IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v13y2024i10p1598-d1489988.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Landscape Ecological Quality of Two Different Farm Management Models: Polyculture Agroforestry vs. Conventional

Author

Listed:
  • Gemma Chiaffarelli

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, Via Celoria 2, 0133 Milan, Italy)

  • Nicolò Sgalippa

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, Via Celoria 2, 0133 Milan, Italy)

  • Ilda Vagge

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, University of Milan, Via Celoria 2, 0133 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

Low-intensity, diversified agricultural land use is needed to counteract the current decline in agrobiodiversity. Landscape ecology tools can support agrobiodiversity assessment efforts by investigating biodiversity-related ecological functions (pattern–process paradigm). In this study, we test a toolkit of landscape ecology analyses to compare different farm management models: polyculture agroforestry (POLY) vs. conventional monoculture crop management (CV). Farm-scale analyses are applied on temperate alluvial sites (Po Plain, Northern Italy), as part of a broader multi-scale analytical approach. We analyze the landscape ecological quality through landscape matrix composition, patch shape complexity, diversity, metastability, and connectivity indices. We assess farm differences through multivariate analyses and t -tests and test a farm classification tool, namely, a scoring system based on the relative contributions of POLY farms, considering their deviation from a local CV baseline. The results showed a separate ecological behavior of the two models. The POLY model showed better performance, with significant positive contributions to the forest and semi-natural component equipment and diversity; agricultural component diversity, metastability; total farm diversity, metastability, connectivity, and circuitry. A reference matrix for the ecological interpretation of the results is provided. Farm classification provides a quick synthesis of such contributions, facilitating farm comparisons. The methodology has a low cost and quickly provides information on ongoing ecological processes resulting from specific farm management practices; it is intended to complement field-scale assessments and could help to meet the need for a partially outcome-based assessment of good farm practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Gemma Chiaffarelli & Nicolò Sgalippa & Ilda Vagge, 2024. "The Landscape Ecological Quality of Two Different Farm Management Models: Polyculture Agroforestry vs. Conventional," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-29, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:10:p:1598-:d:1489988
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/10/1598/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/13/10/1598/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Simone Pesaresi & Diana Galdenzi & Edoardo Biondi & Simona Casavecchia, 2014. "Bioclimate of Italy: application of the worldwide bioclimatic classification system," Journal of Maps, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 538-553, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Valentina Lucia Astrid Laface & Carmelo Maria Musarella & Gianmarco Tavilla & Agostino Sorgonà & Ana Cano-Ortiz & Ricardo Quinto Canas & Giovanni Spampinato, 2023. "Current and Potential Future Distribution of Endemic Salvia ceratophylloides Ard. (Lamiaceae)," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-21, January.
    2. Pietro Salvaneschi & Antonio Pica & Ciro Apollonio & Teodoro Andrisano & Massimo Pecci & Andrea Petroselli & Bartolomeo Schirone, 2024. "Assessing the Efficiency of Two Silvicultural Approaches for Soil Erosion Mitigation Using a Novel Monitoring Apparatus," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-16, August.
    3. Maria Luisa Lopez Fernandez & Dauren Zhumabayev & Ricardo Marco Garcia & Kanat Baigarin & Maria Soledad Lopez Fernandez & Saken Baisholanov, 2020. "Assessment of bioclimatic change in Kazakhstan, end 20th—middle 21st centuries, according to the PRECIS prediction," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-37, October.
    4. Valentina Lucia Astrid Laface & Carmelo Maria Musarella & Agostino Sorgonà & Giovanni Spampinato, 2022. "Analysis of the Population Structure and Dynamic of Endemic Salvia ceratophylloides Ard. (Lamiaceae)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-22, August.
    5. Maria Carla de Francesco & Francesco Pio Tozzi & Gabriella Buffa & Edy Fantinato & Michele Innangi & Angela Stanisci, 2022. "Identifying Critical Thresholds in the Impacts of Invasive Alien Plants and Dune Paths on Native Coastal Dune Vegetation," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    6. Giulia Caneva & Simone Langone & Flavia Bartoli & Adele Cecchini & Carlo Meneghini, 2021. "Vegetation Cover and Tumuli’s Shape as Affecting Factors of Microclimate and Biodeterioration Risk for the Conservation of Etruscan Tombs (Tarquinia, Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-19, March.
    7. Francesco Ferretti & Marcello Corazza & Ilaria Campana & Venusta Pietrocini & Claudia Brunetti & Davide Scornavacca & Sandro Lovari, 2015. "Competition between wild herbivores: reintroduced red deer and Apennine chamois," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 26(2), pages 550-559.
    8. Bazzato, Erika & Rosati, Leonardo & Canu, Simona & Fiori, Michele & Farris, Emmanuele & Marignani, Michela, 2021. "High spatial resolution bioclimatic variables to support ecological modelling in a Mediterranean biodiversity hotspot," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 441(C).
    9. Simone Pesaresi & Edoardo Biondi & Simona Casavecchia, 2017. "Bioclimates of Italy," Journal of Maps, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 955-960, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:13:y:2024:i:10:p:1598-:d:1489988. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.