Home  ›  What are the benefits to society and the costs to the lithosphere of agriculture?

What are the benefits to society and the costs to the lithosphere of agriculture?

Written By Saturday, April 9, 2022 Add Comment Edit

Open admission peer-reviewed chapter

Agronomics and Its Impact on Land‐Use, Environment, and Ecosystem Services

Submitted: January 21st, 2016 Reviewed: April 15th, 2016 Published: July 27th, 2016

DOI: 10.5772/63719

IntechOpen

IntechOpen Downloads

8,343

Total Chapter Downloads on intechopen.com

Altmetric score

Altmetric score

Overall attending for this capacity

Abstract

Human expansion throughout the world caused that agriculture is a dominant course of land management globally. Human influence on the state is accelerating because of rapid population growth and increasing food requirements. To stress the interactions between society and the surroundings, the driving forces (D), pressures (P), states (S), impacts (I), and response (R) (DPSIR) framework approach was used for analyzing and assessing the influence of agriculture on country use, surround, and ecosystem services. The DPSIR model was used to identify a series of core indicators and to establish the nature of interactions betwixt different driving forces, pressures, states, impacts, and responses. Nosotros assessed selected indicators at global, national, and local levels. Driving force indicators describe growing population tendency and linking country‐employ patterns. The driving forces exert pressure on the environment assessed past indicators describing development in fertilizer and pesticides consumption, by number of livestock, and by intensification joined growing release of ammonia and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from agronomics, and h2o abstraction. The pressure level reflects in the state of environment, mainly expressed by soil and water quality indicators. Negative changes in the state then have negative impacts on mural, eastward.g., traditional landscape disappearance, biodiversity, climate, and ecosystem services. As a response, technological, economic, policy, or legislation measures are adopted.

Keywords

  • Agriculture
  • state use
  • environment
  • ecosystem service
  • DPSIR model

1. Introduction

Country embrace and land‐use patterns on Globe reflect the interaction of human activities and the natural environment [one]. Human population growth together with competitive land use causes land scarcity, conversion of wild lands to agronomics and other uses. As we can see, the anthropogenic factor has an of import bear upon on land utilise and land cover changes. Given this human being influence, particularly during the past 100 years, the recent catamenia has been chosen the Anthropocene Age [2]. Human influence on the land and other natural resource is accelerating considering of rapid population growth and increasing food requirements. The increasing agronomical intensity generates pressure non just on land resources but besides across the whole environment. These factors make agriculture a tiptop‐priority sector for both economic and environmental policy.

Comprehensive cess of the agronomics is a challenging chore. In that location are different possibilities and methods for such cess. To stress the interactions between society and the environment, the DPSIR framework approach is used for analyzing and assessing the influence of agriculture on country employ and environment with emphasis on Slovakia.

Advertisement

two. Methodology

Effigy 1.

DPSIR model for agriculture and environment.

Within integrated ecology assessment a framework is used, which distinguish driving forces (D), pressures (P), states (S), impacts (I), and response (R). This is known as the DPSIR model. As the model tin capture the crusade–issue relationships between the economic, social, and environmental sectors, information technology has been widely practical to analyze the interacting processes of man‐ecology systems [three]. The DPSIR model originated from the pressure level–state–response (PSR) framework, which was developed past the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [4]. Later information technology was elaborated by European Environment Agency [5]. Environmental indicators should reverberate all elements of the concatenation between human activities, their ecology impacts, and the societal responses to these impacts [6].

The DPSIR model was used to identify a series of core indicators and to establish the nature of interactions between the dissimilar driving forces, pressures, states, impacts, and responses, and thus to assess the agriculture and its impact on land use, environment, and ecosystem services (Figure one). More attending was paid to Slovakia. We assessed selected indicators at global, national (country Slovakia), and local (cadastre Liptovská Teplička (LT)) level. Slovakia is located in central Europe and covers an area of 49,035 km2. It is largely located in the mountain territory of the western Carpathian curvation. The climate is temperate. Despite the mountain character of the majority of the Slovak territory, there were suitable conditions for agricultural evolution. The Slovak rural territory represents 87% of the total country surface area and the Slovak rural population represents 43.7% of the total population. Liptovská Teplička (LT) cadastre is located in the northern part of Slovakia where Low Tatras is side by side to the Liptov basin with elevation over 900 m above sea level. Mean almanac temperature is 5°C, and mean annual precipitation is 900 mm.

Advertisement

iii. Results and discussion

3.1. Driving forces

With the growing world population the requirements are grown to cover the food demand. Homo expansion throughout the globe acquired that agriculture is a dominant grade of land direction globally, and agricultural ecosystems encompass nearly 40% of the terrestrial surface of the Earth. Agronomical ecosystems are interlinked with rural areas where more than than 3 billion people alive, almost half of the world's population. Roughly two.v billion of these rural people derive their livelihoods from agriculture. Thus, population and land‐use trends are considered to be the main driving forces for agriculture. Besides these driving forces, EEA [vii] further distinguished the so‐called external and internal driving forces originating from market trends, technological and social changes, besides as the policy framework.

For many economies, especially those of developing countries, agriculture tin be an of import engine—driving strength—of economic growth. Approximately three‐quarters of the world'southward agricultural value added is generated in developing countries where agriculture constitutes the courage of the economy. But non only in the developing countries but also in the developed countries agriculture has always been the precursor to the rise of manufacture and services [eight].

3.1.1. Population tendency

In the twentieth century, the earth population grew four times [9]. Although demographic growth rates have been slowing since the late 1970s, the globe's population has doubled since then, to approximately 7 billion people currently and is projected to increase to over 9 billion past 2050. Just already millions people are still suffering from hunger and malnutrition. The latest available estimates indicate that about 795 million people in the world (just over one in ix) were undernourished in 2014–2016. Since 1990–1992, the number of undernourished people has declined by 216 million globally, a reduction of 21.four%. The vast majority of the hungry people live in the developing regions. The overall hunger reduction trends in the developing countries since 1990–1992 are connected with changes in large populous countries (China, Bharat) [10]. Paradoxically, most of people suffering from hunger and malnutrition are in rural areas and simply 20% are in city slums. According to FAO, 50% of them are small-scale peasants, 20% are landless, ten% are nomadic herdsmen or small fishermen, and 20% alive in urban center slums. In the developing countries, this rural social course is, above all, ofttimes a victim of marginalization and exclusion from its governing classes (political, economic, and financial) as well as from the urban milieu where there is a concentration of power and knowledge, and therefore money, including funds for evolution. Often the urban and rural worlds are separated. Whereas in the European union the farming population constitutes only v% of the total population, it is well-nigh 50% in China, 60% in India, and between lx and 80% in sub‐Saharan Africa [11].

In past, Slovakia was typical agrarian country. Even during the nineteenth century the vast majority of the population worked in agriculture, merely with the beginning of the twentieth century the decreasing tendency began and continued to the present. In 1921, lx.4% of the working population was engaged in agronomics, after 1945, information technology was 48.1%. In 2012, l,400 people worked in agriculture [12] which represented 2.2% of the working population, and two.76 workers worked per 100 ha of agricultural land which was less than European union‐27 boilerplate (viii.81 workers per 100 ha of agronomical land) [xiii].

3.1.two. Land employ

The global land area is thirteen.2 billion ha. Of this, 12% (i.6 billion ha) is currently in use for cultivation of agricultural crops, 28% (iii.vii billion ha) is under woods, and 35% (four.half-dozen billion ha) comprises grasslands and woodland ecosystems. The world'due south cultivated area has grown by 12% over the past 50 years. Globally, most 0.23 ha of land is cultivated per head of the world'southward population [14]. In 1960, it was 0.5 ha of cropland per capita worldwide. In Europe, about one‐half of land is farmed and arable land is the most common form of agricultural land. Twenty‐five percent of Europe's land is covered past abundant land and permanent crops, 17% by pastures and mixed mosaics, and 35% by forests. The boilerplate corporeality of cropland and pasture land per capita in 1970 was 0.4 and 0.viii ha and by 2010 this had decreased to 0.2 and 0.five ha per capita, respectively [15].

Such a state is a issue of dynamic state‐use and land‐encompass changes. Humans take altered land embrace for centuries, but contempo rates of change are college than ever [16].

Land‐apply alter reflected in state‐cover alter and land‐cover alter is a primary component of global ecology modify [17], affecting climate, biodiversity, and ecosystem services, which in turn affect land‐use determination. Land‐use modify is always caused by multiple interacting factors. The mix of driving forces of state‐use change varies in time and infinite. Highly variable ecosystem weather driven past climatic variations amplify the pressure arising from high demands on land resources. Economic factors define a range of variables that accept a straight bear on on the determination making past land managers. Applied science can affect labor market place and operational processes on land. Demographic factors, such as increase and subtract of population, and migration patterns have a large affect on land apply. Life‐wheel features ascend and touch on rural as well equally urban environments. They shape the trajectory of land‐employ modify, which itself affects the household's economic status.

The development of the present ecosystems in the postglacial period (Holocene) depended on significant changes in climate. Warming in the postglacial period, about x,000 years ago, created atmospheric condition of back migration of individuals species from their refuges, where they were protected during the glacial periods. After the neolitic revolution, human order began to influence more noticeably the development of natural ecosystems. About half of the ice‐gratuitous land surface has been converted or substantially modified by human activities. Forest covered about 50% of the Earth's land surface area 8000 years agone, every bit opposed to 30% today. Agriculture has expanded into forests, savannas, and steppes in all parts of the world to meet the demand for food and fiber.

The central and north Europe were about completely naturally covered by forests. Only high mountain and alpine rocky localities were without wood cover. Present Europe is a mosaic of landscapes, reflecting the evolutionary pattern of changes that country use has undergone in the past. The greatest concentration of farmland is plant in Eastern Europe, where too Slovakia lies, with more half of its country surface area in ingather cover [18]. Europe is one of the most intensively used continents on the globe. Despite the long tradition of human being impact investigation on the surroundings and vegetation in Europe, there are few comparable studies in Northward America. This difference is often attributed to the shorter duration of intensive man bear upon in most of North America versus Europe. As a effect, prior studies in the United States have generally been restricted to local investigations [19].

