FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2903359327> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2903359327 endingPage "166" @default.
• W2903359327 startingPage "154" @default.
• W2903359327 abstract "Ecological intensification aims to harness ecosystem services to sustain agricultural production while minimising adverse effects on the environment. Ecological intensification is championed by scientists as a nature-based alternative to high-input agriculture but meets with little interest from growers. Scientific evidence underlying ecological intensification is often unconvincing to growers, as it is based on small-scale studies of ecological processes unlinked from agricultural production. Grower interest can be enhanced by evidence of the agronomic and economic benefits most relevant to farmers and measured at the scales of operation of farm enterprises. In addition to concrete benefits, concerns of the general public about adverse effects of industrial farming can promote adoption of ecological intensification, both directly and indirectly, by enhancing political will to use regulatory instruments. There is worldwide concern about the environmental costs of conventional intensification of agriculture. Growing evidence suggests that ecological intensification of mainstream farming can safeguard food production, with accompanying environmental benefits; however, the approach is rarely adopted by farmers. Our review of the evidence for replacing external inputs with ecosystem services shows that scientists tend to focus on processes (e.g., pollination) rather than outcomes (e.g., profits), and express benefits at spatio-temporal scales that are not always relevant to farmers. This results in mismatches in perceived benefits of ecological intensification between scientists and farmers, which hinders its uptake. We provide recommendations for overcoming these mismatches and highlight important additional factors driving uptake of nature-based management practices, such as social acceptability of farming. There is worldwide concern about the environmental costs of conventional intensification of agriculture. Growing evidence suggests that ecological intensification of mainstream farming can safeguard food production, with accompanying environmental benefits; however, the approach is rarely adopted by farmers. Our review of the evidence for replacing external inputs with ecosystem services shows that scientists tend to focus on processes (e.g., pollination) rather than outcomes (e.g., profits), and express benefits at spatio-temporal scales that are not always relevant to farmers. This results in mismatches in perceived benefits of ecological intensification between scientists and farmers, which hinders its uptake. We provide recommendations for overcoming these mismatches and highlight important additional factors driving uptake of nature-based management practices, such as social acceptability of farming. Meeting the demands for agricultural products from a growing and more affluent world population through conventional intensification of agriculture is impossible without causing significant damage to the environment [1Foley J.A. et al.Global consequences of land use.Science. 2005; 309: 570-574Crossref PubMed Scopus (4893) Google Scholar, 2Tilman D. et al.Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2011; 108: 20260-20264Crossref PubMed Scopus (1667) Google Scholar, 3Lundgren J.G. Fergen J.K. Enhancing predation of a subterranean insect pest: a conservation benefit of winter vegetation in agroecosystems.Appl. Soil Ecol. 2011; 51: 9-16Crossref Scopus (47) Google Scholar]. Ecological intensification has been proposed as a nature-based alternative that complements or (partially) replaces external inputs (see Glossary), such as agro-chemicals, with production-supporting ecological processes, to sustain agricultural production while minimising adverse effects on the environment [4Cassman K.G. Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: yield potential, soil quality, and precision agriculture.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 1999; 96: 5952-5959Crossref PubMed Scopus (680) Google Scholar, 5Bommarco R. et al.Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013; 28: 230-238Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (437) Google Scholar]. Ecological intensification is based on the assumption that delivery of ecosystem services is suboptimal in high-input agricultural systems (e.g., [6Kremen C. et al.Crop pollination from native bees at risk from agricultural intensification.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2002; 99: 16812-16816Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 7Jonsson M. et al.Agricultural intensification drives landscape-context effects on host-parasitoid interactions in agroecosystems.J. Appl. Ecol. 2012; 49: 706-714Google Scholar, 8Ulen B. et al.Soil tillage methods to control phosphorus loss and potential side-effects: a Scandinavian review.Soil Use Manag. 2010; 26: 94-107Crossref Scopus (55) Google Scholar, 9Poeplau C. Don A. Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils via cultivation of cover crops – a meta-analysis.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015; 200: 33-41Crossref Scopus (161) Google Scholar, 10Venter Z.S. et al.The impact of crop rotation on soil microbial diversity: a meta-analysis.Pedobiologia. 2016; 59: 215-223Crossref Scopus (21) Google Scholar]), and that management of specific components of biodiversity can be used to either complement artificial inputs and increase agricultural productivity (ecological enhancement; Figure 1) or replace artificial inputs (ecological replacement; Figure 1), which results in reduced environmental costs without negatively impacting crop productivity [5Bommarco R. et al.Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013; 28: 230-238Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (437) Google Scholar]. Over the past few years, the evidence base underlying ecological intensification has steadily strengthened, with studies demonstrating that management can enhance the delivery of a range of regulating and supporting ecosystem services [11Tschumi M. et al.Perennial, species-rich wildflower strips enhance pest control and crop yield.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016; 220: 97-103Crossref Scopus (34) Google Scholar, 12Tschumi M. et al.High effectiveness of tailored flower strips in reducing pests and crop plant damage.Proc. Biol. Sci. 2015; 282: 189-196Crossref Scopus (54) Google Scholar, 13Gras P. et al.How ants, birds and bats affect crop yield along shade gradients in tropical cacao agroforestry.J. Appl. Ecol. 2016; 53: 953-963Crossref Scopus (14) Google Scholar, 14Tamburini G. et al.Conservation tillage mitigates the negative effect of landscape simplification on biological control.J. Appl. Ecol. 2016; 53: 233-241Crossref Scopus (28) Google Scholar] or even produce win–win situations for agricultural production and the environment [15Davis A.S. et al.Increasing cropping system diversity balances productivity, profitability and environmental health.PLoS One. 2012; 7: 8Crossref Scopus (183) Google Scholar, 16Blaauw B.R. Isaacs R. Flower plantings increase wild bee abundance and the pollination services provided to a pollination-dependent crop.J. Appl. Ecol. 2014; 51: 890-898Crossref Scopus (128) Google Scholar, 17Valkama E. et al.Meta-analysis of the effects of undersown catch crops on nitrogen leaching loss and grain yields in the Nordic countries.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015; 203: 93-101Crossref Scopus (26) Google Scholar, 18Quemada M. et al.Meta-analysis of strategies to control nitrate leaching in irrigated agricultural systems and their effects on crop yield.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2013; 174: 1-10Crossref Scopus (68) Google Scholar]. Scientists are therefore increasingly highlighting the benefits of ecologically intensifying agriculture through a greater reliance on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Policy makers likewise are starting to embrace ecological intensification as an environmentally friendly way towards food security [19IPBES The Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2016Google Scholar, 20Blanco-Canqui H. et al.Cover crops and ecosystem services: insights from studies in temperate soils.Agron. J. 2015; 107: 2449-2474Crossref Scopus (67) Google Scholar] by supporting the implementation of biodiversity and ecosystem service-enhancing practices. In some regions, notably Europe and North America, this has been through considerable public expenditure (e.g., agri-environment schemes) to (partially) offset farmers’ opportunity costs associated with implementation [21Batary P. et al.The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management.Conserv. Biol. 2015; 29: 1006-1016Crossref PubMed Scopus (145) Google Scholar]. Knowledge of how farmers perceive the costs and benefits of ecological intensification practices is limited [22Uyttenbroeck R. et al.Pros and cons of flowers strips for farmers. A review.Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2016; 20: 225-235Google Scholar] but European farmers generally seem to have little interest in the topic. A recent survey on farmer attitudes towards biodiversity and ecosystem service-enhancing practices in seven European countries [23Bailey A.P. et al.Report on Farmer’s Attitude towards On-site Ecosystem Services. Liberation Project, Deliverable 5.1, 2015Google Scholar] showed that farmers generally favour practices that interfere little with normal farming operations. For example, farmers appreciate relatively simple management changes targeting landscape features such as hedgerows, ditch banks, or trees (Figure 2). However, on-field management practices, such as cover crops, conservation headlands, or beetle banks, were consistently among the least preferred practices (Figure 2). Strikingly, the establishment of wildflower strips, the practice with the strongest evidence base for agronomic and/or economic benefits in Europe and the USA [12Tschumi M. et al.High effectiveness of tailored flower strips in reducing pests and crop plant damage.Proc. Biol. Sci. 2015; 282: 189-196Crossref Scopus (54) Google Scholar, 16Blaauw B.R. Isaacs R. Flower plantings increase wild bee abundance and the pollination services provided to a pollination-dependent crop.J. Appl. Ecol. 2014; 51: 890-898Crossref Scopus (128) Google Scholar, 24Pywell R.F. et al.Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: evidence for ecological intensification.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015; 282: 8Crossref Scopus (72) Google Scholar, 25Morandin L.A. et al.Pest control and pollination cost-benefit analysis of hedgerow restoration in a simplified agricultural landscape.J. Econ. Entomol. 2016; 109: 1020-1027Crossref Scopus (21) Google Scholar], and often eligible for subsidy support, is amongst the most disliked practices by farmers. Understanding why these practices are poorly adopted may explain why ecological intensification has seen little uptake to date by farmers, farmer organisations, and agricultural corporations [19IPBES The Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Pollinators, Pollination and Food Production. Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, 2016Google Scholar, 26Liebman M. et al.Ecologically sustainable weed management: how do we get from proof-of-concept to adoption?.Ecol. Appl. 2016; 26: 1352-1369Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 27Vanloqueren G. Baret P.V. Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural ‘lock-in’ case study.Ecol. Econ. 2008; 66: 436-446Crossref Scopus (58) Google Scholar]. Here, we explore why the perceptions of the costs and benefits of ecological intensification differ between scientists and farmers. We first synthesise the scientific evidence for nature-based contributions to agricultural production that underlie ecological intensification, and reflect on its relevance for farming enterprises. We consider aboveground as well as belowground ecosystem services, as both are relevant to farming, and ecological intensification has a greater potential of delivering benefits when targeting the full range of production-enhancing ecosystem services. We then highlight key knowledge gaps and suggest ways to overcome these. Finally, we discuss the role of scientific evidence in shaping farm management, and which additional factors are important drivers of farmer behaviour. Our focus is on ecosystem service-enhancing practices rather than on farming systems (e.g., organic farming) and is mainly on high-input farming systems since this is where biodiversity and ecosystem services are most degraded and where enhancing such services can potentially have the most pronounced effects [28Kleijn D. et al.Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline?.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2011; 26: 474-481Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar]. The species providing the two key aboveground ecosystem services relevant to agriculture, pollination and pest regulation, are mostly mobile organisms such as bees, hover flies, parasitoid wasps, spiders, and carabid beetles. Although agricultural fields offer them important forage and shelter resources, these often come in short-lived fluxes, and beneficial species are generally highly dependent on semi-natural habitats in the surrounding landscape [29Steffan-Dewenter I. et al.Scale-dependent effects of landscape context on three pollinator guilds.Ecology. 2002; 83: 1421-1432Crossref Google Scholar, 30Shackelford G. et al.Comparison of pollinators and natural enemies: a meta-analysis of landscape and local effects on abundance and richness in crops.Biol. Rev. 2013; 88: 1002-1021Crossref PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar]. Delivery of ecosystem services is therefore often inferred from the spatial configuration of landscape elements [31Lonsdorf E. et al.Modelling pollination services across agricultural landscapes.Ann. Bot. 2009; 103: 1589-1600Crossref PubMed Scopus (154) Google Scholar, 32Jonsson M. et al.Ecological production functions for biological control services in agricultural landscapes.Methods Ecol. Evol. 2014; 5: 243-252Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 33Maes J. et al.More green infrastructure is required to maintain ecosystem services under current trends in land-use change in Europe.Landsc. Ecol. 2015; 30: 517-534Crossref PubMed Scopus (50) Google Scholar], with increasing landscape complexity (e.g., cover of semi-natural habitats, percentage non-arable land, distance to nearest semi-natural habitat, presence of wildflower strips) leading to higher pollination service or pest regulation services. A wealth of studies have examined the relationship between the diversity and abundance of service-providing species and landscape complexity and, on average, find positive relationships (Figure 3) [30Shackelford G. et al.Comparison of pollinators and natural enemies: a meta-analysis of landscape and local effects on abundance and richness in crops.Biol. Rev. 2013; 88: 1002-1021Crossref PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar, 34Garibaldi L.A. et al.Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits.Ecol. Lett. 2011; 14: 1062-1072Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 35Kennedy C.M. et al.A global quantitative synthesis of local and landscape effects on wild bee pollinators in agroecosystems.Ecol. Lett. 2013; 16: 584-599Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 36Bianchi F. et al.Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2006; 273: 1715-1727Crossref PubMed Scopus (687) Google Scholar, 37Chaplin-Kramer R. et al.A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity.Ecol. Lett. 2011; 14: 922-932Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar]. However, there are notable exceptions, for example, because pollinators do not always relate positively to landscape complexity [38Holzschuh A. et al.Agricultural landscapes with organic crops support higher pollinator diversity.Oikos. 2008; 117: 354-361Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 39Kleijn D. et al.Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation.Nat. Commun. 2015; 6: 7414Crossref PubMed Scopus (198) Google Scholar]. Also, natural enemies of crop pests are a taxonomically varied group of organisms, not necessarily all of which depend on semi-natural habitats and that may even be negatively related to the cover of semi-natural habitats [40Jauker F. et al.Pollinator dispersal in an agricultural matrix: opposing responses of wild bees and hoverflies to landscape structure and distance from main habitat.Landsc. Ecol. 2009; 24: 547-555Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar] (Figure 3). Moreover, landscape complexity can also be related to delivery of disservices, in the form of pests, but this relationship is highly variable and unresolved [37Chaplin-Kramer R. et al.A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity.Ecol. Lett. 2011; 14: 922-932Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar]. The relationship between landscape complexity and the diversity of service-providing arthropods has led many scientists to conclude that delivery of ecosystem services can be influenced by maintaining or enhancing landscape complexity [41Holzschuh A. et al.Landscapes with wild bee habitats enhance pollination, fruit set and yield of sweet cherry.Biol. Conserv. 2012; 153: 101-107Crossref Scopus (89) Google Scholar, 42Nayak G.K. et al.Interactive effect of floral abundance and semi-natural habitats on pollinators in field beans (Vicia faba).Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015; 199: 58-66Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar, 43Nicholson C.C. et al.Farm and landscape factors interact to affect the supply of pollination services.