Tuck Sean L, Winqvist Camilla, Mota Flávia, Ahnström Johan, Turnbull Lindsay A, Bengtsson Janne
Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford Oxford, OX1 3RB, UK.
Section for Landscape and Soil Ecology, Department of Ecology, SLU Box 7044, Uppsala, S-750 07, Sweden.
J Appl Ecol. 2014 Jun;51(3):746-755. doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12219. Epub 2014 Feb 7.
The benefits of organic farming to biodiversity in agricultural landscapes continue to be hotly debated, emphasizing the importance of precisely quantifying the effect of organic vs. conventional farming. We conducted an updated hierarchical meta-analysis of studies that compared biodiversity under organic and conventional farming methods, measured as species richness. We calculated effect sizes for 184 observations garnered from 94 studies, and for each study, we obtained three standardized measures reflecting land-use intensity. We investigated the stability of effect sizes through time, publication bias due to the 'file drawer' problem, and consider whether the current literature is representative of global organic farming patterns. On average, organic farming increased species richness by about 30%. This result has been robust over the last 30 years of published studies and shows no sign of diminishing. Organic farming had a greater effect on biodiversity as the percentage of the landscape consisting of arable fields increased, that is, it is higher in intensively farmed regions. The average effect size and the response to agricultural intensification depend on taxonomic group, functional group and crop type. There is some evidence for publication bias in the literature; however, our results are robust to its impact. Current studies are heavily biased towards northern and western Europe and North America, while other regions with large areas of organic farming remain poorly investigated. . Our analysis affirms that organic farming has large positive effects on biodiversity compared with conventional farming, but that the effect size varies with the organism group and crop studied, and is greater in landscapes with higher land-use intensity. Decisions about where to site organic farms to maximize biodiversity will, however, depend on the costs as well as the potential benefits. Current studies have been heavily biased towards agricultural systems in the developed world. We recommend that future studies pay greater attention to other regions, in particular, areas with tropical, subtropical and Mediterranean climates, in which very few studies have been conducted.
有机农业对农业景观生物多样性的益处仍在激烈争论中,这凸显了精确量化有机农业与传统农业影响的重要性。我们对比较有机和传统耕作方法下生物多样性(以物种丰富度衡量)的研究进行了更新的分层荟萃分析。我们计算了从94项研究中获得的184个观测值的效应大小,并且对于每项研究,我们获得了反映土地利用强度的三个标准化指标。我们研究了效应大小随时间的稳定性、由于“文件抽屉”问题导致的发表偏倚,并考虑当前文献是否代表全球有机农业模式。平均而言,有机农业使物种丰富度增加了约30%。在过去30年发表的研究中,这一结果一直很稳健,且没有减弱的迹象。随着耕地在景观中所占百分比的增加,有机农业对生物多样性的影响更大,也就是说,在集约化耕作地区影响更高。平均效应大小以及对农业集约化的响应取决于分类群、功能群和作物类型。文献中存在一些发表偏倚的证据;然而,我们的结果对其影响具有稳健性。当前的研究严重偏向于北欧、西欧和北美,而其他大面积有机农业地区的研究仍然很少。我们的分析证实,与传统农业相比,有机农业对生物多样性有很大的积极影响,但效应大小因所研究的生物群体和作物而异,并且在土地利用强度较高的景观中更大。然而,关于在何处选址有机农场以最大限度提高生物多样性的决策将取决于成本以及潜在收益。当前的研究严重偏向于发达国家的农业系统。我们建议未来的研究更多地关注其他地区,特别是热带、亚热带和地中海气候地区,目前针对这些地区的研究非常少。