Agricultural Systems 126 (2014) 1–2

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Agricultural Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/agsy

Preface

Designing sustainable agricultural production systems for a changingworld: Methods and applications

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2014.02.0030308-521X/� 2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Over the next 40 years agriculture will have to increase foodproduction by an estimated 70% at least, on nearly the same areaof land, under increasing costs of energy and other inputs, and un-der evident climate change (Lobell et al., 2009; State of Food Inse-curity in the World, 2013). Ecological intensification of agriculturalproduction has been proposed as a way forward for agriculture tomeet these challenges (Cassman, 1999; Doré et al., 2011). The re-quired practices, technologies, tactics and strategies are likely todiffer between low and high income countries, across agro-ecolo-gies, farming systems, and households having access to contrastinglevels of resources and markets. It is clear that no single solutionwill be able to achieve sustainable economic development acrossthis diversity of more or less rural-based economies around theglobe. Despite the complexity of the problem, opportunities are ur-gently needed to increase agricultural production and feed a grow-ing population while reducing the negative environmental impactsof agriculture, and increasing its contribution to natural capital andenvironmental services.

A conference in Catania in 2007 brought together for the firsttime a community of scientists with an interest in farming systemsdesign and the use of systems modelling as the common method.Studies presented at the conference aimed at bringing togetherknowledge, exploring options for development and proposing re-designs, by focusing on quantitative understanding of the farmcomponents crops, soils, animals and manure, and their interac-tions. The contributions revealed a flurry of new and exciting ap-proaches in modelling of farming systems. They also showed thatin many cases traditional field-level agronomic studies prevailedand the change in level of the research object was a transitionfor the agricultural sciences involved.

The success of the conference signaled the unexpectedly largeinterest of researchers to develop approaches and tools to supportsustainable development of farming systems worldwide. Since theCatania conference, a conference in 2009 in Monterey, USA, recon-firmed the interest of the community to inform the dialog of sci-ence with practice, policy and business, and to foster co-learningprocesses. In this special issue, developed after the 3rd FarmingSystems Design Conference held from 26–29 September 2011 inBrisbane, we present examples that illustrate the state of the artin characterization, assessment and re-design to improve the sus-tainability of farming systems around the world.

The first paper of this Special Issue examines fundamental prop-erties of complex systems dynamics and their relation with themechanisms that govern resilience and transformability in Africansmallholder agriculture, with the aim of translating resiliencethinking theory into farming systems design practice (Tittonell,

2014). The second and third papers present examples of applica-tions of quantitative modelling to assess farm sustainability gapswith the aim of identifying strategies to improve farm performance(Cortez-Arriola et al., 2014; Alvarez et al., 2014). The fourth paperpresents the development and application of a spatially explicit dy-namic model to assess the extent to which biodiversity can be en-hanced by altering landscape structure without reducingagricultural production (Sabatier et al., 2014). The fifth paper pre-sents the use of a whole farm model in a participatory modellingresearch approach to examine the sensitivity of four contrastingcase study farms to a likely climate change scenario (Rodríguezet al., 2014). The sixth paper introduces gaming methodologydeveloped to actively involve farmers in the process of agro-eco-system design at landscape level (Speelman et al., 2014). The lastpaper presents the main outcomes of a multiyear co-innovationprocess that involved farmers, technical advisers and scientists ina systemic diagnosis and redesign of the farm systems (Dogliottiet al., 2014).

These examples show how the field has expanded since the firstFarming Systems Design conference in 2007. Both static (Alvarezet al., 2014; Cortez-Arriola et al., 2014) and dynamic farm model-ling approaches (Rodríguez et al., 2014) have found their place inthe literature. Their distinctive data demand and opportunitiesfor exploring alternatives allow them to cater to specific aims.While process-based, dynamic approaches enable understandingsystem dynamics that include farmer feedbacks in the long run,static approaches may in many data-limited conditions be superiorfor assessment of key system properties and their developmentopportunities. Agent-based modelling and gaming as a way to in-form both societal stakeholders and modelling on consequencesof human decision making for resource utilization has become animportant community in itself. The contribution of Speelmanet al. (2014) shows that also with farmers, rather than commonlywith land users, relevant insights can be gleaned. The contributionof Sabatier et al. (2014) shows that linkages between the farmingsystems design community and ecology need to be accompaniedby approaches that take into account the spatially explicit natureof dispersal processes in ecology. Moreover, depending on the sizesof farms, ecological questions may take us at supra-farm spatialand temporal scales. Resilience thinking may allow new insightsinto macro-level processes affecting farming systems. The contri-bution from Tittonell (2014) builds on a body of concepts that haveas yet not been applied to farming systems evolution, and are suf-fering from a chronic lack of data. Monitoring farms over time hasreceived little attention in agronomic research. From this contribu-tion it is clear that insights in farm trajectories can inform strategic

2 Preface / Agricultural Systems 126 (2014) 1–2

decisions on types of useful interventions, as well as create insightin farmer rationalities that enable better targeting of research. Thecontribution by Dogliotti et al. (2014) demonstrates how farmingsystems approaches result in improvement of farmer livelihoods.Modelling has its place in such innovation processes, but the exam-ple suggests that we need to think beyond ‘kitchen table’ use ofmodels with farmers and see the models as learning tools forresearchers that can engage with farmers based on clearer ideasabout critical blockages in systems and their resolution. The contri-bution begs the question about the design of larger-scale innova-tion processes and how to optimally position farming systemsresearch to support these.

With these examples we expect to contribute to a better under-standing on the types of constraints, gaps and opportunities forimprovement across the spectrum of resource availabilities/con-straints, risk attitudes, and socio-economic environments we findin our interactions with farmers and their communities.

References

Alvarez, S., Rufino, M.C., Vayssières, J., Salgado, P., Tittonell, P., Tillard, E., Bocquier,F., 2014. Whole-farm nitrogen cycling and intensification of crop-livestocksystems in the highlands of Madagascar: an application of network analysis.Agric. Syst. 126, 24–36.

Cassman, K.G., 1999. Ecological intensification of cereal production systems: yieldpotential, soil quality, and precision agriculture. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96,5952–5959.

Cortez-Arriola, J., Groot, J.C., Améndola, R.D., Scholberg, J.M.S., Mariscal Aguayo, V.,Tittonell, P., Rossing, W.A.H., 2014. Resource use efficiency and farmproductivity gaps of smallholder dairy farming in North-west Michoacan,Mexico. Agric. Syst. 126, 14–23.

Dogliotti, S., García, M.C., Peluffo, S., Dieste, J.P., Pedemonte, A.J., Bacigalupe, G.F.,Scarlato, M., Alliaume, F., Alvarez, J., Chiape, M., Rossing, W.A.H., 2014.Co-innovation of family farm systems: a systems approach to sustainableagriculture. Agric. Syst. 126, 75–85.

Doré, T., Makowski, D., Malézieux, E., Munier-Jolaind, N., Tchamitchian, M.,Tittonell, P., 2011. Facing up to the paradigm of ecological intensification inagronomy: revisiting methods, concepts and knowledge. Eur. J. Agronomy 34,197–210.

Lobell, D.B., Cassman, K.G., Field, C.B., 2009. Crop yield gaps: their importance,magnitudes, and causes. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 179–204.

Rodríguez, D., Cox, H., deVoil, P., 2014. A participatory whole farm modellingapproach to understand impacts and increase preparedness to climate changein Australia. Agric. Syst. 126, 49–60.

Sabatier, R., Doyen, L., Tichit, M., 2014. Heterogeneity and the trade-off betweenecological and productive functions of agro-landscapes: a model of cattle-birdinteractions in a grassland agroecosystems. Agric. Syst. 126, 37–48.

Speelman, E.N., García-Barrios, L.E., Groot, J.C.J., Tittonell, P., 2014. Gaming forsmallholder participation in the design of more sustainable agriculturallandscapes. Agric. Syst. 126, 61–74.

Tittonell, P., 2014. Livelihood strategies, resilience and transformability in Africanagroecosystems. Agric. Syst. 126, 2–13.

S. DogliottiUniversidad de la República, Facultad de Agronomía, Uruguay

D. RodríguezUniversity of Queensland, Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and

Food Innovation (QAAFI), Toowoomba, Australia

S. López-RidauraClimate Change and Food Security – Global Conservation Agriculture

Program, CIMMYT, Mexico

INRA, UMR Innovation, Montpellier, France

P. TittonellW.A.H. Rossing

Wageningen University, Farming Systems Ecology,Wageningen, The Netherlands