DOCSLIB.ORG

A Valuation-Based Approach for Irrigated Agroecosystem Services

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Valuation-Based Approach for Irrigated Agroecosystem Services A Valuation-Based Approach for Irrigated Agroecosystem Services J.A. Zabala1, C. Marín-Miñano1, J. A. Albaladejo-García2, E. I. López- Becerra1, M. D. de Miguel1, J. M. Martínez-Paz2, F. Alcon1 1 Departamento de Economía de la Empresa, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena, España ([email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]) 2 Departamento de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Murcia, España ([email protected], [email protected]) Paper prepared for presentation at the 172nd EAAE Seminar ‘Agricultural policy for the environment or environmental policy for agriculture?‘ May 28-29, 2019. Brussels. Copyright 2019 by [J.A. Zabala, C. Marín-Miñano, J. A. Albaladejo-García, E. I. López-Becerra, M. D. de Miguel, J. M. Martínez-Paz, F. Alcon]. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. A Valuation-Based Approach for Irrigated Agroecosystem Services ABSTRACT Agroecosystems main function is food, fiber and fodder provision. However, other ecosystem services (ES) are provided by these systems, such as the reduction of soil loss or the enjoyment of the landscape. Many of these ES do not take part in the market, but their valuation is important to develop a sustainable management of the system. Valuing ES requires a clear classification of ES and some efforts on the study and clarification of the ES classification has been carried out. Nevertheless, the assessment of non-market benefits requires defining and classifying ES according to the type of ecosystem studied and prioritizing the ES impact on social well-being. Thus, this work aims to develop an adaptation of the existing ES classification for irrigated agroecosystem ES valuation, and verify it through an agricultural stakeholders’ consultation. Their contribution could permit to advance towards agricultural ES valuation. It would allow the implementation of management and policy actions which take into account the importance of agroecosystem ES provision and their impact on human well-being. Key words: Agriculture, Choice experiment, Non-market valuation, Stakeholders, Sustainability. 1. INTRODUCTION Agriculture produces more than food, fiber and fodder. Agricultural multifunctioality conceives agriculture also contributes to climate regulation and erosion control, provides biodiversity, and even generates an enjoyable landscape for leisure, recreation and environmental education (Huang et al., 2015). However, not all agricultural contributions to society are positive: groundwater pollution, rivalry for water resources or loss of wildlife habitat, are good examples of negative agricultural impacts (Zhang et al., 2007; Power, 2010). Therefore, agriculture is a multifunctional activity integrated within a socio-ecological system, specifically called agroecosystem. ES, defined as the contributions of an ecosystem to human well-being (TEEB, 2010), provide then a framework to identify and analyze all the agricultural outputs. Thus, ES approach translates all agricultural contributions into well-being, reflecting that agriculture may impact on society beyond food supply. Most international accepted ES classifications (MEA, 2005; TEEB, 2010; Haines-Young and Potschin (CICES), 2012) agree on categorizing them according three main groups: provisioning, regulating and cultural services. The first one comprises all material agricultural contributions to social well-being obtained directly from agroecosystems, which mainly encompass food, fiber and fodder production as positive contribution, and rivalry for water resources in the case of negative contribution. Regulating services are those obtained from geo-chemical processes within the agroecosystem, contributing from temperature regulation to erosion control. Finally, cultural services comprise non-material benefits obtained from agroecosystems, such as aesthetic appreciation of agricultural landscape, or opportunities for recreation and tourism. Despite its apparently simplicity, ES approach is complex to apply when it refers to agroecosystems (Jourdain and Vivithkeyoonvong, 2017). Agroecosystems produce a blend of positive and negative services, namely, agroecosystem services (AES) 1 and agroecosystem dis-services (AEDS), respectively, which not necessarily move in the same direction, generating trade-offs in their provision (Zhang et al., 2007; Power, 2010). For instance, increasing food provision, which frequently requires more intensive agricultural practices, may be related to groundwater pollution or soil degradation (Zhang et al., 2007). The management of agriculture has been traditionally based on economic decisions taken under the valuation of just a part of them: provisioning services, mainly due to their commodity characteristics. However, these services are only a part of the overall contribution of agriculture to society. Thus, the challenge here is to combine market and non-market valuation under a common framework which allows to translate the overall social contribution of agroecosystems into terms of social well- being. Effective and efficient management of agriculture requires merging both kind of valuation of AES and AEDS. Since Costanza et al. (1997) made a first attempt to value ES provided by ecosystems worldwide, there is an increasing interest in improving the ES knowledge and valuation. MEA (2005), TEEB (2010) and CICES (2012) focused their research in classified ES in a general way, available for all kind of ecosystems. However, more efforts are needed in the case of agroecosystems, especially when the purpose is to value their AES and AEDS provision. In this context, this work aims to propose a classification for AES and AEDS provided by irrigated agroecosystems and select the most relevant AES and AEDS for economic valuation through a stakeholder assessment. To reach this purpose, a literature review is firstly developed to know the state of the art of ES classification. Secondly, an ES and EDS classification focused on agroecosystem is proposed. And, finally, it is verified by means of an agricultural stakeholders’ consultation in order to find relevant ES and EDS for agroecosystem valuation. 