Advertisement

Agroforestry Systems

, Volume 76, Issue 1, pp 195–206 | Cite as

Factors affecting adoption of hedgerows and other biodiversity-enhancing features on farms in California, USA

  • Sonja BrodtEmail author
  • Karen Klonsky
  • Louise Jackson
  • Stephen B. Brush
  • Sean Smukler
Article

Abstract

Although hedgerows, windbreaks, and other biodiversity-enhancing farm edge features offer the potential for ecosystem benefits without occupying much crop space, relatively few farms in California, USA include such features. Our study identified the practices currently used to manage non-cropped edges of fields, ponds, and watercourses in a case study area in California. We also identified social, economic, and agronomic incentives and constraints to installing biodiversity-enhancing edge features. More than one-third of the study farmers had installed native hedgerows, windbreaks, and/or grassed edges. Interviews demonstrated the importance of socially influential farmers working in tandem with public and private agencies to build initial interest in these practices. However, these features occupied less than four percent of all possible edge length. Constraints to increasing adoption included high costs, fear of harbouring weeds and rodents, and lack of certainty about ecosystems benefits, highlighting the need for cost-share programs and more regionally-focused agroecological research.

Keywords

Adoption Innovation diffusion Hedgerows Farm ponds On-farm conservation Cost-share 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Our sincere appreciation and thanks go to Paul Robins, Wendy Rash, Chris Rose, Vance Russell, Rachael Long, Marcia Gibbs, Mark Cady, and all the farmers who took time out of their busy growing season to talk with us.

References

  1. Becker H (1992) Hedging against erosion (planted stiff grasses prevent soil erosion). Agric Res 40(12):8–10Google Scholar
  2. Denys C, Tscharntke T (2001) Plant-insect communities and predator-prey ratios in field margin strips, adjacent crop fields, and fallows. Oecologia 130(2):315–324Google Scholar
  3. Ehler LE, Pease CG, Long RF (2002) Farmscape ecology of a native stink bug in the Sacramento Valley. Fremontia 30(3–4):59–61Google Scholar
  4. Hill AR (1996) Nitrate removal in stream riparian zones. J Environ Qual 25:743–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Kremen C, Bugg RL, Nicola N, Smith SA, Thorp RW, Williams NM (2002) Native bees, native plants, and crop pollination in California. Fremontia 30(3–4):41–49Google Scholar
  6. Lambert D, Sullivan P, Claassen R, Foreman L (2006) Conservation-compatible practices and programs: who participates? Economic Research Report No. 14, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err14/err14.pdf. Last accessed 14 July 2008
  7. Long R, Pease C (2005) Farmscaping with native perennial grasses. Grassl Spring 15:6–7Google Scholar
  8. Long RF, Corbett A, Lamb C, Reberg-Horton C, Chandler J, Stimmann M (1998) Movement of beneficial insects from flowering plants to associated crops. Calif Agric 52(5):23–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Marquez CO, Cambardella CA, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC (1999) Assessing soil quality in a riparian buffer by testing organic matter fractions in central Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 44:133–140. doi: 10.1023/A:1006261519080 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Marshall EJP, Moonen AC (2002) Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:5–21. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00315-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Nowak PJ (1987) The adoption of agricultural conservation technologies: economic and diffusion explanations. Rural Soc 52(2):208–220Google Scholar
  12. Ouin A, Burel F (2002) Influence of herbaceous elements on butterfly diversity in hedgerow agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 93(1–3):45–53. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(02)00004-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Pickett CH, Bugg RL (eds) (1998) Enhancing biological control: habitat management to promote natural enemies of agricultural pests. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  14. Risgaard ML, Frederiksen P, Kaltoft P (2007) Socio-cultural processes behind the differential distribution of organic farming in Denmark: a case study. Agric Human Values 24:445–459. doi: 10.1007/s10460-007-9092-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Robins P, Holmes RB, Laddish K (eds) (2001) Bring farm edges back to life! Landowner conservation handbook. Yolo County Resource Conservation District, WoodlandGoogle Scholar
  16. Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Rowe EC, van Noordwijk M, Suprayogo D, Cadisch G (2005) Nitrogen use efficiency of monoculture and hedgerow intercropping in the humid tropics. Plant Soil 268:61–74. doi: 10.1007/s11104-004-0227-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Soule M, Tegene A, Wiebe K (1999) Conservation on rented farmland: a focus on U.S. corn production. Agric Outlook (USDA Economic Research Service) January–February. USDA, Washington, DC, pp 15–17Google Scholar
  19. Stonehouse DP (1996) A targeted policy approach to inducing improved rates of conservation compliance in agriculture. Can J Agric Econ 44:105–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7976.1996.tb00187.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tufekcioglu A, Raich JW, Isenhart TM, Schultz RC (1999) Fine root dynamics, coarse root biomass, root distribution, and soil respiration in multispecies riparian buffer in Central Iowa, USA. Agrofor Syst 44:163–174. doi: 10.1023/A:1006221921806 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. US Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2002) Census of Agriculture. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/index.asp. Last accessed 3 Jan 2007

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonja Brodt
    • 1
    Email author
  • Karen Klonsky
    • 1
  • Louise Jackson
    • 2
  • Stephen B. Brush
    • 3
  • Sean Smukler
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Land, Air, and Water ResourcesUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  3. 3.Department of Human and Community DevelopmentUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA
  4. 4.Graduate Group in EcologyUniversity of California, DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations