soils climate and food security
TRANSCRIPT
Soils climate and food security
(a global perspective)
Prof. dr. Pablo A. Tittonell
Farming Systems Ecology
TSBF, 2007
State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012 FAO, WFP, IFAD 870 million people suffered from chronic undernourishment between 2010-12
GHI GHI GHI GHI
'90 '96 '01 '12
World
GHI GHI GHI GHI
'90 '96 '01 '12
South Asia
GHI GHI GHI GHI
'90 '96 '01 '12
Sub-SaharanAfrica
GHI GHI GHI GHI
'90 '96 '01 '12
Southeast Asia
GHI GHI GHI GHI
'90 '96 '01 '12
Latin America & Caribbean
GHI GHI GHI GHI
'90 '96 '01 '12
GHI GHI GHI GHI
'90 '96 '01 '12
Near East & North Africa
Under-five mortality rate Prevalence of underweight in children Proportion of undernourished
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
19.8
30.3
24.0 24.322.5
24.6 24.823.7
20.7
14.5
12.0
9.67.9 8.2 7.9
6.85.3
8.8
5.2 4.42.8
7.46.1
4.9
17.2 16.314.7
Eastern Europe & Commonwealth of Independent States
GH
I sc
ore
Current agriculture cannot feed the world
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Monde
Chine
Brésil
France
USA
Consomation de viande per capitaMeat consumption per capita (kg/year)
Notes: Data refer to adults of both sexes aged 20+, age standardized, in 2008. Obesity is defined as BMI ≥30kg/m².Source: World Health Organization.
Prevalence of obesity (%)
<10
10–19.9
20–29.9
≥30
Data not available
Not applicable
Prevalence of obesity
Global Food: Waste Not, Want Not
Agriculture
Global greenhouse gas emissions
Hoe is het begonen?
i l l f h f h d h ld f
0
20
40
60
80
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
a
b
c
Glo
bal
cer
eal p
rodu
ctio
n(1
09 m
egat
onne
s)
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.81960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
196019501940 1970 1980 1990 2000Year
Pesticide productionPesticide imports
NH2OP
Nitr
ogen
and
pho
spho
rus
fert
ilize
r(1
06 t
onne
s; W
orld
–US
SR
)
Glo
bal
irri
gatio
n (1
09 h
a)
0.28
0.24
0.20
0.16
0.12
Glo
bal
pes
ticid
e pr
oduc
tion
(106
ton
nes)
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Glo
bal
pes
ticid
e im
port
s(1
996
US
$ bi
llion
)
Figure 1 Agricultural trends over the past 40 years. a, Total global cereal production2;b, total global use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer (except former USSR notincluded) and area of global irrigated land; and c, total global pesticide production3
and global pesticide imports (summed across all countries)2. Parts b and c modified
from ref. 4.
Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practicesDavid Tilman*, Kenneth G. Cassman‡, Pamela A. Matson§ ||, Rosamond Naylor|| & Stephen Polasky†
*Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, and †Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, St Paul, Minnesota 55108, USA (e-mail: [email protected])‡Department of Agronomy and Horticulture, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68583, USA§Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, and ||Center for Environmental Science and Policy, Stanford University, Stanford,California 94305, USA
A doubling in global food demand projected for the next 50 years poses huge challenges for the sustainabilityboth of food production and of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and the services they provide to society.Agriculturalists are the principal managers of global useable lands and will shape, perhaps irreversibly, thesurface of the Earth in the coming decades. New incentives and policies for ensuring the sustainability ofagriculture and ecosystem services will be crucial if we are to meet the demands of improving yields withoutcompromising environmental integrity or public health.
De groene revolutie
Green revolution cereals:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
FranceUnited StatesChinaBrazilKenyaBurkina Faso
Productiviteit van granen(t ha-1 yr-1)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Kunstmest gebruik (kg ha-1 yr-1)
Fig. 1. Dilution effects of phosphorus fertilization in red raspberry plants; 0, 22, and 44 ppm added to soilcontaining 12 ppm (Hughes et al., 1979; dry weight basis). The relative plant dry weight was,respectively, 1:1.4:2.2.
We need change, we need alternatives
Study conducted for the International Congress
SAVE FOOD!
at Interpack2011Düsseldorf, Germany
EXTENT, CAUSES AND PREVENTION
A model that is thermodynamically and socially untenable…
Popular myths…
Who’s producing our food?
•
•
•
Environ. Res. Lett. 8 (2013) 034015
Figure 1. Calorie delivery fraction per hectare. The proportions ofproduced calories that are delivered as food are shown.
Latest news: plants respond to fertilisers!
Poorly-responsive fertile fields
Responsive fields
Poorly-responsive infertile fields
Yie
ld w
ithou
t nut
rient
inpu
ts
Nutrient input
Cro
p yi
eld
Variable crop responses to inputs on-farm
(not always)
S. Zingore et al. / Field Crops Rese
Agricultural field (millet/cowpea) Savannah vegetation (under use)
Designing agricultural systems by mimicking nature
Non-disturbed soil structure Permanent vegetation cover Biomass inputs to the soil Nutrient recycling Exploration of multiple strata above and below ground
Soil temperature with 9.2 ton ha-1 (BrachiariaDecumbens) and without crop residues on the
soil surface (NT - 10 years – GO, 16 ° SL)
Soil temperature with 9.2 ton ha-1 (BrachiariaDecumbens) and without crop residues on the
soil surface (NT - 10 years – GO, 16 ° SL)
62.9 ºC
No Crop Residues CR = 9.2 ton ha-1
32.6 ºC
Facilitation of crop production through association with native woody species (Lahmar et al., 2012)
Native resources and local knowledge in the Sahel
Understanding traditional soil fertility management
Understanding/optimising shrub-based CA systems
Effects of (inadequate) tillage
Biological N2 fixation
Residual effects on maize
N-P applied (kg ha-1 )
0-0 60-2030-200-20
Mai
ze g
rain
yie
ld (
t ha-1
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Maize after pigeonpea
Continuous maize
Distinct row intercropping
Within row intercropping
Fig. 3. Effect of intercropping, rotation, and N and P fertilisation on maize–grainyield in Ruaca in the third (2010/2011) season.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Africa Asia Europe Latin America North America Oceania
Mill
ion
tonn
es o
f N p
er y
ear
Fertiliser use N fixation (agriculture)N fixation (natural)Dry depositionWet deposition
Produceer meer, produceer anders
Input Output
Specialized System
Externalities
Putting soil biodiversity to work
From: Mäder et al. (2002)
In BIO aggregate stability +10-60%
C e l e b r a t i n g y e a r s
ORGANIC CONVENTIONAL
ORGANIC CONVENTIONAL
0
200
400
600
800
1000
ORGANIC CONVENTIONAL
$ p
er a
cre
per
yea
r
INCOME EXPENSES RETURNS
$8
35
$2
77
$5
58
$4
95
$3
05
$1
90
INCOME, EXPENSES & RETURNS IN FST ORGANIC AND CONVENTIONAL SYSTEMS
0
30
60
90
120
150
ORGANIC CONVENTIONAL
130 bu/a=Yield goal for Rodale soils
134 102
Co
rn y
ield
s (b
u/a
@15
.5%
)
FST CORN YIELDS IN YEARS WITH MODERATE DROUGHT
bu/a=bushels/acre
ENERGY INPUTS
Labor
Diesel fuel
Equipment
Transportation of inputs
Herbicide
Seed
Lime
Compost production
Mineral fertilizer production
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
ORGANIC CONVENTIONAL
Meg
ajou
le/h
ecta
re/y
ear
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
0
500
1000
1500
2000
N2O emissions from soil
Diesel fuel
Equipment
Transportation of inputs
Herbicide
Seed
Lime
Compost production
Mineral fertilizer production
ORGANIC CONVENTIONAL
Kilo
gram
CO
2/he
ctar
e/ye
ar
Emissions from soil processes
Emissions from direct inputs
FIELD TRIALCOMPONENTS COMPARED
CARBON GAINS (+) OR LOSSES (-)
KG C HA-1 YR-1
RELATIVE YIELDS OF THE RESPECTIVE CROP ROTATIONS
DOK1 Experiment, Research Institute FiBL and Federal Research Institute Agroscope (Switzerland)(Mäder, et al., 2002, Fliessbach, et al., 2007))Running since 1977
Organic, with composted farm yard manure
+ 42 83 %
Organic, with fresh farm yard manure
- 123 84 %
Integrated Production, with fresh farm yard manure and mineral fertilizer
- 84 100 %
Integrated Production, stockless, with mineral fertilizer
- 207 99 %
SADP, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, Maryland (USA) (Teasdale, et al., 2007)Running 1994 to 2002
Organic, reduced tillage
+ 810 to
+ 173883 %
Conventional, no tillage 0 100 %
Rodale FST, Rodale Institute, Kurtztown, Pennsylvania (USA,) (Hepperly, et al., 2006; Pimentel, et al., 2005)Running since 1981
Organic, with farm yard manure
+ 1218 97 %
Organic, with legume based green manure.
+ 857 92 %
Conventional + 217 100 %
Frick2 Reduced Tillage Trial, Research Institute FiBL, (Switzerland) (Berner, et al., 2008)Running since 2002
Organic, with ploughing
0 100 %
Organic, with reduced tillage
+ 879 112 %
Scheyern3 Experimental Farm, University of Munich, Germany (Rühling, et al. 2005),Running since 1990
Organic + 180 57 %
Conventional - 120 100 %
MITIGATION AND ADAPTATION POTENTIAL OF SUSTAINABLE FARMING SYSTEMS
LOW GREENHOUSE GAS AGRICULTURE
The Brazilian case
Gráfico 1: Brasil, Evolução da Extrema Pobreza, 1990 a 2008
1o Objetivo do Milênio
SÃO PAULO
PORTO ALEGRE
FLORIANÓPOLIS
CURITIBA
SÃO PAULO
RIO GRANDEDO SUL
SANTA CATARINA
CAMPO GRANDEBELO HORIZONTE
SALVADOR
ARACAJÚ
MACEIÓ
RECIFE
JOÃO PESSOA
NATAL
CEARÁ
TEREZINA
SÃO LUIZ
PALMAS
GOIÂNIA
CUIABÁ
PORTO VELHO
MANAUS
BOA VISTA
MACAPÁ
ILHA DEMARAJÓ BELÉM
RIO BRANCO
D.F.
RIO DE JANEIRO
14,21%
44,24%
11,02%
44,74%
51,27%
48,73%31,44%
6,65%
59,90%
49,01%
50,99%
45,56%
54,44%
51,91%
48,09%58,13%
15,95%
25,92%
28,53%
29,72%
70,28%
25,59%
74,41%
27,28%
44,19%
16,98%
68,81%36,61%
22,36%
38,03%
59,91%
32,25%
63,64%
16,36%57,07%
14,72%
28,21%
7,84%
VITÓRIA
ESPÍRITOSANTO
RIO DE JANEIRO
MATO GROSSO DO SUL
MATO GROSSO
RONDÔNIA
ACRE
AMAZONAS
RORAIMA
AMAPÁ
BRASIL: DISTRIBUIÇÃO DA POPULAÇÃO INDIGENTE
PARÁ
MINAS GERAIS
BAHIA
SERGIPE
ALAGOAS
PERNAMBUCO
PARAÍBA
RIO GRANDEDO NORTE
FORTALEZA
PIAUÍ
MARANHÃO
TOCANTINS
GOIÁS
PARANÁ
0,01 a 0,4
0,8 a 1,4
2,1 a 3,1
4,7 a 4,9
5,3 a 6,8
7,2 a 7,4
9,5 a 11,0
13,7ÁREA METROPOLITANA
ÁREA URBANA NÃO METROPOLITANA
ÁREA RURAL
I - DISTRIBUIÇÃO PERCENTUAL DOS 32 MILHÕESDE BRASILEIROS EM CONDIÇÕES DE INDIGÊNCIASEGUNDO UNIDADES DA FEDERAÇÃO - 1990
II - DISTRIBUIÇÃO PERCENTUAL DAS PESSOAS INDIGENTESDENTRO DE CADA UNIDADE DA FEDERAÇÃO POR SITUAÇÃODO DOMICÍLIO
LEGENDA
1 - NA REGIÃO NORTE NÃO CONSTA A INDIGÊNCIA RURALPOR FALTA DE DADOS DISPONÍVEIS.
