Alexander Wezel

Agroecological practices for sustainable agriculture. A review

The forecasted 9.1 billion population in 2050 will require an increase in food production for an additional two billion people. There is thus an active debate on new farming practices that could produce more food in a sustainable way. Here, we list agroecological cropping practices in temperate areas. We classify practices according to efficiency, substitution, and redesign. We analyse their advantages and drawbacks with emphasis on diversification. We evaluate the potential use of the practices for future agriculture. Our major findings are: (1) we distinguish 15 categories of agroecological practices (7 practices involve increasing efficiency or substitution, and 8 practices need a redesign often based on diversification). (2) The following agroecological practices are so far poorly integrated in actual agriculture: biofertilisers; natural pesticides; crop choice and rotations; intercropping and relay intercropping; agroforestry with timber, fruit, or nut trees; allelopathic plants; direct seeding into living cover crops or mulch; and integration of semi-natural landscape elements at field and farm or their management at landscape scale. These agroecological practices have only a moderate potential to be broadly implemented in the next decade. (3) By contrast, the following practices are already well integrated: organic fertilisation, split fertilisation, reduced tillage, drip irrigation, biological pest control, and cultivar choice.

The blurred boundaries of ecological, sustainable, and agroecological intensification: a review

The projected human population of nine billion by 2050 has led to ever growing discussion of the need for increasing agricultural output to meet estimated food demands, while mitigating environmental costs. Many stakeholders in agricultural circles are calling for the intensification of agriculture to meet these demands. However, it is neither clear nor readily agreed upon what is meant by intensification. Here, we compare the three major uses, ‘ecological intensification’, ‘sustainable intensification’ and ‘agroecological intensification’, by analysing their various definitions, principles and practices, and also their historical appearance and evolution. We used data from the scientific literature, the grey literature, the websites of international organizations and the Scopus and FAOLEX databases. Our major findings are: (1) sustainable intensification is the most frequently used term so far. (2) The three concepts ecological intensification, sustainable intensification and agroecological intensification overlap in terms of definitions, principles and practices, thus creating some confusion in their meanings, interpretations and implications. Nevertheless, some differences exist. (3) Sustainable intensification is more widely used and represents in many cases a rather generalised category, into which most current farming practices can be put so long as sustainability is in some way addressed. However, despite its wider use, it remains imprecisely defined. (4) Ecological and agroecological intensification do introduce some major nuances and, in general, more explicitly stated definitions. For instance, ecological intensification emphasizes the understanding and intensification of biological and ecological processes and functions in agroecosystem. (5) The notion of agroecological intensification accentuates the system approach and integrates more cultural and social perspectives in its concept. (6) Even if some boundaries can be seen, confusion is still predominant in the use of these terms. These blurred boundaries currently contribute to the use of these terms for justifying many different kinds of practices and interventions. We suggest that greater precision in defining the terms and the respective practices proposed would indicate more clearly what authors or institutions are aiming at with the proposed intensification. In this sense, we provide new definitions for all three intensification concepts based on the earlier ones.