2. STATE OF THE ART Costanza et al. (1997) represented the first attempt to measure the value of ES worldwide. Since then, big efforts have been made with the purpose of broadening the knowledge about ES concept, methods of quantifying and also valuating. Thus, a great diversity of ES approaches and classifications has been developed. MEA (2005), TEEB (2010) and CICES (2012) are the most internationally accepted classifications currently, showing more similarities than differences among them. MEA (2005) defined ES as the benefits people obtain from ecosystems and established four main categories: provisioning services, which comprise the products obtained from ecosystems; regulating services, defined as benefits obtained from the regulation of internal processes within the ecosystems; cultural services, as non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems; and, finally, supporting services, which are the base for the production of the rest of ES. MEA (2005) was set up with the purpose of raising awareness with the contribution of ecosystems to society, and thus, advising decision makers the importance of ecosystems conservation and avoiding their deterioration. Following Costanza et al. (1997) and MEA’s (2005) recommendations, TEEB (2010) developed its own classification, understanding ES as direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being. It also established four main categories of ES: provisioning, regulating, cultural and habitat services. TEEB’s ES classification differentiates MEA’s (2005) removing supporting services while including habitat services. The latter covers ecosystem’s importance to provide habitat for migratory and stationary species, and thus, it is necessary linked to biodiversity. At this point, TEEB (2010) considered MEA’s supporting services as 2 included within regulating ES. Moreover, TEEB (2010) focuses its approach on economic valuation, taking the welfare economics viewpoint. CICES (2012) defined ES similarly to TEEB (2010): contributions that ecosystems make to human well-being. At this sense, CICES (2012) classified ES within three sections: provisioning, regulating and maintenance, and cultural services. As we could notice, nor supporting neither habitat services are included within this classification, revealing that CICES’s (2012) classification only considers final services. However, their approach differs from TEEB’s (2010) in the sense that it is focused on ecosystem’s national accounting. Regarding the aim of proposing a valuation-based approach, TEEB (2010) represents the most adapted classification. Besides, TEEB (2010) is based on final services, avoiding double accounting bias (Fisher et al., 2009), which also enforces its selection as a proper classification for economic valuation. Table 1 summarizes the ES classification made by TEEB (2010), including main ES within each category and its associated economic value. Table 1. TEEB’s (2010) ES classification Economic ES definition ES category ES value Direct and Provisioning - Food Direct use and indirect - Water supply option value contributions - Raw materials of ecosystems - Genetic resources to human - Medicinal resources well-being - Ornamental resources Regulating - Air quality regulation Indirect use
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Significance of Riparian Agroecosystems with Special Reference to Influence on Wetland Livelihood
    [ VOLUME 6 I ISSUE 2 I APRIL– JUNE 2019] E ISSN 2348 –1269, PRINT ISSN 2349-5138 Environmental Significance of Riparian Agroecosystems with special reference to Influence on Wetland Livelihood Dr. Reshma J.K.1 & Dr. Allan Thomas2 1Asst. Professor and Head, PG Department of Environmental Sciences All Saints’ College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. 2Asst. Professor and Head, Department of Extension College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala. Received: February 12, 2019 Accepted: March 24, 2019 INTRODUCTION Riparian Agroecosystem (Agriculture + Ecosystem = Agroecosystem) is construed as a spatially and functionally coherent unit of agricultural activity along river banks, subsuming both biotic & abiotic components, their respective interaction as well. An agroecosystem appends the region that is stuffed in by agricultural activity, prodigally by changes to the complexity ofspecies assemblagesandenergy flows, as well as to the net nutrient balance. Traditionally an agroecosystem, particularly one managed intensively, is epitomized as having a simpler species composition and simpler energy and nutrient flows which makes it unique from other "natural" ecosystems. Moreover, agroecosystems are often confederated with elevated nutrient input, as in the case of forest gardens, probably the world's oldest and most resilient agroecosystemswhich is balanced byeutrophication of consociated ecosystems not directly engaged in agriculture. Substaintial components of Agroecosystem derive all its energy requirements from solar input along with atmospheric and human inputs that come from outside the system, which are referred to as “consumption and markets. Some of the unparagoned features of agroecosystems are monoculture, use of genetically modified organisms and artificially selected crops, row crops, increased soil aeration, simplification of biodiversity and maintenance at an early succession state.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Ecosystem Services of Agroecosystems Along the Wasatch Front, Utah
