Shaping Land Use Change and Ecosystem Restoration in a Water-Stressed Agricultural Landscape to Achieve Multiple Benefits

Bryant, Benjamin P.; Kelsey, T. Rodd; Vogl, Adrian L.; Wolny, Stacie; MacEwan, Duncan; Selmants, Paul C.; Biswas, Tanushree; Butterfield, H. Scott

doi:10.3389/fsufs.2020.00138

Cited by 32 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, global water scarcity particularly in dryland agricultural ecosystems-farmlands and grazing lands-impacted by overexploitation, land degradation, and climate change is increasingly driving retirement of those agricultural lands that are no longer productive (Benayas et al, 2007;ELD Initiative, 2015). For instance, more than 200,000 acres of irrigated farmlands in California are predicted to be retired in the next 10-20 years as part of a strategy for sustainable groundwater use (Kelsey et al, 2018;Hanak et al, 2019;Bryant et al, 2020). This general sociopolitical and ecological context provides the opportunity to re-claim some of these lands for native plants and animals through habitat restoration (Queiroz et al, 2014;Kelsey et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems

Miguel

Butterfield

Lortie

2020

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Restoration of agricultural drylands globally, here farmlands and grazing lands, is a priority for ecosystem function and biodiversity preservation. Natural areas in drylands are recognized as biodiversity hotspots and face continued human impacts. Global water shortages are driving increased agricultural land retirement providing the opportunity to reclaim some of these lands for natural habitat. We used meta-analysis to contrast different classes of dryland restoration practices. All interventions were categorized as active and passive for the analyses of efficacy in dryland agricultural ecosystems. We evaluated the impact of 19 specific restoration practices from 42 studies on soil, plant, animal, and general habitat targets across 16 countries, for a total of 1,427 independent observations. Passive vegetation restoration and grazing exclusion led to net positive restoration outcomes. Passive restoration practices were more variable and less effective than active restoration practices. Furthermore, passive soil restoration led to net negative restoration outcomes. Active restoration practices consistently led to positive outcomes for soil, plant, and habitat targets. Water supplementation was the most effective restoration practice. These findings suggest that active interventions are necessary and critical in most instances for dryland agricultural ecosystems likely because of severe anthropogenic pressures and concurrent environmental stressors—both past and present.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems

Miguel

Butterfield

Lortie

2020

PeerJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Challenges are particularly acute over the agriculturally intensive SJV, which has more than half (11 of 21) of the state’s critically overdrafted groundwater basins and will require the largest reductions of groundwater pumping to meet the sustainability requirements under SGMA. Previous studies estimate that without additional surface water supplies, SJV farmers may permanently retire on the order of 90,000 hectares and temporarily fallow even greater amounts ( 33 ), with some estimates suggesting fallowing of up to one-fifth of the total farmland in the Valley, resulting in an estimated 42,000 direct job losses and $7.2 billion annual farm revenue loss ( 34 ). Such potential consequences due to SGMA requirements reinforce the need to explore opportunities to harvest floodwater as an alternative to augment water supply to lessen the simultaneous impact of climate change and SGMA.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate-informed hydrologic modeling and policy typology to guide managed aquifer recharge

Bryant

Moran

et al. 2021

Sci. Adv.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Harvesting floodwaters to recharge depleted groundwater aquifers can simultaneously reduce flood and drought risks and enhance groundwater sustainability. However, deployment of this multibeneficial adaptation option is fundamentally constrained by how much water is available for recharge (WAFR) at present and under future climate change. Here, we develop a climate-informed and policy-relevant framework to quantify WAFR, its uncertainty, and associated policy actions. Despite robust and widespread increases in future projected WAFR in our case study of California (for 56/80% of subbasins in 2070–2099 under RCP4.5/RCP8.5), strong nonlinear interactions between diversion infrastructure and policy uncertainties constrain how much WAFR can be captured. To tap future elevated recharge potential through infrastructure expansion under deep uncertainties, we outline a novel robustness-based policy typology to identify priority areas of investment needs. Our WAFR analysis can inform effective investment decisions to adapt to future climate-fueled drought and flood risk over depleted aquifers, in California and beyond.

show abstract

“…Our results provide evidence that minimizing trade-offs in an agricultural context is a possibility, as our observations in Kern County indicate the landscape as a whole has gotten much better at producing profit and food, with relatively low increases in agricultural water-use and soil erosion. This positive effect might be enhanced in the future by improved incorporation of natural habitats into the agricultural landscape (e.g., Bryant et al, 2020).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limited Economic-Ecological Trade-Offs in a Shifting Agricultural Landscape: A Case Study From Kern County, California

Wartenberg

Moanga

Potts

et al. 2021

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing global food production and livelihoods while maintaining ecosystem health will require significant changes in the way existing farming landscapes are managed. To this end, developing a systemic understanding of the economic and ecological impacts of different cropping systems, and identifying trade-offs and synergies between them, is crucial to inform decision-making for policy makers and landowners. Here, we investigate the impacts of agricultural land-use change for 15 distinct crops in Kern County, California, by looking at spatial and temporal changes in ecosystem indicators. We focus our analysis on three agricultural ecosystem pressures (water use, soil erosion, and pesticide use) and three agricultural ecosystem services (profits, calorie production, and C sequestration). Between 2002 and 2018, agriculture in Kern County underwent a shift from annual row crop to nut tree crop production. At the landscape-scale, we found high increases in ecosystem service provision (total profits, calorie production, and annual C sequestration increased by 105, 29, and 37%, respectively), coupled with smaller changes in ecosystem pressures (total soil erosion and evapotranspiration increased by 10 and 5%, respectively, and total pesticide use declined by 4%). We identified no salient trade-offs or synergies among crops. Our results illustrate that in the highly productive agricultural hotspot of Kern County, a combination of changes in land-cover allocation or land-use efficiency may have mitigated stronger negative environmental impacts following a broad shift from annual to perennial crops.

show abstract

Shaping Land Use Change and Ecosystem Restoration in a Water-Stressed Agricultural Landscape to Achieve Multiple Benefits

Cited by 32 publications

References 49 publications

A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems

A meta-analysis contrasting active versus passive restoration practices in dryland agricultural ecosystems

Climate-informed hydrologic modeling and policy typology to guide managed aquifer recharge

Limited Economic-Ecological Trade-Offs in a Shifting Agricultural Landscape: A Case Study From Kern County, California

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About