Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services

Gordon, Line; Finlayson, C. Max; Falkenmark, Malin

doi:10.1016/j.agwat.2009.03.017

Cited by 348 publications

(184 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

167

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such information might improve awareness of the value of natural ecosystems; however, it cannot provide a good basis for policy formulation and guidance. Water management in agriculture is a key component in solving some of the most pressing tradeoffs between an increase in agricultural production that can contribute to food security and economic growth on the one hand, and dealing with the losses of important ecosystem benefits that also sustain human well-being and livelihoods on the other (Gordon et al 2010). In response to this complex challenge, using the InVEST model, three kinds of ecosystem services were analyzed under different land use scenarios.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling hydrological ecosystem services and tradeoffs: a case study in Baiyangdian watershed, China

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy makers and scientists consider that land use strategies are designed to provide direct benefits to people by protecting vital ecosystem services. However, due to lack of information and evaluation methods, there is no effective and systematic tool for assessing tradeoffs between direct human benefits and ecosystem services. Land use changes influence ecosystem properties, processes and components, which are the basis for providing services. Five alternative land use scenarios (no conversion of agricultural lands, no urban expansion, agricultural expansion, forestry expansion, and riparian reforestation) were modeled for the Baiyangdian watershed, China, a densely populated, highly modified watershed with serious water shortage and pollution problems. The model InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs) is designed to inform decisions about natural resource management, with an aim to align economic forces with conservation. Three ecosystem services (agricultural production, hydropower production, and water quality) were modeled to balance direct benefits and hydrological ecosystem services using InVEST. The results showed that: hydropower production was the greatest in the forestry expansion, but the lowest in agricultural expansion; agricultural production was reduced the most in forestry expansion, while retained the most in riparian reforestation. Riparian reforestation also provided the highest N and P retention and lowest N and P exportation. Riparian reforestation was the optimal land use strategy, since it protected and enhanced the vital ecosystem services without undermining direct human benefits. This research presents an initial analytical framework for integrating direct human benefits and ecosystem services in policy planning and illustrates its application. Although there are important potential tradeoffs between ecosystem services, this systematic planning framework offers a means for identifying valuable synergies between conservation and development.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling hydrological ecosystem services and tradeoffs: a case study in Baiyangdian watershed, China

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hydrologic ecosystem services (HESs) are beginning to influence land management decisions through both regulations and investments targeted at protecting and improving water resources [Le Maitre et al, 2007;Gordon et al, 2010;Goldman-Benner et al, 2012]. HESs are the goods and services that ecosystems provide to people related to various uses of water, and include water availability for municipal, agricultural, and commercial use, the reduction of the magnitude and frequency of flow peaks to prevent floods, the reduction of sediment and nutrients in water, and the value of natural hydrologic systems for recreation [Brauman et al, 2007; Keeler et al, 2012;Brauman, 2015].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing two tools for ecosystem service assessments regarding water resources decisions

Dennedy‐Frank

Muenich

Chaubey

et al. 2016

Journal of Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a comparison of two ecohydrologic models commonly used for planning land management to assess the production of hydrologic ecosystem services: the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) and the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) annual water yield model. We compare these two models at two distinct sites in the US: the Wildcat Creek Watershed in Indiana and the Upper Upatoi Creek Watershed in Georgia. The InVEST and SWAT models provide similar estimates of the spatial distribution of water yield in Wildcat Creek, but very different estimates of the spatial distribution of water yield in Upper Upatoi Creek. The InVEST model may do a poor job estimating the spatial distribution of water yield in the Upper Upatoi Creek W total water yield, which means that storage dynamics which are not modeled by InVEST may be important. We also compare the ability of these two models, as well as one newly developed set of ecosystem service indices, to deliver useful guidance for land management decisions focused on providing hydrologic ecosystem services in three particular decision contexts: environmental flow ecosystem services, ecosystem services for potable water supply, and ecosystem services for rainfed irrigation. We present a simple framework for selecting models or indices to evaluate hydrologic ecosystem services as a way to formalize where models deliver useful guidance. KEYWORDS:ecosystem services, water yield, model comparison, SWAT, InVEST INTRODUCTIONHydrologic ecosystem services (HESs) are beginning to influence land management decisions through both regulations and investments targeted at protecting and improving water resources [Le Maitre et al., 2007;Gordon et al., 2010;Goldman-Benner et al., 2012]. HESs are the goods and services that ecosystems provide to people related to various uses of water, and include water availability for municipal, agricultural, and commercial use, the reduction of the magnitude and frequency of flow peaks to prevent floods, the reduction of sediment and nutrients in water, and the value of natural hydrologic systems for recreation [Brauman et al., 2007; Keeler et al., 2012;Brauman, 2015]. Land managers use HESs to support investments and meet regulatory requirements around water resources in both developing countries [Goldman, 2009] and developed countries [Lautenbach et al., 2010;Logsdon and Chaubey, 2013]. To support investments or meet regulations, scientists and managers assess HESs under expected future conditions based on some model of the landscape and ecosystem response; the landscapes are then managed to restore, retain, or optimize HESs and thus improve the status of the water resources. Scientists and managers assess HES provision in distinct decision contexts-combinations of investment and regulatory goals and institutional structures-which may decide both which models are applied and how model outputs are used to make decisions.

show abstract

“…In fact, a modern view of agriculture has it that it is not so much a field-based enterprise as a landscape-based enterprise (Swinton et al 2007) and that its value may best be viewed in a landscape context (Dale and Polasky 2007). Given that agriculture, including rangelands, covers about 40% of the world terrestrial surface (Gordon et al 2010), it is the human activity which affects the greatest proportion of land. Agricultural land uses therefore influence the structure and function of many landscapes and the ecosystems therein.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity Conservation Through Farming: A Landscape Assessment in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Torquebiau

Dosso

Nakaggwa

et al. 2012

Journal of Sustainable Agriculture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The integration of agriculture and biodiversity has become an acknowledged solution to concurrently address the development of sustainable food production systems and the preservation of natural resources. However, there are few alternative farming systems combining agricultural commodities and ecosystem services. We examined the farm and landscape dynamics of an area in South Africa which has been isolated from mainstream agriculture during a large part of last century. We used a time series of aerial photographs as well as farm surveys and interviews to analyze how historical and present trends can explain land use features. Results show that today's landscape is the result of dramatic socioeconomic transforms which have made original transhumant livestock keepers to become sedentary farmers. Although poverty is widespread, we found a well-balanced landscape with a regularly increasing tree cover and a high biodiversity potential. Beyond farm and household size, the main landscape impact factors are herd size and management as well as soil fertility management practices, including fallowing.We show that these conditions represent a good potential towards a multifunctional landscape, provided the relationships between farmers' practices and biodiversity are better formalized and there are tangible benefits for farmers to opt for this approach.

show abstract

Managing water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem services

Cited by 348 publications

References 46 publications

Modeling hydrological ecosystem services and tradeoffs: a case study in Baiyangdian watershed, China

Modeling hydrological ecosystem services and tradeoffs: a case study in Baiyangdian watershed, China

Comparing two tools for ecosystem service assessments regarding water resources decisions

Biodiversity Conservation Through Farming: A Landscape Assessment in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About