making soil biodiversity work for ecosystem goods and...

Making soil biodiversity work for ecosystem goods and services

Lijbert Brussaard, Dept. of Soil QualityWageningen University, The Netherlands

Making soil biodiversity work for ecosystem

goods and services……..

…..is a challenge to

� scientists

� politicians

� practitioners

� Research and implementation programs rarely consider � Multiple scales� Tradeoffswhereas:

� Biodiversity-based management� Occurs at many scales� Produces outcomes at many

scales

Scale matters Globe

� Introduction� Soil biodiversity and the

greenhouse gas balance� Soil biodiversity for adaptive

agriculture under environmental change

� A landscape perspective on soils, climate change and biodiversity

� A learning network on “functional agrobiodiversity”

� Conclusions

OutlineGlobe

September 2008 issue (40 million readers)

Tim Kasten: “Get our messages right, speak with the same voice (IPCC), take that message to others, using communication experts”

Courtesy of Alfred Hartemink

Gabriele Broll: “Science communication is an academic discipline”

The soil provides key ecosystem goods and services

(Haygarth & Ritz, 2009, Land Use Pol 26S: S87)

Controlpests

Build soil structure

Remove pesticides and nutrients in buffer strips

Support plants viamutualism

Control and cycle plant nutrients

The soil biota contribute to ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes

Source/sink of GHG

Degrade pesticides in field

Break down wastes, make compost

Fix nitrogen

Build soil organic matter

Sequestercarbon

(http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sare.org/publications/explore/images/scenewide2.jpg)

Courtesy of Kate Scow

Making soil biodiversity work for ecosystem

goods and services……..

…...is also a challenge to keeping:

� credibility in science� legitimacy with politicians and the public at large� salience with practitioners

Gabriele Broll: “Is high biodiversity best?”

(cf. Climategate – no Soilgate , please)






� Conclusions

OutlineGlobe

360

340

320

300

280

260

1000 20001200 1400 1600 1800

Year

CO

2 , ppm

CO2

270

310

250

290

N2O

, ppb

N2O

750

1000

1250

1500

1750

CH

4 , ppb

CH4

Greenhouse gas evolution over time

Afforestation and Reforestation

Conservation agriculture

Grassland restoration

Mitigating climate change using soilsMitigating climate change using soils

Biota560 Pg C

Soil OrganicMatter

1500 Pg C

Atmosphere750 Pg C

Ocean~38.000 Pg C

Extractablefossil fuels4000 Pg C

Potential CSequestration

50 Pg C

Sedimentaryrocks

~80.000.000 Pg C

Carbon pools: a global perspective

1 Pg = 1·1015 g

Philippe Ciais: “It is easier to keep the marbles in the jar than to tip them out and try to pick them up again” (quote from W.H. Schlesinger)

� 620,000 - 4,320,000 worms / hectare� Change soil structure and chemistry� Considered very beneficial to soil fertility

Soil biodiversity and the GHG balance:earthworms

Bulk soil

Earthwormburrows

Compacteddrilosphere soil

mineral particles

fresh litter

earthworm labile C inmacro aggregates

+

+

+ +

+

Earthworms enhance C storage

stable C inmicroaggregates

mineral particles

N2O N2O

++

but also N2O emissions

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Soils Oceans Cattle (Fertilizer)industry

Atmosphere Biomassburning

N2O

flux

, Tg

N y

r-1Global sources of N2O emission

1 Tg = 1·1012 g

Tim Kasten: “Agriculture accounts for 30% of global GHG emissions”

Global warming potential

1 g N2O... equals 12 g CH4... equals 296 g CO2...

≈ ≈

Conclusions from research so far:

� Earthworms increase N2O emissions in any studied system

� The earthworm8induced N2O effect and observed interactions reflect the feeding ecologies of different species (earthworm diversity matters!)

� The tradeoff between elevated N2O emission and carbon sequestration remains to be determined

(Rizhiya et al., 2007, Soil Biol Biochem 39: 2058

Bertora et al., 2007, Soil Biol Biochem 40: 1999

Giannopoulos et al., 2010, Soil Biol Biochem 42: 618

Lubbers et al., 2010, Eur J Soil Sci (in press))

Earthworms have effect on:

� Soil structure� Soil organic matter dynamics

� Aggregation and porosity and N2O emissions

CO2 – carbon sequestration

� Water infiltration

biophysical process

earthworm activity

(After Le Bayon & Binet, 2001, Pedobiologia 45: 430)

Earthworm diversity matters

Epigeic Anecic Endogeic

50 cm

Soil management effects

N2O N2O

→ Less C storage→ Less N2O emissions?

→ Slow water infiltration

Conventional tillage

No-tillage

→ More C storage→ More N2O emissions?

→ Rapid water infiltration

Tim Kasten: “Reducing ecosystem degradation requires a lesson in economics: trade-offs and priorities to be made”

Matthias Drösler: “Global warming potential has to be calculated, not just carbon balance”






� Conclusions

OutlineGlobe

Environmental filters (biotic and abiotic)

Biodiversity

Trait diversity

(Modified after Lemanceau, Int Soc Microb Ecol J, submitted; courtesy of P Lemanceau)

Examples of traits � Plants

� Growth form

� Leaf/ root morphology

� Specific leaf area

� Root length density

� Canopy/ root system size and architecture

� Leaf/ root chemistry

� C concentration

� Nutrient concentration

� Root turnover

� (Soil) animals� Mouthparts morphology

� Feeding habit

� Mobility

� (Soil) microbes� Ecophysiology

(De Bello et al., 2010, Biodiv Cons 19: 2773)

(Ecosystem functions)

From understanding trait-based community assemblage in natural systems →

human-induced assemblageof trait-based communities in agriculture

Vandana Shiva: Forgotten foods




� A landscape perspective on soils, environmental change and biodiversity


� Conclusions

OutlineGlobe

Ecosystem services at the landscape level:

We need a landscape view to design ecology-based solutions, combining biodiversity with other renewable resources for adaptation to local ecosystem complexity and social frameworks under climate change

� Considers biodiversity –ecological functions in mosaics of crop production areas and natural habitats

� Sets sustainable management of biodiversity in a social-ecological framework

� Builds upon local experiences and participatory experimentation with diversified production systems

DIVERSITAS agroBIODIVERSITY network

8 research sites representing landscapes positioned along a biodiversity-productivity gradient

and a wide range of socio-economic conditionswww.agrobiodiversity-diversitas.org/

(Jackson et al., 2010, Curr Opinion Env Sci 2: 80)

Planning for ecology-based transformation in the face of (climate) change

Smaller scales:Enabling technologies usingknowledge embedded within the

systemsExamples:� mineral fertilizer, new varieties� models that optimize N

applications� irrigation systems� farm machinery

Larger scales:Transformational technologies for

knowledge-intensive systems

Examples:� conservation agriculture� models that improve breeding

programs� aerobic rice systems� precision farming

Enabling and transformational technologies

(After Keating et al., 2010, Crop Sci, 50: 109)

C sequestration management requires transitional technology






� Conclusions

OutlineGlobe

The ELNThe ELN--FAB conceptFAB concept

European Learning Network on Functional AgroBiodiversity

http://www.eln-fab.eu/

Problem definition

� Small scale, fragmented application of “functional”biodiversity (pollination, biocontrol, …)

� Perceived important contribution to sustainable agriculture

� Need for upscalingexperiences and practice

Mission of ELN-FAB

� Platform and facility for exchange of knowledge and practical experiences within EU member states, between farmers, policy makers, scientists, businesses and NGOs, in order to� enable fast and effective

implementation of best practices;� optimize agrobiodiversity benefits� promote sustainable agriculture

Tim Kasten: “Get our messages right, speak with the same voice (IPCC), take that message to others, using communication experts”

Not the whole story…

Vision of ELN-FAB

By 2030 the use of agrobiodiversity to

enhance ecosystem services is fully

integrated into European agricultural policies and practicesin a way that promotes sustainable agricultural

production






� Conclusions

OutlineGlobe

Concluding remarks

� There are tradeoffs and synergies between biodiversity-based ecosystem services (example: GHG balance) ―scientists have to inform politicians and practitioners, so they can make well-founded decisions

� Ecology increasingly provides the tools for biodiversity-based production of agricultural goods and ecosystem services

� A landscape perspective on soils, (climate) change and biodiversity, including stakeholder interactions, is necessary (and possible)

� Co-learning of scientists with practitioners is needed in applying “functional” (agro)biodiversity at the landscape scale

Gabriele Broll: “Soil is simple and decomposition is easy to understand!”

Acknowledgements:Ingrid Lubbers, Wageningen, NLJan-Willem van Groenigen, Wageningen, NLMembers of DIVERSITAS’ agroBIODIVERSITY networkMembers of the European Learning Network on Functional

AgroBiodiversity

making soil biodiversity work for ecosystem goods and...

Documents