Functional Agro-Biodiversity: Comparison
View Latest Version
Please note this is a comparison between Version 2 by Mona Zou and Version 1 by Lindsay C. Maskell.

The European Union’s ‘Green Deal’ proposes an ambitious roadmap towards climate neutrality by 2050 and the adoption of a circular economy. Functional AgroBiodiversity (FAB) measures, which balance food production with minimised impacts on nature, are a promising way to achieve this on farmland.

  • reduced tillage
  • organic matter input
  • agroforestry
  • reduction in plant protection products

1. Introduction

Over the past 50 years, unprecedented increases in agricultural productivity, driven by economic motivations and technological advances, have led to widespread loss of biodiversity, soil degradation and global environmental change [1,2,3][1][2][3]. Increasing agricultural productivity in a sustainable way without further destroying biodiversity and degrading soils and water bodies, or jeopardising earth’s life support systems, will be critical as moving towards the projected peak in human population of 10.4 billion people during the 2080s [4]. The UN’s sustainable development goals (SDGs) articulate this challenge (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs (accessed on 1 January 2021). The EU’s green deal1 will contribute towards the SDGs, with one vehicle being the new EU missions within Horizon Europe—one of which is in the area of ‘soil health and food’. The ongoing effort through the EU green deal recognises the need for ‘joint action by stakeholders, researchers, policy-makers, industry and citizens working together to co-design, co-create and implement solutions’ (European Union, 2015), which is synonymous with a Functional Agro-Biodiversity (FAB) approach.
Within the European Union, the concept of Functional Agro-Biodiversity emerged alongside the ecosystem services concepts embodied in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) [5]. FAB is defined by the European Learning Network (ELN) as ‘those elements of biodiversity on the scale of agricultural fields or landscapes, which provide ecosystem services that support sustainable agricultural production and can also deliver benefits to the regional and global environment and the public at large’ [6]. It recognises the importance of a range of measures that support both above and below ground biodiversity. The functional component indicates the importance of biodiversity that can enhance ecosystem services, and specifically those ecosystem services that support agriculture [7]. These include the prioritisation of biodiversity that supports biomass production or pest and disease regulation. The FAB approach is a pragmatic one that recognises the need to achieve food production in a way that works with nature, exploiting synergies as far as possible. It seeks to reconcile the often deep rift between conservation and intensive agriculture goals while generating more resilient agricultural production systems [6,8][6][8] that use nature where possible over synthetic products.
Whilst Pillar 1 of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (created in 1999) concentrates on direct income support payments to farmers, Pillar 2 has been focused, at least partly, on ensuring the sustainable management of natural resources and climate. This has resulted in the development of agri-environment schemes across the EU, but the quality of natural resources on farmland continues to decline despite these schemes [1]. Evidence is limited on how agri-environment schemes have moderated this decline; the evidence that is available suggests that conservation actions for biodiversity have had mixed effects [9]. Agriculture was responsible for 51% of the total EU water use in 2014, and in 2012 more than 90% of the assessed ‘River Basin Management Plans’ indicated that agriculture was a significant pressure on water bodies2. Since farming covers 48% of the land surface area of the EU, agriculture also has an enormous influence over soil resources in arable areas or intensively managed grassland (i.e., through the decline of soil organic matter, soil erosion, soil compaction), while also being heavily dependent on them (i.e., for soil fertility and productivity). Linear intensive practices have resulted in costly degradation [10], indicating an urgent need for alternative land management approaches. Such approaches will need to include increased resource efficiency as part of the transition to a more circular economy; circular agro-ecosystems, which maintain production capacity, circulate products and material, depend less on external inputs, regenerate nature and conserve natural resources, but can also generate a sustainable income for farmers. FAB practises aim to achieve this.
