Impact of Climate Change on Energy Relations in Agroecosystems

Sergiy Sonko

, Nadiya Maksymenko

, Daria Shiyan

, Nadiia Cherkashyna

and Ivan Zozulia

Department of

Ecology and Safety of Vital Functions, Uman National University of Horticulture, 1, Institutional Str.,

Uman, Ukraine

Department of Environmental Monitoring and Protected Area, Karazin Institute of Environmental Sciences, V. N. Karazin

Kharkiv National University, Svobody sq. 6, 61022, Kharkiv, Ukraine

Department of Tourism and Economics, Kryvyi Rih State Pedagogical University, Gagarin Avenue 54, Kryvyi Rih,

Ukraine

Department of English Language, V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, Svobody sq. 4, 61022, Kharkiv, Ukraine

Keywords: Agroecosystem, Climate Change, Landscape Area, Soils, Arable Land, Agriculture, Fodder Crops, Grain

Crops, Coefficient, Crop Rotation.

Abstract: The paper considers formation mechanisms of material and energy flows as well as trophic relations in

agroecosystems in response to climate change. Based on the research of separate crop rotations in typical

farms, the authors found the regularity of commodity crops timing to field crop rotations (on sections of

watersheds), and fodder - to slopes as part of special crop rotations. In the course of the research, the authors

developed a method assessing the rational use of natural resources of the territory for fodder production,

created maps "Correlation between energy flows of producers and consumers", "Formation of energy flows

in agro-ecosystems" and "Deformation of energy relations in agro-ecosystems". The results prove that

formation of artificially supported agrophyto- and zoocenoses directly affects the spatial structure of agro-

landscapes. The article explores general strategy of rational agrolandscapes' formation in the conditions of

climate change, substantiating the list of forage plants adapted to arid climates.

1 INTRODUCTION

Given that agriculture is the closest in terms of type

of material and energy relations to natural

ecosystems, the search for such forms of its

management (specialization) that would meet the

natural capabilities of a given area is probably the

main task to promote sustainable nature in

agriculture. And in recent years, the task is

complicated by destructive processes in the

geosphere of our planet, which are caused by global

climate change.This is best solved by an adaptive

approach, or a system of agricultural production,

which ensures maximum payback of biological

products of each unit of anthropogenic energy

introduced into the agro-ecosystem. Violation of the

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7080-9564

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7921-9990

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6464-0766

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4066-2530

adaptive approach leads to a significant increase in

the cost of agricultural products or in general to a

"zero effect" when introduced to new areas plants or

animals do not take root (examples: attempts to grow

corn far north of its distribution area, growing tea

bush in Transcarpathia, in the southern steppe of

Ukraine).

History of agricultural development shows that

with the "compaction" of geographical space (due to

population growth), natural forage lands for cattle

fattening has become in short supply. That is why at

the turn of 19-20 centuries, the concept of "fodder

arable land" appeared in the structure of arable land.

(Sonko et al., 2019). In fact, the fodder arable land did

not exceed 15-20% at the beginning of

industrialization. Such values of this indicator, in our

opinion, determine the conditional limit from which

Sonko, S., Maksymenko, N., Shiyan, D., Cherkashyna, N. and Zozulia, I.

Impact of Climate Change on Energy Relations in Agroecosystems.

DOI: 10.5220/0011340400003350

In Proceedings of the 5th International Scientiﬁc Congress Society of Ambient Intelligence (ISC SAI 2022) - Sustainable Development and Global Climate Change, pages 5-13

ISBN: 978-989-758-600-2

 2023 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. Under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

drastic anthropogenic transformation of natural

landscapes begins, reformatting energy relations in

agroecosystems. After all, according to the research

of well-known scientists, the consumers of the

biosphere (including domesticated) ones, should

receive no more than 1% of the total volume of energy

flow coming from the Sun to the planet's surface to

ensure biosphere sustainability.

Today, this figure is 10% (Arskiy et al., 1997).

The border between the steppe and the forest-steppe

has already shifted by 50-100 km to the north. This

will inevitably lead to the replacement of traditional

crops in the main grain wedge with drought-resistant

ones, and, consequently, a change in agricultural

specialization (Sonko et al., 2019).