Is eutrophication really a major impairment for small waterbody biodiversity

Eutrophication remains a major stress for freshwater biodiversity. Its deleterious consequences on biodiversity are well documented for large waterbodies. However, the impact of eutrophication may differ in smaller waterbodies, such as ponds and small lakes, which generally support naturally high levels of nutrients in lowlands. Furthermore, this response could depend on the scale considered, from local (individual waterbody, alpha diversity) to regional (the network of waterbodies, gamma diversity). It is also unclear whether the richness of threatened species responds in the same way as the richness of the whole assemblage. The present study investigates local- and regional-scale consequences of eutrophication on taxonomic richness (all taxa) and conservation value (threatened taxa) in temperate lowland small waterbodies. Five taxonomic groups were investigated: macrophytes, gastropods, water beetles, adult dragonflies and amphibians, in a set of natural waterbodies and a set of enriched waterbodies covering a large nutrient gradient from mesotrophic to hypertrophic conditions. Globally, our study did not reveal consistent, systematic responses to eutrophication. For macrophytes, the richness and conservation value suffered from eutrophication at both local and regional scales. In contrast, for amphibians and gastropods, eutrophication did not impair biodiversity at the local nor the regional scale. Dragonflies and water beetles showed intermediate situations, with an impairment by eutrophication varying according to the type of waterbodies considered. At the regional scale, each trophic status, even the nutrient richest, brought an original contribution to biodiversity. Synthesis and applications. The management of eutrophication for small lowland waterbodies has to be considered differently than for lakes. For an individual waterbody (the local scale), nutrient enrichment is not necessarily a major impairment and its impact depends on the taxonomic group considered. Conversely, at the landscape scale, eutrophication is a major pressure on small waterbody biodiversity, especially because nutrient-rich small waterbodies are dominant in the landscape. Therefore, conservation efforts should integrate the notion of pond regional networks or ‘pondscapes’, where the regional biodiversity is supported by a mosaic of trophic conditions, and promote the presence of less rich waterbodies.

Varied impact of land use on water and sediment parameters in fish ponds of the Dombes agro-ecosystem, France

Abstract Agricultural land use in the area of water bodies is generally considered to increase the nutrient status of the water body water and sediments, but is this also the case for already nutrient-rich fish ponds? We studied 83 fish ponds in the Dombes region, France, where 1100 ponds are located in a heterogeneous agricultural landscape. Different water and sediment parameters were analysed for ponds and in ditches after rainfall events. Land use was studied in the primary catchment of ponds and in a 100-m zone around ponds. Soil parameters of different land-use types were analysed and farmers interviewed about agricultural practices. Increasing cropping area in the catchment of the ponds is significantly correlated to higher PO4 3- concentration of pond water and to a lower degree, also to NO3 −, but only in certain years with higher rainfall and with a more uneven distribution in spring. Sediment parameters were not significantly influenced. High NO3- concentration in the water of a ditch during significant rainfall events was found for a cropland dominated catchment. Citation Wezel, A., Arthaud, F., Dufloux, C., Renoud, F., Vallod, D., Robin, J., and Sarrazin, B., 2013. Varied impact of land use on water and sediment parameters in fish ponds of the Dombes agro-ecosystem, France. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 58 (4), 854–871.

Converging and diverging principles and practices of organic agriculture regulations and agroecology. A review

There is ongoing debate among stakeholders about the future development of agricultural and food systems to meet the global challenges of food supply, biological and cultural diversity, climate change, and social justice. Among other options, agroecology and organic agriculture are discussed. Both have similar goals and use a systems approach; however, they are recognised and received differently by stakeholders. Here we review and compare principles and practices defined and described in EU organic agriculture regulations, International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM) norms, and agroecology scientific literature. The main finding are as follows: (1) Regarding principles, EU organic regulations mainly focus on appropriate design and management of biological processes based on ecological systems, restriction of external inputs, and strict limitation of chemical inputs. IFOAM principles are very broad and more complete, and include a holistic and systemic vision of sustainability. Agroecology has a defined set of principles for the ecological management of agri-food systems, which also includes some socio-economic principles. (2) Many proposed cropping practices are similar for EU organic, IFOAM, and agroecology, e.g. soil tillage, soil fertility and fertilisation, crop and cultivar choice, crop rotation, as well as pest, disease and weed management. In contrast, the origin and quantity of products potentially used for soil fertilisation and pest, disease, and weed management are different. Additionally, some practices are only mentioned for one of the three sources. (3) In animal production, only a few proposed practices are similar for EU organic, IFOAM, and agroecology. These include integration of cropping and animal systems and breed choice. In contrast, practices for animal management, prevention methods in animal health, animal housing, animal welfare, animal nutrition, and veterinary management are defined or described differently. (4) Related to food systems, organic agriculture focusses on technical aspects, such as food processing, while in agroecology there is a prominent debate between a transformative and conformative agenda. Both agroecology and organic agriculture offer promising contributions for the future development of sustainable agricultural production and food systems, especially if their principles and practices converge to a transformative approach and that impedes the conventionalisation of agro-food systems.

Result-oriented approaches to the management of drinking water catchments in agricultural landscapes

Management of water quality in drinking water catchments is of ongoing, high importance as nitrate concentrations are often still very high. We analysed the Augsburg catchment in Germany, a unique example where a result-oriented approach has been implemented. We investigated the historical evolution of the water protection programme, the result-oriented payment contracts with farmers, and farmer satisfaction with the contracts, based on interviews with the water utility and farmers as well as an analysis of the literature. Today, the water protection programme has been successfully implemented, and a significant reduction of nitrate concentration was achieved due to the following factors: (1) investment of non-negligible amounts of money for high compensation and remuneration payments, (2) different contract options, (3) farmers’ participation in the negotiation process for result-oriented payment contracts, (4) involvement of “outside” people and institutions in negotiation processes, (5) anticipation of starting a programme when nitrate levels were still far below legislative thresholds, and (6) a political and legislative framework allowing direct decisions by a water supplier.

Using biodiversity to valorise local food products: the case of fish ponds in a cultural landscape, their biodiversity, and carp production

Today, we need to produce sufficient food and simultaneously conserve biodiversity. But, could biodiversity associated with certain food production practices also be used in marketing products? We analyse this possibility for creating a food quality label for carp raised in the Dombes territory, a cultural landscape of fish ponds in France. The biodiversity of 99 fish ponds was studied in the Dombes territory by analysing aquatic vegetation, dragonflies, amphibians, macroinvertebrates, habitats around ponds, and water quality. In addition, a survey with 200 questionnaires and interviews was conducted with consumers to investigate fish and carp consumption and knowledge about quality labels and biodiversity. Findings reveal that fish production practices conserve remarkable species diversity, particularly for aquatic vegetation, dragonflies and amphibians, and habitats around the ponds. This relatively high level of biodiversity is found in spite of having very nutrient-rich fish pond systems, systems for which normally a low level of biodiversity is expected. Nevertheless, currently this biodiversity cannot be valorised for setting up a quality label for locally produced carp. Firstly, few consumers have adequate knowledge about carp and are interested in eating it. Secondly, most of them have less knowledge about the quality label which wanted to be established for carp from the Dombes. Thirdly, only less than one-third of the consumer is familiar with the term “biodiversity”. Fourthly, the stakeholder network of the supply chain is presently not able to communicate the message of biodiversity as they themselves lack a sufficient knowledge about biodiversity of their systems.

Influence des pratiques agropiscicoles sur la biodiversité des étangs de la Dombes (Ain, France) en vue d'une valorisation de produits du terroir

Dans le cadre d’un programme de recherche conduit en France pour produire des references alimentant le debat agriculture et biodiversite, une equipe de chercheurs de l’ISARA-Lyon mene un travail sur les relations entre pratiques agricoles et biodiversite dans une region d’etangs a vocation piscicole. Il s’agit de la Dombes, vaste region presentant une surface de pres de 11 000 ha en eau. Ces etangs sont inscrits dans un paysage agricole constitue de cultures intensives, de prairies et de forets. Ils representent une richesse ecologique et patrimoniale certaines et la question de l’influence des pratiques agricoles sur les elements constitutifs de la biodiversite est au cœur de ce projet. Une deuxieme question porte sur l’insertion socio-economique du systeme de production et l’utilisation potentielle de la biodiversite pour valoriser l’image de la production piscicole issue de ces etangs. Les premiers resultats mettent en avant la diversite specifique importante observee (macrophytes, odonates et amphibiens) et montrent que les pratiques agricoles traditionnelles en place entretiennent la richesse biologique de ces milieux, crees par l’homme.