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017; 250: 113-122Crossref Scopus (5) Google Scholar]. However, the relationship between landscape complexity and the actual delivery of the pollination and pest regulation services is less pronounced and more variable than that between the service providing taxa and landscape complexity [14Tamburini G. et al.Conservation tillage mitigates the negative effect of landscape simplification on biological control.J. Appl. Ecol. 2016; 53: 233-241Crossref Scopus (28) Google Scholar, 34Garibaldi L.A. et al.Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits.Ecol. Lett. 2011; 14: 1062-1072Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 44Winfree R. et al.Native bees provide insurance against ongoing honey bee losses.Ecol. Lett. 2007; 10: 1105-1113Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 45Karp D.S. et al.Forest bolsters bird abundance, pest control and coffee yield.Ecol. Lett. 2013; 16: 1339-1347Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 46Tscharntke T. et al.When natural habitat fails to enhance biological pest control – five hypotheses.Biol. Conserv. 2016; 204: 449-458Crossref Scopus (64) Google Scholar, 47Rusch A. et al.Flow and stability of natural pest control services depend on complexity and crop rotation at the landscape scale.J. Appl. Ecol. 2013; 50: 345-354Crossref Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 48Karp D.S. et al.Crop pests and predators exhibit inconsistent responses to surrounding landscape composition.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2018; 115: E7863-E7870Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar]. Furthermore, the relationship between landscape complexity and crop yield, the main variable the agricultural sector is interested in, is even weaker and often absent [13Gras P. et al.How ants, birds and bats affect crop yield along shade gradients in tropical cacao agroforestry.J. Appl. Ecol. 2016; 53: 953-963Crossref Scopus (14) Google Scholar, 42Nayak G.K. et al.Interactive effect of floral abundance and semi-natural habitats on pollinators in field beans (Vicia faba).Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015; 199: 58-66Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar, 49Bommarco R. et al.Insect pollination enhances seed yield, quality, and market value in oilseed rape.Oecologia. 2012; 169: 1025-1032Crossref PubMed Scopus (89) Google Scholar, 50Mitchell M.G.E. et al.Agricultural landscape structure affects arthropod diversity and arthropod-derived ecosystem services.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014; 192: 144-151Crossref Scopus (19) Google Scholar, 51Liere H. et al.Trophic cascades in agricultural landscapes: indirect effects of landscape composition on crop yield.Ecol. Appl. 2015; 25: 652-661Crossref PubMed Google Scholar, 52Zou Y. et al.Landscape effects on pollinator communities and pollination services in small-holder agroecosystems.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017; 246: 109-116Crossref Scopus (1) Google Scholar, 53Sutter L. et al.Landscape greening and local creation of wildflower strips and hedgerows promote multiple ecosystem services.J. Appl. Ecol. 2017; 55: 612-620Crossref Scopus (6) Google Scholar]. The difference in focus on the main response variable may well contribute to the difference in perceptions by scientists and farmers of the ecosystem service benefits that can be obtained by manipulating landscape complexity (Figure 3). To date, only a few studies have convincingly demonstrated that management -enhancing pollination and pest regulation produces net agronomic or economic benefits. These studies have in common the examination of effects of establishing vegetation or wildflower strips on or next to arable fields. Such measures invariably boost densities of pollinators and natural enemies locally [54Scheper J. et al.Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss – a meta-analysis.Ecol. Lett. 2013; 16: 912-920Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar, 55Ramsden M.W. et al.Optimizing field margins for biocontrol services: the relative role of aphid abundance, annual floral resources, and overwinter habitat in enhancing aphid natural enemies.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015; 199: 94-104Crossref Scopus (36) Google Scholar] and can enhance crop pollination and pest regulation [56Feltham H. et al.Experimental evidence that wildflower strips increase pollinator visits to crops.Ecol. Evol. 2015; 5: 3523-3530Crossref PubMed Scopus (25) Google Scholar, 57Holland J.M. et al.Agri-environment scheme enhancing ecosystem services: a demonstration of improved biological control in cereal crops.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012; 155: 147-152Crossref Scopus (33) Google Scholar] as well as a number of other ecosystem services (e.g., reduce water runoff, increase soil and phosphorus retention [58Schulte L.A. et al.Prairie strips improve biodiversity and the delivery of multiple ecosystem services from corn-soybean croplands.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2017; 114: 11247-11252Crossref PubMed Scopus (12) Google Scholar]). However, only three of these studies suggest that yield increases were sufficient to compensate for the opportunity costs (i.e., loss of cropped area) of establishing these new landscape elements [12Tschumi M. et al.High effectiveness of tailored flower strips in reducing pests and crop plant damage.Proc. Biol. Sci. 2015; 282: 189-196Crossref Scopus (54) Google Scholar, 24Pywell R.F. et al.Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: evidence for ecological intensification.Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2015; 282: 8Crossref Scopus (72) Google Scholar, 25Morandin L.A. et al.Pest control and pollination cost-benefit analysis of hedgerow restoration in a simplified agricultural landscape.J. Econ. Entomol. 