Quantifying farm sustainability through the lens of ecological theory

IF 11 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY
Jonathan Storkey, Chloe Maclaren, James M. Bullock, Lisa R. Norton, John W. Redhead, Richard F. Pywell
{"title":"Quantifying farm sustainability through the lens of ecological theory","authors":"Jonathan Storkey,&nbsp;Chloe Maclaren,&nbsp;James M. Bullock,&nbsp;Lisa R. Norton,&nbsp;John W. Redhead,&nbsp;Richard F. Pywell","doi":"10.1111/brv.13088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The achievements of the Green Revolution in meeting the nutritional needs of a growing global population have been won at the expense of unintended consequences for the environment. Some of these negative impacts are now threatening the sustainability of food production through the loss of pollinators and natural enemies of crop pests, the evolution of pesticide resistance, declining soil health and vulnerability to climate change. In the search for farming systems that are sustainable both agronomically and environmentally, alternative approaches have been proposed variously called ‘agroecological’, ‘conservation agriculture’, ‘regenerative’ and ‘sustainable intensification’. While the widespread recognition of the need for more sustainable farming is to be welcomed, this has created etymological confusion that has the potential to become a barrier to transformation. There is a need, therefore, for objective criteria to evaluate alternative farming systems and to quantify farm sustainability against multiple outcomes. To help meet this challenge, we reviewed the ecological theories that explain variance in regulating and supporting ecosystem services delivered by biological communities in farmland to identify guiding principles for management change. For each theory, we identified associated system metrics that could be used as proxies for agroecosystem function. We identified five principles derived from ecological theory: (<i>i</i>) provide key habitats for ecosystem service providers; (<i>ii</i>) increase crop and non-crop habitat diversity; (<i>iii</i>) increase edge density: (<i>iv</i>) increase nutrient-use efficiency; and (<i>v</i>) avoid extremes of disturbance. By making published knowledge the foundation of the choice of associated metrics, our aim was to establish a broad consensus for their use in sustainability assessment frameworks. Further analysis of their association with farm-scale data on biological communities and/or ecosystem service delivery would provide additional validation for their selection and support for the underpinning theories.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":"99 5","pages":"1700-1716"},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.13088","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.13088","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The achievements of the Green Revolution in meeting the nutritional needs of a growing global population have been won at the expense of unintended consequences for the environment. Some of these negative impacts are now threatening the sustainability of food production through the loss of pollinators and natural enemies of crop pests, the evolution of pesticide resistance, declining soil health and vulnerability to climate change. In the search for farming systems that are sustainable both agronomically and environmentally, alternative approaches have been proposed variously called ‘agroecological’, ‘conservation agriculture’, ‘regenerative’ and ‘sustainable intensification’. While the widespread recognition of the need for more sustainable farming is to be welcomed, this has created etymological confusion that has the potential to become a barrier to transformation. There is a need, therefore, for objective criteria to evaluate alternative farming systems and to quantify farm sustainability against multiple outcomes. To help meet this challenge, we reviewed the ecological theories that explain variance in regulating and supporting ecosystem services delivered by biological communities in farmland to identify guiding principles for management change. For each theory, we identified associated system metrics that could be used as proxies for agroecosystem function. We identified five principles derived from ecological theory: (i) provide key habitats for ecosystem service providers; (ii) increase crop and non-crop habitat diversity; (iii) increase edge density: (iv) increase nutrient-use efficiency; and (v) avoid extremes of disturbance. By making published knowledge the foundation of the choice of associated metrics, our aim was to establish a broad consensus for their use in sustainability assessment frameworks. Further analysis of their association with farm-scale data on biological communities and/or ecosystem service delivery would provide additional validation for their selection and support for the underpinning theories.

Abstract Image

从生态理论的角度量化农场的可持续性
绿色革命在满足不断增长的全球人口的营养需求方面取得的成就是以对环境造成意外后果为代价的。其中一些负面影响正威胁着粮食生产的可持续性,如传粉媒介和作物害虫天敌的丧失、杀虫剂抗药性的演变、土壤健康状况的下降以及易受气候变化影响等。为了寻求在农业和环境方面都可持续的耕作制度,人们提出了一些替代方法,这些方法被称为 "生态农业"、"保护性农业"、"再生农业 "和 "可持续集约化"。虽然人们普遍认识到需要更可持续的耕作,这一点值得欢迎,但这也造成了词义上的混乱,有可能成为转型的障碍。因此,我们需要客观的标准来评估替代性耕作制度,并根据多种结果来量化农场的可持续性。为了帮助应对这一挑战,我们回顾了解释农田生物群落所提供的生态系统服务的调节和支持差异的生态理论,以确定管理变革的指导原则。对于每种理论,我们都确定了可用作农业生态系统功能替代物的相关系统指标。我们确定了源自生态理论的五项原则:(i) 为生态系统服务提供者提供关键栖息地;(ii) 增加作物和非作物栖息地多样性;(iii) 增加边缘密度;(iv) 提高养分利用效率;以及 (v) 避免极端干扰。通过将已发表的知识作为选择相关指标的基础,我们的目标是为在可持续性评估框架中使用这些指标达成广泛共识。进一步分析这些指标与农场规模的生物群落和/或生态系统服务交付数据之间的关联,将为这些指标的选择提供更多验证,并为基础理论提供支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Biological Reviews
Biological Reviews 生物-生物学
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly. The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions. The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field. Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信