A number of works have analyzed the "reaction"

of agriculture to climate change (Kovalova, 2001),

(Baliuk et al., 2021), (Basok and Bazieiev, 2020),

(Zakharova, 2019), (Melnichenko and Petrovskyi,

2020), (Bredikhina, 2020), (The World Bank, 2021),

(Duval et al., 2021), (Martin-Collado et al., 2019),

(Ukraine, Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, 2021).

They are mainly about soil resources and adaptation

of crop production to such changes. This is logical,

because producers in the biosphere account for more

than 98% of its total biomass, and plants are the first

to "react" to climate change. As for consumers, the

impact on them is "hidden" in complex trophic

relationships in populations of predators, herbivores,

and others. In agroecosystems, such relations are the

least tangible due to human regulation of material and

energy flows formed in them. Actually, this article

considers the formation mechanisms of such flows as

well as trophic relations in agroecosystems.

Due to climate change, overpopulation of

livestock has another negative impact, which is

constant emissions of greenhouse gases (mainly

methane). According to some current estimates, it is

methane (rather than carbon dioxide) that poses a

much greater risk in terms of global warming.

(Korsak et al., 2021).

However, we consider the ratio of land use types

in agro-landscapes not only as a purely statistical

category, but, above all, as an indicator,

characterizing energy relations in agroecosystems. In

particular, in agricultural ecology, a kind of common

denominator for the quantitative comparison of crop

and livestock can be the amount of energy received

by producers (plants) and consumed by consumers (a

special case - herbivores) (Pakhomova, 2014).

Energy features are the basis for allocation of food

chains at different trophic levels in ecosystems. Thus,

commodity crop production is characterized by food

chains such as "soil-plant-human". Here, the energy

accumulated by plants comes directly to man as a

consumer of the highest quality.

Another trophic level inherent in agroecosystems

connects one more consumer "herbivore" animal " to

the chain after the "plant" - where the energy

accumulated by the producer is deposited in the form

of" milkings "and" gains ".

Such trophic relations are in agrolandscapes in

certain ecological functions of their individual areas,

providing food for different types of organisms. In

particular, it is more correct to classify the areas sown

with fodder crops or those that are actually used as

fodder, as "the habitat area of primary consumers", or

rather their ecotope.

The authors have studied trophic relationships in

agroecosystems designed for agrolandscapes before

(Sonko et al., 2019). Fig.1. shows the results of these

studies.

Symbols: 1 - commercial arable land; 2 - area "returned"

in the form of concentrated feed; 3 - forage arable land; 4 -

natural forage lands; 5 - the river; 6 - statistical forage

area; 7 - potential forage area; 8 - inclination angle less

than 5

Figure 1: Functional land use. manuscript must be

appropriately modified (Sonko et al., 2015).

ISC SAI 2022 - V International Scientiﬁc Congress SOCIETY OF AMBIENT INTELLIGENCE

2 METHODOLOGY

The methodology is based on the main provisions of

the theory of the biosphere and the theory of biotic

regulation, according to which in natural ecosystems

with the help of self-regulatory mechanisms a state of

stable dynamic equilibrium is formed, which is

constantly maintained. Accordingly, it is necessary to

create ecologically tolerant agroecosystems in which

the main material and energy mechanisms are close

to natural analogues.

The basis of the methodological substantiation of

the author's developments is the scientific position of

modern synergetics on the invariance of relations in

natural ecosystems. In fact, the biosphere

independently eliminates anthropogenic impacts on

natural ecosystems, which are carried out in the

process of agricultural activity (Arskiy et al.,1997),

(Sonko et al., 2019). "Incorporation" of specialization

of individual farms in natural landscapes (in

particular, in the context of climate change) is

designed to reduce the negative anthropogenic impact

on natural ecosystems.