2016; 109: 1020-1027Crossref Scopus (21) Google Scholar]. Only two studies show that, in time, yield increases were larger than both establishment and opportunity costs, so that farmers benefit economically from enhancing flower-rich habitats for pollinators [16Blaauw B.R. Isaacs R. Flower plantings increase wild bee abundance and the pollination services provided to a pollination-dependent crop.J. Appl. Ecol. 2014; 51: 890-898Crossref Scopus (128) Google Scholar, 25Morandin L.A. et al.Pest control and pollination cost-benefit analysis of hedgerow restoration in a simplified agricultural landscape.J. Econ. Entomol. 2016; 109: 1020-1027Crossref Scopus (21) Google Scholar]. Further studies, across a range of crops and localities, are desperately needed. With increasing demands for agricultural products and tight economic margins, farmers may require more than just a proof of concept before they risk adopting ecological intensification as a viable alternative or complementary approach to external input-based practices. The belowground communities present in agricultural soils provide important ecosystem services, such as enhancing nutrient availability, prevention of pests and diseases, carbon storage, and improvement of soil structure and water holding capacity [59Wall D.H. et al.Soil biodiversity and human health.Nature. 2015; 528: 69-76Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar]. Soils contain a wealth of biodiversity of microbes, invertebrates, and some vertebrates, which can add up to thousands of species per square metre of soil surface [60Bardgett R.D. van der Putten W.H. Belowground biodiversity and ecosystem functioning.Nature. 2014; 515: 505-511Crossref PubMed Scopus (430) Google Scholar]. Recent studies suggest that soil biodiversity can be engineered to specifically enhance the beneficial soil biota providing multiple ecosystem services [61Wagg C. et al.Soil biodiversity and soil community composition determine ecosystem multifunctionality.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2014; 111: 5266-5270Crossref PubMed Scopus (325) Google Scholar, 62Bender S.F. et al.An underground revolution: biodiversity and soil ecological engineering for agricultural sustainability.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2016; 31: 440-452Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (122) Google Scholar]. In addition to the engineering approaches that often focus on introducing specific organisms, such as for nutrient provision or plant protection, a more holistic approach has shown how the stability of soil food webs depends on its structure [63Neutel A.M. et al.Reconciling complexity with stability in naturally assembling food webs.Nature. 2007; 449: 599-602Crossref PubMed Scopus (0) Google Scholar]. Whereas individual groups of soil biota correlate with specific ecosystem services [64de Vries F.T. et al.Soil food web properties explain ecosystem services across European land use systems.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2013; 110: 14296-14301Crossref PubMed Scopus (200) Google Scholar], the connectedness of the entire soil community corresponds with, for example, increased efficiency of carbon uptake by the soil food web [65Morrien E. et al.Soil networks become more connected and take up more carbon as nature restoration progresses.Nat. Commun. 2017; 8: 10Crossref PubMed Scopus (42) Google Scholar]. Organic matter may promote belowground biodiversity and ecosystem processes, and can even influence aboveground–belowground interactions by, for example, enhancing aboveground abundance of natural enemies [66Birkhofer K. et al.Long-term organic farming fosters below and aboveground biota: implications for soil quality, biological control and productivity.Soil Biol. Biochem. 2008; 40: 2297-2308Crossref Scopus (232) Google Scholar]. Worldwide agriculture is causing loss of soil organic matter, except in areas with intensive animal farming [67Reijneveld A. et al.Soil organic carbon contents of agricultural land in the Netherlands between 1984 and 2004.Geoderma. 2009; 152: 231-238Crossref Scopus (60) Google Scholar] and under certain no-till conditions [68Pittelkow C.M. et al.Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture.Nature. 2015; 517: 365-368Crossref PubMed Scopus (269) Google Scholar]. The question is how ecological intensification can make use of these novel insights into the relationship between soil organic matter, belowground biodiversity, and soil functioning to improve crop production. Key on-field practices that can improve the delivery of agriculturally relevant belowground ecosystem services are conservation tillage, the use of cover crops, increasing the diversity of the number of crops in a rotation, or mixed cropping [62Bender S.F. et al.An underground revolution: biodiversity and soil ecological engineering for agricultural sustainability.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2016; 31: 440-452Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (122) Google Scholar]. Figure 4 shows the impact of these practices and suggests that on average, and across all examined services, they have considerable positive effects. However, Figure 4 also highlights that none of these practices consistently enhances all ecosystem services considered here. For example, conservation tillage invariably reduces soil erosion and saves farmers tilling costs but has less consistent positive effects on soil structure, water retention, and biodiversity [8Ulen B. et al.Soil tillage methods to control phosphorus loss and potential side-effects: a Scandinavian review.Soil Use Manag. 2010; 26: 94-107Crossref Scopus (55) Google Scholar, 69Morris N.L. et al.The adoption of non-inversion tillage systems in the United Kingdom and the agronomic impact on soil, crops and the environment-a review.Soil Tillage Res. 2010; 108: 1-15Crossref Scopus (125) Google Scholar, 70Soane B.D. et al.No-till in northern, western and south-western Europe: a review of problems and opportunities for crop production and the environment.Soil Tillage Res. 2012; 118: 66-87Crossref Scopus (246) Google Scholar], and has overall negati" @default.
• W2903359327 created "2018-12-11" @default.
• W2903359327 creator A5016072605 @default.
• W2903359327 creator A5019896810 @default.
• W2903359327 creator A5040240993 @default.
• W2903359327 creator A5051954252 @default.
• W2903359327 creator A5072984139 @default.
• W2903359327 creator A5075817510 @default.
• W2903359327 date "2019-02-01" @default.
• W2903359327 modified "2023-10-12" @default.
• W2903359327 title "Ecological Intensification: Bridging the Gap between Science and Practice" @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1495307612 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1556742278 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1594129108 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1599956631 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1619689493 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1930618791 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1931753730 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1944479826 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1964700776 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1968457500 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1977337511 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1977441627 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1978500916 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1982361709 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1983053259 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1986706966 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1988040430 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1994000771 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1995885839 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W1997693156 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2001660122 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2010031994 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2011875740 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2013414890 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2016683789 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2018693477 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2020130569 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2022050110 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2023095655 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2023738528 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2027938175 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2030067309 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2033969071 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2046722357 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2049096931 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2051505071 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2053284518 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2053997328 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2056154258 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2057036903 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2061568761 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2062240545 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2063168915 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2071379793 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2073793315 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2079816082 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2080215109 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2090496478 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2096679187 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2097620402 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2105517277 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2107995680 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2110242161 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2112024388 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2112672506 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2113431651 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2113811841 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2113814124 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2114983539 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2115388598 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2116289953 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2116337943 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2118554039 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2119659142 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2122175811 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2122843759 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2124104730 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2124355915 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2127257757 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2127396197 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2128264262 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2130683986 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2134462999 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2135727198 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2139525763 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2142089745 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2147980337 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2151300021 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2151820962 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2152594414 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2153509854 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2153820558 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2162711109 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2164603413 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2166693883 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2181108392 @default.
• W2903359327 cites W2211648922 @default.

• next