During the past three centuries, in many developing countries and countries with transition economies, growing demand for food due to an increasing population has caused substantial expansion of cropland, accompanied by shrinking primary forests and grassland areas [xx]. Based on many studies, in China between 1700 and 1950, cropland area increased and forest coverage decreased. Similarly in Bharat, betwixt 1880 and 2010, cropland expanse has increased (from 92 to 140.1 1000000 ha), and wood land decreased (from 89 to 63 meg ha) [21]. But in the past fifty years, over world rapid urbanization has been evident [22]. Migration in its various forms is the nearly important demographic cistron causing land‐employ change at timescales of a couple of decades [23]. Rapid economic growth is accompanied past a shift of country from agriculture to manufacture, infrastructure, route network, and residential utilise. Countries in East Asia, Due north America, and Europe have all lost cultivated state during their periods of economical development [18]. The dramatic growth and globalization of China's economy and market since economy reforms in 1978 have brought well-nigh a massive loss of croplands, near of which were converted to urban areas and transportation routes during 1978–1995 [24].

In Slovakia state‐employ trends are in many aspects similar to Eu development. In 2013, of the total area of Slovakia agronomical land covered 48.9% (2,397,041 ha) and wood state 41.i% (two,017,105 ha). The highest share of used agronomical land was represented by arable land (58.nine%) followed past permanent grasslands (36.1%). The average amount of agricultural land per capita was 0.44 ha [25]. Cereals are the chief growing crops. Since 1990, subtract in agronomical land was recorded, often in favor of built‐upward area. Analysis of historical land‐use changes at Liptovská Teplička cadastre showed that the landscape has undergone changes in country‐use and cover during the 224 years. From the long‐term point of view, gradual tree planting and permanent grassland conversion to forest land was observed where forest land increased from 67.7% in 1782 to 83.7% in 2006 [26].

3.two. Pressure level

Agriculture in the last century has evolved from self‐sufficiency to surplus in some parts of the earth. Thus, transformation was connected with intensification and specialization of product equally chief trends in European or North American agronomics accompanied past negative bear on on the environment. Agronomical intensification is defined as college levels of inputs and increased output of cultivated or reared products per unit of measurement area and time [27]. Over the by 50 years, agricultural output has grown between 2.5 and 3 times, thanks to significant increment in the yield of major crops [14]. Changing land‐use practices have enabled world grain harvests to double from i.2 to two.5 billion tonnes per year betwixt 1970 and 2010. Globally, since 1970, there has been a one.4‐fold increase in the numbers of cattle and buffalo, sheep and goats, and increases of 1.half dozen‐ and iii.7‐fold for pigs and poultry, respectively [28].

The mix of cropland expansion and agricultural intensification has varied geographically. Tropical Asia increased its nutrient production mainly by increasing fertilizer use and irrigation. Near of Africa and Latin America increased their food production through both agronomical intensification and extensification. In western Africa cropland expansion was accompanied by a decrease in fertilizer apply and a slight increase in irrigation [xviii]. Agriculture is the single largest user of freshwater resources, using a global boilerplate of seventy% of all surface water supplies.

three.2.ane. Intensification and specialization of agriculture

Intensification and specialization accept been predominant trends in Eu countries including Slovakia for several decades. Betwixt 1965 and 2000 in that location was a 6.87‐fold increase in nitrogen fertilization, a 3.48‐fold increase in phosphorous fertilization while irrigated land surface area expanded i.68 times, contributing to a 10% net increase in land in tillage [29]. Potent intensification in Europe in contrast to other countries is obvious if we compare selected indicators, e.g., fertilizer consumption or livestock density (Figures 2 and 3). In Slovakia, the maximum intensification level was reached during the socialistic era in 80th. Even so, since 1990, there are signs of a tendency toward a more efficient apply of agricultural inputs as a result of non very favorable economical situation of farms but also every bit a upshot of different environmental measures implementation. During 1980–2010 in Slovakia, indicators apropos to agricultural intensification dropped, in case of fertilizer consumption past 73% (Figure 4), the pesticides consumption past 77%. This catamenia is typical in livestock number reduction, in case of cattle by 71, pigs 73, and sheep 37% (Figure v).

Effigy 2.

Fertilizer consumption in 2012 (kg/ha of agronomical land) (based on information from OECD [30]).

Figure 3.

Livestock density in 2012 (live animals/kmtwo of agronomical country) (based on data from OECD [30]).

Figure 4.

Evolution in fertilizer consumption in Slovakia (kg pure food/ha) (based on data from CCTIA [31]).

Figure 5.

Development in number of livestock in Slovakia (live animals/ha of agricultural state) (based on information from SOSR [32]).

Intensification is connected with increasing release of atmospheric emissions through management of land and livestock, and thus agriculture release to the atmosphere significant amounts of greenhouse gases emissions of CO2, CHfour, and North2O [33] and ammonia emissions. The agricultural sector is currently responsible for the vast majority of ammonia emissions in the European Marriage. Agriculture contributes to most 47 and 58% of total anthropogenic emissions of CH4 and N2O, respectively. Almanac GHG emissions from agricultural production in 2000–2010 were estimated at 5.0–5.8 GtCO2eq/yr while almanac GHG flux from country employ and land‐use change activities accounted for approximately 4.three–5.v GtCO2eq/twelvemonth. The enteric fermentation and agronomical soils stand for together nigh 70% of total emissions, followed by paddy rice tillage (9–11%), biomass called-for (6–12%), and manure direction (seven–eight%) [34]. Evolution of the global GHG annual agriculture emissions from 1961 to 2010 based on FAOSTAT information shows Effigy 6. Almanac GHG emissions from agriculture are expected to increase in coming decades due to escalating demands for food and shift in nutrition. Still improved management practices and emerging technologies may allow a reduction in emissions per unit of nutrient produced. In Slovakia, due to subtract number of livestock also decreasing trend in GHG and ammonia emissions were observed since 1990 (Figure 7).

