Suchergebnisse

La biodiversidad está siendo destruida a una tasa alarmante. Una de las principales causas de esta pérdida es el cambio de uso del suelo, que se basa en la agricultura y la ganadería convencionales. Las prácticas de manejo como el monocultivo y el uso intensivo de agroquímicos reducen el número de especies de plantas, aves, insectos y otros grupos taxonómicos, a la vez que aumentan la abundancia relativa (dominancia) de pocas especies cultivadas y silvestres (e.g., malezas). Dado que casi 40% de la superficie terrestre se destina a la producción de cultivos y de carne, es clave lograr una producción agropecuaria compatible con la preservación de la biodiversidad. Además de su valor por aspectos éticos, espirituales y de uso para generaciones futuras, en este artículo destacamos el rol de la biodiversidad en la producción agropecuaria, y usamos a los polinizadores como ejemplo. Paradójicamente, la agricultura convencional está destruyendo la diversidad de polinizadores, pero esta diversidad es fundamental para incrementar la productividad (y su estabilidad en tiempo y espacio) de muchos cultivos. Varios estudios demuestran que la pérdida de diversidad de polinizadores no se puede compensar con una abundancia alta de una sola especie de polinizador (dominancia). Es por ello que debatimos acciones que pueden tomar los productores, consumidores, políticos y científicos para recuperar parte de esta biodiversidad. Por ejemplo, los productores pueden implementar prácticas dentro y fuera del cultivo para aumentar los recursos florales y de nidificación a los polinizadores y, de este modo, promover su abundancia y diversidad. Además, los consumidores pueden modificar su dieta, reducir los desperdicios y producir alimentos a pequeña escala, entre otras acciones. Como consecuencia, resulta imperioso tomar acciones múltiples por todos los actores, pues una sola estrategia no será suficiente para resolver el dilema de producir y conservar la biodiversidad. ; Biodiversity is being lost at an alarming rate. One of the main causes of this loss is the land-use change caused by the expansion of conventional agriculture and livestock production. Management practices such as monocultures and the intensive use of agrochemicals reduce the number of species of plants, birds, insects and other taxonomic groups, and increase, at the same time, the relative abundance (dominance) of one or a few cultivated and wild (e.g., weed) species. Given that ~40% of the terrestrial surface is occupied by crop and livestock lands, it is critical to increase food production without destroying biodiversity. In addition to the value given by its ethical and spiritual dimensions, and the potential use of future generations, in this article we discuss the value of biodiversity for agriculture, using pollinators as a case of study. Paradoxically, conventional agriculture is reducing pollinator diversity, but this diversity is necessary for increasing productivity (and its temporal and spatial stability) of many crops. Several studies show that the loss of wild pollinator diversity cannot be replaced by a high abundance of a single pollinator species (dominance). Therefore, we discuss actions that producers, consumers, politicians and scientists can take to recover diversity. For example, producers can implement management practices in- and outside the crop fields to increase floral and nesting resources, and therefore pollinator abundance and diversity. In addition, consumers can modify diets, reduce waste and produce food at small scales, among many other actions. One single strategy will not be enough to solve the dilemma of producing food and preserving biodiversity. We argue that multiple actions must be taken urgently from all the stakeholders.

International audience ; Despite global interest in the role of pollinators for food production, their impact on farmers' profit, which determines farmers' livelihood and land-use decisions, is unclear. Although average values of pollinator benefits are generally assumed, there is potential for large spatial variation among crop species and varieties or among pollinator management strategies, even within the same region and year.We studied how quality of honey bee colonies used for pollination services, which included artificial feeding during winter and pathogen control, affect flower visitation, fruit production, and farmers' profit in the main apple and pear producing region of Argentina (Patagonia).For apple, high-quality colonies exhibited flower-visitation rates 130% greater than conventional colonies. Indeed, high-quality colonies increased fruit set by 15% (increasing production quantity), seed set and fruit sugar content, and subsequently farmeŕs profits by 70%. For pear, colony quality only affected fruit weight of the Abate Fetel variety, but not that of the Packham's Triumph variety. Fruits were ∼20% heavier in farms deploying high quality colonies but did not contribute to increase farmers' profits to the extent that it did for apple.In contrast to studies conducted elsewhere, we did not observe any wild pollinators visiting apple or pear flowers, highlighting the fragility of this conventionally intensified crop production system. We found that such orchard systems can suffer large pollinator deficits affecting farmers' profit. Given that A. mellifera was the only flower visitor, we could estimate the impact of improving colony management on farmer's profit without the influence of other pollinators. Our study also shows that variations within pome crops, i.e. apples and varieties of pears, in pollinator benefits can be very large, and that the assumption of global average values to guide local recommendations can be misleading.

