Ecosystem services in conventional farming systems. A review

Ecosystems worldwide are being disrupted under increased pressure from human activities. Nevertheless, most conservation studies and restoration efforts have so far focused on ecosystems of high heritage value related to their species diversity and/or the rarity of their habitats and/or species. How...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Agronomy for sustainable development 2022-04, Vol.42 (2), Article 22
Hauptverfasser: Vidaller, Christel, Dutoit, Thierry
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page
container_title Agronomy for sustainable development
container_volume 42
creator Vidaller, Christel
Dutoit, Thierry
description Ecosystems worldwide are being disrupted under increased pressure from human activities. Nevertheless, most conservation studies and restoration efforts have so far focused on ecosystems of high heritage value related to their species diversity and/or the rarity of their habitats and/or species. However, “ordinary nature” (all the everyday, non-spectacular and non-protected landscapes, species and ecosystems) is also threatened by ecosystem disruption, which could affect major ecological functions and thus the supply of ecosystem services (ES). Conventional farming systems, which are mostly composed of agroecosystems characterised by ordinary nature, are already known to deliver some ES (e.g. pollination, carbon sequestration). Nevertheless, no systematic search has been done yet to determine which ES are identified and how there are studied in these conventional farming systems. We thus performed a first systematic evidence map (review of key articles to show, at a glance, the points that have been most studied, and highlight key gaps in the evidence base) to identify characterisation and measurement of ES provided by conventional agroecosystems from the review of 189 key international scientific articles. We excluded production for economic benefit, as this topic is already well documented in conventional agriculture systems. We found that most studies identified nutrient cycling (49.7%), carbon sequestration (46.6%), pest reduction (48.1%) or pollination (36.5%) as ES supplied by conventional agroecosystems. Correlations were also found between spatial scale and ES studied: for example, carbon storage was determined more at agricultural plot scale, while cultural services were determined more at landscape level. Our map also yielded 74 frequently used ES indicators, 50 of which are easily measurable and operational indicators of significant ES. Afterwards, one challenge that could be addressed in further studies is to determine for each indicator the range of measurement values that should be considered positive for ES provision, which is likely ecosystem-dependent.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s13593-021-00740-w
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03606788v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2638062896</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-f3a5d8bb1ead31f311ccdf89ca70ade17c59e6292008cf32430c9958ea659af03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1OAjEUhRujiYi-gKsmrlwM3rYz_UncEAJiQuJG103ptDgEZrAdhvD2FsboztXtPf3OSe5B6J7AiACIp0hYoVgGlGRpzSE7XKABESJJpCguz-88Sz_8Gt3EuAbIT8oAPU9tE4-xdVscXegq6yKuamybunN1WzW12WBvwraqV7jn4giPcXBd5Q636MqbTXR3P3OIPmbT98k8W7y9vE7Gi8wyJdrMM1OUcrkkzpSMeEaItaWXyhoBpnRE2EI5ThUFkNYzmjOwShXSGV4o44EN0WOf-2k2eheqrQlH3ZhKz8cLfdKAceBCyo4k9qFnd6H52rvY6nWzD-mMqClnEjiViieK9pQNTYzB-d9YAvrUqO4b1alRfW5UH5KJ9aaY4Hrlwl_0P65v5RV4tw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2638062896</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Ecosystem services in conventional farming systems. A review</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Vidaller, Christel ; Dutoit, Thierry</creator><creatorcontrib>Vidaller, Christel ; Dutoit, Thierry</creatorcontrib><description>Ecosystems worldwide are being disrupted under increased pressure from human activities. Nevertheless, most conservation studies and restoration efforts have so far focused on ecosystems of high heritage value related to their species diversity and/or the rarity of their habitats and/or species. However, “ordinary nature” (all the everyday, non-spectacular and non-protected landscapes, species and ecosystems) is also threatened by ecosystem disruption, which could affect major ecological functions and thus the supply of ecosystem services (ES). Conventional farming systems, which are mostly composed of agroecosystems characterised by ordinary nature, are already known to deliver some ES (e.g. pollination, carbon sequestration). Nevertheless, no systematic search has been done yet to determine which ES are identified and how there are studied in these conventional farming systems. We thus performed a first systematic evidence map (review of key articles to show, at a glance, the points that have been most studied, and highlight key gaps in the evidence base) to identify characterisation and measurement of ES provided by conventional agroecosystems from the review of 189 key international scientific articles. We excluded production for economic benefit, as this topic is already well documented in conventional agriculture systems. We found that most studies identified nutrient cycling (49.7%), carbon sequestration (46.6%), pest reduction (48.1%) or pollination (36.5%) as ES supplied by conventional agroecosystems. Correlations were also found between spatial scale and ES studied: for example, carbon storage was determined more at agricultural plot scale, while cultural services were determined more at landscape level. Our map also yielded 74 frequently used ES indicators, 50 of which are easily measurable and operational indicators of significant ES. Afterwards, one challenge that could be addressed in further studies is to determine for each indicator the range of measurement values that should be considered positive for ES provision, which is likely ecosystem-dependent.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1774-0746</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1773-0155</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s13593-021-00740-w</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Paris: Springer Paris</publisher><subject>Agricultural ecosystems ; Agricultural sciences ; Agriculture ; Agronomy ; Biodiversity and Ecology ; Biomedical and Life Sciences ; Carbon cycle ; Carbon sequestration ; Ecological function ; Ecosystem services ; Ecosystems ; Environmental Sciences ; Farming ; Farming systems ; Indicators ; Landscape ; Landscape protection ; Life Sciences ; Nutrient cycles ; Plant reproduction ; Pollination ; Protected species ; Review Article ; Reviews ; Scientific papers ; Soil Science &amp; Conservation ; Species diversity ; Sustainable Development ; Threatened species</subject><ispartof>Agronomy for sustainable development, 2022-04, Vol.42 (2), Article 22</ispartof><rights>INRAE and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2022</rights><rights>INRAE and Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2022.</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-f3a5d8bb1ead31f311ccdf89ca70ade17c59e6292008cf32430c9958ea659af03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-f3a5d8bb1ead31f311ccdf89ca70ade17c59e6292008cf32430c9958ea659af03</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5354-1677 ; 0000-0001-9461-9215</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s13593-021-00740-w$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13593-021-00740-w$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-03606788$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vidaller, Christel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dutoit, Thierry</creatorcontrib><title>Ecosystem services in conventional farming systems. A review</title><title>Agronomy for sustainable development</title><addtitle>Agron. Sustain. Dev</addtitle><description>Ecosystems worldwide are being disrupted under increased pressure from human activities. Nevertheless, most conservation studies and restoration efforts have so far focused on ecosystems of high heritage value related to their species diversity and/or the rarity of their habitats and/or species. However, “ordinary nature” (all the everyday, non-spectacular and non-protected landscapes, species and ecosystems) is also threatened by ecosystem disruption, which could affect major ecological functions and thus the supply of ecosystem services (ES). Conventional farming systems, which are mostly composed of agroecosystems characterised by ordinary nature, are already known to deliver some ES (e.g. pollination, carbon sequestration). Nevertheless, no systematic search has been done yet to determine which ES are identified and how there are studied in these conventional farming systems. We thus performed a first systematic evidence map (review of key articles to show, at a glance, the points that have been most studied, and highlight key gaps in the evidence base) to identify characterisation and measurement of ES provided by conventional agroecosystems from the review of 189 key international scientific articles. We excluded production for economic benefit, as this topic is already well documented in conventional agriculture systems. We found that most studies identified nutrient cycling (49.7%), carbon sequestration (46.6%), pest reduction (48.1%) or pollination (36.5%) as ES supplied by conventional agroecosystems. Correlations were also found between spatial scale and ES studied: for example, carbon storage was determined more at agricultural plot scale, while cultural services were determined more at landscape level. Our map also yielded 74 frequently used ES indicators, 50 of which are easily measurable and operational indicators of significant ES. Afterwards, one challenge that could be addressed in further studies is to determine for each indicator the range of measurement values that should be considered positive for ES provision, which is likely ecosystem-dependent.</description><subject>Agricultural ecosystems</subject><subject>Agricultural sciences</subject><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>Agronomy</subject><subject>Biodiversity and Ecology</subject><subject>Biomedical and Life Sciences</subject><subject>Carbon cycle</subject><subject>Carbon sequestration</subject><subject>Ecological function</subject><subject>Ecosystem services</subject><subject>Ecosystems</subject><subject>Environmental Sciences</subject><subject>Farming</subject><subject>Farming systems</subject><subject>Indicators</subject><subject>Landscape</subject><subject>Landscape protection</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Nutrient cycles</subject><subject>Plant reproduction</subject><subject>Pollination</subject><subject>Protected species</subject><subject>Review Article</subject><subject>Reviews</subject><subject>Scientific papers</subject><subject>Soil Science &amp; Conservation</subject><subject>Species diversity</subject><subject>Sustainable Development</subject><subject>Threatened species</subject><issn>1774-0746</issn><issn>1773-0155</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kM1OAjEUhRujiYi-gKsmrlwM3rYz_UncEAJiQuJG103ptDgEZrAdhvD2FsboztXtPf3OSe5B6J7AiACIp0hYoVgGlGRpzSE7XKABESJJpCguz-88Sz_8Gt3EuAbIT8oAPU9tE4-xdVscXegq6yKuamybunN1WzW12WBvwraqV7jn4giPcXBd5Q636MqbTXR3P3OIPmbT98k8W7y9vE7Gi8wyJdrMM1OUcrkkzpSMeEaItaWXyhoBpnRE2EI5ThUFkNYzmjOwShXSGV4o44EN0WOf-2k2eheqrQlH3ZhKz8cLfdKAceBCyo4k9qFnd6H52rvY6nWzD-mMqClnEjiViieK9pQNTYzB-d9YAvrUqO4b1alRfW5UH5KJ9aaY4Hrlwl_0P65v5RV4tw</recordid><startdate>20220401</startdate><enddate>20220401</enddate><creator>Vidaller, Christel</creator><creator>Dutoit, Thierry</creator><general>Springer Paris</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>Springer Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5354-1677</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9461-9215</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220401</creationdate><title>Ecosystem services in conventional farming systems. A review</title><author>Vidaller, Christel ; Dutoit, Thierry</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-f3a5d8bb1ead31f311ccdf89ca70ade17c59e6292008cf32430c9958ea659af03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Agricultural ecosystems</topic><topic>Agricultural sciences</topic><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>Agronomy</topic><topic>Biodiversity and Ecology</topic><topic>Biomedical and Life Sciences</topic><topic>Carbon cycle</topic><topic>Carbon sequestration</topic><topic>Ecological function</topic><topic>Ecosystem services</topic><topic>Ecosystems</topic><topic>Environmental Sciences</topic><topic>Farming</topic><topic>Farming systems</topic><topic>Indicators</topic><topic>Landscape</topic><topic>Landscape protection</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Nutrient cycles</topic><topic>Plant reproduction</topic><topic>Pollination</topic><topic>Protected species</topic><topic>Review Article</topic><topic>Reviews</topic><topic>Scientific papers</topic><topic>Soil Science &amp; Conservation</topic><topic>Species diversity</topic><topic>Sustainable Development</topic><topic>Threatened species</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vidaller, Christel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dutoit, Thierry</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><jtitle>Agronomy for sustainable development</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vidaller, Christel</au><au>Dutoit, Thierry</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Ecosystem services in conventional farming systems. A review</atitle><jtitle>Agronomy for sustainable development</jtitle><stitle>Agron. Sustain. Dev</stitle><date>2022-04-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>2</issue><artnum>22</artnum><issn>1774-0746</issn><eissn>1773-0155</eissn><abstract>Ecosystems worldwide are being disrupted under increased pressure from human activities. Nevertheless, most conservation studies and restoration efforts have so far focused on ecosystems of high heritage value related to their species diversity and/or the rarity of their habitats and/or species. However, “ordinary nature” (all the everyday, non-spectacular and non-protected landscapes, species and ecosystems) is also threatened by ecosystem disruption, which could affect major ecological functions and thus the supply of ecosystem services (ES). Conventional farming systems, which are mostly composed of agroecosystems characterised by ordinary nature, are already known to deliver some ES (e.g. pollination, carbon sequestration). Nevertheless, no systematic search has been done yet to determine which ES are identified and how there are studied in these conventional farming systems. We thus performed a first systematic evidence map (review of key articles to show, at a glance, the points that have been most studied, and highlight key gaps in the evidence base) to identify characterisation and measurement of ES provided by conventional agroecosystems from the review of 189 key international scientific articles. We excluded production for economic benefit, as this topic is already well documented in conventional agriculture systems. We found that most studies identified nutrient cycling (49.7%), carbon sequestration (46.6%), pest reduction (48.1%) or pollination (36.5%) as ES supplied by conventional agroecosystems. Correlations were also found between spatial scale and ES studied: for example, carbon storage was determined more at agricultural plot scale, while cultural services were determined more at landscape level. Our map also yielded 74 frequently used ES indicators, 50 of which are easily measurable and operational indicators of significant ES. Afterwards, one challenge that could be addressed in further studies is to determine for each indicator the range of measurement values that should be considered positive for ES provision, which is likely ecosystem-dependent.</abstract><cop>Paris</cop><pub>Springer Paris</pub><doi>10.1007/s13593-021-00740-w</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5354-1677</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9461-9215</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1774-0746
ispartof Agronomy for sustainable development, 2022-04, Vol.42 (2), Article 22
issn 1774-0746
1773-0155
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03606788v1
source SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings
subjects Agricultural ecosystems
Agricultural sciences
Agriculture
Agronomy
Biodiversity and Ecology
Biomedical and Life Sciences
Carbon cycle
Carbon sequestration
Ecological function
Ecosystem services
Ecosystems
Environmental Sciences
Farming
Farming systems
Indicators
Landscape
Landscape protection
Life Sciences
Nutrient cycles
Plant reproduction
Pollination
Protected species
Review Article
Reviews
Scientific papers
Soil Science & Conservation
Species diversity
Sustainable Development
Threatened species
title Ecosystem services in conventional farming systems. A review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T06%3A16%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ecosystem%20services%20in%20conventional%20farming%20systems.%20A%20review&rft.jtitle=Agronomy%20for%20sustainable%20development&rft.au=Vidaller,%20Christel&rft.date=2022-04-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=2&rft.artnum=22&rft.issn=1774-0746&rft.eissn=1773-0155&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s13593-021-00740-w&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2638062896%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2638062896&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true