与挪威传统农业相比,气候智能型农业的环境效益和生态系统服务的变化

IF 8.4 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Nariê Rinke Dias de Souza, Marte Kristiane Mohn Solberg, Xiangping Hu, Francesco Cherubini
{"title":"与挪威传统农业相比,气候智能型农业的环境效益和生态系统服务的变化","authors":"Nariê Rinke Dias de Souza,&nbsp;Marte Kristiane Mohn Solberg,&nbsp;Xiangping Hu,&nbsp;Francesco Cherubini","doi":"10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124633","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices aim to reduce land degradation and enhance climate resilience through sustainable land use. The environmental benefits of CSA often go undetected and appear negative in life cycle assessment (LCA), which typically focuses on product-based outputs, overlooking ecosystem services and resilience. Integrating ecosystem services within LCA of agricultural systems can help provide evidence of the environmental benefits of CSA and favor its consideration by farmers and decision makers. Here, we explore how CSA can be better represented in LCA by investigating barley production on cropland at risk of soil erosion in Norway under three management scenarios: conventional agriculture, integration of winter cover crops, and establishment of trees as buffer zones. The assessed environmental impacts combine ecosystem services (reduction of soil erosion, habitat quality, carbon sequestration) with traditional life-cycle impact categories (eutrophication, climate change, etc.). Relative to the conventional system, buffer zones improve all environmental indicators, while cover crops show an improvement in all indicators but terrestrial acidification and freshwater ecotoxicity. Buffer zones and cover crops increase habitat quality, terrestrial carbon storage, and reduce nutrient and soil-particle runoff, thereby supporting long-term yields, despite a small short-term reduction in barley yields. Overall, concerns about additional costs and management practices, limited know-how by farmers, and poor policy schemes limit the widespread CSA adoption. Engagement of farmers, local authorities and stakeholders is instrumental to overcome these barriers. Incorporating ecosystem services into LCA provides scientific evidence to support the shift toward sustainable agriculture while capturing environmental benefits of <span>CSA</span>.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":356,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Environmental Management","volume":"377 ","pages":"Article 124633"},"PeriodicalIF":8.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Environmental benefits and changes in ecosystem services of climate-smart agriculture relative to conventional agriculture in Norway\",\"authors\":\"Nariê Rinke Dias de Souza,&nbsp;Marte Kristiane Mohn Solberg,&nbsp;Xiangping Hu,&nbsp;Francesco Cherubini\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124633\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices aim to reduce land degradation and enhance climate resilience through sustainable land use. The environmental benefits of CSA often go undetected and appear negative in life cycle assessment (LCA), which typically focuses on product-based outputs, overlooking ecosystem services and resilience. Integrating ecosystem services within LCA of agricultural systems can help provide evidence of the environmental benefits of CSA and favor its consideration by farmers and decision makers. Here, we explore how CSA can be better represented in LCA by investigating barley production on cropland at risk of soil erosion in Norway under three management scenarios: conventional agriculture, integration of winter cover crops, and establishment of trees as buffer zones. The assessed environmental impacts combine ecosystem services (reduction of soil erosion, habitat quality, carbon sequestration) with traditional life-cycle impact categories (eutrophication, climate change, etc.). Relative to the conventional system, buffer zones improve all environmental indicators, while cover crops show an improvement in all indicators but terrestrial acidification and freshwater ecotoxicity. Buffer zones and cover crops increase habitat quality, terrestrial carbon storage, and reduce nutrient and soil-particle runoff, thereby supporting long-term yields, despite a small short-term reduction in barley yields. Overall, concerns about additional costs and management practices, limited know-how by farmers, and poor policy schemes limit the widespread CSA adoption. Engagement of farmers, local authorities and stakeholders is instrumental to overcome these barriers. Incorporating ecosystem services into LCA provides scientific evidence to support the shift toward sustainable agriculture while capturing environmental benefits of <span>CSA</span>.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":356,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Environmental Management\",\"volume\":\"377 \",\"pages\":\"Article 124633\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Environmental Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479725006097\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Environmental Management","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479725006097","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

气候智能型农业(CSA)实践旨在通过可持续土地利用减少土地退化,增强气候适应能力。在生命周期评估(LCA)中,CSA的环境效益往往未被发现,甚至出现负面影响,而生命周期评估通常侧重于基于产品的产出,而忽视了生态系统服务和复原力。在农业系统的LCA中整合生态系统服务可以为CSA的环境效益提供证据,并有利于农民和决策者的考虑。在这里,我们通过调查挪威有土壤侵蚀风险的农田在三种管理方案下的大麦生产:传统农业、整合冬季覆盖作物和建立树木作为缓冲区,来探讨CSA如何在LCA中得到更好的体现。评估的环境影响将生态系统服务(减少土壤侵蚀、生境质量、碳固存)与传统的生命周期影响类别(富营养化、气候变化等)结合起来。与常规系统相比,缓冲区改善了所有环境指标,覆盖作物改善了所有环境指标,但陆地酸化和淡水生态毒性除外。缓冲区和覆盖作物提高了生境质量,增加了陆地碳储量,减少了养分和土壤颗粒径流,从而支持了长期产量,尽管短期内大麦产量会小幅下降。总的来说,对额外成本和管理实践、农民知识有限以及糟糕的政策计划的担忧限制了CSA的广泛采用。农民、地方当局和利益攸关方的参与有助于克服这些障碍。将生态系统服务纳入LCA为支持向可持续农业的转变提供了科学依据,同时也获得了CSA的环境效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Environmental benefits and changes in ecosystem services of climate-smart agriculture relative to conventional agriculture in Norway
Climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices aim to reduce land degradation and enhance climate resilience through sustainable land use. The environmental benefits of CSA often go undetected and appear negative in life cycle assessment (LCA), which typically focuses on product-based outputs, overlooking ecosystem services and resilience. Integrating ecosystem services within LCA of agricultural systems can help provide evidence of the environmental benefits of CSA and favor its consideration by farmers and decision makers. Here, we explore how CSA can be better represented in LCA by investigating barley production on cropland at risk of soil erosion in Norway under three management scenarios: conventional agriculture, integration of winter cover crops, and establishment of trees as buffer zones. The assessed environmental impacts combine ecosystem services (reduction of soil erosion, habitat quality, carbon sequestration) with traditional life-cycle impact categories (eutrophication, climate change, etc.). Relative to the conventional system, buffer zones improve all environmental indicators, while cover crops show an improvement in all indicators but terrestrial acidification and freshwater ecotoxicity. Buffer zones and cover crops increase habitat quality, terrestrial carbon storage, and reduce nutrient and soil-particle runoff, thereby supporting long-term yields, despite a small short-term reduction in barley yields. Overall, concerns about additional costs and management practices, limited know-how by farmers, and poor policy schemes limit the widespread CSA adoption. Engagement of farmers, local authorities and stakeholders is instrumental to overcome these barriers. Incorporating ecosystem services into LCA provides scientific evidence to support the shift toward sustainable agriculture while capturing environmental benefits of CSA.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Environmental Management
Journal of Environmental Management 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
13.70
自引率
5.70%
发文量
2477
审稿时长
84 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Environmental Management is a journal for the publication of peer reviewed, original research for all aspects of management and the managed use of the environment, both natural and man-made.Critical review articles are also welcome; submission of these is strongly encouraged.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信