The main circumstance, allowing us to

differentiate between "fodder" and "commodity"

arable land, is the fact that all crops of perennial

grasses are tied to slopes above 5° as part of soil

protection and forage crop rotations (Fig. 2)

Symbols: 1-administrative borders; 2 rivers; 3-settlements; 4-plots of hayfields and pastures on floodplain meadows

(consumer area); 5-pastures for cattle grazing in the warm season, selective mowing (area of consumers); 6-year-old grasses

(35-40%), winter wheat (25-30%), barley (10-15%); 7-row crops (50-55%), of which corn (15-20%), sugar beet (15-20%),

sunflower (10-15%), winter wheat (30-35%), pure fallow (up to 10%), cereals; 8- is the same as 8, only with a larger share

of fallow land; 9-row crops (50-55%) ,of which corn takes (20 -25%), sugar beet (10-15%), sunflower (up to 15%), winter

wheat (20-25%), pure fallow (10%); 10th is the same as 9, only with a larger share of fallow land (10-13%); 11-vegetable

crops (70-75%), winter wheat (up to 10%), cereals (up to 10%), corn (up to 10%); 12-gardens, berries; 13-systems of

agriculture, using fertilizers with over 500 kg of active substance per 1 ha of arable land.

Figure 2: Formation of energy flows in agroecosystems (fragment) commercial crops (winter wheat, sugar beet, sunflower)

(Sonko et al., 2015).

Impact of Climate Change on Energy Relations in Agroecosystems

An interesting phenomenon that to some extent

"describes" trophic relations in agroecosystems is the

impact of market relations. We know that foreign

grain traders regularly "reject" a significant part of

marketable grain (up to 30%) exported from Ukraine,

lowering its category from commodity to fodder

(Kuzmin, 2021), (Cherednichenko, 2020).

In our opinion, a logical explanation for this is in

the subject area of agricultural landscapes. It is a fact,

that there is a constant removal of nutrients with

fluvial flows on the slopes of the landscapes over 3

and even higher than 5

, which causes gradual

reduction of gluten in the grain. So, this is a

consequence. We deal with natural regulation of

trophic relations in agroecosystems. Knowing the

location of agro-landscapes with slopes over 3-5

you can calculate both the total (gross) amount of

fodder grain and the total area of forage crops in the

opposite direction (due to average yield), and,

consequently, the "area" of secondary consumers.

This is where the need to calculate the actual area of

forage arable land arises.

By the actual forage arable land we mean the part

of the crop rotation area where fodder crops are sown

(according to reports) plus the areas occupied by

cereals on slopes over 3o and transferred to the rank

of forage due to gluten reduction (Fig. 3,4). To

calculate the actual forage arable land, we used the

formula:

Aa.f= Af + Ac * К (1)

Here: Aa.f.- actual area under forage crops;

Af - reporting area under forage crops;

Ac - reporting area under cereals;

K - is the residual coefficient (calculated on the

example of typical farms and is 0,54 for forest-steppe,

0,49 for steppe, 0,39 for suburban farms).

Joint analysis of the maps "Correlation between

energy flows of producers and consumers" (Fig. 3)

and "Formation of energy flows in agro-ecosystems"

(Fig. 2) revealed a number of features.

Thus, with the existing nature of land use,

relatively high marketability was in the types with

intensive crop production. It is important to note that

as the area of soil-protective crop rotations is large, it

is better to sow only cereals and grasses on the slopes

due to the greater erosion risk of row crops. The

quality of grain obtained from the slope on washed

soil is much lower than grain grown on plakor, and

corresponds more to fodder than commercial varieties

(Svitlychnyi and Chornyi, 2007).

We call the area occupied by fodder crops

statistical, considering its fragmentation and the

ability of soils to determine the fodder or marketable

quality of products, depending on the erosin degree.

The areas on slopes with a slope exceeding 5 ° are

called potential (Fig.1). The map "Formation of

energy flows in agroecosystems" (Fig. 1) shows the

potential areas.

The degree of discrepancy between the statistical

and potential areas of arable land occupied by forage

crops (Fig. 1) can determine the rational use of natural

resources of the territory for fodder production. This

ratio can be expressed by the following formula:

Cf. = A.f.s

/ A.f.p (2

)

Here: Cf - coefficient of fodder land use;

A.f.st - statistical area of arable land occupied by

fodder crops;

A.f.p. - potential area of arable land occupied by

fodder crops.

The dependence expressed by this formula can be

defined as follows: the higher the coefficient Cf, the

worse the use of potential forage arable land is, and

the lower the real marketability of crop production in

this farm. Today's market economy largely confirms

this conclusion, as farms (both private and semi-state)

are forced to develop specialization that is very far

from the optimal for this agroclimatic potential (The

World Bank, 2021), (Buck et al., 2021).

3 RESEARCH RESULTS

Using the above model to calculate the statistical and

potential area of arable land occupied by forage crops,

we should keep in mind that the coefficient of forage

use of arable land was calculated without considering

agronomic features, expressed in the need to apply

crop rotation. No matter how high the marketability

of maize for silage and green fodder is, it should still

be included in the crop rotation as a precursor.On the

other hand, it is impossible to sow grain corn on the

slopes as a row because of the high erosion risk

(Kaminskyi et al., 2018).

It is possible to comply potential and statistical

areas of arable land under fodder crops with

subsequent reduction of fodder use of arable land by

improving farming systems on the slopes. Fodder

grasses can replace corn for silage or we can replace

row corn cultivation with continuous sowing

technology. This makes room in watershed crop

rotations for row crops and cereals, but with already

known product quality. We should note that such a

measure does not contradict basic methods of anti-

erosion system of agriculture and economic interests

of fodder production. Forage grasses, having a strong

root system, fix the slope well and, at the same time,

ISC SAI 2022 - V International Scientiﬁc Congress SOCIETY OF AMBIENT INTELLIGENCE

are a reliable equivalent of corn for silage, while

remaining cheaper to produce.

Table 1 shows the calculation of the fodder use

coefficient. Comparing the values of the coefficient

with the data of the map "Deformation of energy

relations in agro-ecosystems" (Fig. 4) allows us to

draw the following intermediate conclusions: the

maximum conditional "return" of areas under fodder

crops due to concentrated fodder (30%) coincides

with the areas with the highest yields and long-term

gross harvest of cereals.The value of the coefficient

varies according to the economic and natural features

of the territory.

Symbols: Share of crop products used in animal husbandry (1985): 1 - below 70%; 2 - 70-75%; 3 - above 75%. Gross crop

production, thousand tons: 4 - less than 5; 5 - 5 -7; 6 - more than 7.

Figure 3: Relationship between energy flows of producers and consumers (Sonko et al., 2015).

Thus, in the 1st landscape area the value of Cf is

the average in the region due to high grain yields but

not optimal (different from 1 by two orders of

magnitude) due to large areas of sloping lands tied to

medium-washed soils (up to 25%).

In the 2nd landscape area Cf = 2,234 is explained

by growing erosion due to specific hydrographic

network (small strongly winding watercourses) and

the decrease in the possibility of tillage with

agricultural machinery. The area of sloping lands is

the same as in the first district, but the gross fees from

grain production are lower compared to 1 district.

Table 1: Coefficient of fodder use of arable land (Cf) for 10

landscape areas.

№ area Cf 2 № area Cf

1 3,142 6 3,743

2 2,234 7 1,792

3 5,181 8 6,015

4 4,388 9 2,368

5 2,607 10 2,005

Impact of Climate Change on Energy Relations in Agroecosystems

In the 8th district Cf - 6,015 is the highest value in

the region. It is explained by the minimum areas

under the sloping lands (7-10% in the area of arable

land) and the need to sow fodder crops in watershed

crop rotations. At the same time, the conditional

"return" of sown areas under cereals is lower in farms

located in the floodplains of the Berestov and Oril

rivers due to the use of natural forage lands tied to the

floodplains of these rivers.

Therefore, a characteristic feature that combines

the 1st, 2nd and 3rd landscape areas is a significant

conditional "return" (27-30%) of areas under cereals

in favor of fodder.

Given the high economic value of these areas for

the production of cereals for food varieties (yield over

5 t / ha) it is necessary to state the need for a clearer

justification of the production profile of livestock in

order to bring the real marketability of crops in line

with agricultural landscapes.

