Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorDuflot, Rémi
dc.contributor.authorSan-Cristobal, Magali
dc.contributor.authorAndrieu, Emilie
dc.contributor.authorChoisis, Jean-Philippe
dc.contributor.authorEsquerré, Diane
dc.contributor.authorLadet, Sylvie
dc.contributor.authorOuin, Annie
dc.contributor.authorRivers-Moore, Justine
dc.contributor.authorSheeren, David
dc.contributor.authorSirami, Clélia
dc.contributor.authorFauvel, Mathieu
dc.contributor.authorVialatte, Aude
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-22T11:01:08Z
dc.date.available2021-12-22T11:01:08Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.identifier.citationDuflot, R., San-Cristobal, M., Andrieu, E., Choisis, J.-P., Esquerré, D., Ladet, S., Ouin, A., Rivers-Moore, J., Sheeren, D., Sirami, C., Fauvel, M., & Vialatte, A. (2022). Farming intensity indirectly reduces crop yield through negative effects on agrobiodiversity and key ecological functions. <i>Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment</i>, <i>326</i>, Article 107810. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107810" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2021.107810</a>
dc.identifier.otherCONVID_103454786
dc.identifier.urihttps://jyx.jyu.fi/handle/123456789/79142
dc.description.abstractFarming intensity and landscape heterogeneity influence agrobiodiversity and associated ecological functions. The relative contributions of these agroecosystem components to agricultural production remain unclear because of inter-relations and weather-dependant variations. Using a structural equation modelling approach, we estimated direct and indirect contributions of farming intensity (soil management, pesticide use and fertilisation) and landscape heterogeneity (of semi-natural covers and crop mosaic) to cereal crop production, in 54 fields (mostly wheat), in two years (24 and 30 fields). Indirect effects were evaluated through agrobiodiversity (carabid and plant communities) and ecological functions (pollination and pest control). In 2016, farming intensity had the largest direct positive effect on cereal crop yield, followed by agrobiodiversity (74% of the farming intensity impact) and ecological functions. However, the direct benefits of farming intensity were halved due to negative indirect effects, as farming intensity negatively affected within-field biodiversity and ecological functions. Overall, agrobiodiversity and farming intensity had equal net contributions to cereal crop yields, while heterogeneity of the crop mosaic enhanced biodiversity. In 2017, neither higher farming intensity nor agrobiodiversity and ecological functions could lift cereal production, which suffered from unfavourable meteorological conditions. Semi-natural habitats supported agrobiodiversity. Our study suggests that a reduction of farming intensity combined with higher heterogeneity of crop mosaic can enhance the benefits of ecological functions towards crop production. Semi-natural covers seem to play an essential role in the face of climatic events, by supporting agrobiodiversity and the potential resilience of the agroecosystem functioning.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherElsevier
dc.relation.ispartofseriesAgriculture Ecosystems and Environment
dc.rightsCC BY 4.0
dc.subject.otherconservation biological control
dc.subject.otherconventional farming
dc.subject.otherPLS-PM
dc.subject.otherprey cards
dc.titleFarming intensity indirectly reduces crop yield through negative effects on agrobiodiversity and key ecological functions
dc.typearticle
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:fi:jyu-202112226124
dc.contributor.laitosBio- ja ympäristötieteiden laitosfi
dc.contributor.laitosDepartment of Biological and Environmental Scienceen
dc.contributor.oppiaineResurssiviisausyhteisöfi
dc.contributor.oppiaineSchool of Resource Wisdomen
dc.type.urihttp://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle
dc.type.coarhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.description.reviewstatuspeerReviewed
dc.relation.issn0167-8809
dc.relation.volume326
dc.type.versionpublishedVersion
dc.rights.copyright© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
dc.rights.accesslevelopenAccessfi
dc.subject.ysobiologinen torjunta
dc.subject.ysoekosysteemipalvelut
dc.subject.ysotuotto
dc.subject.ysomaanviljely
dc.subject.ysoagroekologia
dc.subject.ysobiodiversiteetti
dc.subject.ysotehomaatalous
dc.format.contentfulltext
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p15969
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p24628
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p4629
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p10943
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p23290
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p5496
jyx.subject.urihttp://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p20162
dc.rights.urlhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.relation.doi10.1016/j.agee.2021.107810
jyx.fundinginformationThis work was supported by the MUESLI project funded by IDEX ATS Toulouse (Initiative D'EXcellence, Toulouse INP, France) and the SECOMOD project funded by the Metaprogram ECOSERV (INRAE, Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’alimentation et l’Environnement, France). RD was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship from the Kone Foundation (Finland).
dc.type.okmA1


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

CC BY 4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as CC BY 4.0