Organic and conservation agriculture promote ecosystem multifunctionality

Abstract

Ecosystems provide multiple services to humans. However, agricultural systems are usually evaluated on their productivity and economic performance, and a systematic and quantitative assessment of the multifunctionality of agroecosystems including environmental services is missing. Using a long-term farming system experiment, we evaluated and compared the agronomic, economic, and ecological performance of the most widespread arable cropping systems in Europe: organic, conservation, and conventional agriculture. We analyzed 43 agroecosystem properties and determined overall agroecosystem multifunctionality. We show that organic and conservation agriculture promoted ecosystem multifunctionality, especially by enhancing regulating and supporting services, including biodiversity preservation, soil and water quality, and climate mitigation. In contrast, conventional cropping showed reduced multifunctionality but delivered highest yield. Organic production resulted in higher economic performance, thanks to higher product prices and additional support payments. Our results demonstrate that different cropping systems provide opposing services, enforcing the productivity-environmental protection dilemma for agroecosystem functioning.

Conventional vs. Organic Agriculture–Which One Promotes Better Yields and Microbial Resilience in Rapidly Changing Climates?

“…Based on the Farm to Fork (F2F) Strategy under the “European Green Deal” which was established in December 2019 by the European Commission, agricultural land farmed organically would need to increase from the current 9% of the total utilized agricultural land to 25% by 2030. It has been shown recently that compared with CF, OF reduces soil erosion and aquatic ecotoxicity potential ( Wittwer et al, 2021 ). In addition, OF results in more soil biodiversity and an abundance of macro and microorganisms along with higher income per hectare, but, depending on the crops, less yield (–22%) showing a trade-off between environmental protection and agricultural productivity ( Wittwer et al, 2021 ).…”

“…It has been shown recently that compared with CF, OF reduces soil erosion and aquatic ecotoxicity potential ( Wittwer et al, 2021 ). In addition, OF results in more soil biodiversity and an abundance of macro and microorganisms along with higher income per hectare, but, depending on the crops, less yield (–22%) showing a trade-off between environmental protection and agricultural productivity ( Wittwer et al, 2021 ). Supporting this view, it has been reported that under experimental and field conditions, yields (per hectare) from OF may reduce up to 20–25% and 50% (respectively) in comparison with CF ( Seufert and Ramankutty, 2017 ; Meemken and Qaim, 2018 ).…”

A New Framework to Assess Sustainability of Soil Improving Cropping Systems in Europe

“…The complexity of management techniques based on (agro-)ecosystem functions means they frequently require a substantial amount of experience to yield satisfying results. Even worse, although management can alleviate many reasons for the underperformance of SICS, in some cases significant trade-offs between environmental performance and productivity remain and call for a paradigm shift [51]. Until then, in absence of effective market mechanisms, potential losses can be only compensated by increasing the subsidies for environmentally friendly farming practices.…”

Agro-ecological farming in (peri)urban protected areas

“…• Impact on a scale of square kilometres is less clear (Loos and von Wehrden, 2018) • Agro-ecological measures might be very fragmented on a landscape scale (Dutton et al, 2008) Agri-environment schemes insufficient to halt biodiversity loss in farming land (Magda et al, 2015) • Fragmented and incoherent conservation actions across the landscape (Dutton et al, 2008) • Trade-off between biodiversity gain and flexibility and ease of implementation (Dutton et al, 2008) • Gain a solid understanding of how farming practices influence ecosystem functions and services (Wittwer et al, 2021) • Agroscope tool to test multifunctionality outcome of different cropping systems (Wittwer et al, 2021) • Monitoring process in dialogue with farmer (Noe, Halberg and Reddersen, 2005) Adapt management to context of site (Balfour et al, 2021) • E.g. "Adopt a sheep scheme": the specificity of the scheme, its appropriateness to its environmental and social context, is fundamental to its success (Holloway et al, 2006) • Account for different understandings of sustainability developed in specific contexts (Holloway et al, 2006) Integrated landscape approach (Dutton et al, 2008) • Consider the collective performance of different sites (Balfour et al, 2021) • Integrate farming and non-farming activities throughout a larger area (Wezel et al, 2016) Focusing on effective agri-environment schemes…”

“…• Alignment between schemes (Dutton et al, 2008) • Low-input agriculture and semi-natural habitats contribute to biodiversity (Gabel 2018) • Higher productivity through over yielding (Altieri & Nicholls 2018) • Better income (Díaz-Pereira, Romero-Díaz and de Vente, 2020; Wittwer et al, 2021) • Better quality products (Díaz-Pereira, Romero-Díaz and de Vente, 2020)…”