Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Ecosystem Services Provided by Agroecosystems: A Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of this Relationship in the Pampa Region, Argentina

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The development of an analytical framework relating agricultural conditions and ecosystem services (ES) provision could be very useful for developing land-use systems which sustain natural resources for future use. According to this, a conceptual network was developed, based on literature review and expert knowledge, about the functional relationships between agricultural management and ES provision in the Pampa region (Argentina). We selected eight ES to develop this conceptual network: (1) carbon (C) balance, (2) nitrogen (N) balance, (3) groundwater contamination control, (4) soil water balance, (5) soil structural maintenance, (6) N2O emission control, (7) regulation of biotic adversities, and (8) biodiversity maintenance. This conceptual network revealed a high degree of interdependence among ES provided by Pampean agroecosystems, finding two trade-offs, and two synergies among them. Then, we analyzed the conceptual network structure, and found that both environmental and management variables influenced ES provision. Finally, we selected four ES to parameterize and quantify along 10 growing seasons (2000/2001–2009/2010) through a probabilistic methodology called Bayesian Networks. Only N balance was negatively impacted by agricultural management; while C balance, groundwater contamination control, and N2O emission control were not. Outcomes of our work emphasize the idea that qualitative and quantitative methodologies should be implemented together to assess ES provision in Pampean agroecosystems, as well as in other agricultural systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Álvarez R, Grigera S (2005) Analysis of soil fertility and management effects on yields of wheat and corn in the Rolling Pampa of Argentina. J Agron Crop Sci 191:321–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin AT, Piñeiro G, Gonzalez-Polo M (2006) More is less: agricultural impacts on the N cycle in Argentina. Biogeochemistry 79:45–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barral MP, Maceira NO (2012) Land-use planning based on ecosystem service assessment: a case study in the Southeast Pampas of Argentina. Agric Ecosyst Environ 154:34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrios E (2007) Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecol Econ 64:269–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björklund J, Limburg KE, Rydberg T (1999) Impact of production intensity on the ability of the agricultural landscape to generate ecosystem services: an example from Sweden. Ecol Econ 29:269–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich P (1987) Power and centraliy: a family of measures. Am J Sociol 92:1170–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Carboni I (2007) Measuring individual knowledge in organizations. Organ Res Methods 10:449–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, Analytic Technologies

  • Bressan GM, Oliveira VA, Hruschka ER Jr, Nicoletti MC (2009) Using Bayesian networks with rule extraction to infer the risk of weed infestation in a corn-crop. Eng Appl Artif Intell 22:579–592

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caride C, Piñeiro G, Paruelo JM (2012) How does agricultural management modify ecosystem services in the argentine Pampas? The effects on soil C dynamics. Agric Ecosyst Environ 154:23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Folke C (2006) Ecology for transformation. Trends Ecol Evol 21:309–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter SR, Mooney HA, Agard J, Capistrano D, Defries RS, Diaz S, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Oteng-Yeboah A, Pereira HM, Perrings C, Reid WV, Sarukhan J, Scholes RJ, Whyte A (2009) Science for managing ecosystem services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:1305–1312

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin SF, Matson P, Mooney HA (2002) Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen SH, Pollino CA (2012) Good practice in Bayesian network modelling. Environ Model Softw 37:134–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chisholm RA (2010) Trade-offs between ecosystem services: water and carbon in a biodiversity hotspot. Ecol Econ 69:1973–1987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clemen RT, Winkler RL (1999) Combining probability distributions from experts in risk analysis. Risk Anal 19:187–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Cook KS, Emerson RM, Gilmore MR, Yamagishi T (1983) The distribution of power in exchange networks: theory and experimental results. Am J Sociol 89:275–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke NJ (1994) Varieties of knowledge elicitation techniques. Int J Hum Comput Stud 41:801–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cork SJ, Shelton D, Binning C, Parry R (2001) A framework for applying the concept of ecosystem services to natural resource management in Australia. In: Rutherford I, Sheldon F, Brierley G, Kenyon C (ed), Third Australian Stream Management Conference. August 27-29, 2001. Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology. Brisbane, pp.157-162

  • Cornelissen AMG, van den Berg J, Koops WJ, Kaymak U (2003) Elicitation of expert knowledge for fuzzy evaluation of agricultural production systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 95:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cruzate G, Gorgas J, Bustos V, Panigatti JL (2008) Suelos y ambientes de Córdoba. Ediciones INTA, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • Cumming G, Peterson G (2005) Ecology in global scenarios in ecosystems and human well-being: scenarios, vol 2. In: Carpenter SR, Pingali PL, Bennett EM, Zurek MB (eds) Findings of the scenarios working group of the millenium ecosystem assessment. Island Press, Washington, pp 45–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale VH, Polasky S (2007) Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 64:286–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the DELPHI method to the use of experts. Manage Sci 9:458–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dibie-Barthélemy J, Haemmerlé O, Salvat E (2006) A semantic validation of conceptual graphs. Knowl-Based Syst 19:498–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dimuro Peter G (2008) Los ecosistemas como laboratorios. La búsqueda de modos de vivir para una operatividad de la sostenibilidad. Tesis para obtener el título de de Máster Oficial en Ciudad y Arquitectura Sostenibles. Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura. Universidad de Sevilla

  • Dlamini WM (2010) A Bayesian belief network analysis of factors influencing wildfire occurrence in Swaziland. Environ Model Softw 25:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorner S, Shi J, Swayne D (2007) Multi-objective modelling and decision support using a Bayesian network approximation to a non-point source pollution model. Environ Model Softw 22:211–222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM, Le Maitre DC, van Jaarsveld AS (2008) Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:135–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enfors EI, Gordon LJ, Peterson GD, Bossio D (2008) Making investments in dryland development work: participatory scenario planning in the Makanya Catchment, Tanzania. Ecology and Society 13:42. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art42/

  • Fernández E (2004) Análisis de Clasificadores Bayesianos. Trabajo Final de Especialidad en Ingeniería de Sistemas Expertos. Escuela de Postgrado. Instituto Tecnológico de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferraro DO (2009) Fuzzy knowledge-based model for soil condition assessment in Argentinean cropping systems. Environ Model Softw 24:359–370

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman LC (1978) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1:215–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentile JH, Harwell MA, Cropper W, Harwell CC, DeAngelis D, Davis S, Ogden JC, Lirman D (2001) Ecological conceptual models: a framework and case study on ecosystem management for South Florida sustainability. Sci Total Environ 274:231–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Sal A, Belmontes JA, Nicolau JM (2003) Assessing landscape values: a proposal for a multidimensional conceptual model. Ecol Model 168:319–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall AJ, Rebella CM, Ghersa CM, Culot JR (1992) Field-crop systems of the Pampas. In: Pearsons CJ (ed) Ecosystems of the world series. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 413–450

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanneman RA, Riddle M (2005) Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, C.A. University of California, Riverside

  • Heal G, Daily GC, Ehrlich PR, Salzman J, Boggs C, Hellman J, Hughes J, Kremen C, Ricketts T (2001) Protecting natural capital through ecosystem service districts. Stanf Environ Law J 20:333–364

    Google Scholar 

  • James A, Low Choy S, Mengersen K (2010) Elicitator: an expert elicitation tool for regression in ecology. Environ Model Softw 25:129–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen FH, Nielsen TD (2007) Bayesian Networks and decision graphs. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kristensen K, Rasmussen IA (2002) The use of a Bayesian Network in the design of a decision support system for growing malting barley without use of pesticides. Comput Electron Agric 33:197–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laterra P, Castellarini F, Orúe ME (2011) ECOSER: Un protocolo para la evaluación biofísica de servicios ecosistémicos y la integración con su valor social. In: Laterra P, Jobbágy E, Paruelo J (eds) Valoración de Servicios Ecosistémicos: conceptos, herramientas y aplicaciones para el ordenamiento territorial. Ediciones INTA, Buenos Aires, pp 359–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavado RS, Taboada MA (2009) The Argentinean Pampas: a key region with a negative nutrient balance and soil degradation needs better nutrient management and conservation programs to sustain its future viability as a world agroresource. J Soil Water Conserv 64:150–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Léger B, Naud O (2009) Experimenting statecharts for multiple experts knowledge elicitation in agriculture. Expert Syst Appl 36:11296–11303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López Puga J, García García J, de la Fuente Sánchez L, de la Fuente Solana EI (2007) Las redes bayesianas como herramientas de modelado en psicología. Anales de psicología 23:307–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Low Choy S, O`Leary R, Mengersen K (2009) Elicitation by design in ecology: using expert opinion to inform priors for Bayesian statistical models. Ecology 90:265–277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malekmohammadi B, Kerachian R, Zahraie B (2009) Developing monthly operating rules for a cascade system of reservoirs: application of Bayesian Networks. Environ Model Softw 24:1420–1432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manuel-Navarrete D, Gallopín G, Blanco M, Díaz-Zorita M, Ferraro DO, Herzer H, Laterra P, Murmis M, Podestá G, Rabinovich J, Satorre E, Torres F, Viglizzo E (2009) Multi-causal and integrated assessment of sustainability: the case of agriculturization in the Argentine Pampas. Environ Dev Sustain 11:612–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcot BG, Steventon JD, Sutherland GD, McCann RK (2006) Guidelines for developing and updating Bayesian belief networks applied to ecological modelling and conservation. Can J For Res 36:3063–3074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCann RK, Marcot BG, Ellis R (2006) Bayesian belief networks: applications in ecology and natural resource management. Can J For Res 36:3053–3062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey JT, Lilieholm RJ, Cronan C (2011) Using Bayesian belief networks to identify potential compatibilities and conflicts between development and landscape conservation. Landsc Urban Plan 101:190–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metzger MJ, Rounsevell MDA, Acosta-Michlik L, Leemans R, Schroter D (2006) The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:69–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millenium ecosystem assessment (MEA) (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson E, Mace GM, Armsworth PR, Atkinson G, Buckle S, Clements T, Ewers RM, Fa JE, Gardner TA, Gibbons J (2009) Priority research areas for ecosystem services in a changing world. J Appl Ecol 46:1139–1144

    Google Scholar 

  • Norsys Software Corp (2009) Netica. www.norsys.com

  • Paetzold A, Warren PH, Maltby LL (2010) A framework for assessing ecological quality based on ecosystem services. Ecol Complex 7:273–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira HM, Reyers B, Watanabe M, Bohensky E, Foale S, Palm C, Espaldon MV, Armenteras D, Tapia M, Rincón A, Lee MJ, Patwardhan A, Gomes I (2005) Condition and trends of ecosystem services and biodiversity in ecosystems and human well-being: multi scale assessments, vol 4. In: Capistrano D, Samper C, Lee MJ, Raudsepp-Hearne C (eds) Findings of the Sub-global Assessments Working Group of the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA, pp 171–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Pérez Andrés C (2000) ¿Deben estar las técnicas de consenso incluidas entre las técnicas de investigación cualitativa? Revista Española de Salud Pública 74:319–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pocock MJO, Johnson OT, Wasiuk DK (2011) Succinctly assessing the topological importance of species in flower-pollinator networks. Ecol Complex 8:265–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pollino CA, Woodberry O, Nicholson A, Korb K, Hart BT (2007) Parameterisation and evaluation of a Bayesian network for use in an ecological risk assessment. Environ Model Softw 22:1140–1152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc 365:2959–2971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundle for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci 11:5242–5247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiter MA, Saintil M, Yang Z, Pokrajac D (2009) Derivation of a GIS-based watershed-scale conceptual model for the St. Jones River Delaware from habitat-scale conceptual models. J Environ Manage 90:3253–3265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rimski-Korsakov H, Rubio G, Lavado RS (2004) Potential nitrate losses under different agricultural practices in the pampas region, Argentina. Agric Water Manag 65:83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson GP, Swinton SM (2005) Reconciling agricultural productivity and environmental integrity: a grand challenge for agriculture. Front Ecol Environ 3:38–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez JP, Beard TD, Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Cork SJ, Agard J, Obson AP, Peterson GD (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 11(1):28. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art28

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandhu HS, Wratten SD, Cullen R (2007) From poachers to gamekeepers: perceptions of farmers towards ecosystem services on arable farmland. Int J Agric Sustain 5:39–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Satorre EH (2005) Cambios tecnológicos en la agricultura argentina actual. Ciencia Hoy 15(87):24–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiferaw B, Freeman HA, Navrud S (2005) Valuation methods and approaches for assessing natural resource management impacts. In: Freeman HA, Navrud S, Shiferaw B (eds) Natural resource management in agriculture: methods for assessing economic and environmental impacts. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 19–51

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Soriano A, León RJC, Sala OE, Lavado RS, Deregibus VA, Cahuepé MA, Scaglia OA, Velázquez CA, Lemcoff JH (1991) Temperate subhumid grasslands of South America in natural grasslands. In: Coupland RT (ed) Ecosystems of the world, vol 8. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 367–407

    Google Scholar 

  • Stallman HR (2011) Ecosystem services in agriculture: determining suitability for provision by collective management. Ecol Econ 71:131–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP, Hamilton SK (2007) Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol Econ 64:245–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson J, Millstone E, Scoones I, Ely A, Marshall F, Shah E, Stagl S (2007) Agri-food system dynamics: pathways to sustainability in an era of uncertainty. STEPS Working Paper 4. STEPS Centre, Brighton

  • Tufts Academic Technology (2008) Visual Understanding Environment (VUE) version 2.2.8. Tufts University, Medford

    Google Scholar 

  • Uusitalo L (2007) Advantages and challenges of Bayesian networks in environmental modelling. Ecol Model 203:312–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Gaag L, Helsper E (2002) Experiences with modelling issues in building probabilistic networks. Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management: Ontologies and the Semantic Web 111-122

  • Viglizzo EF, Frank FC (2006) Land-use options for Del Plata Basin in South America: tradeoffs analysis based on ecosystem service provision. Ecol Econ 57:140–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viglizzo EF, Pordomingo AJ, Castro MG, Lertora FA (2003) Environmental assessment of agriculture at a regional scale in the Pampas of Argentina. Environ Monit Assess 87:169–195

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Viglizzo EF, Frank F, Bernardos J, Buschiazzo DE, Cabo S (2006) A rapid method for assessing the environmental performance of commercial farms in the Pampas of Argentina. Environ Monit Assess 117:109–134

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Viglizzo EF, Paruelo JM, Laterra P, Jobbágy EG (2012) Ecosystem service evaluation to support land-use policy. Agric Ecosyst Environ 154:78–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vignola R, Koellner T, Scholz RW, McDaniels TL (2010) Decision-making by farmers regarding ecosystem services: factors affecting soil conservation efforts in Costa Rica. Land Use Policy 27:1132–1142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler RL, Clemen RT (2004) Multiple experts vs. multiple methods: combining correlation assessments. Decis Anal 1:167–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton SM (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 64:253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (CRN 2031), the National Council for Scientific Research (CONICET—PIP 132), and University of Buenos Aires (UBACYT 20020090200121). F. Rositano was supported by a doctoral fellowship from CONICET. We thank the expert panel who took part in the study; and G. Piñeiro, F.E. Bert, and B.P. Graff for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript; and M. López for her technical support. We also thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IFEVA, Cátedra de Cerealicultura, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, CONICET, Av. San Martín 4453, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Florencia Rositano & Diego Omar Ferraro

Authors
  1. Florencia Rositano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diego Omar Ferraro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Florencia Rositano.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rositano, F., Ferraro, D.O. Ecosystem Services Provided by Agroecosystems: A Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of this Relationship in the Pampa Region, Argentina. Environmental Management 53, 606–619 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0211-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-013-0211-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation