Agricultural Beneficial Management Practices: A Synthesis of Co-benefits, Tradeoffs, and Co-costs between Crop Yield and Non-provisioning Ecosystem Services

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 3 of this Preprint.

Add a Comment

You must log in to post a comment.


Comments

There are no comments or no comments have been made public for this article.

Downloads

Download Preprint

Supplementary Files
Authors

Andrew N. Kadykalo, Kris Johnson, Scott McFatridge, C. Scott Findlay

Abstract

Although agricultural “best (or beneficial) management practices” (BMPs) first emerged to mitigate agro-environmental resource challenges, they may also enhance ‘non-provisioning’ ecosystem services. The enthusiasm for adopting BMPs partially depends on evidence that doing so will lead to agro-environmental benefits while not substantially reducing crop productivity or farmer income. We survey and synthesize evidence in the existing literature to document the joint effects on agricultural crop yield and 12 ecosystem service (ES) associated with implementation of 5 agricultural BMPs (crop rotations, cover crops, nutrient management, perennial vegetated buffers, reduced or no tillage). We also analyze the prevalence of co-benefits (‘win-win’), tradeoffs, and co-costs (‘lose-lose’) outcomes. On the basis of a set of contextual variables we then develop empirical models that predict the likelihood of co-benefits relative to tradeoffs, and co-costs. We found thirty-six studies investigating 141 combinations of crop yields and non-provisioning ES outcomes (YESs) in the relevant literatures covering the period 1983-2016. The scope of the review is global, but included studies are geographically concentrated in the U.S. Corn Belt (Midwestern United States). In the literature sample, reporting of co-benefits (26%) was much more prevalent than reporting of co-costs (4%) between yields and ES. Tradeoffs most often resulted in a reduction in crop yields and an increase in ES (28%); this was marginally greater than studies reporting a neutral influence on crop yields and an increase in ES (26%). Other Y/ES combinations were uncommon. Mixed-effects models indicated reduced tillage and crop rotations had generally positive associations with YESs. Temporal scale was an informative predictor suggesting studies with longer time scales resulted in greater positive outcomes on YESs, on average. Our results are a step towards identifying those contexts where co-benefits or partial improvement outcomes of BMPs are more likely to be realized, as well as the impact of particular practices on specific ES.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.32942/osf.io/ycwek

Subjects

Agricultural and Resource Economics, Agricultural Economics, Agriculture, Life Sciences, Social and Behavioral Sciences

Keywords

agroecology, alternative management practices, beneficial management practices, best management practices, conservation agriculture, cropping systems, diversified farming, Ecosystem Services, land sharing, land sparing, meta-analysis, nature's contributions to people, NCP, Sustainable agriculture

Dates

Published: 2020-12-17 15:35

Last Updated: 2020-12-17 20:18

Older Versions
License

CC-By Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International