C., Halachmi, I., Zhang, G., del Prado, A., Estelles, F., Amon, B., and Amon, T.: Report on ERANET+ mid-term meeting, available at: https://www.faccejpi.com/content/download/5295/50720/version/1/file/OptiBarn_presentation_ERA_NET+final+meeting+March18[1].pdf (last access: 11 April 2019), 2017c. aHempel, S., König, M., Menz, C., Janke, D., Amon, B., Banhazi, T. M., Estellés, F., and Amon, T.: Uncertainty in the measurement of indoor temperature and humidity in naturally ventilated dairy buildings as influenced by measurement technique and data variability, Biosyst. Eng., 166, 58–75, 2018. a, b, c, dHerbut, P. and Angrecka, S.: Relationship between THI level and dairy cows’ behaviour during summer period, Ital. J. Anim. Sci., 17, 226–233, 2018. aHerbut, P., Angrecka, S., Nawalany, G., and Adamczyk, K.: Spatial and temporal distribution of temperature, relative humidity and air velocity in a parallel milking parlour during summer period, Ann. Anim. Sci., 15, 517–526, 2015. aHoffmann, I.: Climate change and the characterization, breeding and conservation of animal genetic resources, Anim. Genet., 41, 32–46, 2010. aHonig, H., Miron, J., Lehrer, H., Jackoby, S., Zachut, M., Zinou, A., Portnick, Y., and Moallem, U.: Performance and welfare of high-yielding dairy cows subjected to 5 or 8 cooling sessions daily under hot and humid climate, J. Dairy Sci., 95, 3736–3742, 2012. a, b, c, dHübener, H., Bülow, K., Fooken, C., Früh, B., Hoffmann, P., Höpp, S., Keuler, K., Menz, C., Mohr, V., Radtke, K., Ramthun, H., Spekat, A., Steger, C., Toussaint, F., Warrach-Sagi, K., and Woldt, M.: ReKliEs-De Ergebnisbericht, Tech. rep., World Data Center for Climate (WDCC) at DKRZ, Hamburg, Germany, https://doi.org/10.2312/WDCC/ReKliEsDe_Ergebnisbericht, 2017. aHutchings, N., Sommer, S. G., and Jarvis, S.: A model of ammonia volatilization from a grazing livestock farm, Atmos. Environ., 30, 589–599, 1996. aJackson, P. and Cockcroft, P.: Clinical examination of farm animals, Wiley-Backwell, Hoboken, USA, 2008. aKadzere, C., Murphy, M., Silanikove, N., and Maltz, E.: Heat stress in lactating dairy cows: a review, Livest. Sci., 77, 59–91, 2002. a, b, c, d, eKafle, G. K., Joo, H., and Ndegwa, P. M.: Sampling Duration and Frequency for Determining Emission Rates from Naturally Ventilated Dairy Barns, T. ASABE, 61, 681–691, https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.12543, 2018. aKendall, P., Nielsen, P., Webster, J., Verkerk, G., Littlejohn, R., and Matthews, L.: The effects of providing shade to lactating dairy cows in a temperate climate, Livest. Sci., 103, 148–157, 2006. aKjellström, E., Nikulin, G., Strandberg, G., Christensen, O. B., Jacob, D., Keuler, K., Lenderink, G., van Meijgaard, E., Schär, C., Somot, S., Sørland, S. L., Teichmann, C., and Vautard, R.: European climate change at global mean temperature increases of 1.5 and 2 °C above pre-industrial conditions as simulated by the EURO-CORDEX regional climate models, Earth Syst. Dynam., 9, 459–478, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-9-459-2018, 2018. a, bKurukulasuriya, P. and Rosenthal, S.: Climate change and agriculture: A review of impacts and adaptations, Environment department papers, no. 91, Climate change series, World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA, 2013. aLees, J., Lees, A., and Gaughan, J.: Developing a heat load index for lactating dairy cows, Anim. Prod. Sci., 58, 1387–1391, https://doi.org/10.1071/AN17776, 2018. a, bLelieveld, J., Evans, J. S., Fnais, M., Giannadaki, D., and Pozzer, A.: The contribution of outdoor air pollution sources to premature mortality on a global scale, Nature, 525, 367–371, 2015. aMader, T. L., Davis, M., and Brown-Brandl, T.: Environmental factors influencing heat stress in feedlot cattle, J. Anim. Sci., 84, 712–719, 2006. a, b, cMader, T. L., Johnson, L., and Gaughan, J.: A

Cross-sectoral impacts of the 2018–2019 Central European drought and climate resilience in the German part of the Elbe River basin

The 2018–2019 Central European drought was probably the most extreme in Germany since the early sixteenth century. We assess the multiple consequences of the drought for natural systems, the economy and human health in the German part of the Elbe River basin, an area of 97,175 km2 including the cities of Berlin and Hamburg and contributing about 18% to the German GDP. We employ meteorological, hydrological and socio-economic data to build a comprehensive picture of the drought severity, its multiple effects and cross-sectoral consequences in the basin. Time series of different drought indices illustrate the severity of the 2018–2019 drought and how it progressed from meteorological water deficits via soil water depletion towards low groundwater levels and river runoff, and losses in vegetation productivity. The event resulted in severe production losses in agriculture (minus 20–40% for staple crops) and forestry (especially through forced logging of damaged wood: 25.1 million tons in 2018–2020 compared to only 3.4 million tons in 2015–2017), while other economic sectors remained largely unaffected. However, there is no guarantee that this socio-economic stability will be sustained in future drought events; this is discussed in the light of 2022, another dry year holding the potential for a compound crisis. Given the increased probability for more intense and long-lasting droughts in most parts of Europe, this example of actual cross-sectoral drought impacts will be relevant for drought awareness and preparation planning in other regions