Analysis of ecosystem services trade-offs to design agroecosystems with perennial crops

Abstract

Agroecosystems represent 38 % of global land use. Agroecosystems are located close to human settlements and are managed to produce food and fibers, traded in markets. Agroecosystems also produce other goods and services essential to human beings, such as climate regulation, flood mitigation, and landscape amenity. Economists and ecologists have developed the ecosystem services framework to foster the provision of these non-commercial services. Scientists can therefore help decision makers to develop sustainable ecosystems by studying ecosystem services. Here, we analyze the trade-offs of ecosystem services of farming systems. We discuss case studies of mixed perennial crops. The set of ecosystem services provided by these agroecosystems depends on their composition, structure, and management. Complex rule-based management will be required if winegrowers are to maintain an adequate set of ecosystem services across contrasting climatic years. Innovations including cover crops in banana systems can fulfill most of the objective set but will rely on increased farm labor. We then discuss the advantages, challenges, and opportunities to include the description of relations between ecosystem services in cropping system design. We propose to extend the yield gap analysis to ecosystem services, as a service gap analysis. This extension faces methodological questions about the potential provision of a service in a region. We conclude on the challenges that need to be faced if we want to use ecosystem services trade-offs to improve the contribution of agricultural systems to human well-being. (Résumé d'auteur

Management of service crops for the provision of ecosystem services in vineyards: A review

“…which ES are targeted. The number of targeted ES determines the level of complexity of the cropping system and its management, and the trade-offs to seek (Rapidel et al, 2015). In agriculture, provisioning services (i.e.…”

“…As the knowledge of cover crop species and their suitable management may be long to master and because this practice also involves supplementary costs and long-term economic returns, vinegrowers may be discouraged to adopt it (Dunn et al, 2016). Methods for evaluating the achievement of services in cropping systems, and for designing agroecosystems providing targeted services have recently been proposed in the scientific literature (Gaba et al, 2015;Rapidel et al, 2015;Schipanski et al, 2014). ES management has to be driven through various action levers i.e.…”

How can integrated valuation of ecosystem services help understanding and steering agroecological transitions?

“…A large body of literature investigates how this concept can be used in an agricultural context (Zhang et al 2007, Power 2010, Duru and Thérond 2015, Landis 2017. Several studies have used the concept to assess impacts of different agricultural practices (e.g., Sandhu et al 2010, Barral et al 2015, Rapidel et al 2015. Although these provide information on which practice optimizes best ES delivery, they do not address how to implement these practices on the ground.…”

Cacao agroforestry systems have higher return on labor compared to full-sun monocultures

“…However, they can range from very simple systems, with two or very few species, to highly diverse ones. Currently, agroforestry systems represent 38% of the world land-use (Rapidel et al 2015). Nevertheless, to guarantee a further extension, such systems need to be profitable for the farmers.…”