International audience ; Despite global interest in the role of pollinators for food production, their impact on farmers' profit, which determines farmers' livelihood and land-use decisions, is unclear. Although average values of pollinator benefits are generally assumed, there is potential for large spatial variation among crop species and varieties or among pollinator management strategies, even within the same region and year.We studied how quality of honey bee colonies used for pollination services, which included artificial feeding during winter and pathogen control, affect flower visitation, fruit production, and farmers' profit in the main apple and pear producing region of Argentina (Patagonia).For apple, high-quality colonies exhibited flower-visitation rates 130% greater than conventional colonies. Indeed, high-quality colonies increased fruit set by 15% (increasing production quantity), seed set and fruit sugar content, and subsequently farmeŕs profits by 70%. For pear, colony quality only affected fruit weight of the Abate Fetel variety, but not that of the Packham's Triumph variety. Fruits were ∼20% heavier in farms deploying high quality colonies but did not contribute to increase farmers' profits to the extent that it did for apple.In contrast to studies conducted elsewhere, we did not observe any wild pollinators visiting apple or pear flowers, highlighting the fragility of this conventionally intensified crop production system. We found that such orchard systems can suffer large pollinator deficits affecting farmers' profit. Given that A. mellifera was the only flower visitor, we could estimate the impact of improving colony management on farmer's profit without the influence of other pollinators. Our study also shows that variations within pome crops, i.e. apples and varieties of pears, in pollinator benefits can be very large, and that the assumption of global average values to guide local recommendations can be misleading.

International audience ; Despite global interest in the role of pollinators for food production, their impact on farmers' profit, which determines farmers' livelihood and land-use decisions, is unclear. Although average values of pollinator benefits are generally assumed, there is potential for large spatial variation among crop species and varieties or among pollinator management strategies, even within the same region and year.We studied how quality of honey bee colonies used for pollination services, which included artificial feeding during winter and pathogen control, affect flower visitation, fruit production, and farmers' profit in the main apple and pear producing region of Argentina (Patagonia).For apple, high-quality colonies exhibited flower-visitation rates 130% greater than conventional colonies. Indeed, high-quality colonies increased fruit set by 15% (increasing production quantity), seed set and fruit sugar content, and subsequently farmeŕs profits by 70%. For pear, colony quality only affected fruit weight of the Abate Fetel variety, but not that of the Packham's Triumph variety. Fruits were ∼20% heavier in farms deploying high quality colonies but did not contribute to increase farmers' profits to the extent that it did for apple.In contrast to studies conducted elsewhere, we did not observe any wild pollinators visiting apple or pear flowers, highlighting the fragility of this conventionally intensified crop production system. We found that such orchard systems can suffer large pollinator deficits affecting farmers' profit. Given that A. mellifera was the only flower visitor, we could estimate the impact of improving colony management on farmer's profit without the influence of other pollinators. Our study also shows that variations within pome crops, i.e. apples and varieties of pears, in pollinator benefits can be very large, and that the assumption of global average values to guide local recommendations can be misleading.

International audience ; Despite global interest in the role of pollinators for food production, their impact on farmers' profit, which determines farmers' livelihood and land-use decisions, is unclear. Although average values of pollinator benefits are generally assumed, there is potential for large spatial variation among crop species and varieties or among pollinator management strategies, even within the same region and year.We studied how quality of honey bee colonies used for pollination services, which included artificial feeding during winter and pathogen control, affect flower visitation, fruit production, and farmers' profit in the main apple and pear producing region of Argentina (Patagonia).For apple, high-quality colonies exhibited flower-visitation rates 130% greater than conventional colonies. Indeed, high-quality colonies increased fruit set by 15% (increasing production quantity), seed set and fruit sugar content, and subsequently farmeŕs profits by 70%. For pear, colony quality only affected fruit weight of the Abate Fetel variety, but not that of the Packham's Triumph variety. Fruits were ∼20% heavier in farms deploying high quality colonies but did not contribute to increase farmers' profits to the extent that it did for apple.In contrast to studies conducted elsewhere, we did not observe any wild pollinators visiting apple or pear flowers, highlighting the fragility of this conventionally intensified crop production system. We found that such orchard systems can suffer large pollinator deficits affecting farmers' profit. Given that A. mellifera was the only flower visitor, we could estimate the impact of improving colony management on farmer's profit without the influence of other pollinators. Our study also shows that variations within pome crops, i.e. apples and varieties of pears, in pollinator benefits can be very large, and that the assumption of global average values to guide local recommendations can be misleading.