Knowledge regarding the implementation, impact and outcomes of FAB is still highly fragmented and insufficiently embedded in agricultural practice, policy and society [7]. Furthermore, well-optimised FAB ecosystems could be quite different from existing ones, in which key functions are largely underpinned by fossil fuel inputs [11]. It is preferable not to view FAB measures (or agri-environment options) as stand-alone measures, but rather as part of whole-farm or landscape systems approaches delivering at a range of scales, from field to landscape and beyond.

2. Impact of FAB on Nature, Resource Use and Yield

There is an urgent need for increased resource efficiency in farming systems to make the transition to more circular agro-ecosystems, which depend less on external inputs and conserve natural resources (soil, water, biodiversity), especially in the context of climate change. FAB refers to the application of farm management practices that enhance and exploit elements of biodiversity for their role in providing ecosystem services (e.g., pollination, biological pest control, soil erosion control, water retention) and ecosystem functions, and in supporting sustainable agricultural production and human well-being [160,161][12][13]. The researchers found that the outcomes of implementing FAB measures were largely positive, with a number of mixed effects. Positive outcomes include improvements in above- and below-ground biodiversity (e.g., [43,47,58,63,64,88,89,127][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]), improvements in soil structure [57][22], and the diversity of root architecture that can reduce soil compaction [48[23][24],49], improve water conservation and reduce risks of flooding [46][25]. Many of the measures lead to reductions in fertiliser application [60][26], which has direct impacts, e.g., on water quality, and indirect impacts, e.g., reductions in GHG from their production. Many of the measures that improve soil erosion also positively benefit water quality. Mixed effects include impacts on GHG emissions, with reductions in some GHGs offset by increased N2O emissions [39,40,52,53,77][27][28][29][30][31] or mixed impacts on soil organic carbon (SOC) [25,26][32][33]. There are also large uncertainties in some areas (Figure 1), particularly surrounding the impact of FAB measures on yield, with a range of both positive and negative results being reported. This is predominantly due to the metrics, location and timeframe reviewed in each study and complex interactions between management and context. Some effects on yield could be short-term, and the longer-term benefits of a more sustainable system may exceed yield loss with time [35,103,107,119,120,136][34][35][36][37][38][39]. There may be issues with the methods used to calculate yield, e.g., not using a systems approach to calculate productivity in agroforestry [15][40]. Evidence is also currently limited in other areas (Figure 1); for example, organic matter input and reduced tillage are often implemented to enhance soil quality [35][34], yet effects on biodiversity are less well studied. There may be negative effects on biodiversity from fertilisation [24][41], regardless of the source (i.e., organic vs. non-organic), and mixed effects on soil microbial diversity from biochar and biosolids [83][42].
Land 12 02078 g001
Figure 1.
The strength of FAB intervention evidence.

3. Knowledge Gaps, Future Possibilities and Limitations of FAB

Although the possibilities of FAB measures are extensive and many of the core evidence gaps are closing, the impact size, timescale and socio-economic barriers that exist before broad-scale uptake could occur are still significant and need further investigation and testing [7]. The evidence of the magnitude of impact that many of the measures can have upon yield, soil health and water quality over a broad spectrum of space and time is often still lacking (Figure 1). Quantitative evidence for how much of a given intervention is needed to deliver a given benefit is lacking and is also likely to be context-specific [24][41]. There are knowledge gaps on biodiversity, and studies often focus on selected taxa (e.g., [63,64,119][17][18][37]), perhaps those more easily studied. Often, when an intervention has been implemented for its effect on a different Ecosystem Service, biodiversity impacts may not be as well documented. Cases of success, in particular in farming environments, provide hope for the circular system applicability, yet the evidence in some instances produces conflicting results, possibly due to variance in FAB intervention suitability to an environment (e.g., soil type) or even differences in FAB application or impact monitoring and assessment. It could be that the agricultural matrix is already so degraded (e.g., species pools, soil quality) that it