Symbols: The share of conditionally "returned" sown area in the total sown area of cereals in favor of consumers. 1 - under

24%; 2 - 24-27%; 3 - 27-30%; 4 - over 30%.

Figure 4: Deformation of energy relations in agroecosystems (Sonko et al., 2015).

The minimum conditional "return" of areas under

fodder crops due to concentrated feed (less than 24%)

coincides with the boundaries of the floodplain-

suburban area. This is due, firstly, to the significant

(up to 48%) areas of fodder crops needed to maintain

the dairy population; secondly, to low efficiency of

grain production in the floodplain-suburban area.

Сf fluctuations are quite significant - from 5,131

in the third landscape area to 2,607 in the fifth, and

3,747 in the sixth. High value of the coefficient in the

third district is due to the large share of sloping lands

(27-30%). As part of soil protection, crop rotations of

winter wheat occupies 30-35% of the area. The real

marketability of crop production reduces as there is

no need to occupy large areas for vegetable crops

(gross crop production is about twice lower than in

the 1st and 2nd forest-steppe areas.

In the 5th and 6th districts Cf is approaching the

regional average. Its decrease in comparison with the

3rd district is caused by similar reasons, which is

ISC SAI 2022 - V International Scientiﬁc Congress SOCIETY OF AMBIENT INTELLIGENCE

expressed in better use of natural resources of the

territory for livestock. Accordingly, pastures occupy

a significant share in the composition of feed in the

farms on these territories: for the dairy group 15-18%,

for cattle for fattening 20-25%. Despite the strong

fragmentation (the area of sloping lands reaches 27-

30% of the arable land), the watersheds of field crop

rotations are better suitable for commercial crop

production. This is confirmed by the analysis of crop

rotation saturation.

Perennial grasses (40-45%), barley (20-25%),

annual grasses (up to 50%) are sown on these slopes.

Of the cereals, only fodder barley grows here.

Accordingly, the share of green fodder increases up

to 30% in the composition of stall animals in the

farms in these districts.

Steppe areas 4, 7, 9, 10 are united by conditional

"return" of areas under fodder crops. Here, their share

is less than 25%. In most cases, this is due to a

decrease in yield to 2-2.5 t / ha. It is important that Cf

decreases to 2-2,5 here, and in the 7th district it is the

lowest in the region, coming to 1,792. This is because

crop rotations are mainly used for the production of

green fodder in the steppe areas, and the fodder

cereals sown there correspond to the fodder quality.

The main differences between natural and

agroecosystems are:

1) agroecosystems receive auxiliary energy that is

under human control; this auxiliary energy comes in

the form of muscular efforts of man and animals,

fertilizers, pesticides, irrigation water, the operation

of machines running on fuel, etc .;

2) in agroecosystems the diversity of organisms is

sharply reduced (also due to human activities that

strive for monoculture);

3) dominant species of plants and animals in the

agro-ecosystem are subject to artificial rather than

natural selection. In other words, the organization and

management of the agro-ecosystem is ensured in such

a way as to obtain the greatest amount of food. At the

same time, certain benefits are accompanied by some

losses: soil erosion, pollution of water bodies by

demolished pesticides and fertilizers, high fuel costs,

increased sensitivity of the system to changes in

weather and pests.

Based on the analysis of morphological

differences between natural and agroecosystems, it

can be argued that there is no reason to consider the

agroecosystem unnatural ("semi-natural",

"combined", "artificial", "anthropogenic", "man-

made"). The natural mechanisms of biomass

production, the ratio of its production to trophic

levels, food chains, the presence of producers,

consumers and reducers, and even "entry" into the

relevant ecological pyramid - all this remains. The

only thing that needs to be radically changed in the

agro-ecosystem is the spatial essence of the ecotope.

It is organized by a man with cunningly made "traps"

for space (forage), time (temporary discrepancy

between natural and economic boundaries of

agroecosystems) and information (forced "spreading"

of the gene pool).