Ecological intensification aims to increase crop productivity by enhancing biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, while minimizing the use of synthetic inputs and cropland expansion. Policies to promote ecological intensification have emerged in different countries, but they are still scarce and vary widely across regions. Here we propose ten policy targets that governments can follow for ecological intensification.

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd Multiple anthropogenic challenges threaten nature's contributions to human well-being. Agricultural expansion and conventional intensification are degrading biodiversity and ecosystem functions, thereby undermining the natural foundations on which agriculture is itself built. Averting the worst effects of global environmental change and assuring ecosystem benefits, requires a transformation of agriculture. Alternative agricultural systems to conventional intensification exist, ranging from adjustments to efficiency (e.g. sustainable intensification) to a redesign (e.g. ecological intensification, climate-smart agriculture) of the farm management system. These alternatives vary in their reliance on nature or technology, the level of systemic change required to operate, and impacts on biodiversity, landscapes and agricultural production. Different socio-economic, ecological and political settings mean there is no universal solution, instead there are a suite of interoperable practices that can be adapted to different contexts to maximise efficiency, sustainability and resilience. Social, economic, technological and demographic issues will influence the form of sustainable agriculture and effects on landscapes and biodiversity. These include: (1) the socio-technical-ecological architecture of agricultural and food systems and trends such as urbanisation in affecting the mode of production, diets, lifestyles and attitudes; (2) emerging technologies, such as gene editing, synthetic biology and 3D bioprinting of meat; and (3) the scale or state of the existing farm system, especially pertinent for smallholder agriculture. Agricultural transformation will require multifunctional landscape planning with cross-sectoral and participatory management to avoid unintended consequences and ultimately depends on people's capacity to accept new ways of operating in response to the current environmental crisis.

© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2018 British Ecological SocietyThe global trade of species promotes diverse human activities but also facilitates the introduction of potentially invasive species into new environments. As species ignore national boundaries, unilateral national decisions concerning species trade set the stage for transnational species invasion with significant conservation, economic and political consequences. The need for a coordinated approach to species importation policies is demonstrated by the introduction of two bumblebee species into Chile for crop pollination, despite Argentina banning commercial importation of alien bumblebees based on expert opinion. The large garden bumblebee, Bombus ruderatus, was first introduced in 1982, and the buff-tailed bumblebee, Bombus terrestris, has been continually introduced since 1997 as part of the burgeoning bumblebee trade. Both species have subsequently invaded southern South America. Today, the consequences

Multiple anthropogenic challenges threaten nature's contributions to human well-being. Agricultural expansion and conventional intensification are degrading biodiversity and ecosystem functions, thereby undermining the natural foundations on which agriculture is itself built. Averting the worst effects of global environmental change and assuring ecosystem benefits, requires a transformation of agriculture. Alternative agricultural systems to conventional intensification exist, ranging from adjustments to efficiency (e.g. sustainable intensification) to a redesign (e.g. ecological intensification, climate-smart agriculture) of the farm management system. These alternatives vary in their reliance on nature or technology, the level of systemic change required to operate, and impacts on biodiversity, landscapes and agricultural production. Different socio-economic, ecological and political settings mean there is no universal solution, instead there are a suite of interoperable practices that can be adapted to different contexts to maximise efficiency, sustainability and resilience. Social, economic, technological and demographic issues will influence the form of sustainable agriculture and effects on landscapes and biodiversity. These include: (1) the socio-technical-ecological architecture of agricultural and food systems and trends such as urbanisation in affecting the mode of production, diets, lifestyles and attitudes; (2) emerging technologies, such as gene editing, synthetic biology and 3D bioprinting of meat; and (3) the scale or state of the existing farm system, especially pertinent for smallholder agriculture. Agricultural transformation will require multifunctional landscape planning with cross-sectoral and participatory management to avoid unintended consequences and ultimately depends on people's capacity to accept new ways of operating in response to the current environmental crisis.

This document contains the draft Chapter 2 NCP of the IPBES Global Assessment on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Governments and all observers at IPBES-7 had access to these draft chapters eight weeks prior to IPBES-7. Governments accepted the Chapters at IPBES-7 based on the understanding that revisions made to the SPM during the Plenary, as a result of the dialogue between Governments and scientists, would be reflected in the final Chapters. IPBES typically releases its Chapters publicly only in their final form, which implies a delay of several months post Plenary. However, in light of the high interest for the Chapters, IPBES is releasing the six Chapters early (31 May 2019) in a draft form. Authors of the reports are currently working to reflect all the changes made to the Summary for Policymakers during the Plenary to the Chapters, and to perform final copyediting.

International agreements aim to conserve 17% of Earth's land area by 2020 but include no area-based conservation targets within the working landscapes that support human needs through farming, ranching, and forestry. Through a review of country-level legislation, we found that just 38% of countries have minimum area requirements for conserving native habitats within working landscapes. We argue for increasing native habitats to at least 20% of working landscape area where it is below this minimum. Such target has benefits for food security, nature's contributions to people, and the connectivity and effectiveness of protected area networks in biomes in which protected areas are underrepresented. We also argue for maintaining native habitat at higher levels where it currently exceeds the 20% minimum, and performed a literature review that shows that even more than 50% native habitat restoration is needed in particular landscapes. The post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is an opportune moment to include a minimum habitat restoration target for working landscapes that contributes to, but does not compete with, initiatives for expanding protected areas, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

International agreements aim to conserve 17% of Earth's land area by 2020 but include no area‐based conservation targets within the working landscapes that support human needs through farming, ranching, and forestry. Through a review of country‐level legislation, we found that just 38% of countries have minimum area requirements for conserving native habitats within working landscapes. We argue for increasing native habitats to at least 20% of working landscape area where it is below this minimum. Such target has benefits for food security, nature's contributions to people, and the connectivity and effectiveness of protected area networks in biomes in which protected areas are underrepresented. We also argue for maintaining native habitat at higher levels where it currently exceeds the 20% minimum, and performed a literature review that shows that even more than 50% native habitat restoration is needed in particular landscapes. The post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is an opportune moment to include a minimum habitat restoration target for working landscapes that contributes to, but does not compete with, initiatives for expanding protected areas, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Due to the multiplicity of challenges facing all societies at the beginning of the twenty-first century, agricultural systems and rural landscapes are under pressure. Solutions for their optimization towards sustainability at high productivity are required. We address the majority of current agricultural systems and discuss approaches for assessing their sustainability. Life cycle analyses and footprint methods have experienced much progress but require further qualification. Some alternative farming systems such as organic agriculture, agroecology, regenerative agriculture, ecological intensification, and sustainable intensification, which are based on landscape approaches and direct farmer–consumer interactions have potential for significant improvements towards the sustainability of global agriculture and need further attention and promotion in research and practice. Technology-driven smart farming technologies can be implemented in all these kinds of farming systems. A key to preventing the degradation of agricultural landscapes and improving ecology and economics lies in their better structural development and design, adapted to geosystem settings, legacies of local cultural history and opportunities presented by urban–rural interactions. For achieving better landscape design, it is worth thinking about reforming and strengthening land consolidation as a planned participatory process involving the rural community. Further, scientifically sound and policy relevant rules and steering instruments have to be developed for the design and cultural evolution of rural landscapes. The European Union (EU) and other wealthy economic zones, federations, countries, and regions have developed funding systems for agriculture. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the EU is a powerful tool promoting both the possession and ownership of agricultural land (pillar I, main pillar) and rural development (pillar II). This system should be better balanced by shifting towards pillar II to promote further ecosystem services in agricultural regions. Novel solutions should be aimed at for maintaining landscape diversity and heritage, developing local food cultures and agritourism, and strengthening rural communities and their societal image. Transdisciplinary international model projects are useful contributions to making innovations operable.