does not have the capacity to recover in the short term or without remedial action [163][43]. Furthermore, the potential for publication bias in the literature, which tends to report mostly successful trials rather than the negligible or negative results that often never make it to publication, must be noted [15,21,28,95][40][44][45][46]. This may have an impact when meta-analysis is used to develop the evidence base. A key step in the successful implementation of FAB measures is the understanding that one intervention alone will not solve all challenges faced, yet a combination of measures implemented in a strategic way can enhance the output success, especially when adopted on a whole farm basis (Table S2). When implementing several different interventions as a package at farm or field level, the effect of the whole is greater than the sum of the parts [164][47]. Understanding past land management practices and having access to expertise for measuring impacts is vital to the successful application and effective management of the co-benefits and trade-offs at farm and regional scales (e.g., [22,24,35,41,74,108,119][34][37][41][48][49][50][51]). However, beyond the closing of evidence gaps, FAB intervention uptake will continue to be limited unless social and economic barriers are removed [7,49][7][24]. For many of the FAB measures investigated here, the financial implications of uptake limit the viability of such options, with the business case to invest in long-term nature-based measures currently not adequately supported. Farmers are often proud of their yields, but it is important to convince farmers to look at profit as the difference between income and expenses. Not only yield is taken in consideration in the economic balance, but also the reduction of costs, like expenses on PPPs, chemical fertilisers and fuel. Furthermore, education and an improved understanding of the benefits changes in the agricultural system could have at a farm and regional scale is lacking in most cases, limited to small networks rather than incentivised at regional or national governmental level. These and other barriers to implementing FAB measures must be addressed by future policy and transdisciplinary research programs, for which FABulous Farmers is an example [12][52], and those that will be developed in the future under the European Green Deal.
 

References

  1. Benton, T.G.; Vickery, J.A.; Wilson, J.D. Farmland biodiversity: Is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18, 182–188.
  2. Firbank, L.B.; McCracken, D.; Stoate, C.; Goulding, K.; Harmer, R.; Hess, T.; Jenkins, A.; Pilgrim, E.; Potts, S.; Smoith, P.; et al. (Eds.) Chapter 7: Enclosed Farmland; UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK, 2011.
  3. Strohbach, M.W.; Kohler, M.L.; Dauber, J.; Klimek, S. High Nature Value farming: From indication to conservation. Ecol. Indic. 2015, 57, 557–563.
  4. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. World Population Prospects 2022: Ten Key Messages. 2022. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/undesa_pd_2022_wpp_key-messages.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  5. MEA. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. 2005. Available online: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.html (accessed on 1 September 2020).
  6. ELN-FAB 2012; Functional Agrobiodiversity: Nature Serving Europe’s Farmers. ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation: Tilburg, The Netherlands, 2012.
  7. Bianchi, F.; Mikos, V.; Brussaard, L.; Delbaere, B.; Pulleman, M. Opportunities and limitations for functional agrobiodiversity in the European context. Environ. Sci. Policy 2013, 27, 223–231.
  8. Berkes, F. Rethinking Community-Based Conservation. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18, 621–630.
  9. Kleijn, D.; Rundlöf, M.; Scheper, J.; Smith, H.G.; Tscharntke, T. Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011, 26, 474–481.
  10. Graves, A.; Burgess, P.; Palma, J.; Herzog, F.; Moreno, G.; Bertomeu, M.; Dupraz, C.; Liagre, F.; Keesman, K.; van der Werf, W.; et al. Development and application of bio-economic modelling to compare silvoarable, arable, and forestry systems in three European countries. Ecol. Eng. 2007, 29, 434–449.
  11. Swift, M.; Izac, A.-M.; van Noordwijk, M. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes—Are we asking the right questions? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 104, 113–134.
  12. Kazemi, H.; Klug, H.; Kamkar, B. New services and roles of biodiversity in modern agroecosystems: A review. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 93, 1126–1135.
  13. Buzhdygan, O.Y.; Petermann, J.S. Multitrophic biodiversity enhances ecosystem functions, services and ecological intensification in agriculture. J. Plant Ecol. 2023, 16, rtad019.