    Utah State University DigitalCommons@USU All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 8-2020 Cultural Ecosystem Services of Agroecosystems Along the Wasatch Front, Utah Tiffany K. Woods Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd Part of the Environmental Design Commons, and the Landscape Architecture Commons Recommended Citation Woods, Tiffany K., "Cultural Ecosystem Services of Agroecosystems Along the Wasatch Front, Utah" (2020). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 7904. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7904 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES OF AGROECOSYSTEMS ALONG THE WASATCH FRONT, UTAH by Tiffany K. Woods A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Bioregional Planning Approved: __________________________ __________________________ Brent Chamberlain, Ph.D. Arthur J. Caplan, Ph.D. Major Professor Committee Member __________________________ __________________________ Sarah C. Klain, Ph.D. Janis L. Boettinger, Ph.D. Committee Member Acting Vice Provost of Graduate Studies UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2020 ii Copyright Tiffany K. Woods 2020 All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Cultural ecosystem services of agroecosystems along the Wasatch Front, Utah by Tiffany K. Woods, Master of Science Utah State University, 2020 Major Professor: Brent Chamberlain, Ph.D. Department: Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning Agroecosystems, including peri-urban systems, are important providers of a range of services. However, management of these systems has generally been based on the market value of crops, neglecting to capture the broader public goods that ecosystem services provide to stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • Networking Agroecology: Integrating the Diversity of Agroecosystem Interactions
    Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only. Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use. This chapter was originally published in the book Advances In Ecological Research, Vol. 49 published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who know you, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator. All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier's permissions site at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial From David A. Bohan, Alan Raybould, Christian Mulder, Guy Woodward, Alireza Tamaddoni-Nezhad, Nico Bluthgen, Michael J.O. Pocock, Stephen Muggleton, Darren M. Evans, Julia Astegiano, François Massol, Nicolas Loeuille, Sandrine Petit, Sarina Macfadyen, Networking Agroecology: Integrating the Diversity of Agroecosystem Interactions. In Guy Woodward and David A. Bohan, editors: Advances In Ecological Research, Vol. 49, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Academic Press, 2013, pp. 1-67. ISBN: 978-0-12-420002-9 © Copyright 2013 Elsevier Ltd Elsevier Author's personal copy CHAPTER ONE Networking Agroecology:
    [Show full text]
  • Functional Agrobiodiversity and Agroecosystem Services in Sustainable Wheat Production
    Functional agrobiodiversity and agroecosystem services in sustainable wheat production. A review Ambrogio Costanzo, Paolo Bàrberi To cite this version: Ambrogio Costanzo, Paolo Bàrberi. Functional agrobiodiversity and agroecosystem services in sus- tainable wheat production. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, Springer Verlag/EDP Sciences/INRA, 2014, 34 (2), pp.327-348. 10.1007/s13593-013-0178-1. hal-01234799 HAL Id: hal-01234799 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01234799 Submitted on 27 Nov 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Agron. Sustain. Dev. (2014) 34:327–348 DOI 10.1007/s13593-013-0178-1 REVIEW ARTICLE Functional agrobiodiversity and agroecosystem services in sustainable wheat production. A review Ambrogio Costanzo & Paolo Bàrberi Accepted: 6 September 2013 /Published online: 27 September 2013 # INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2013 Abstract Agrobiodiversity can improve the sustainability of Contents cropping systems in a context of low external inputs and 1. Introduction unpredictable climate change. Agrobiodiversity strategies to 2. State-of-the-art strategies for using agrobiodiversity in grow wheat are breeding ad hoc cultivars for organic and low- sustainable wheat production input systems, wheat–legume intercrops and living mulches, 3.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationships Between Organic Farming and Agroecology