2 - OS INDIGENTES DO ESTADO DO TOCANTINS ESTÃO INCLUÍDOSNO ESTADO DE GOIÁS.
ELABORAÇÃO:IPEA - Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada
OBS:
SÃO PAULO
PORTO ALEGRE
FLORIANÓPOLIS
CURITIBA
SÃO PAULO
RIO GRANDEDO SUL
SANTA CATARINA
CAMPO GRANDE
LEGENDA:
ZONAS % DA PRODUÇÃO DE GRÃOS0.01 a 0.800.81 a 1.601.61 a 2.402.41 a 3.20
3.21 a 4.00
4.01 a 4.80
4.81 a 7.20
10.41 a 11.20
13.61 a 14.40
17.61 a 18.40
MILHO
A PRODUÇÃO DAS 63 ZONAS ESTRATIFICADASCORRESPONDENTE A 81% DA PRODUÇÃO NACIONAL DE MILHO, FEIJÃO, ARROZ, SOJA E TRIGO NOPERÍODO DE 1986/89, OU CERCA DE 48,0 MILHÕESTONELADAS
OBS:
SOJA
TRIGO
FEIJÃO
ARROZ
BELO HORIZONTE
SALVADOR
ARACAJÚ
MACEIÓ
RECIFE
JOÃO PESSOA
NATAL
CEARÁTEREZINA
SÃO LUIZ
PALMAS
GOIÂNIA
CUIABÁ
PORTO VELHO
MANAUS
BOA VISTA
MACAPÁ
ILHA DEMARAJÓ BELEM
RIO BRANCO
D.F.
RIO DE JANEIRO
VITÓRIA
ESPÍRITOSANTO
RIO DE JANEIRO
MATO GROSSO DO SUL
MATO GROSSO
RONDÔNIA
ACRE
AMAZONAS
RORAIMA
AMAPÁ
DISTRIBUIÇÃO DA PRODUÇÃO NACIONALDE GRÃOS ALIMENTÍCIOS
PARÁ
MINAS GERAIS
BAHIASERGIPE
ALAGOAS
PERNAMBUCO
PARAÍBA
RIO GRANDEDO NORTE
FORTALEZA
PIAUÍ
MARANHÃO
TOCANTINS
GOIÁS
PARANÁ
1. Acesso aos Alimentos
2. Fortalecimento da Agricultura Familiar
3. Geração de Renda
4. Articulação, Mobilização e Controle Social
Fome Zero no Brasil, 2010
The crop yield gap between organic and conventional agriculture
Tomek de Ponti, Bert Rijk, Martin K. van Ittersum ⇑Plant Production Systems, Wageningen University, PO Box 430, 6700 AK Wageningen, The Netherlands
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 13 April 2011Received in revised form 27 August 2011Accepted 19 December 2011Available online 7 February 2012
Keywords:Organic agricultureConventional agricultureYield gapPotential productionWorld food securityFarming system design
a b s t r a c t
A key issue in the debate on the contribution of organic agriculture to the future of world agriculture iswhether organic agriculture can produce sufficient food to feed the world. Comparisons of organic andconventional yields play a central role in this debate. We therefore compiled and analyzed a meta-datasetof 362 published organic–conventional comparative crop yields. Our results show that organic yields ofindividual crops are on average 80% of conventional yields, but variation is substantial (standard devia-tion 21%). In our dataset, the organic yield gap significantly differed between crop groups and regions.The analysis gave some support to our hypothesis that the organic–conventional yield gap increases asconventional yields increase, but this relationship was only rather weak. The rationale behind thishypothesis is that when conventional yields are high and relatively close to the potential or water-limitedlevel, nutrient stress must, as per definition of the potential or water-limited yield levels, be lowand pests and diseases well controlled, which are conditions more difficult to attain in organicagriculture.We discuss our findings in the context of the literature on this subject and address the issue of upscal-
ing our results to higher system levels. Our analysis was at field and crop level. We hypothesize that dueto challenges in the maintenance of nutrient availability in organic systems at crop rotation, farm andregional level, the average yield gap between conventional and organic systems may be larger than20% at higher system levels. This relates in particular to the role of legumes in the rotation and the farm-ing system, and to the availability of (organic) manure at the farm and regional levels. Future researchshould therefore focus on assessing the relative performance of both types of agriculture at higher systemlevels, i.e. the farm, regional and global system levels, and should in that context pay particular attentionto nutrient availability in both organic and conventional agriculture.
� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Agricultural Systems
journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /agsy
LETTERdoi:10.1038/nature11069
Comparing the yields of organic and conventionalagricultureVerena Seufert1, Navin Ramankutty1 & Jonathan A. Foley2
Numerous reports have emphasized the need for major changes inthe global food system: agriculture must meet the twin challenge offeeding a growing population, with rising demand for meat and
Sixty-six studies met these criteria, representing 62 study sites, andreporting 316 organic-to-conventional yield comparisons on 34 dif-ferent crop species (Supplementary Table 4).
The glass is half-full
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Crop typeAll crops (316)
Fruits (14)
Oilseed crops (28)
Cereals (161)
Vegetables (82)
a
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Plant typeLegumes (34)
Non-legumes (282)
Perennials (25)
Annuals (291)
b
Org
anic
yie
ld (t
ha-1
)
Conventional yield (t ha-1)
1:1 line
0.84 0.77 0.75 0.79
A conventional farmer purchasing pesticides
An agroecological farmer inspecting his intercrop
Communication and image Estancia Laguna Blanca, Entre Rios, Argentina Ecological farming on 3000 ha
Intensivering, extensivering, ontgiften…
Thanks for your attention
[email protected] www.wageningenUR/FSE
https://www.facebook.com/FSE.WageningenUR
If solutions depend on resources of which we do not have enough, then they are not real solutions Ecologically intensive farming is more than just conventional farming without inputs
It requires: - ecological engineering at farm and landscape level - ability to engage local actors and learn from each other - systems approaches that embrace the complexity of social-ecological
interactions
It needs: - Serious public funding that compensates for the investment gaps - Creative farmers ready to experiment and take risks - Responsible chains and consumers - Articulation with cities for energy and nutrient recycling - New legislation that promotes change (carrot bigger than stick) - To attract the youth to farming
Concluderende opmerkingen
Adapted from: Goewie, 1993
Re-design of agroecosystems
rijn
rijn
mosel
maas
waal
ijssel
main
naar München
naar Hannover - Berlijn
naar Brussel - Parijs
continuous productive landscape
permanent and m
ixed crops
extensive permanent and mixed crops
agrofoodcluster
catchment area: 185 000 km2delta plain: 7 500 km2inhabitants / km2 = 270,27
Building upon local agroecological knowledge
Agroforestry: ecological niches shared between species
How would Agroforestry look like in Europe?
Temperate agroforestry with black walnut trees
Table 1 Three phases of black walnut stand development
Period Yields Timeframe Allelopathy
Short term 0–15 years None to low
Medium term 15–30 years Low to high
Long term 30< years High
Table 2 Short term, medium term, and long term yields which are possible in the presence of black walnut trees
Species Yield Source
Short term: <15 years
Juglone-intolerant field crops Grain, produce, forage Burde 1989; Jose and Gillespie 1996.
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa) Forage Brooks 1951.
Cereal rye (Secale cereale) Forage Kallenbach et al. 2006.
Fescue (Festuca arundinacea) Forage Buergler et al. 2005.
Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) Forage Kallenbach et al. 2006.
Jerusalem artichokes (Helianthus tuberosum) Vegetable Ross 1996.
Lima bean (Phaseolus lunatus) Vegetable MacDaniels and Pinnow 1976.
Onion (Allium cepa) Vegetable MacDaniels and Pinnow 1976.
Parsnips (Pastinaca sativa) Vegetable MacDaniels and Pinnow 1976.
Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) Vegetable Piedrahita 1984.
Wax bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) Vegetable MacDaniels and Pinnow 1976.
Cattle (Bos taurus L.) Meat, dairy Kallenbach et al. 2006.
Chicken (Gallus gallus) Meat, eggs, manure Ponder et al. 2005.
Medium Term: 15–30 years
Fescue (Festuca arundinacea) Forage Funt and Martin 1993.
Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa pratensis) Forage Orton and Jenny 1948; Brooks 1951
Piedrahita 1984; Funt and Martin 1993.
Red Clover (Trifolium pratense) Forage, N-fixer Boes 1986.
Timothy (Phleum pratense) Forage MacDaniels and Pinnow 1976; Boes 1986.
White clover (Trifolium repens) Forage, N-fixer Piedrahita 1984; Boes 1986.
Black Raspberry (Rubus occidentalis) Fruit Brooks 1951; MacDaniels and Pinnow 1976;
Piedrahita 1984; De Scisciolo et al. 1990; Fuchs 1995.
Currant (Ribes spp.) Fruit Brooks 1951; Anonymous 1998.
Elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) Fruit Brooks 1951; Anonymous 1998
Mulberry (Morus spp.) Fruit Brooks 1951; Mollison 1988.
Pawpaw (Asimina triloba) Fruit Brooks 1951; Anonymous 1998.
Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana) Fruit Gordon 1981.
Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) N-fixer Ponder et al. 1980.
Black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) N-fixer, wood Ponder et al. 1980.
European alder (Alnus glutinosa) N-fixer, wood Bohanek and Groninger 2005.
Russian olive (Elaeagnus angustifolia) N-fixer Burde 1989.
Black walnut (Juglans nigra) Nuts
Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus) Wood Fisher 1978; Burde 1989.
Red oak (Quercus rubra) Wood Burde 1989.
Sugar maple (Acer saccharum) Wood Burde 1989.
White ash (Fraxinus americana) Wood Burde 1989.
Long term: >30 years
Bamboo (Phyllostachys spp.) Wood, edible shoots (author’s observation)
Black walnut (Juglans nigra) Wood, nuts, sap
Ginseng (Panax quinquefolium) Medicinal roots Apsley 2004; Carroll 2004.
Mushroom logs Mushrooms
Agroforest Syst (2007) 71:185–193 189
Silvopastoral systems: a future Dutch dairy farm??
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
A B C D E F F* G H I
Productie per koe
Voer zelfvoorziening
N efficientie
Weidedagen
Antibiotica gebruik
OS toename
Biodiversiteit in landbouwkundige landschappen
Table 1. Example of calculation of Medicinal Herb Enriched value of grasslands for one farm
Common name Latin name DW% found Importance Final value MHE
Grote vossenstaart Alopecurus pratensis L. 0.3 0.0 0.0
Madeliefje Bellis perennis L. 0.2 1.0 0.2
Zachte dravik Bromus hordeaceus L. 0.0 0.0 0.0
Kamgras Cynosurus cristatus L. 0.1 0.0 0.0
Gestreepte witbol Holcus lanatus L. 4.3 0.0 0.0
Pitrus Juncus effusus L. 0.5 1.0 0.5
Engels raaigras Lolium perenne L. 29.0 0.0 0.0
Timoteegras Phleum pratense L. 8.5 0.0 0.0
Grote weegbree Plantago major L. 0.1 1.0 0.1
Straatgras Poa annua L. 9.2 0.0 0.0
Kruipende
boterbloem Ranunculus repens L. 2.7 1.0 2.7
Ridderzuring Rumex obtusifolium L. 2.0 0.0 0.0
Gewone
paardenbloem
Taraxacum officinale
Weber 11.4 1.0 11.4
Witte klaver Trifolium repens L. 31.8 1.0 31.8
Total 100% 46.7
Ecologische intensivering van begrazingssystemen
Environmental impact of different intensification pathways
• –
• – – –
• – –
Landis et al. 2008; Losey & Vaughan 2006; Costanza et al. 1997
Arthropod-mediated ecosystem services
National Vegetation Database grey = field borders green = existing hedgerows red = planned new hedgerows
500 m.
Why do we need an inventive farmer?
Thematic Group 7 on Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems comprises