IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i7p2213-d154972.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Soil Fertility Management by Transition Matrices and Crop Rotation: On Spatial and Dynamic Aspects in Programming of Ecosystem Services

Author

Listed:
  • Ernst-August Nuppenau

    (Institute of Agricultural Policy and Market Research, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Senckenbergstrasse 3, D-35394 Giessen, Germany)

Abstract

This paper deals with crop rotation as a method to improve soil fertility and control pests from an economic point of view. It outlines a new framework for modelling of more sustainable decision-making of farmers under the auspices of ecosystem services. It is intended for practical application in extension and farmer communication to show values of rotations referring to natural capital. In the past farmers created complex rotations to benefit from ecological processes which enabled them to control natural pests (at least partly), to build soil fertility on recycling of organics (humus formation), and to promote pollination (including wild bees and other insects) and water retention (diverse water requests of different crops). Farmers which were accommodating cropping orders in small parcels of fields used long lists of crop sequences and offered mixed farming systems: this was a major feature of agriculture. Cropping orders evolved from necessity and were followed as rules. Today we are faced with large fields and monoculture, instead, and ecosystem services are diminished. Usually, attempts to recognize economic pay-offs from rotation through modelling are meagre because of complexity. We address the issue of complexity by suggesting a new flexible type of modelling crop rotations (dynamic optimization) which condenses ecological information into matrices. A newly-hosted transfer matrix shall delineate the impacts of cropping patterns in period t to fertility of land in t + 1. Categorizing different states of nature (which have to be brought in line with farmers’ knowledge of externalities), it can be implemented in models on rotation decision.

Suggested Citation

  • Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2018. "Soil Fertility Management by Transition Matrices and Crop Rotation: On Spatial and Dynamic Aspects in Programming of Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-20, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:7:p:2213-:d:154972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2213/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2213/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jitka Janová, 2011. "The dynamic programming approach to long term production planning in agriculture," Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, Mendel University Press, vol. 59(2), pages 129-136.
    2. Cong, Rong-Gang & Hedlund, Katarina & Andersson, Hans & Brady, Mark, 2014. "Managing soil natural capital: An effective strategy for mitigating future agricultural risks," MPRA Paper 112155, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Karantininis, Kostas, 2002. "Information-based estimators for the non-stationary transition probability matrix: an application to the Danish pork industry," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 107(1-2), pages 275-290, March.
    4. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    5. Uri Regev & Andrew P. Gutierrez & Gershon Feder, 1976. "Pests as a Common Property Resource: A Case Study of Alfalfa Weevil Control," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 58(2), pages 186-197.
    6. Pemsl, Diemuth E. & Gutierrez, Andrew P. & Waibel, Hermann, 2008. "The economics of biotechnology under ecosystem disruption," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 177-183, May.
    7. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Wratten, Stephen D. & Cullen, Ross & Case, Brad, 2008. "The future of farming: The value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(4), pages 835-848, February.
    8. Cong, Rong-Gang & Ekroos, Johan & Smith, Henrik G. & Brady, Mark V., 2016. "Optimizing intermediate ecosystem services in agriculture using rules based on landscape composition and configuration indices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 214-223.
    9. Ahumada, Omar & Villalobos, J. Rene, 2009. "Application of planning models in the agri-food supply chain: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 196(1), pages 1-20, July.
    10. Talaat El-Nazer & Bruce A. McCarl, 1986. "The Choice of Crop Rotation: A Modeling Approach and Case Study," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 68(1), pages 127-136.
    11. Rong-Gang Cong & Mette Termansen & Mark V. Brady, 2017. "Managing soil natural capital: a prudent strategy for adapting to future risks," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 255(1), pages 439-463, August.
    12. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    13. Alfandari, Laurent & Plateau, Agnès & Schepler, Xavier, 2015. "A branch-and-price-and-cut approach for sustainable crop rotation planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(3), pages 872-879.
    14. Babiker, Mustafa & Gurgel, Angelo & Paltsev, Sergey & Reilly, John, 2009. "Forward-looking versus recursive-dynamic modeling in climate policy analysis: A comparison," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1341-1354, November.
    15. Haneveld, W. K. Klein & Stegeman, A. W., 2005. "Crop succession requirements in agricultural production planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(2), pages 406-429, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katharina Helming & Katrin Daedlow & Bernd Hansjürgens & Thomas Koellner, 2018. "Assessment and Governance of Sustainable Soil Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-13, November.
    2. Zhihong Liao & Kai Su & Xuebing Jiang & Xiangbei Zhou & Zhu Yu & Zhongchao Chen & Changwen Wei & Yiming Zhang & Luying Wang, 2022. "Ecosystem and Driving Force Evaluation of Northeast Forest Belt," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-25, August.