    The relationships between organic farming and agroecology Bellon, S.1, Lamine1, C., Ollivier, G.1 , de Abreu, L. S.2 Key words: Agroecology – Alternative agriculture – Organic food and farming – Comparative analysis - Interdisciplinarity Abstract While acknowledging an extension of agroecology in the organic sector and a growing influence of agroecology in the academic world, we explore their relationships. These relationships cannot be reduced to an opposition between a scientific field and a practical domain. A Brazilian case study based on the analysis of researchers and social actors trajectories exemplifies the diversity of existing relations, whether inclusive or exclusive. With a literature review, this allows characterising the specific attributes of both organic agriculture and agroecology. We discuss them in the light of current challenges for organic farming research and development. Introduction Both organic farming (OF) and agroecology (AE) claim they can contribute to many challenges faced by agriculture today. Among these are the interrelated challenges of providing food security and preserving the environment. Apart from common objectives, both OF and AE also refer to ecology and question the prevalent technological model designed during the XXth century. However, albeit AE can be considered as scientifically rooted and equipped for a holistic study of agroecosystems, at least three main interpretations of AE are possible: as a scientific field, as a social movement or as an agricultural practice (Wezel et al., 2009). Likewise, diversity also exists within organic farming, which cannot be summarised into a set of certified practices (Sylvander et al., 2006). Since there is a continuous confusion about both terms (Francis, 2009), we intend to contribute to clarify the relationships between OF and AE, while opening a debate and suggesting guidelines for research agendas.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Perspective of Agroecosystem in 21St Century
    Biomed J Sci & Tech Res DOI: 10.26717/BJSTR.2017.01.000137 Amit Kesarwani. Biomed J Sci & Tech Res ISSN: 2574-1241 Review Article Open Access A New Perspective of Agroecosystem in 21st Century Amit Kesarwani* and DS Pandey Department of Agronomy, India Received: June 08, 2017; Published: June 16, 2017 *Corresponding author: Amit Kesarwani, Department of Agronomy, College of Agriculture, Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand, India-263145; Tel: ; Email: Abstract Land is a living legend, including all eroded and forest land that all would contribute to agriculture. In a wider perspective, a long-term and loss prevention is the only option to meet our growing requirement. Integrated water resource management approach for irrigated croppingview will systemshave to beper taken unit toof manageagriculture our water soil, plant use holds and bio-resources. key to both food Sustainable and environmental intensification security. of agriculture For harnessing productivity effective enhancement ecosystem is the needs of hour. based production, enhanced water use efficiency, promoting balanced use of nutrients and water and soil biota test based technology adoption Keywords: Agro ecology; Water management; Precision farming; Nanotechnology; Sustainable agriculture Introduction term productivity considering the ecological agriculture for Ecology is the study which represents the relationship among sustainability. living things and their environment. It has been termed as such In some areas the challenge is to revert the systems that location. Ecosystems are naturally self-sustaining process with have already undergone modernization and where farmers biotic and a biotic factors interacting with other in a specific experience high environmental and economic costs due to chain and nutrient recycling.
    [Show full text]
  • Technological Approaches to Sustainable Agriculture at a Crossroads: an Agroecological Perspective
    sustainability Article Technological Approaches to Sustainable Agriculture at a Crossroads: An Agroecological Perspective Miguel A. Altieri 1,*, Clara I. Nicholls 2 and Rene Montalba 3 1 Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management (ESPM), University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 2 International and Area Studies, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA; [email protected] 3 Departamento de Ciencias Agronomicas y Recursos Naturales, Universidad de la Frontera, Francisco Salazar, 01145 Temuco, Chile; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Academic Editors: Manuel González de Molina and Gloria Guzman Received: 24 November 2016; Accepted: 23 February 2017; Published: 27 February 2017 Abstract: Most efforts to improve agricultural production remain focused on practices driven by an intensification agenda and not by an agroecological one. Agroecology transcends the reformist notion of organic agriculture and sustainable intensification proponents who contend that changes can be achieved within the dominant agroindustrial system with minor adjustments or “greening” of the current neoliberal agricultural model. In the technological realm, merely modifying practices to reduce input use is a step in the right direction but does not necessarily lead to the redesign of a more self sufficient and autonomous farming system. A true agroecological technological conversion calls into question monoculture and the dependency on external inputs. Traditional farming systems provide models that promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain year-round yields. Conversion of conventional agriculture also requires major social and political changes which are beyond the scope of this paper. Keywords: agroecology; organic agriculture; conversion; transition; Latin America; California 1. Introduction In Latin America, agroecology is not only a scientific–technological project, but a political one.