Figure 6.

Global GHG annual agriculture emissions (MtCO2eq) (based on data from Tubiello et al. [35]).

Figure vii.

Emissions from agriculture in Slovakia (Gg) (based on data from MESR, SEA [36]).

iii.iii. State

Intensive management practices in agriculture escalating rates of country degradation threatens most crop and pasture land throughout the world. Worldwide, more 12 million hectares of productive arable land are severely degraded and abandoned annually. Increased force per unit area is continued with deterioration of the state of environment, mainly soil and water.

3.3.1. Soil

Soil is the most cardinal asset on farms. Its quality that directly affects provisioning ecosystem services is strongly affected by direction practices. The state of soils can be assessed past the help of indicators on soil contamination, erosion, and compaction.

Soil contamination implies that the concentration of a substance in soil is higher than would naturally occur. Agricultural activities contribute to soil contamination past introducing pollutants or toxic substances such every bit cadmium by application of mineral phosphate fertilizers or organic pollutants past pesticide application. Comprehensive inventories and databases on local and diffuse soil contagion are defective on the global or regional extent. Estimates prove that about 15% of land in the Eu‐27 exhibits a surplus in excess of 40 kg N/ha [37]. In Slovakia, information from the soil monitoring showed that only 0.4% of the total soil encompass is contaminated by heavy metals [38].

The loss of soil from land surfaces by soil erosion has been significantly increased by human activities. Each year about ten million ha of cropland are lost due to soil erosion [39]. In Slovakia, 32% of agronomical land is threatened by water and 5% by wind erosion, respectively [36].

Since the 1950s, pressure level on agronomical land has increased considerably also owing to agricultural modernization and mechanization what caused next serious environmental problem—soil compaction. Overuse of mechanism, intensive cropping, curt crop rotations, intensive grazing, and inappropriate soil management leads to compaction [40]. Soil compaction problems, in various degrees, are found in nigh all cropping systems throughout the globe. They are of item significance where intensive mechanization has been adopted on soils subject field to loftier rainfall or irrigation [41]. According to estimation approximately 600,000 ha of agricultural country is compacted in Slovakia [42].

The effect of farming on soil causing soil compaction expressed as soil penetrometric resistance (PR measured to twenty cm depth in MPa) was investigated in May 2014 at Liptovská Teplička cadastre, on soil type Rendzina with iv dissimilar land‐employ (AL, abundant land; M, meadow; AG, abandoned grasslands; FL, forest country) (Effigy 8a–d). The different country utilize and practices reflected in dissimilar PR values (Figure 9a–d). The highest hateful PR value was measured in AL (ane.52 MPa), followed past M and FL (same value of i.08 MPa), and abandoned grasslands (0.90 MPa) [43]. Measured values show at compaction in arable land. Simply there is necessary to have into account possibility that PR value in AL could be also the lowest amid observed different country‐use sites. Such state of affairs can be observed when the measurement is done immediately after some technological operation, e.g., ploughing, contributing to turning the soil over, and diminishing college soil horizons compaction.

Figure 8.

(a) Arable land in cadastre Liptovská Teplička, Law Tatras Mountain.

Figure 8.

(b) Meadow in cadastre Liptovská Teplička, Constabulary Tatras Mount.

Figure 8.

(c) Abandoned grasslands in cadastre Liptovská Teplička, Law Tatras Mountain.

Figure 8.

(d) Forest land in cadastre Liptovská Teplička, Law Tatras Mountain.

Figure ix.

(a) Penetrometric resistance at abundant land in cadastre Liptovská Teplička.

Figure 9.

(b) Penetrometric resistance at meadow in cadastre Liptovská Teplička.

Figure 9.

(c) Penetrometric resistance at abandoned grasslands in cadastre Liptovská Teplička.

Figure ix.

(d) Penetrometric resistance at forest country in cadastre Liptovská Teplička.

three.three.two. H2o

Agronomics is both cause and victim of water pollution. Evidence for elevated nitrate and phosphate contents on subcontract, in drains, streams and rivers, and lakes is partial and tends to be specific to a given location and circumstance. Global phosphorus flux to the ocean increased 3‐fold to about 22 Tg per yr past the end of the twentieth century.

Nitrate is the almost mutual chemic contaminant in the globe's aquifers. An gauge for continental USA in the 1990s indicates that returns to h2o are close to 20% of full applied agricultural nitrogen, with upwards to 25% lost in gaseous grade. Mean nitrate levels accept increased by about 36% in global waterways since 1990 [44].

Pesticides contaminate surface water and groundwater. They tin reach surface water through runoff from treated plants and soil. Contamination of h2o past pesticides is widespread, and groundwater pollution due to pesticides is a worldwide problem [45].