According to the results of previous studies, in

particular in the Cherkasy and Kharkiv regions, data

on the development of specialization, not typical of

the forest-steppe zone (Sonko et al., 2019). In

particular, rice sowing, growing citrus, grapes. That

is, these are industries that require huge energy

subsidies and, consequently, those whose economic

efficiency is very low. In the development of other

industries, the laws of geographical zoning are also

violated, resulting in the existing monospecialization

in either cereals or oilseeds. This practice leads to the

rapid depletion of natural resources of

agroecosystems, the direct result of which will be a

catastrophic loss of soil natural fertility in the near

future.

4 CONCLUSIONS

1. The natural ecosystem, transformed by man into an

agroecosystem, differs from natural analogues in the

spatial structure of edaphic components (ekonish,

ecotopes, habitats). Man consciously creates an

ecotope of herbivores, sowing fodder crops.

However, while in natural ecosystems the flows of

matter and energy with a certain degree of

approximation are confined to a specific area, in

agroecosystems much of the biomass is alienated

from the area and in most cases migrates for

consumption many kilometers from where it is

produced. The only ecologically significant result of

human existence as a biological species is the soil,

which is a product of life of producers, consumers and

reducers that develop in agroecosystems.

2. Trophic (energy) relations in the artificial

agroecosystem are characterized by both complexity

and simplicity. The difficulty lies in the artificial

material and energy support of monocultures of

commercial and fodder crops through application of

fertilizers, plant protection products, the use of

genetically modified varieties and hybrids.

Simplification is the conscious "circumcision" of

human trophic pyramids of the domesticated species

of plants and animals compared to their wild zonal

counterparts.

Impact of Climate Change on Energy Relations in Agroecosystems

3. The formation of artificially supported

agrophyto- and zoocenoses directly affects the spatial

structure of agrolandscapes. According to our

methodology, we can identify "habitats" of producers

and consumers with a high level of accuracy

(depending on the slopes).

4. In the context of climate crisis, the general

strategy for the rational formation of agricultural

landscapes remains, but the list of forage plants

adapted to arid climates will require adaptation

measures. In particular, more attention should be paid

to drought-resistant crops with C4 type of

photosynthesis: sugar cane, corn, miscanthus,

sorghum, sundew (effective pasture plant), amaranth,

purslane, ivan-tea, marjoram (Dysphania botrys),

leafless sedge (Edwards and Walker, 1986),

(Afanasyev, 2021). However, these plants are well

consumed by cattle, they can be used in cooking and

as medicinal plants.

REFERENCES

Afanasyev, G.I. (2021). Plants of C4 photosynthesis.

Metropolis and village. https://method-

estate.com/archives/7564.

Arskiy, Yu.M., Danilov-Danilyan, V.I., Zalikhanov,

M.Ch., Kondratyev, K.Ya., Kotlyakov, V.M., and

Losev, K.S. (1997). Environmental problems: what is

happening, who is to blame and what to do? MNEPU.

Baliuk, S.A., Kucher, A.V., and Maksymenko, N.V.

(2021). Soil resources of Ukraine: state, problems and

strategy of sustainable management. Ukrainian

Geographical Journal, 2: 3-11.

https://doi.org/10.15407/ugz2021.02.003

Basok, B., and Bazieiev, Ye. (2020). Global warming:

problems, discussions and forecasts. Svitohliad, 86 (6):

4 - 15.

Bredikhina, V.L. (2020). Legal problems of agrosphere

development in the conditions of climate change.

Current legal issues of innovative development of the

agrosphere. Proceedings of the scientific-practical

conference, November 20: 92 – 98.

https://ndipzir.org.ua/wp-

content/uploads/2020/20.11.20/ActualLawIssues20_21.p

df.

Buck, L., Scherr, S., Chami, B., Goldman. M., Lawrence,

T., Mecham, J., Nevers, E., and Thomas R. (2019).

Exploring Property Rights and Tenure in Integrated

Landscape Management: A Scoping Study from the

Landscapes for People, Food and Nature Initiative.

