Skip to main content
Agroecological farming promotes yield and biodiversity but may require subsidy to be profitable

Agroecological farming promotes yield and biodiversity but may require subsidy to be profitable

This is a Preprint and has not been peer reviewed. This is version 1 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

Authors

Benjamin Woodcock Woodcock , Samantha Cook, Lucy Humles, Sarah Hulmes, Martin Torrance, John Redhead, Jennifer Swain, Richard Ostler, Jordan Rainey, Maico G Weites, Marek Nowakowski, James M. Bullock, Claire Carvell, Jonathan Storkey, Richard F. Pywell

Abstract

1. Intensive arable agriculture uses agrochemicals to replace ecosystem services (e.g. pest control and soil health) while simultaneously degrading others (e.g. pollination). Agroecological farming aims to reduce this reliance. Whether these practices maintain yields at a scale relevant to farm business viability is unclear.
2. In a 4-year replicated study across 17 English farms we assessed the ability of farmer co-designed agroecological systems to support regulating services, beneficial invertebrates, crop yield, and profitability. We test three management systems: 1) ‘Business-as-usual (BAU)’ control; 2) ‘Enhancing-ES’ supporting beneficial invertebrates with wildflower field margins and protecting soils with cover crops; 3) ‘Maximising ES’ with the further addition of soil organic matter and in-field strips to bring beneficial invertebrates into the crop.
3. Soil carbon stocks were highest in the Maximising-ES system. Predation and pollination ecosystem services were higher in the Enhancing-ES and Maximising-ES systems, as were earthworms and other populations of beneficial predatory and pollinating invertebrates. Pest snail biomass was also lowest in the Enhancing-ES and maximising-ES systems, although aphid numbers were higher.
4. The Enhancing-ES and Maximising-ES systems increases yields of cereals and oilseed rape. However, the loss of productive agricultural land and establishment costs exceeded the value of increased yields. Only Enhancing-ES breaks even only with agri-environmental subsidies.
5. These results highlight that while evidence for the role of ecosystem services in supporting crop yield can be found, overcoming economic constraints within conventional farming systems is likely to be a key barrier to widespread uptake. Agri-environmental subsidy payments can offset these costs, but only for moderate interventions. Transition to more sustainable farming systems need to overcome these economic constraints with new policy interventions.

DOI

https://doi.org/10.32942/X2B92K

Subjects

Agriculture, Biodiversity, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Entomology, Life Sciences, Other Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Keywords

Agroecological, Arable, biodiversity, Ecosystem Services, Farming, Profit, sustainable intensification, Yield

Dates

Published: 2025-03-04 10:43

License

CC-By Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International

Additional Metadata

Conflict of interest statement:
MN provides agronomist advice for farmers establishing wild flower field margins

Data and Code Availability Statement:
https://github.com/BenAWoodcock/Woodcock_ASSIST_agroecological_enhancement

Language:
English