IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/ecoevo/ycwek.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Agricultural Beneficial Management Practices: A Synthesis of Co-benefits, Tradeoffs, and Co-costs between Crop Yield and Non-provisioning Ecosystem Services

Author

Listed:
  • Kadykalo, Andrew Nicholas
  • Johnson, Kris
  • McFatridge, Scott
  • Findlay, C. Scott

Abstract

Although agricultural “best (or beneficial) management practices” (BMPs) first emerged to mitigate agro-environmental resource challenges, they may also enhance ‘non-provisioning’ ecosystem services. The enthusiasm for adopting BMPs partially depends on evidence that doing so will lead to agro-environmental benefits while not substantially reducing crop productivity or farmer income. We survey and synthesize evidence in the existing literature to document the joint effects on agricultural crop yield and 12 ecosystem service (ES) associated with implementation of 5 agricultural BMPs (crop rotations, cover crops, nutrient management, perennial vegetated buffers, reduced or no tillage). We also analyze the prevalence of co-benefits (‘win-win’), tradeoffs, and co-costs (‘lose-lose’) outcomes. On the basis of a set of contextual variables we then develop empirical models that predict the likelihood of co-benefits relative to tradeoffs, and co-costs. We found thirty-six studies investigating 141 combinations of crop yields and non-provisioning ES outcomes (YESs) in the relevant literatures covering the period 1983-2016. The scope of the review is global, but included studies are geographically concentrated in the U.S. Corn Belt (Midwestern United States). In the literature sample, reporting of co-benefits (26%) was much more prevalent than reporting of co-costs (4%) between yields and ES. Tradeoffs most often resulted in a reduction in crop yields and an increase in ES (28%); this was marginally greater than studies reporting a neutral influence on crop yields and an increase in ES (26%). Other Y/ES combinations were uncommon. Mixed-effects models indicated reduced tillage and crop rotations had generally positive associations with YESs. Temporal scale was an informative predictor suggesting studies with longer time scales resulted in greater positive outcomes on YESs, on average. Our results are a step towards identifying those contexts where co-benefits or partial improvement outcomes of BMPs are more likely to be realized, as well as the impact of particular practices on specific ES.

Suggested Citation

  • Kadykalo, Andrew Nicholas & Johnson, Kris & McFatridge, Scott & Findlay, C. Scott, 2020. "Agricultural Beneficial Management Practices: A Synthesis of Co-benefits, Tradeoffs, and Co-costs between Crop Yield and Non-provisioning Ecosystem Services," EcoEvoRxiv ycwek, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:ecoevo:ycwek
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/ycwek
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5fdbbb9df0df5404de2eddfb/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/ycwek?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Katherine Baylis & Peter Feather & Merritt Padgitt & Carmen Sandretto, 2002. "Water-Based Recreational Benefits of Conservation Programs: The Case of Conservation Tillage on U.S. Cropland," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 24(2), pages 384-393.
    2. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    3. Cong, Rong-Gang & Hedlund, Katarina & Andersson, Hans & Brady, Mark, 2014. "Managing soil natural capital: An effective strategy for mitigating future agricultural risks," MPRA Paper 112155, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Kragt, Marit E. & Robertson, Michael J., 2014. "Quantifying ecosystem services trade-offs from agricultural practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 147-157.
    5. Simpson, R. David, 2014. "Ecosystem services as substitute inputs: Basic results and important implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 102-108.
    6. Cameron M. Pittelkow & Xinqiang Liang & Bruce A. Linquist & Kees Jan van Groenigen & Juhwan Lee & Mark E. Lundy & Natasja van Gestel & Johan Six & Rodney T. Venterea & Chris van Kessel, 2015. "Productivity limits and potentials of the principles of conservation agriculture," Nature, Nature, vol. 517(7534), pages 365-368, January.
    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. Chandra, Rommila, 2024. "Environmental effects in the changing mountain farming system – A case study from Uttarakhand," IAAE 2024 Conference, August 2-7, 2024, New Delhi, India 344308, International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE).
    2. Ioannidou, Sotiroula C. & Litskas, Vassilis D. & Stavrinides, Menelaos C. & Vogiatzakis, Ioannis N., 2022. "Linking management practices and soil properties to Ecosystem Services in Mediterranean mixed orchards," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    3. Brausmann, Alexandra & Bretschger, Lucas, 2018. "Economic development on a finite planet with stochastic soil degradation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-19.
    4. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    5. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    6. Qingqing Yang & Yanhui Gao & Xinjun Yang & Jian Zhang, 2022. "Rural Transformation Driven by Households’ Adaptation to Climate, Policy, Market, and Urbanization: Perspectives from Livelihoods–Land Use on Chinese Loess Plateau," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-23, July.
    7. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    8. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    9. Ashley E. Larsen & Steven D. Gaines & Olivier Deschênes, 2017. "Agricultural pesticide use and adverse birth outcomes in the San Joaquin Valley of California," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    10. Dániel Fróna & János Szenderák & Mónika Harangi-Rákos, 2019. "The Challenge of Feeding the World," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    11. Nana Chen & Xin Zhao & Shuxian Dou & Aixing Deng & Chengyan Zheng & Tiehua Cao & Zhenwei Song & Weijian Zhang, 2023. "The Tradeoff between Maintaining Maize ( Zea mays L.) Productivity and Improving Soil Quality under Conservation Tillage Practice in Semi-Arid Region of Northeast China," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-17, February.
    12. Ehsan Moradi & Jesús Rodrigo-Comino & Enric Terol & Gaspar Mora-Navarro & Alexandre Marco da Silva & Ioannis N. Daliakopoulos & Hassan Khosravi & Manuel Pulido Fernández & Artemi Cerdà, 2020. "Quantifying Soil Compaction in Persimmon Orchards Using ISUM (Improved Stock Unearthing Method) and Core Sampling Methods," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-18, July.
    13. J. Carl Ureta & Lucas Clay & Marzieh Motallebi & Joan Ureta, 2020. "Quantifying the Landscape’s Ecological Benefits—An Analysis of the Effect of Land Cover Change on Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Peipei Yang & Wenxu Dong & Marius Heinen & Wei Qin & Oene Oenema, 2022. "Soil Compaction Prevention, Amelioration and Alleviation Measures Are Effective in Mechanized and Smallholder Agriculture: A Meta-Analysis," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, April.
    15. Dörschner, T. & Musshoff, O., 2015. "How do incentive-based environmental policies affect environment protection initiatives of farmers? An experimental economic analysis using the example of species richness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 90-103.
    16. Nuppenau, Ernst-August, 2015. "Mitigation of Large-Scale Biofuel Expansion with Smallholder Conflict: Modelling of Land Use Dynamics using Control Theory for Policy Design to Sustain Food Security and Improve Productivity," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 225669, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    17. Wang, Haoluan & Swallow, Brent M., 2017. "Linking Agricultural Land Conservation and Provision of Ecosystem Services: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258537, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Guangzi Li & Jun Cai, 2022. "Spatial and Temporal Differentiation of Mountain Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs and Synergies: A Case Study of Jieshi Mountain, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-16, April.
    19. Anantha, K.H. & Garg, Kaushal K. & Barron, Jennie & Dixit, Sreenath & Venkataradha, A. & Singh, Ramesh & Whitbread, Anthony M., 2021. "Impact of best management practices on sustainable crop production and climate resilience in smallholder farming systems of South Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    20. Dejan Živkov & Suzana Balaban & Marijana Joksimović, 2022. "Making a Markowitz portfolio with agricultural commodity futures," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 68(6), pages 219-229.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:osf:ecoevo:ycwek. 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ecoevorxiv.org .

    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.