Cornell University, June, 2019.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337603171_

Exploring_Property_Rights_and_Tenure_in_Integrate

d_Landscape_Management_A_Scoping_Study_from_

the_Landscapes_for_People_Food_and_Nature_Initiat

ive.

Cherednichenko, O.E. (2020). Ukrainian wheat harvest

2020: quality and safety under close scrutiny. APK-

Inform, 9(75). https://www.apk-

inform.com/uk/exclusive/opinion/1514247.

Duval, J., Cournut, S., and Hostiou, N. (2021). Livestock

farmers’ working conditions in agroecological farming

systems. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable

Development, 41, аrticle number: 22.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00679-y

Edwards J., and Walker D. (1986). Photosynthesis of C3

and C4 plants: mechanisms and regulation. Mir.

Kaminskyi, V.F., Kolomiiets, L.P., and Shevchenko I.P.

(2018). Scientific and methodological aspects of the use

of eroded lands in the agricultural landscapes of the

forest-steppe zone. Bulletin of Agricultural Science, 11:

13-19.

Korsak, K.V., Korsak, Yu.K., et al. (2021). On the topic of

"global warming" based on the principles of correct

thinking. International Scientific Journal "Grail of

Science", 10: 434 - 450. https://doi.org/10.36074/grail-

of-science.19.11.2021.085.

Kovalova, O. (2021). Adapting agriculture to climate

change will ensure global food security. Uriadovyi

portal, (12. 07. 2021).

https://www.kmu.gov.ua/news/adaptaciya-silskogo-

gospodarstva-do-zmin-klimatu-garantuvatime-

globalnu-prodovolchu-bezpeku-olena-kovalova.

Kuzmin, A.V. (2021). December. Come on, Dad, trade!

Where did the record harvest go and why is the price of

bread more expensive? Glavkom.

https://glavcom.ua/economics/finances/godi-tatu-

torguvati-kudi-znik-rekordniy-vrozhay-i-chomu-

dorozhchaje-hlib-803222.html.

Martin-Collado, D., Boettcher P., and Bernues, A. (2019).

Opinion paper: livestock agroecosystems provide

ecosystem services but not their components – the case

of species and breeds. Animal? 13(10), 2111-2113.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731119001277.

Melnichenko, L.V., and Petrovskyi, V.H. (2020). Impact of

climate change on agroecosystems. Proceedings of the

III International Scientific and Practical Conference

"Climate Change and Agriculture. Сhallenges for

agricultural science and education", 28 -31.

On approval of the Strategy for Environmental Security and

Adaptation to Climate Change until 2030 (2021).

Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, Order of October 20,

2021 № 1363-r. Government portal.

https://www.kmu.gov.ua/npas/pro-shvalennya-

strategiyi-ekologichno-a1363r

Pakhomova, O.Ie. (2014). Ecology: a textbook for students

of higher educational institutions. Folio.

Sonko, S.P. Poltoretskyi, S.P., Vasylenko, O.V., and

Shevchenko N.O. (2019). Specialization of agriculture

as a driving force of the evolutionary transformation of

neoecology into nooecology. Man and the environment.

Problems of neoecology. Modern geographical and

ecological research of the environment, 32: 6-24.

https://periodicals.karazin.ua/humanenviron/article/vie

w/15138/14097.

ISC SAI 2022 - V International Scientiﬁc Congress SOCIETY OF AMBIENT INTELLIGENCE

Sonko, S.P., Maksimenko, N.V., Binkovskaya, G.V., et al.

(2015). Ecological bases of balanced nature

management in the agrosphere. V.N. Karazin Kharkiv

National University.

http://lib.udau.edu.ua/handle/123456789/2462

Svitlychnyi, O.O., and Chornyi, S.H. (2007). Fundamentals

of erosion science, VTD "University Book".

The World Bank (2021). Climate-smartagriculture. April 5.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climate-smart-

agriculture.

Zakharova, E.V. (2019). Substantiation of the boundaries

of climatic regions of the territory of Ukraine in the

conditions of modern climate change. Bulletin of

Kharkiv National Automobile and Road University,

86(2): 88 – 93.

Impact of Climate Change on Energy Relations in Agroecosystems