Assessing Trade-Offs between Agricultural Productivity and Ecosystem Functions: A Review of Science-Based Tools?

被引:2
作者
Sanou, Josias [1 ]
Tengberg, Anna [2 ,3 ]
Bazie, Hugues Romeo [4 ]
Mingasson, David [5 ]
Ostwald, Madelene [6 ]
机构
[1] Inst Environm & Rech Agr, Dept Environm & Forets, 03 BP 7047, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
[2] Stockholm Int Water Inst, Swedish Water House, POB 101 87, S-10055 Stockholm, Sweden
[3] Lund Univ, Lund Univ Ctr Sustainabil Studies, POB 170, S-22100 Lund, Sweden
[4] Univ Joseph Ki Zerbo, Unite Format & Rech Sci Vie & Terre, Lab Biosci, 03 BP 7021, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
[5] Gothenburg Ctr Sustainable Dev, POB 100, S-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
[6] Linkoping Univ, Dept Themat Studies Environm Change, S-58183 Linkoping, Sweden
关键词
agriculture; productivity; ecosystem functions; trade-offs; assessment tools; YIELD GAP; ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION; MANAGEMENT-PRACTICES; DRIVING FACTORS; WATER-QUALITY; SERVICES; LAND; CONSERVATION; BIODIVERSITY; FRAMEWORK;
D O I
10.3390/land12071329
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Global population growth, especially in developing countries, will most likely require an increase in agricultural production, but the sustainability of this production cannot be achieved without the preservation of ecosystem functions. Therefore, farmers need to know about, and deal with, the trade-offs between agricultural productivity and ecosystem functions and services. This review aims to assess practical science-based tools that can be used to make decisions for sustainable agricultural production. We reviewed 184 articles and divided them into categories depending on whether they describe tools, practices, ecosystem services, models, or other topics. Although many studies were global in scope, the approach to analyzing and assessing trade-offs appears to vary geographically. The review showed that trade-offs between agricultural productivity and ecosystem functions are most commonly studied in Europe and Asia, while few studies have been conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Most tools in the review addressed only one or a bundle of ecosystem services, related to water, biodiversity, or climate regulation, and were designed for different types of land use and ecosystems and applicable at different scales. More practical tools for trade-off analysis have mainly been developed and applied by development organizations with support from science. Closer collaboration between practitioners, development organizations, and scientists is suggested to foster co-development of tools useful for identifying sustainable strategies for closing the yield gap, increasing productivity and for balancing ecosystem services, building on the Sustainable Development Goal's framework and its targets for agricultural productivity and ecosystem services for trade-off analysis. We recommend the development and fine-tuning of the identified tools to specific contexts and landscapes through innovation platforms bringing together farmers, extension workers, scientists, and local decision-makers.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 110 条
[1]   Applying ecosystem services indicators in landscape planning and management: The ES-in-Planning framework [J].
Albert, Christian ;
Galler, Carolin ;
Hermes, Johannes ;
Neuendorf, Felix ;
von Haaren, Christina ;
Lovett, Andrew .
ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2016, 61 :100-113
[2]   Assessing farmer perceptions on livestock intensification and associated trade-offs using fuzzy cognitive maps; a study in mixed farming systems in the mid-hills of Nepal [J].
Alomia-Hinojosa, Victoria ;
Groot, Jeroen C. J. ;
Andersson, Jens A. ;
Speelman, Erika N. ;
McDonald, Andrew J. ;
Tittonell, Pablo .
SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, 2023, 40 (01) :146-158
[3]   Exploiting Co-Benefits of Increased Rice Production and Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emission through Optimized Crop and Soil Management [J].
An, Ning ;
Fan, Mingsheng ;
Zhang, Fusuo ;
Christie, Peter ;
Yang, Jianchang ;
Huang, Jianliang ;
Guo, Shiwei ;
Shi, Xiaojun ;
Tang, Qiyuan ;
Peng, Jianwei ;
Zhong, Xuhua ;
Sun, Yixiang ;
Lv, Shihua ;
Jiang, Rongfeng ;
Dobermann, Achim .
PLOS ONE, 2015, 10 (10)
[4]   Co-producing science for sustainability: Can funding change knowledge use? [J].
Arnott, James C. ;
Neuenfeldt, Rachel J. ;
Lemos, Maria Carmen .
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, 2020, 60
[5]   Modeling trade-offs among ecosystem services in agricultural production systems [J].
Balbi, Stefano ;
del Prado, Agustin ;
Gallejones, Patricia ;
Geevan, Chandanathil Pappachan ;
Pardo, Guillermo ;
Perez-Minana, Elena ;
Manrique, Rosa ;
Hernandez-Santiago, Cuitlahuac ;
Villa, Ferdinando .
ENVIRONMENTAL MODELLING & SOFTWARE, 2015, 72 :314-326
[6]   Circular economy of composting in Sri Lanka: Opportunities and challenges for reducing waste related pollution and improving soil health [J].
Bekchanov, M. ;
Mirzabaev, A. .
JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, 2018, 202 :1107-1119
[7]  
Best A., 2021, ASSESSMENT RESOURCE
[8]   Exploiting ecosystem services in agriculture for increased food security [J].
Bommarco, Riccardo ;
Vico, Giulia ;
Hallin, Sara .
GLOBAL FOOD SECURITY-AGRICULTURE POLICY ECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENT, 2018, 17 :57-63
[9]   An agent-based approach to modeling impacts of agricultural policy on land use, biodiversity and ecosystem services [J].
Brady, Mark ;
Sahrbacher, Christoph ;
Kellermann, Konrad ;
Happe, Kathrin .
LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY, 2012, 27 (09) :1363-1381
[10]   Linking ecosystem services trade-offs, bundles and hotspot identification with cropland management in the coastal Hangzhou Bay area of China [J].
Cao, Yu ;
Li, Guoyu ;
Tian, Yuhan ;
Fang, Xiaoqian ;
Li, Yan ;
Tan, Yongzhong .
LAND USE POLICY, 2020, 97