  14. Scherber, C.; Eisenhauer, N.; Weisser, W.W.; Schmid, B.; Voigt, W.; Fischer, M.; Schulze, E.-D.; Roscher, C.; Weigelt, A.; Allan, E.; et al. Bottom-up effects of plant diversity on multitrophic interactions in a biodiversity experiment. Nature 2010, 468, 553–556.
  15. Alison, J.; Duffield, S.J.; Morecroft, M.D.; Marrs, R.H.; Hodgson, J.A. Successful restoration of moth abundance and species-richness in grassland created under agri-environment schemes. Biol. Conserv. 2017, 213, 51–58.
  16. Blanco-Canqui, H.; Shaver, T.M.; Lindquist, J.L.; Shapiro, C.A.; Elmore, R.W.; Francis, C.A.; Hergert, G.W. Cover Crops and Ecosystem Services: Insights from Studies in Temperate Soils. Agron. J. 2015, 107, 2449–2474.
  17. Holland, J.; Luff, M. The Effects of Agricultural Practices on Carabidae in Temperate Agroecosystems. Integr. Pest Manag. Rev. 2000, 5, 109–129.
  18. Lundgren, J.G.; Fergen, J.K. The Effects of a Winter Cover Crop on Diabrotica virgifera (Coleoptera: Chrysome-lidae) Populations and Beneficial Arthropod Communities in No-Till Maize. Environ. Entomol. 2010, 39, 1816–1828.
  19. Söderström, B.; Svensson, B.; Vessby, K.; Glimskär, A. Plants, insects and birds in semi-natural pastures in relation to local habitat and landscape factors. Biodivers. Conserv. 2001, 10, 1839–1863.
  20. Hermansen, J.E.; Novak, S.; Smith, J.; Bondesan, V.; Bestman, M.; Kongsted, A.G.; Mosquera Losada, M.R.; Ferreiro-Domingues, N. Agroforestry for Livestock Farmers: Dissemination of Results and Recommendations; Milestone 25 for EU FP7 Research Project. 2018. Available online: https://www.agforward.eu/documents/MS25%20Dissemination%20for%20livestock%20farmers.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2020).
  21. Wolton, R.J.; Morris RK, A.; Pollard, K.A.; Dover, J. Understanding the Combined Biodiversity Benefits of the Component Features of Hedges; Report of Defra project BD5214; Bright Angel Coastal Consultants Ltd.: Stamford, CT, USA, 2013.
  22. Scopel, E.; Triomphe, B.; Affholder, F.; Da Silva, F.A.M.; Corbeels, M.; Xavier, J.H.V.; Lahmar, R.; Recous, S.; Bernoux, M.; Blanchart, E.; et al. Conservation agriculture cropping systems in temperate and tropical conditions, performances and impacts. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 33, 113–130.
  23. Carvell, C.; Meek, W.R.; Pywell, R.F.; Goulson, D.; Nowakowski, M. Comparing the efficacy of agri-environment schemes to enhance bumble bee abundance and diversity on arable field margins. J. Appl. Ecol. 2006, 44, 29–40.
  24. DEFRA. Reviewing the Opportunities, Barriers and Constraints for Organic Management Techniques to Improve Sustainability of Conventional Farming—Final Project Report. Prepared as Part of Defra Project OF03111. 2018. Available online: https://agricology.co.uk/research-projects/organic-management-techniques-project/ (accessed on 1 January 2020).
  25. Weisser, W.W.; Roscher, C.; Meyer, S.T.; Ebeling, A.; Luo, G.; Allan, E.; Beßler, H.; Barnard, R.L.; Buchmann, N.; Buscot, F.; et al. Biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning in a 15-year grassland experiment: Patterns, mechanisms, and open questions. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2017, 23, 1–73.