3.4. Touch

Impacts are commonly the result of multiple stressors. Agriculture exerts pressure on the environment that is both beneficial and harmful and can result in both positive and negative environmental impacts. The wide variation in farming systems and practices throughout the world, and differing environmental characteristics mean that the effects of agriculture on the environment arise at site‐specific level merely can have impacts at local to global level.

iii.iv.1. Traditional landscape disappearance

The disappearance of traditional agricultural landscape is an ongoing procedure, accompanying the general trend of agricultural abandonment in Europe [46]. In Slovakia, traditional agricultural mural is described as agricultural ecosystems that consist of mosaics of small‐scale arable fields or permanents agricultural cultivations such every bit grasslands, vineyards, and high‐torso orchards or early abandoned plots with a low succession caste [47]. Important parts of such landscape are linear landscape elements (hedges, tree lines, stone walls).

In Slovakia, traditional all-encompassing farming with individual farmer attitude to landscape was transformed to collectivization with overall interest in land exploitation [48]. Collectivization caused small‐calibration parcels managed by individual farmers to be consolidated into big blocks (polygons) managed by large co‐operative farms and resulted in a decrease of the mosaic of arable land and grasslands. At Liptovská Teplička cadastre during 1956–1990, number of polygons decreased from xv to 2 at arable country, and from 82 to 29 at permanent grasslands [26]. In add-on, the management of traditional agronomical landscapes structures decreased speedily afterward collectivization. Nowadays the main barriers in ideal management are unfavorable subsidies in agriculture and the fiscal inaccessibility of modern tools and machinery together with inadequate market and the weak support of local government [49].

three.4.2. Contribution to climate change

Anthropogenic country‐use activities and changes in land utilise/embrace caused changes superimposed on the natural fluxes. Country‐comprehend changes are responsible for surface and vegetation modifications what reflects in surface albedo and thus surface‐atmosphere energy exchanges, which have an touch on regional climate. Terrestrial ecosystems are important sources and sinks of carbon and thus land‐use changes reverberate too in the carbon bike. The important contribution of local evapotranspiration to the h2o cycle—that is precipitation recycling—as a part of land cover highlighted yet another considerable affect of land‐use/encompass alter on climate, at a local to regional scale [fifty].

The influence of land use/encompass on soil temperature was investigated at Liptovská Teplička cadastre study site in May 2014 where 10 measurements in depth of 5 and 25 cm at iv different country‐use plots (AL, arable land; M, meadow; AG, abased grasslands; FL, forest land) were done by insert soil thermometer (Table 1). The highest mean soil temperature was recorded in AL in five cm depth (4.vi°C), the lowest in FL in five cm depth (3.five°C). Measured values evidence how plant cover and its microclimate functions are important and tin can touch on soil temperature.

Depth (cm) Land utilize
Arable land Meadow Abandoned grasslands Wood country
5 4.6 4.3 4.two iii.5
25 4.3 4.4 4.6 3.8

Table 1.

Actual soil temperature in cadastre Liptovská Teplička in May 2014 (°C).

Agronomics is unique among economic sectors releasing GHG emissions and thus contributing to climate change. Agricultural activities lead, in fact, not only to sources but also to important sinks of CO2. Agronomical contribution to greenhouse gases accounts for 13.v% of global greenhouse gas emissions [51]. At the same time, farm production is fully climate and several further natural conditions dependent. Every change in climate has not only curt‐term just likewise long‐term consequences. Climate change brings an increase in gamble and unpredictability for farmers—from warming and related aridity, from shifts in rainfall patterns, and from the growing incidence of extreme conditions events.

On the other paw, agronomics tin also positively contribute to climatic change mitigation. The utilization of agricultural residues as raw materials in a biorefinery is a promising alternative to fossil resource for production of energy carriers and chemicals, thus mitigating climate change and enhancing energy security [52].

three.4.three. Biodiversity losses

State utilise, specifically in agronomics, has dandy impact on biodiversity. Another aspect contributing to biodiversity pass up is that humans today depend for survival on tiny fraction of wild species that has been domesticated. Yet only 14 of 148 species weighing 45 kg or more were actually domesticated. Similarly, worldwide there are about 200,000 wild species of college plants, of which merely virtually 100 yielded valuable domesticates [53].

All long‐term historical country‐use changes responsible for natural ecosystems conversion to seminatural ecosystems or artificial systems contributed to the extensive changes in biodiversity composition and ecological processes. Agriculture plays an important role in these processes and is responsible for biodiversity decline. Over the by l years, ecosystems have changed more rapidly than at any other period of human history [62]. This menstruation is connected with high agronomical intensification in many parts of the earth. Land‐use changes take been shown to be one of the leading causes of biodiversity loss in terrestrial ecosystems [54, 55]. To demonstrate the bear on of country use and land management on soil biota quantitative analysis of earthworm was done at Liptovská Teplička cadastre in May 2014 when earthworms were mitt sorted, weighted, and numbered from seven soil monoliths (35 cm × 35 cm × 20 cm) placed in line in 3 m distance in iv different state‐employ plots (AL, arable land; M, meadow; AG, abandoned grasslands; FL, forest land). The earthworms may be used as bioindicator because they are very sensitive to both chemical and physical soil parameters. Earthworm biomass or abundance tin offer a valuable tool to assess different environmental impacts such every bit tillage operations, soil pollution, different agricultural input, trampling, and industrial plant pollution [56]. The highest mean number (87.five individuals m−2) and earthworm torso biomass (40.3 g thousand−2) was recorded in M, the everyman in AG (v.8 individuals m−2 and 5.ix g m−2 body biomass) (Table two) [49]. Relatively high number and earthworm biomass in AL at Liptovská Teplička cadastre is result of organic farming.

