Cadel Maëlys, Cousin Isabelle, Therond Olivier
ANDRA, Centre de Meuse/Haute-Marne, OPE, F-55290 Bure, France; INRAE, UR 1508 INFO&SOLS, F-45075 Orléans, France.
INRAE, UR 1508 INFO&SOLS, F-45075 Orléans, France.
Sci Total Environ. 2023 Dec 1;902:165930. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165930. Epub 2023 Jul 31.
Agricultural soils provide multiple ecosystem services (ES) that can replace chemical inputs to support agricultural production. However, most arable cropping systems are managed with little concern for preserving ecological functions, which could reduce their ability to provide these ES. An increasing number of studies assess ES from agroecosystems, but analysis of multiple ES distinguishing relationships that may exist between them and between these ES and their drivers is lacking. Thus, we performed a systematic literature review of soil-based ES relationships, with a focus on temperate annual field crops. Forty relevant studies out of 870 were selected for the analysis. We created an original ontology of soil-based ES, based on the indicators used to assess them, to which we added soil-based negative impacts and biomass production (defined as a good) to combine the ES approach and the impact approach. We summarized each positive (synergy), negative (trade-off) or non-significant relationship in these studies, which were either quantitative or qualitative. We highlighted key relationships that have never been investigated in the corpus selected, such as relationships between C sequestration and physical soil quality regulation, soil erosion regulation or soil biodiversity. Relationships between biomass production and soil-based ES or impacts were investigated the most and were mainly non-significant. This suggests there are agroecological practices for which maximizing bundles of ES does not always decrease agricultural production. Relationships between soil biodiversity and soil-based ES were exclusively synergistic or non-significant. Summarizing effects of drivers of these relationships revealed that the three pillars of conservation agriculture - rotation diversification (with ley or legumes), soil coverage with cover crops and reduced tillage - and organic fertilization seem promising practices to help provide balanced bundles of ES and potentially reduce negative agronomic impacts. We highlighted potential trade-offs that should be consciously considered when adapting management strategies.
农业土壤提供多种生态系统服务（ES），这些服务可以替代化学投入以支持农业生产。然而，大多数可耕地种植系统在管理时很少考虑保护生态功能，这可能会降低它们提供这些生态系统服务的能力。越来越多的研究评估农业生态系统的生态系统服务，但缺乏对多种生态系统服务之间、这些生态系统服务与其驱动因素之间可能存在的区别关系的分析。因此，我们对基于土壤的生态系统服务关系进行了系统的文献综述，重点关注温带一年生大田作物。从870项研究中选出40项相关研究进行分析。我们基于用于评估基于土壤的生态系统服务的指标创建了一个原创的本体，在其中添加了基于土壤的负面影响和生物量生产（定义为一种益处），以将生态系统服务方法和影响方法结合起来。我们总结了这些研究中每一种积极（协同）、消极（权衡）或不显著的关系，这些关系既有定量的也有定性的。我们强调了在所选文献中从未被研究过的关键关系，例如碳固存与土壤物理质量调节、土壤侵蚀调节或土壤生物多样性之间的关系。生物量生产与基于土壤的生态系统服务或影响之间的关系研究得最多，且主要不显著。这表明存在一些农业生态实践方法，对于这些方法而言，最大化生态系统服务组合并不总是会降低农业产量。土壤生物多样性与基于土壤的生态系统服务之间的关系完全是协同的或不显著的。总结这些关系的驱动因素的影响表明，保护性农业的三大支柱——轮作多样化（包括种植休闲作物或豆科植物）、用覆盖作物覆盖土壤以及减少耕作——以及有机施肥似乎是有助于提供平衡的生态系统服务组合并可能减少负面农艺影响的有前景的实践方法。我们强调了在调整管理策略时应自觉考虑的潜在权衡。
