Soil functions and ecosystem services in conventional, conservation, and integrated agricultural systems. A review

Abstract

Soil tillage, crop residue management, nutrient management, and pest management are among the core farming practices. Each of these practices impacts a range of soil functions and ecosystem services, including water availability for crops, weed control, insect and pathogen control, soil quality and functioning, soil erosion control, soil organic carbon pool, environmental pollution control, greenhouse gas refuse, and crop yield productivity. In this study, we reviewed relevant bibliography and then developed a simple conceptual model, in which these soil functions and ecosystem services were scored and compared between conventional, conservation, and integrated agricultural systems. Using this conceptual model revealed that the overall agro-environmental score, excluding crop yield productivity, is largest for conservation systems (71.9 %), intermediate for integrated systems (68.8 %), and the smallest for conventional systems (52.1 %). At the same time, the crop yield productivity score is largest for integrated systems (83.3 %), intermediate for conventional systems (66.7 %), and the smallest for conservation systems (58.3 %). This study shows the potential of moderate-intensity and integrated farming systems in carrying on global food security while adequately sustaining environmental quality and ecosystem services.

Assessment of Benefits of Conservation Agriculture on Soil Functions in Arable Production Systems in Europe

“…The management practices had differential effects on soil physical, biological and chemical attributes affecting the soil functions. Overall, in our study, CONV had consistent negative effects on soil functions with a median score of 0.50 across environmental zones, in concurrence with Stavi et al [24], where conventional production system scored 0.52 compared to 0.69 and 0.72 in integrated production system and CA respectively. The negative effects of CONV are attributed to undue emphasis on primary productivity neglecting the provision of other soil functions, explicit from the scorings [28,60].…”

“…The positive reassignment is required to rank the scoring as a precondition for data normalization. Following positive reassignment, scores were normalized to between 0-1 ( Table 2) by dividing each score with five, assigning equal weights to each score [24]. For example, for the primary productivity function, the three parameters under primary productivity were scored between −2 to +2 followed by conversion of the scoring to 1-5 scale, which was subsequently normalized by dividing by 5 to arrive at scores between 0-1 [24].…”

“…Following positive reassignment, scores were normalized to between 0-1 ( Table 2) by dividing each score with five, assigning equal weights to each score [24]. For example, for the primary productivity function, the three parameters under primary productivity were scored between −2 to +2 followed by conversion of the scoring to 1-5 scale, which was subsequently normalized by dividing by 5 to arrive at scores between 0-1 [24]. The median scores aggregated over soil functions and treatments were interpreted as negative effect (0 < 0.60), no effect (0.60) and positive effect (>0.60) corresponding to −2 to −1, 0 and +1 to +2 scoring values respectively.…”

Managing soil functions for a sustainable bioeconomy—Assessment framework and state of the art

“…The role of the soil system from the perspective of the ecosystem services concept was recently substantiated in a number of publications (Adhikari & Hartemink, 2016;Baveye et al, 2016;Bünemann et al, 2018;Keesstra et al, 2016;Schwilch et al, 2016;Stavi et al, 2016) in addition to earlier studies on distinct aspects (Bennett, Mele, First, the importance of managing soil functions to support ecosystem services is widely acknowledged (Breure et al, 2012;Schulte et al, 2014). However, the operationalization of linkages between soil management, soil functions, and ecosystem services remains a challenge (Schwilch et al, 2016;Stavi et al, 2016).…”

“…However, the operationalization of linkages between soil management, soil functions, and ecosystem services remains a challenge (Schwilch et al, 2016;Stavi et al, 2016). Our framework addresses this gap by linking soil management practices to soil functions and services in particular (Figure 1 Gomes et al, 2009;Hoang, 2011;Hoang & Alauddin, 2012;Lee & Park, 2017;Masuda, 2016;Pagotto & Halog, 2016;Sabiha, Salim, & Rahman, 2017;Spicka, 2014;Spicka & Smutka, 2014;Wang, Chen, Wu, & Li, 2015Boshrabadi et al, 2008Li et al, 2013 Note.…”