Depth (cm) Land utilize
Abundant land Meadow Abased grasslands Forest state
Number 33.eight 87.5 5.8 8.two
Body biomass sixteen.2 40.3 v.9 6.six

Tabular array 2.

Number of earthworm individuals and earthworm body biomass in cadastre Liptovská Teplička in May 2014 (individuals thou− 2, k one thousand− 2) [43]

Though intensified land apply is undeniably the main cause of biodiversity loss. There is an increasing expectation that productive agronomical landscapes should be managed to preserve or enhance biodiversity [57].

3.4.four. Eutrophication

Eutrophication is a process of pollution that occurs when a lake or stream becomes overrich in plant nutrients as a consequence it becomes overgrown in algae and other aquatic plants. The major impacts of eutrophication due to overloading with nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients are changes in the construction and functioning of marine ecosystems, reduced biodiversity, and reduced income from fishery, mariculture, and tourism. The main source of nitrogen run‐off from agricultural land brought to the sea via rivers. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen may also contribute significantly to the nitrogen load. This nitrogen originates partly from ammonia evaporation from animal husbandry. Most of the phosphorus comes from households and industries discharging treated or untreated wastewater to freshwater directly to the bounding main, and from soil erosion.

Human action has increased Due north fluxes. In 1970s, an explosive increment in coastal eutrophication in many parts of the earth correlates well with the increased production of reactive N for agriculture and industry [45]. Eutrophication is a global environmental problem. In EU, in that location is marked variation in groundwater nitrate concentration between unlike geographical regions with loftier concentration in Western Europe and very low concentrations in Northern Europe. The lack of a general decrease is due to connected high emissions from agriculture [58].

3.4.5. Agroecosystem services degradation

Agroecosystems both provide and rely on ecosystem services to sustain product nutrient, fiber, and other harvestable goods. Increases in nutrient and fiber production have often been achieved at the cost of other critical services.

Services that help to support production of harvestable goods can be considered as services to agriculture. These services include soil construction and fertility enhancement, nutrient cycling, water provision, erosion control, pollination, and pest control, amid others. Ecological processes that detract from farm production can be considered disservices to agriculture and include pest damage, competition for h2o, and contest for pollination. Management of agricultural ecosystems also affects flows of ecosystem services and disservices (or diminution of naturally occurring services) from production landscape to surrounding areas. Disservices from agriculture can include deposition or loss of habitat, soil, water quality, and other off‐site, negative impacts [59].

Provision of ecosystem services in farmlands is directly determined past their blueprint and management [60] and strongly influenced by the part and diversity of the surrounding landscape [61]. The Millenium Ecosystem Cess [62] reported that approximately 60% (15 out of 24) of services measured in the assessment were existence degraded or unsustainably used every bit a effect of agricultural direction and other human activities.

3.5. Response

In recent decades, increasing concern for the environment and sustainability has compelled many governments to continuously adjust their land‐use policies to residuum multiple uses of land resources. These policies have caused changes in cropland and its spatial distribution. There are dissimilar ecology objectives incorporated into agrienvironment measures, grooming programs, back up for investments in agricultural holdings, protection of the environment in connectedness with agriculture and landscape conservation, back up to improving the processing and marketing of agricultural products. Organic farming or depression‐input farming systems are examples where support for the processing or marketing of their products can help in achieving environmental objectives. In 2013, there were 43.one million hectares of organic agronomical land, including conversion areas. The regions with the largest areas of organic agronomical land are Oceania and Europe [63]. In Slovakia, organic farming area covered 8.four% of the total agricultural land [36].

Advertizement

four. Conclusion

Agriculture is a ascendant grade of land management globally. Rapid population growth as primary driving force connected with increasing food requirements generate great pressure on time to come land use, environs, natural resources, and ecosystem services. The DPSIR framework approach helped us to analyze selected indicators having the cause–upshot relationships betwixt the economic, social, and environmental sectors.

Contempo rates of land‐utilize and embrace changes are higher than ever. In many developing countries and countries with transition economies, growing demand for nutrient has caused expansion of cropland. Extensive agronomical systems are slowly intensified. In developed countries, economic growth has been recently accompanied by a shift of land from agriculture to industry, road network, and residential use. Extensive forms of agriculture used in by mainly in Europe and North America were transformed into industrial‐style agronomics accompanied by intensification and specialization. The large inputs of fertilizers, pesticides, fossil fuels have large, complex effects on the surround. Agriculture releases significant amounts of greenhouse gases and ammonia emission to the temper. It is the single largest user of freshwater resource. Intensive management practices escalating rates of country degradation, soil and water deterioration. The furnishings on the environment arise at site‐specific level but can have impact at local to global levels. Land‐encompass changes cause the disappearance of traditional agricultural mural and are responsible for vegetation modifications which have an impact on regional climate, carbon sequestration, and biodiversity losses. Agronomics also has impact on the natural systems and ecosystem services on which humans depend.

Future challenges relating to greater pressure on environment, natural resources, and climate alter imply that a "concern as usual" model in agriculture is non a viable option. Green growth is a new method that places stiff emphasis on the complementarities between the economic, social, and ecology dimensions of sustainable development. Thus, the main office of future agronomics is its transformation into proficient productive but a sustainable organisation that tin exist constructive for centuries without adverse effect on natural resources on which agricultural productivity depends.

