IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v54y2022ics2212041622000110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessment of ecosystem services and natural capital dynamics in agroecosystems

Author

Listed:
  • Dardonville, Manon
  • Legrand, Baptiste
  • Clivot, Hugues
  • Bernardin, Claire
  • Bockstaller, Christian
  • Therond, Olivier

Abstract

Increasing the levels of ecosystem services that contribute to agricultural production (ES) is a challenge for the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agricultural advisors lack low-data operational approaches for assessing ES and knowledge to support development of ES-based systems. To fill this gap, we developed an approach that assesses relations between characteristics of agroecosystems and the ES they offer: pollination, pest, weed and disease control, soil structuration, nitrogen and phosphorus supply to crops, water retention and control of erosion. We distinguished four dimensions of ES: potential capacities, real capacities, levels actually used by farmers and dynamics of the natural capital that supports ES provision. We assessed them with a low-data indicator-based method at the agroecosystem level. It provided a score for (i) the quality of the agroecosystem’s spatiotemporal configuration, (ii) positive or negative modulations in ES expression caused by agricultural practices, (iii) the farmer’s strategy for using ES and (iv) four components of natural capital dynamics (soil quantity, soil organic matter, phosphorus cycling and the biodiversity that supports ES). We demonstrate the interest of the approach by applying it to 34 contrasting agroecosystems in France and subsequently identifying five agriculture models. Analysis of this case study identified several ways to attain high-yield agroecosystems based on anthropogenic inputs, ES or both. We discuss strengths and possible improvements of our approach and highlight key knowledge gaps to examine in future studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Dardonville, Manon & Legrand, Baptiste & Clivot, Hugues & Bernardin, Claire & Bockstaller, Christian & Therond, Olivier, 2022. "Assessment of ecosystem services and natural capital dynamics in agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:54:y:2022:i:c:s2212041622000110
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101415
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041622000110
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2022.101415?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. 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.
    2. Aguilera, Eduardo & Díaz-Gaona, Cipriano & García-Laureano, Raquel & Reyes-Palomo, Carolina & Guzmán, Gloria I. & Ortolani, Livia & Sánchez-Rodríguez, Manuel & Rodríguez-Estévez, Vicente, 2020. "Agroecology for adaptation to climate change and resource depletion in the Mediterranean region. A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    3. Wam, Hilde Karine, 2010. "Economists, time to team up with the ecologists!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(4), pages 675-679, February.
    4. Sara Palomo-Campesino & José A. González & Marina García-Llorente, 2018. "Exploring the Connections between Agroecological Practices and Ecosystem Services: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-21, November.
    5. Boyd, James & Banzhaf, Spencer, 2007. "What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2-3), pages 616-626, August.
    6. Samuel Knapp & Marcel G. A. Heijden, 2018. "A global meta-analysis of yield stability in organic and conservation agriculture," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    8. Dominati, Estelle & Patterson, Murray & Mackay, Alec, 2010. "A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1858-1868, July.
    9. Rosa-Schleich, Julia & Loos, Jacqueline & Mußhoff, Oliver & Tscharntke, Teja, 2019. "Ecological-economic trade-offs of Diversified Farming Systems – A review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 251-263.
    10. Verena Seufert & Navin Ramankutty & Jonathan A. Foley, 2012. "Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 485(7397), pages 229-232, May.
    11. Marcillo, Guillermo S. & Carlson, Sarah & Filbert, Meghan & Kaspar, Thomas & Plastina, Alejandro & Miguez, Fernando E., 2019. "Maize system impacts of cover crop management decisions: A simulation analysis of rye biomass response to planting populations in Iowa, U.S.A," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    12. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    13. Malinga, Rebecka & Gordon, Line J. & Jewitt, Graham & Lindborg, Regina, 2015. "Mapping ecosystem services across scales and continents – A review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 57-63.
    14. Cameron M. Pittelkow & Xinqiang Liang & Bruce A. Linquist & Kees Jan van Groenigen & Juhwan Lee & Mark E. Lundy & Natasja van Gestel & Johan Six & Rodney T. Venterea & Chris van Kessel, 2015. "Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 517(7534), pages 365-368, January.
    15. van der Linden, Aart & Oosting, Simon J. & van de Ven, Gerrie W.J. & de Boer, Imke J.M. & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2015. "A framework for quantitative analysis of livestock systems using theoretical concepts of production ecology," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 100-109.
    16. Graeme S. Cumming & Andreas Buerkert & Ellen M. Hoffmann & Eva Schlecht & Stephan von Cramon-Taubadel & Teja Tscharntke, 2014. "Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services," Nature, Nature, vol. 515(7525), pages 50-57, November.