    [Show full text]
  • The Long Term Agroecosystem Research Network – Shared Research Strategy
    New Insights into Studies on Long-term Experimental Watersheds to Address Contemporary Emerging Issues (Part 1) THE LONG TERM AGROECOSYSTEM RESEARCH NETWORK – SHARED RESEARCH STRATEGY Jean L. Steiner, Timothy Strickland, Peter J.A. Kleinman, Kris Havstad, Thomas B. Moorman, M. Susan Moran, Phil Heilman, Ray B. Bryant, David Huggins, and Greg McCarty1 Abstract—While current weather patterns and rapidly accelerated changes in technology often focus attention on short-term trends in agriculture, the fundamental demands on modern agriculture to meet society food, feed, fuel and fiber production while providing the foundation for a healthy environment requires long-term perspective. The Long- Term Agroecoystem Research Network was established by USDA to ensure sustained crop and livestock production and ecosystem services from agriculture, as well as to forecast and verify the effects of environmental trends, public policies, and emerging technologies. The LTAR Network is comprised of 18 locations across the US, whose shared research strategy is to employ common measurements to advance four areas of foundational science: (1) agro-ecosystem productivity; (2) climate variability and change; (3) conservation and environmental quality; and (4) socio-economic viability and opportunities. Each Network location is engaged in a local adaptation of the “common experiment” which contrasts conventional production systems with innovative systems that optimize services. Protocols and services are being developed for collection, verification, organization, archives, access, and distribution of data associated with Network activities. INTRODUCTION Agriculture faces tremendous challenges in meeting multiple, diverse societal goals, including a safe and Challenges to agriculture have never been greater. The plentiful food supply, climate change adaptation/ American Society of Agronomy’s Grand Challenge for mitigation, supplying sources of bioenergy, improving the 21st Century (ASA 2011) is “to double global food, water/air/soil quality, and maintaining biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • Interactions in Agroecology Virtuous Cycles and Ecosystem Services That
    Virtuous Cycles and Ecosystem Services Interactions in AGROECOLOGY that Underpin Agricultural Production POLLINATION WATER MANAGEMENT Most flowering plants only produce seeds if animal pollinators move pollen from the anthers to The ways and means of capturing and holding water that might otherwise runoff from agricultural the stigmas of their flowers. Pollination as a factor in food production and security has been little lands is an integral part of agroecology. An agroecological approach calls for intensive management understood and appreciated, in part because it has been provided up until now as a “free service” by of water throughout the agroecosystem, through an integrated network of surface impoundments, nature. As pollination services have faced several threats, there is a great interest in understanding contour ditches, small-scale berms, and basins. Redundancy in water storage systems is emphasized, key interactions and helping nature provide these pollination services, through greater diversity on with the priority placed first on soil storage, then surface water impoundments, followed by tank farm and reduction or elimination of pesticide use. storage. Water catchment pools, used as reservoirs during dry spells can also be used for aquaculture and by water birds such as ducks. NATURAL PEST CONTROL Agroecological approaches to natural pest control strategies go beyond eliminating problem AQUACULTURE, PONDS AND WETLANDS ON-FARM pests, and rather seek to reinforce the interactions of pests and natural enemies in natural Wetlands have high levels of biological productivity and resource potentiality, and can provide ecosystems, maintaining a functional balance with low pest populations. This can be done multiple services in agroecosystems. They can be used for agriculture, animal-husbandry, and through understanding and reinforcing the full composite of inherent plant defences, plant fisheries.