  26. Eory, V.; MacLeod, M.; Topp, C.F.E.; Rees, R.M.; Webb, J.; McVittie, A.; Wall, E.; Borthwick, F.; Watson, C.; Waterhouse, A.; et al. Review and Update the UK Agriculture Marginal Abatement Cost Curve to Assess the Greenhouse Gas Abatement Potential for the 5th Carbon Budget Period and to 2050. Report for the Committee on Climate Change. 2015. Available online: https://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Scotland%E2%80%99s-Rural-Collage-SRUC-Ricardo-Energy-and-Environment-2015-Review-and-update-of-the-UK-agriculture-MACC-to-assess-abatement-potential-for-the-fifth-carbon-budget-period-and-to-2050.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2020).
  27. Freibauer, A.; Rounsevell, M.D.; Smith, P.; Verhagen, J. Carbon sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe. Geoderma 2004, 122, 1–23.
  28. Rochette, P. No-till only increases N2O emissions in poorly-aerated soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2008, 101, 97–100.
  29. Henderson, B.B.; Gerber, P.J.; Hilinski, T.E.; Falcucci, A.; Ojima, D.S.; Salvatore, M.; Conant, R.T. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential of the world’s grazing lands: Modeling soil carbon and nitrogen fluxes of mitigation practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 207, 91–100.
  30. Garnett, T.; Godde, C.; Muller, A.; Röös, E.; Smith, P.; de Boer, I.J.M.; zu Ermgassen, E.; Herrero, M.; van Middelaar, C.; Schader, C.; et al. Grazed and Confused? Ruminating on Cattle, Grazing Systems, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, the Soil Carbon Sequestration Question—And What It All Means for Greenhouse Gas Emissions. FCRN, University of Oxford. 2017. Available online: https://edepot.wur.nl/427016 (accessed on 1 January 2020).
  31. Powlson, D.S.; Whitmore, A.P.; Goulding, K.W.T. Soil carbon sequestration to mitigate climate change: A critical re-examination to identify the true and the false. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2011, 62, 42–55.
  32. Manley, J.; van Kooten, G.C.; Moeltner, K.; Johnson, D.W. Creating Carbon Offsets in Agriculture through No-Till Cultivation: A Meta-Analysis of Costs and Carbon Benefits. Clim. Chang. 2005, 68, 41–65.
  33. Powlson, D.S.; Stirling, C.M.; Jat, M.L.; Gerard, B.G.; Palm, C.A.; Sanchez, P.A.; Cassman, K.G. Limited potential of no-till agriculture for climate change mitigation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 678–683.
  34. Zikeli, S.; Gruber, S.; Teufel, C.-F.; Hartung, K.; Claupein, W. Effects of Reduced Tillage on Crop Yield, Plant Available Nutrients and Soil Organic Matter in a 12-Year Long-Term Trial under Organic Management. Sustainability 2013, 5, 3876–3894.
  35. Vityi, A.; Kiss Szigeti, N.; Schettrer, P.; Marosvölgyi, B. Lessons Learnt: Alley Cropping in Hungary. 2017. 24p. Available online: http://agforward.eu/index.php/en/alley-cropping-systems-in-hungary.html (accessed on 28 September 2017).
  36. Kanzler, M.; Mirck, J. Lessons Learnt—Alley Cropping in Germany; 2017; 12p. Available online: http://agforward.eu/index.php/en/alley-cropping-systems-in-germany.html (accessed on 28 July 2017).
  37. Dickie, I.E.A. The Economic Case for Investment in Natural Capital in England. Final Report for the Natural Capital Committee; Land Use appendix; Defra: London, UK, 2015.
  38. Pywell, R.F.; Heard, M.S.; Woodcock, B.A.; Hinsley, S.; Ridding, L.; Nowakowski, M.; Bullock, J.M. Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: Evidence for ecological intensification. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015, 282, 20151740.
  39. Keulemans, W.; Bylemans, D.; De Coninck, B. Farming without plant protection products: Can we grow without fungicides, pesticides and herbicides? In Panel for the Future of Science and Technology; STOA, Ed.; European Parliament: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
  40. Torralba, M.; Fagerholm, N.; Burgess, P.J.; Moreno, G.; Plieninger, T. Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 230, 150–161.