    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. Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2011. "Linking Crop Rotation and Fertility Management by a Transition Matrix: Spatial and Dynamic Aspects in Programming of Ecosystem Service," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 114600, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    2. Kontogianni, Areti & Luck, Gary W. & Skourtos, Michalis, 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the 'endpoint problem' and improve stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1479-1487, May.
    3. Alysson Costa & Lana Santos & Douglas Alem & Ricardo Santos, 2014. "Sustainable vegetable crop supply problem with perishable stocks," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 219(1), pages 265-283, August.
    4. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, C. & Machleras, A. & Skourtos, M., 2012. "Service providing units, existence values and the valuation of endangered species: A methodological test," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 97-104.
    5. de la Riva, Enrique G. & Ulrich, Werner & Batáry, Péter & Baudry, Julia & Beaumelle, Léa & Bucher, Roman & Čerevková, Andrea & Felipe-Lucia, María R. & Gallé, Róbert & Kesse-Guyot, Emmanuelle & Rembia, 2023. "From functional diversity to human well-being: A conceptual framework for agroecosystem sustainability," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    6. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    7. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    8. Kathrin Stenchly & Marc Victor Hansen & Katharina Stein & Andreas Buerkert & Wilhelm Loewenstein, 2018. "Income Vulnerability of West African Farming Households to Losses in Pollination Services: A Case Study from Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-12, November.
    9. Grazia Zulian & Joachim Maes & Maria Luisa Paracchini, 2013. "Linking Land Cover Data and Crop Yields for Mapping and Assessment of Pollination Services in Europe," Land, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-21, September.
    10. Lippert, Christian & Feuerbacher, Arndt & Narjes, Manuel, 2021. "Revisiting the economic valuation of agricultural losses due to large-scale changes in pollinator populations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    11. Luciano Pilati & Vasco Boatto, 2014. "Jointness in Sites: The Case of Migratory Beekeeping," DEM Discussion Papers 2014/10, Department of Economics and Management.
    12. Nicholas W Calderone, 2012. "Insect Pollinated Crops, Insect Pollinators and US Agriculture: Trend Analysis of Aggregate Data for the Period 1992–2009," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-27, May.
    13. Soy-Massoni, Emma & Langemeyer, Johannes & Varga, Diego & Sáez, Marc & Pintó, Josep, 2016. "The importance of ecosystem services in coastal agricultural landscapes: Case study from the Costa Brava, Catalonia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 43-52.
    14. Miettinen, Antti & Korpela, Eeva-Liisa & Hyytiäinen, Kari & Kuussaari, Mikko, 2014. "Cost-effectiveness of agri-environmental measures when aiming at promoting ecosystem service availability, species diversity or species of conservation concern," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182686, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. repec:idb:brikps:64718 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. Basualdo, Marina & Cavigliasso, Pablo & de Avila, Rubem Samuel & Aldea-Sánchez, Patricia & Correa-Benítez, Adriana & Harms, Jaime Martínez & Ramos, Ana Karen & Rojas-Bravo, Valeska & Salvarrey, Sheena, 2022. "Current status and economic value of insect-pollinated dependent crops in Latin America," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    17. Ioannis Arzoumanidis & Andrea Raggi & Luigia Petti, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment of Honey: Considering the Pollination Service," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, March.
    18. Lafuite, A.-S. & Loreau, M., 2017. "Time-delayed biodiversity feedbacks and the sustainability of social-ecological systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 351(C), pages 96-108.
    19. Patricia A. Henríquez-Piskulich & Constanza Schapheer & Nicolas J. Vereecken & Cristian Villagra, 2021. "Agroecological Strategies to Safeguard Insect Pollinators in Biodiversity Hotspots: Chile as a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-31, June.
    20. Centner, Terence J. & Brewer, Brady & Leal, Isaac, 2018. "Reducing damages from sulfoxaflor use through mitigation measures to increase the protection of pollinator species," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 70-76.
    21. Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2015. "Mitigation of Large-Scale Biofuel Expansion with Smallholder Conflict: Modelling of Land Use Dynamics using Control Theory for Policy Design to Sustain Food Security and Improve Productivity," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 225669, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:7:p:2213-:d:154972. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.