Social-ecological and regional adaptation of agrobiodiversity management across a global set of research regions

Abstract

A B S T R A C TTo examine management options for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, eight research regions were classified into social-ecological domains, using a dataset of indicators of livelihood resources, i.e., capital assets. Potential interventions for biodiversity-based agriculture were then compared among landscapes and domains. The approach combined literature review with expert judgment by researchers working in each landscape. Each landscape was described for land use, rural livelihoods and attitudes of social actors toward biodiversity and intensification of agriculture. Principal components analysis of 40 indicators of natural, human, social, financial and physical capital for the eight landscapes showed a loss of biodiversity associated with high-input agricultural intensification. High levels of natural capital (e.g. indicators of wildland biodiversity conservation and agrobiodiversity for human needs) were positively associated with indicators of human capital, including knowledge of the flora and fauna and knowledge sharing among farmers. Three social-ecological domains were identified across the eight landscapes (Tropical Agriculture-Forest Matrix, Tropical Degrading Agroecosystem, and Temperate High-Input Commodity Agriculture) using hierarchical clustering of the indicator values. Each domain shared a set of interventions for biodiversity-based agriculture and ecological intensification that could also increase food security in the impoverished landscapes. Implementation of interventions differed greatly among the landscapes, e.g. financial capital for new farming practices in the Intensive Agriculture domain vs. developing market value chains in the other domains. This exploratory study suggests that indicators of knowledge systems should receive greater emphasis in the monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and that inventories of assets at the landscape level can inform adaptive management of agrobiodiversity-based interventions.ß

Plant functional types and traits as biodiversity indicators for tropical forests: two biogeographically separated case studies including birds, mammals and termites

“…Although the literature is rich in methods for assessing disturbance and related land use intensity , unambiguous, quantitative units remain elusive (Jackson et al 2012). The present study showed that subjectively determined land use intensity and disturbance gradients correspond closely with changes in plant species and PFT diversities.…”

Climate-smart agriculture global research agenda: scientific basis for action

“…Projected adaptive actions include improving plant performance (for example, nutrition, yields, food quality) in response to elevated CO 2 and rising temperatures [26][27][28]; avoiding pest damage and food waste [28,29]; developing forecasting, management and insurance options to decrease the risk due to unexpected rainfall patterns, higher temperatures and shifting length in growth seasons [14,28,30]; and managing natural resources at the landscape and regional levels to assure the environmental quality and ecosystem services upon which agriculture depends [31][32][33]. Solutions involve trade-offs.…”

Toward the Integrated Framework Analysis of Linkages among Agrobiodiversity, Livelihood Diversification, Ecological Systems, and Sustainability amid Global Change

“…The wide-ranging interactions of agrobiodiversity amid global change encompass: (a) the management, quality, and access to livelihood-related resource inputs (e.g., skills, knowledge, and labor engaged directly with agrobiodiversity and supporting resources, such as soils and water) amid the livelihood diversification of food-growers [12][13][14]; (b) ecosystem services and specifically interactions within agrobiodiversity-supporting ecological systems (plant-soil interactions) [10,15]; (c) crop and food-growing strategies using agrobiodiversity for combined economic, environmental, and cultural rationales [16][17][18][19][20][21] including agrodiversity, which refers to management of environmental variation in agriculture [5,22]; (d) adaptation, resilience, and mitigation in response to climate change [23][24][25][26][27]; (e) biodiversity use and conservation [9,[28][29][30][31][32]; (f) market opportunities [33,34]; and (g) food security and sovereignty together with nutrition and dietary diversity and human well-being [35][36][37][38][39]. Each of the above linkages is receiving increased research and policy interest that includes synthesis treatments of multiple linkage types [40,41].…”