Jonathan Storkey, Chloe Maclaren, James M. Bullock, Lisa R. Norton, John W. Redhead, Richard F. Pywell
{"title":"从生态理论的角度量化农场的可持续性","authors":"Jonathan Storkey, Chloe Maclaren, James M. Bullock, Lisa R. Norton, John W. Redhead, Richard F. Pywell","doi":"10.1111/brv.13088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The achievements of the Green Revolution in meeting the nutritional needs of a growing global population have been won at the expense of unintended consequences for the environment. Some of these negative impacts are now threatening the sustainability of food production through the loss of pollinators and natural enemies of crop pests, the evolution of pesticide resistance, declining soil health and vulnerability to climate change. In the search for farming systems that are sustainable both agronomically and environmentally, alternative approaches have been proposed variously called ‘agroecological’, ‘conservation agriculture’, ‘regenerative’ and ‘sustainable intensification’. While the widespread recognition of the need for more sustainable farming is to be welcomed, this has created etymological confusion that has the potential to become a barrier to transformation. There is a need, therefore, for objective criteria to evaluate alternative farming systems and to quantify farm sustainability against multiple outcomes. To help meet this challenge, we reviewed the ecological theories that explain variance in regulating and supporting ecosystem services delivered by biological communities in farmland to identify guiding principles for management change. For each theory, we identified associated system metrics that could be used as proxies for agroecosystem function. We identified five principles derived from ecological theory: (<i>i</i>) provide key habitats for ecosystem service providers; (<i>ii</i>) increase crop and non-crop habitat diversity; (<i>iii</i>) increase edge density: (<i>iv</i>) increase nutrient-use efficiency; and (<i>v</i>) avoid extremes of disturbance. By making published knowledge the foundation of the choice of associated metrics, our aim was to establish a broad consensus for their use in sustainability assessment frameworks. Further analysis of their association with farm-scale data on biological communities and/or ecosystem service delivery would provide additional validation for their selection and support for the underpinning theories.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":"99 5","pages":"1700-1716"},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.13088","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quantifying farm sustainability through the lens of ecological theory\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Storkey, Chloe Maclaren, James M. Bullock, Lisa R. Norton, John W. Redhead, Richard F. Pywell\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/brv.13088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The achievements of the Green Revolution in meeting the nutritional needs of a growing global population have been won at the expense of unintended consequences for the environment. Some of these negative impacts are now threatening the sustainability of food production through the loss of pollinators and natural enemies of crop pests, the evolution of pesticide resistance, declining soil health and vulnerability to climate change. In the search for farming systems that are sustainable both agronomically and environmentally, alternative approaches have been proposed variously called ‘agroecological’, ‘conservation agriculture’, ‘regenerative’ and ‘sustainable intensification’. While the widespread recognition of the need for more sustainable farming is to be welcomed, this has created etymological confusion that has the potential to become a barrier to transformation. There is a need, therefore, for objective criteria to evaluate alternative farming systems and to quantify farm sustainability against multiple outcomes. To help meet this challenge, we reviewed the ecological theories that explain variance in regulating and supporting ecosystem services delivered by biological communities in farmland to identify guiding principles for management change. For each theory, we identified associated system metrics that could be used as proxies for agroecosystem function. We identified five principles derived from ecological theory: (<i>i</i>) provide key habitats for ecosystem service providers; (<i>ii</i>) increase crop and non-crop habitat diversity; (<i>iii</i>) increase edge density: (<i>iv</i>) increase nutrient-use efficiency; and (<i>v</i>) avoid extremes of disturbance. By making published knowledge the foundation of the choice of associated metrics, our aim was to establish a broad consensus for their use in sustainability assessment frameworks. Further analysis of their association with farm-scale data on biological communities and/or ecosystem service delivery would provide additional validation for their selection and support for the underpinning theories.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":133,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Biological Reviews\",\"volume\":\"99 5\",\"pages\":\"1700-1716\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.13088\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Biological Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.13088\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.13088","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Quantifying farm sustainability through the lens of ecological theory
The achievements of the Green Revolution in meeting the nutritional needs of a growing global population have been won at the expense of unintended consequences for the environment. Some of these negative impacts are now threatening the sustainability of food production through the loss of pollinators and natural enemies of crop pests, the evolution of pesticide resistance, declining soil health and vulnerability to climate change. In the search for farming systems that are sustainable both agronomically and environmentally, alternative approaches have been proposed variously called ‘agroecological’, ‘conservation agriculture’, ‘regenerative’ and ‘sustainable intensification’. While the widespread recognition of the need for more sustainable farming is to be welcomed, this has created etymological confusion that has the potential to become a barrier to transformation. There is a need, therefore, for objective criteria to evaluate alternative farming systems and to quantify farm sustainability against multiple outcomes. To help meet this challenge, we reviewed the ecological theories that explain variance in regulating and supporting ecosystem services delivered by biological communities in farmland to identify guiding principles for management change. For each theory, we identified associated system metrics that could be used as proxies for agroecosystem function. We identified five principles derived from ecological theory: (i) provide key habitats for ecosystem service providers; (ii) increase crop and non-crop habitat diversity; (iii) increase edge density: (iv) increase nutrient-use efficiency; and (v) avoid extremes of disturbance. By making published knowledge the foundation of the choice of associated metrics, our aim was to establish a broad consensus for their use in sustainability assessment frameworks. Further analysis of their association with farm-scale data on biological communities and/or ecosystem service delivery would provide additional validation for their selection and support for the underpinning theories.
期刊介绍:
Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly.
The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions.
The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field.
Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.