  41. Keenleyside, C.B.; Beaufoy, G.; Alison, J.; Gunn, I.D.M.; Healey, J.; Jenkins, T.; Pagella, T.; Siriwardena, G.M. Technical Annex 4: Building Ecosystem Resilience. In Environment and Rural Affairs Monitoring & Modelling Programme (ERAMMP): Sustainable Farming Scheme Evidence Review; Report to Welsh Government (Contract C210/2016/2017): UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Project NEC06297; UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology: Bailrigg, UK, 2019; Available online: https://erammp.wales/sites/default/files/2023-09/04-ERAMMP-SFS-Evidence-Review-4-Ecosystem-resilience-v1.1.pdf (accessed on 1 January 2020).
  42. Pascault, N.; Ranjard, L.; Kaisermann, A.; Bachar, D.; Christen, R.; Terrat, S.; Mathieu, O.; Lévêque, J.; Mougel, C.; Henault, C.; et al. Stimulation of Different Functional Groups of Bacteria by Various Plant Residues as a Driver of Soil Priming Effect. Ecosystems 2013, 16, 810–822.
  43. Harper, J.K.; Roth, G.W.; Garalejić, B.; Škrbić, N. Programs to promote adoption of conservation tillage: A Serbian case study. Land Use Policy 2018, 78, 295–302.
  44. Van den Putte, A.; Govers, G.; Diels, J.; Gillijns, K.; Demuzere, M. Assessing the effect of soil tillage on crop growth: A meta-regression analysis on European crop yields under conservation agriculture. Eur. J. Agron. 2010, 33, 231–241.
  45. Bai, X.; Huang, Y.; Ren, W.; Coyne, M.; Jacinthe, P.-A.; Tao, B.; Hui, D.; Yang, J.; Matocha, C. Responses of soil carbon sequestration to climate-smart agriculture practices: A meta-analysis. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2019, 25, 2591–2606.
  46. Hübner, R.; Kühnel, A.; Lu, J.; Dettmann, H.; Wang, W.; Wiesmeier, M. Soil carbon sequestration by agroforestry systems in China: A meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 315, 107437.
  47. Keenleyside, C.B.; Maskell, L.C.; Smart, S.M.; Siriwardena, G.M.; Alison, J. Environment and Rural Affairs Monitoring & Modelling Programme (ERAMMP): Report-25: SFS Evidence Review Annex-4B—Building Ecosystem Resilience in Improved Farmland; Report to Welsh Government (Contract C210/2016/2017); UKCEH: Bangor, UK, 2020.
  48. Schipanski, M.E.; Barbercheck, M.E.; Murrell, E.G.; Harper, J.; Finney, D.M.; Kaye, J.P.; Mortensen, D.A.; Smith, R.G. Balancing multiple objectives in organic feed and forage cropping systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 239, 219–227.
  49. Weigelt, A.; Weisser, W.W.; Buchmann, N.; Scherer-Lorenzen, M. Biodiversity for multifunctional grasslands: Equal productivity in high-diversity low-input and low-diversity high-input systems. Biogeosciences 2009, 6, 1695–1706.
  50. Nicholson, F.; Taylor, M.; Bhogal, A.; Rollett, A.; Williams, J.R.; Newell Price, P.; Chambers, B.; Becvar, A.; Wood, M.; Litterick, A.; et al. Field Experiments for Quality Digestate and Compost in Agriculture: Work Package 2 Report—Digestate Nitrogen Supply and Environmental Emissions; Report number: OMK001-001/WR1212; ADAS: Surrey, UK, 2016.
  51. Wolton, R.J.; Pollard, K.A.; Goodwin, A.; Norton, L. Regulatory Services Delivered by Hedges: The Evidence Base; Report of Defra project LM0106; Defra: London, UK, 2014.
  52. INTERREG. FABulous Farmers. 2020. Available online: https://www.nweurope.eu/projects/project-search/fabulous-farmers/ (accessed on 17 September 2020).
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback