IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v125y2014icp12-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A framework for evaluating ecosystem services provided by cover crops in agroecosystems

Author

Listed:
  • Schipanski, Meagan E.
  • Barbercheck, Mary
  • Douglas, Margaret R.
  • Finney, Denise M.
  • Haider, Kristin
  • Kaye, Jason P.
  • Kemanian, Armen R.
  • Mortensen, David A.
  • Ryan, Matthew R.
  • Tooker, John
  • White, Charlie

Abstract

Cropping systems that provide ecosystem services beyond crop production are gaining interest from farmers, policy makers and society at large, yet we lack frameworks to evaluate and manage for multiple ecosystem services. Using the example of integrating cover crops into annual crop rotations, we present an assessment framework that: (1) estimates the temporal dynamics of a suite of ecosystem services; (2) illustrates ecosystem multifunctionality using spider plots; and (3) identifies key time points for optimizing ecosystem service benefits and minimizing trade-offs. Using quantitative models and semi-quantitative estimates, we applied the framework to analyze the temporal dynamics of 11 ecosystem services and two economic metrics when cover crops are introduced into a 3-year soybean (Glycine max)–wheat (Triticum aestivum)–corn (Zea mays) rotation in a typical Mid-Atlantic climate. We estimated that cover crops could increase 8 of 11 ecosystem services without negatively influencing crop yields. We demonstrate that when we measure ecosystem services matters and cumulative assessments can be misleading due to the episodic nature of some services and the time sensitivity of management windows. For example, nutrient retention benefits occurred primarily during cover crop growth, weed suppression benefits occurred during cash crop growth through a cover crop legacy effect, and soil carbon benefits accrued slowly over decades. Uncertainties exist in estimating cover crop effects on several services, such as pest dynamics. Trade-offs occurred between cover crop ecosystem benefits, production costs, and management risks. Differences in production costs with and without cover crops varied 3-fold over 10years, largely due to changes in fertilizer prices, and thus cover crop use will become more economical with increasing fertilizer prices or if modest cost-sharing programs are established. Frameworks such as that presented here provide the means to quantify ecosystem services and facilitate the transition to more multifunctional agricultural systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Schipanski, Meagan E. & Barbercheck, Mary & Douglas, Margaret R. & Finney, Denise M. & Haider, Kristin & Kaye, Jason P. & Kemanian, Armen R. & Mortensen, David A. & Ryan, Matthew R. & Tooker, John & W, 2014. "A framework for evaluating ecosystem services provided by cover crops in agroecosystems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 12-22.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:125:y:2014:i:c:p:12-22
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2013.11.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X13001492
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2013.11.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lovell, Sarah Taylor & DeSantis, S'ra & Nathan, Chloe A. & Olson, Meryl Breton & Ernesto Méndez, V. & Kominami, Hisashi C. & Erickson, Daniel L. & Morris, Katlyn S. & Morris, William B., 2010. "Integrating agroecology and landscape multifunctionality in Vermont: An evolving framework to evaluate the design of agroecosystems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(5), pages 327-341, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ilaria Zambon & Artemi Cerdà & Sirio Cividino & Luca Salvati, 2019. "The (Evolving) Vineyard’s Age Structure in the Valencian Community, Spain: A New Demographic Approach for Rural Development and Landscape Analysis," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.
    2. Sèyi Fridaïus Ulrich Vanvanhossou & Luc Hippolyte Dossa & Sven König, 2021. "Sustainable Management of Animal Genetic Resources to Improve Low-Input Livestock Production: Insights into Local Beninese Cattle Populations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, September.
    3. Horacio Augstburger & Fabian Käser & Stephan Rist, 2019. "Assessing Food Systems and Their Impact on Common Pool Resources and Resilience," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-25, April.
    4. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    5. Accatino, Francesco & Tonda, Alberto & Dross, Camille & Léger, François & Tichit, Muriel, 2019. "Trade-offs and synergies between livestock production and other ecosystem services," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 58-72.
    6. Tian Liang & Peng Du & Fei Yang & Yuanxia Su & Yinchen Luo & You Wu & Chuanhao Wen, 2022. "Potential Land-Use Conflicts in the Urban Center of Chongqing Based on the “Production–Living–Ecological Space” Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-18, August.
    7. Marney E. Isaac & S. Ryan Isakson & Bryan Dale & Charles Z. Levkoe & Sarah K. Hargreaves & V. Ernesto Méndez & Hannah Wittman & Colleen Hammelman & Jennifer C. Langill & Adam R. Martin & Erin Nelson &, 2018. "Agroecology in Canada: Towards an Integration of Agroecological Practice, Movement, and Science," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-17, September.
    8. Yu Chen & Shuangshuang Liu & Wenbo Ma & Qian Zhou, 2023. "Assessment of the Carrying Capacity and Suitability of Spatial Resources and the Environment and Diagnosis of Obstacle Factors in the Yellow River Basin," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-26, February.
    9. Jarmila Makovníková & Stanislav Kološta & Filip Flaška & Boris Pálka, 2023. "Factors Influencing the Spatial Distribution of Regulating Agro-Ecosystem Services in Agriculture Soils: A Case Study of Slovakia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, April.
    10. Willemen, Louise & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Dunbar, Martha B. & Mayaux, Philippe & Egoh, Benis N., 2013. "Safeguarding ecosystem services and livelihoods: Understanding the impact of conservation strategies on benefit flows to society," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 95-103.
    11. Yu Chen & Mengke Zhu, 2022. "Spatiotemporal Evolution and Driving Mechanism of “Production-Living-Ecology” Functions in China: A Case of Both Sides of Hu Line," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Duan, Yaming & Wang, Hui & Huang, An & Xu, Yueqing & Lu, Longhui & Ji, Zhengxin, 2021. "Identification and spatial-temporal evolution of rural “production-living-ecological” space from the perspective of villagers’ behavior – A case study of Ertai Town, Zhangjiakou City," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    13. Željka Čurović & Milić Čurović & Velibor Spalević & Milorad Janic & Paul Sestras & Svetislav G. Popović, 2019. "Identification and Evaluation of Landscape as a Precondition for Planning Revitalization and Development of Mediterranean Rural Settlements—Case Study: Mrkovi Village, Bay of Kotor, Montenegro," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-15, April.
    14. Martina Slámová & Alexandra Kruse & Ingrid Belčáková & Johannes Dreer, 2021. "Old but Not Old Fashioned: Agricultural Landscapes as European Heritage and Basis for Sustainable Multifunctional Farming to Earn a Living," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, April.
    15. Jia Zhao & Yuluan Zhao & Xiaopiao Yang, 2022. "Evolution Characteristics and Driving Mechanism of the Territorial Space Pattern in the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-29, September.
    16. Matthew Heron Wilson & Sarah Taylor Lovell, 2016. "Agroforestry—The Next Step in Sustainable and Resilient Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-15, June.
    17. Low, Guy & Dalhaus, Tobias & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M., 2023. "Mixed farming and agroforestry systems: A systematic review on value chain implications," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    18. Jun Luo & Xuebing Zhang & Peiji Shi, 2022. "Land Use Multi-Functionality and Zoning Governance Strategy of Densely Populated Areas in the Upper Reaches of the Yellow River: A Case Study of the Lanzhou–Xining Region, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, June.
    19. Iago Lowe Hale & Wilfred M. Wollheim & Richard G. Smith & Heidi Asbjornsen & André F. Brito & Kirk Broders & A. Stuart Grandy & Rebecca Rowe, 2014. "A Scale-Explicit Framework for Conceptualizing the Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Land Use Changes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-20, November.
    20. Nogueira, Luiz Augusto Horta & Antonio de Souza, Luiz Gustavo & Cortez, Luís Augusto Barbosa & Leal, Manoel Regis Lima Verde, 2017. "Sustainable and Integrated Bioenergy Assessment for Latin America, Caribbean and Africa (SIByl-LACAf): The path from feasibility to acceptability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 292-308.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:125:y:2014:i:c:p:12-22. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.