    17. Shackelford, Gorm E. & Kelsey, Rodd & Dicks, Lynn V., 2019. "Effects of cover crops on multiple ecosystem services: Ten meta-analyses of data from arable farmland in California and the Mediterranean," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    18. Oliver T. Coomes & Bradford L. Barham & Graham K. MacDonald & Navin Ramankutty & Jean-Paul Chavas, 2019. "Leveraging total factor productivity growth for sustainable and resilient farming," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(1), pages 22-28, January.
    19. Obiang Ndong, Gregory & Therond, Olivier & Cousin, Isabelle, 2020. "Analysis of relationships between ecosystem services: A generic classification and review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    20. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Johnson, Gary W. & Voigt, Brian & Villa, Ferdinando, 2013. "Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 117-125.
    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. van den Belt, Marjan & Blake, Daniella, 2014. "Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 115-132.
    2. Fengjiao Ma & A. Egrinya Eneji & Jintong Liu, 2014. "Understanding Relationships among Agro-Ecosystem Services Based on Emergy Analysis in Luancheng County, North China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Maia de Souza, Danielle & Lopes, Gabriela Russo & Hansson, Julia & Hansen, Karin, 2018. "Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A synthesis of knowledge and recommendations for biofuels," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 200-210.
    4. Villamagna, Amy M. & Angermeier, Paul L. & Niazi, Nicholas, 2014. "Evaluating opportunities to enhance ecosystem services in public use areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 167-176.
    5. Dennis Junior Choruma & Oghenekaro Nelson Odume, 2019. "Exploring Farmers’ Management Practices and Values of Ecosystem Services in an Agroecosystem Context—A Case Study from the Eastern Cape, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    6. Barbieri, Pietro & Starck, Thomas & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Nesme, Thomas, 2023. "Biological nitrogen fixation of legumes crops under organic farming as driven by cropping management: A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    7. Kubiszewski, Ida & Concollato, Luke & Costanza, Robert & Stern, David I., 2023. "Changes in authorship, networks, and research topics in ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    8. Ando Fahda Aulia & Harpinder Sandhu & Andrew C. Millington, 2020. "Quantifying the Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in Oil Palm Dominated Landscapes in Riau Province in Sumatra, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-23, June.
    9. Ochoa, Vivian & Urbina-Cardona, Nicolás, 2017. "Tools for spatially modeling ecosystem services: Publication trends, conceptual reflections and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 155-169.
    10. Jae-hyuck Lee & HaeOk Choi, 2020. "An Analysis of Public Complaints to Evaluate Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-11, February.
    11. Schirpke, Uta & Scolozzi, Rocco & De Marco, Claudio & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2014. "Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 170-179.
    12. Finisdore, John & Rhodes, Charles & Haines-Young, Roy & Maynard, Simone & Wielgus, Jeffrey & Dvarskas, Anthony & Houdet, Joel & Quétier, Fabien & Lamothe, Karl A. & Ding, Helen & Soulard, François &, 2020. "The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    13. Czúcz, Bálint & Arany, Ildikó & Potschin-Young, Marion & Bereczki, Krisztina & Kertész, Miklós & Kiss, Márton & Aszalós, Réka & Haines-Young, Roy, 2018. "Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 145-157.
    14. Pascual, Unai & Termansen, Mette & Hedlund, Katarina & Brussaard, Lijbert & Faber, Jack H. & Foudi, Sébastien & Lemanceau, Philippe & Jørgensen, Sisse Liv, 2015. "On the value of soil biodiversity and ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 11-18.
    15. Alcon, Francisco & Marín-Miñano, Cristina & Zabala, José A. & de-Miguel, María-Dolores & Martínez-Paz, José M., 2020. "Valuing diversification benefits through intercropping in Mediterranean agroecosystems: A choice experiment approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    16. Stephen C. L. Watson & Adrian C. Newton, 2018. "Dependency of Businesses on Flows of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from the County of Dorset, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    17. Luncheng You & Gerard H. Ros & Yongliang Chen & Qi Shao & Madaline D. Young & Fusuo Zhang & Wim de Vries, 2023. "Global mean nitrogen recovery efficiency in croplands can be enhanced by optimal nutrient, crop and soil management practices," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.
    18. Xinyu Ouyang & Xiangyu Luo, 2022. "Models for Assessing Urban Ecosystem Services: Status and Outlooks," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-20, April.
    19. Maria Susana Orta Ortiz & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Mismatches in the Provision of Urban Ecosystem Services to Support Spatial Planning: A Case Study on Recreation and Food Supply in Havana, Cuba," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-21, June.
    20. Dazhuan Ge & Hualou Long & Li Ma & Yingnan Zhang & Shuangshuang Tu, 2017. "Analysis Framework of China’s Grain Production System: A Spatial Resilience Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-21, December.

    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:ecoser:v:54:y:2022:i:c:s2212041622000110. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.