    [Show full text]
  • Proforma of Faculty Profile
    PROFORMA OF FACULTY PROFILE Name: M. Aleminla. Ao Current designation: Professor e-mail : [email protected] Cont. Add. : Dept of Entomology, SASRD Medziphema-campus, N.U.797106 Contact No: 9436004739 Date of joining: 13th oct.1988 Education : PhD Academic experience : 30 yrs Research areas/field of specialization : Horticultural Entomology Teaching areas : Agricultural Entomology PUBLICATION :( recent to old) Waluniba and M. Alemla.Ao (2018) Effect of planting dates and varieties against the incidence of Asian cabbage white (Pieris canidia) on cabbage (Brassicae oleracea var capitata L.). Environment and Ecology, 36(1) : 166-168. Waluniba, M. Alemla.Ao, H.K Singh, Pankaj Neog and Imtinaro.L (2017). Effect of planting dates and varieties on the incidence of cabbage butterfly (Pieris brassicae ) in Nagaland. Indian Journal of Entomology, 79 (3): 278-283. Malar Bui, H.K. Singh, Waluniba and M.Alemla Ao (2017) Qualitative enhancement of cucumber with bee (Apis Cerana) pollination at Nagaland. Indian Journal of Entomology, 79 (2):160-162. Waluniba, M.Alemla Ao, H.K. Singh, Pankaj Neog and Damitre Lytan (2016) Biodiversity of insect pests and its natural enemies in cabbage ecosystems of Nagaland, North-East India. Environment & Ecology 34(4):1346-1350. Waluniba and M.Alemla Ao (2015) Biodiversity of insect pests associated with cabbage in Nagaland. Indian Journal of Entomology, 77(1) 84-84. I.T. Asangla Jamir, M. Alemla Ao and J.N. Khound (2015). Potency of some plant products against Angoumois Grain Moth Sitotroga cerealella (Oliver) in Stored Paddy. Nagaland University Research Communication. pp-66-71 Waluniba, M.Alemla Ao and Tinatoly Sema (2014) Insect pest complex of tomato in Nagaland.
    [Show full text]
  • Managing Agroecosystem Services
    9 Managing Agroecosystem Services Devra I. Jarvis,1* Elizabeth Khaka,2† Petina L. Pert,3 Lamourdia Thiombiano4 and Eline Boelee5 1Bioversity International, Rome, Italy; 2United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Nairobi, Kenya; 3Commonwealth Scientifi c and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Cairns, Queensland, Australia; 4Central Africa Bureau, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Libreville, Gabon; 5 Water Health, Hollandsche Rading, the Netherlands Abstract Agriculture and ecosystem services are interrelated in various ways. Payments for ecological services (PES) and innovative methods of agricultural management, including ecological agriculture, conservation agriculture and the management of biological diversity are options for enhancing ecosystem services in agroecosystems while sustaining or increasing productivity. Successful actions will depend on strong supporting policies and legal frameworks, as well as on developing the knowledge and leadership capacity in farming communities to evaluate the potential benefi ts. The maintenance of ecosystem services and the long-term productivity and stability of agriculture ecosystems requires a paradigm shift in agriculture that moves away from single solutions to production problems towards a portfolio approach that supports multiple ways to better use soil, water and biotic resources to enhance ecosystem services. Background water, soil and biotic features of the environment that surround the agricultural Agricultural production involves a wide range production
    [Show full text]
  • California Agroecosystem Services: Assessment, Valuation and Policy Perspective
    California Agroecosystem Services: Assessment, Valuation and Policy Perspective Papers from the September, 2007, Davis, California workshop and policy round table sponsored by: California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crop, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo University of California Agricultural Issues Center Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of California, Davis California Department of Food and Agriculture California Resources Agency A Framework for Assessment of California Agroecosystems: Pitfalls and Possibilities Tom Tomich, Kelly Garbach, Alida Canter, Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of Californa, Davis Modeling Agroecosystem Services for Policy Analysis John Antle, Department of Agricultural Economics and Economics, Montana State University Evaluating Regulation and Conservation Policy for California’s Agri-environmental Externalities Nicolai V. Kuminoff, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Tech. Using Biophysical Information in Policies for Agroecosystem Services in California Louise Jackson, Department of Air, Water, and Land Resources, University of Californa, Davis Agricultural Issues Center University of California 1 Shields Avenue ■ California Agroecosystem Services Brief No. 3 1 Davis, CA 95616-8514 aic.ucdavis.edu A framework for assessment of California agroecosystems: Pitfalls and possibilities* Thomas P. Tomich, Kelly Garbach, Alida Cantor** I. Introduction Concern with “sustainability” has exploded over the last decade (see Figure
    [Show full text]