Advertising

Acknowledgments

This piece of work was supported by the Slovak Research and Development Agency nether Grant No. APVV‐0098‐12 Analysis, modeling and evaluation of agro‐ecosystem services. The research of abiotic soil parameters was done by the equipment supported by Operational Program Research and Development via contract No. ITMS‐26210120024 Restoration and edifice of infrastructure for ecological and ecology enquiry at Matej Bel Academy in Banská Bystrica.

References

  1. 1. Alonso‐Pérez F, Ruiz‐Luna A, Turner J, Berlanga‐Robles CA, Mitchelson‐Jacob 1000. Land cover changes and impact of shrimp aquaculture on the landscape in the Ceuta coastal lagoon system, Sinaloa, Mexico. Ocean & Coastal Direction. 2003;46(half-dozen–seven):583–600.
  2. ii. Slaughter RA. Welcome to the anthropocene. Futures. 2011;44(2):19–26.
  3. 3. Pinto R, de Jonge VN, Neto JM, Domingos T, Marques JC, Patrício J. Towards a DPSIR driven integration of ecological value, water uses and ecosystem services for extuarine systems. Ocean & Coastal Management. 2013;72:64–79.
  4. iv. OECD. OECD cadre set of indicators for environmental performance reviews. OECD Ecology Directorate Monographs no. 83. Paris: OECD; 1993. 39 p.
  5. v. Burkhard B, Müller F. Driver–pressure level–state–impact–response. In: Jorgensen SE, Fath BD, editors. Ecological indicators. Vol. 2 of Encyclopedia of ecology. Oxford: Elsevier; 2008. p. 967–970.
  6. 6. Gabrielsen P, Bosch P. Environmental indicators: typology and use in reporting. Copenhagen: EEA; 2003. 19 p.
  7. vii. EEA. Integration of surroundings into EU agriculture policy – the IRENA indicator‐based assessment report. Copenhagen: EEA; 2006. 64 p.
  8. 8. FAO. FAO statistical yearbook 2013. Globe food and agriculture. Rome: FAO; 2013. 307 p.
  9. nine. UNEP. Towards a light-green economy: pathway to sustainable evolution and poverty reduction. A synthesis for policy makers. Nairobi: UNEP; 2011. 52 p.
  10. 10. FAO, IFAD, WFP. The state of nutrient insecurity in the globe 2015. Coming together the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven progress. Rome: FAO; 2015. 62 p.
  11. 11. Feyder J. Commentary I: agriculture: a unique sector in economic ecological and social terms. In: Trade and environment review 2013. Wake up before it is too late. Make agronomics truly sustainable now for food security in a changing climate. Geneva: UNCTAD; 2013. p. 9–12.
  12. 12. MARDSR. Report on agriculture and food industry in the Slovak republic. Green report. Bratislava: MARDSR; 2013. 68 p. (in Slovak).
  13. 13. Szabo L, Grznár K. Labour and operation of agriculture in the Slovak republic. Economics of Agronomics. 2015;15/3:four–13 (in Slovak).
  14. xiv. FAO. The state of the world's state and water resources for nutrient and agriculture (SOLAW) – managing systems at risk. Rome: FAO and London: Earthscan; 2011. 308 p.
  15. 15. EEA. The European surround – country and outlook 2010: synthesis. Copenhagen: EEA; 2010. 212 p.
  16. 16. Hansen MC, Stehman SV, Potapov PV. Quantification of global gross forest embrace loss. Proceedings of the National University of Sciences of the United States America. 2010;107:8650–8655.
  17. 17. Foley JA, DeFries RS, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonana G, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, et al. Global consequences of land employ. Science. 2005;80(309):570–574.
  18. 18. Ramankutty North, Foley JA, Olejniczak NJ. People on the state: changes in global population and croplands during the 20th Century. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Surround. 2002;31:251–257.
  19. 19. Foster DR. Country‐utilize history (1730–1990) and vegetation dynamics in central New England, U.s.. Journal of Ecology. 1992;80:753–772.
  20. xx. Liu M, Tian H. Red china's country embrace and country utilize change from 1700 to 2005: estimations from high‐resolution satellite information and historical archives. Global Biogeochemical Cycles. 2010;24:ane–18.
  21. 21. Tian H, Banger M, Bo T, Dadhwal VK. History of state use in India during 1880–2010: large‐scale land transformations reconstructed from satellite information and historical archives. Global and Planetary Modify. 2014;121:78–88.
  22. 22. Miao L, Zhu F, He B, Ferrat 1000, Liu Q, Cao X, Cui 10. Synthesis of China's state utilise in the past 300 years. Global and Planetary Modify. 2013;100:224–233.
  23. 23. Geist HJ, Lambin EF. Proximate causes and underlying driving forces of tropical deforestation. BioScience. 2002;52(2):143–50.
  24. 24. Chen J. Rapid urbanization in Communist china: a real claiming to soil protection and nutrient security. Catena. 2007;69:one–15.
  25. 25. IGCCSR. Statistical yearbook on land resources in the Slovak republic. Bratislava: IGCCSR; 2015. 130 p. (in Slovak).
  26. 26. Kanianska R, Kizeková Thou, Nováček M, Zeman M. Land‐use and land‐embrace changes in rural areas during different political systems: a case study of Slovakia from 1782 to 2006. Land Employ Policy. 2014;36:554–566.
  27. 27. Matson PA, Parton WJ, Power AG, Swift MJ. Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Science. 1997;277:504–509.
  28. 28. FAOSTAT. FAOSTAT database. Nutrient and Agronomics Organisation of the United Nations; 2013. Available at:http://faostat.fao.org/.
  29. 29. Tilman D, Socolow R, Foley JA, Colina J, Larson E, Lyind L, Pacala S, Reilly J, Searchinger T, Somerville C, Williams R. Beneficial biofuels – the food, free energy, and environment trilemma. Scientific discipline. 2009;325:270–271.
  30. xxx. OECD. Environment at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD; 2015. 104 p.
  31. 31. CCTIA. Results of agrochemical soil testing in Slovakia during 2006–2011. XII period. Bratislava: CCTIA; 2013. 96 p. (in Slovak).
  32. 32. SOSR. Inventory of livestock (to xxx.11.2014). Bratislava: SOSR; 2015. 23 p. (in Slovak).
  33. 33. Paustin Thou, Babcock BA, Hatfield J, Lal R, McCarl BA, McLaughhlin South, Mosier A. et al. Agronomical mitigation of greenhouse gases: scientific discipline and policy options. CAST report; 2004. 18 p.
  34. 34. Smith PM, Bustamante H, Ahammad H, Clark H, Dong EA, Elsiddig H, Haberl R. et al. Agriculture, forestry and other country utilize (AFOLU). In: Climate change 2014: mitigation of climatic change. Contribution of working group III to the 5th cess report of the IPCC. Cambridge, UK and United states of america: Cambridge University Press; 2014. 112 p.
  35. 35. Tubiello FN, Salvatore M, Rossi S, Ferrara A, Fitton N, Smith P. The FAOSTAT database of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. Environmental Research Letters. 2013;8:1–x.
  36. 36. MESR, Body of water. State of the environment report of the Slovak republic 2014. Bratislava, Banská Bystrica: SEA; 2015. 208 p.
  37. 37. JRC IES EC. The state of soil in Europe. A contribution of the JRC to the EEA's surround state and outlook study‐SOER 2010. Ispra: JRC IES EC; 2012. 78 p.
  38. 38. Kobza J. Soil and establish pollution by potentially toxic elements in Slovakia. Plant, Soil and Environment. 2005;51:243–248.
  39. 39. Pimentel D, Burgess Yard. Soil erosion threatens food production. Agronomics. 2013;iii:443–463.
  40. 40. Hamza MA, Anderson WK. Soil compaction in cropping systems. A review of the nature, causes and possible solutions. Soil & Tillage Inquiry. 2004;82:121–145.
  41. 41. Soane BD, Ouwerker C. Soil compaction in crop production. Developments in agricultural technology xi. Netherlands: Elsevier; 1994. 684 p.
  42. 42. Fulajtár Due east. Assessment and conclusion of the compacted soils in Slovakia. In: Advanced in geoecology. Catena Verlag; 2000. p. 384–387.
  43. 43. Kanianska R, Jadudová J. Evaluation of selected biotic and abiotic soil parameters having impact on ecosystem services. In: Kukla J, Kuklová M, editors. Proceedings, Zvolen 11 June 2015. Bratislava: SSPLPVV SAV, Zvolen: ÚEL SAV; 2015. p. 32–36.
  44. 44. WWDR4. Managing h2o along the livestock value concatenation. Chapter xviii. World water development report. Rome: FAO; 2011.
  45. 45. Turral H, Mateo‐Sagasta X, Burke J. Water pollution from agriculture: a review. Rome: FAO; 2012. 173 p.
  46. 46. Gerard F, Petit Southward, Smith Yard, Thomson A, Brown N, Manchester Due south, Wadsworth R. et al. Land cover alter in Europe between 1950 and 2000 determined employing aerial photography. Progress in Physical Geography. 2010;34:183–205.
  47. 47. Dobrovodská Thousand, Špulerová J, Štefunková D, Halabuk A. Research and maintenance of biodiversity in historical structures in the agronomical mural of Slovakia. In: Barančoková Grand, Krajčí J, Kollár J, Belčáková I, editors. Landscape Environmental – Methods, Applications and Interdisciplinary Approach. Bratislava: ILE SAS; 2010. p. 131–140.
  48. 48. Bezák P, Petrovič F. Agriculture, landscape, biodiversity: scenarios and stakeholder perceptions in the Poloniny national park (NE Slovakia). Environmental. 2006;25(1):82–93.
  49. 49. Lieskovský J, Bezák P, Špulerová J, Lieskovský T, Koleda P, Dobrovodská K, Bürgi Thou, Gimmi U. The abandonment of traditional agricultural mural in Slovakia – analysis of extent and driving forces. Journal of Rural Studies. 2015;37:75–84.
  50. 50. Lambin EF, Geist HJ, Lepers E. Dynamics of state‐use and land‐cover modify in tropical regions. Annual Reviews of Ecology Resources. 2003;28:205–241.
  51. 51. IPCC. The fourth cess report of the Intergovernmental Panel on climatic change. Geneva: IPCC; 2007. 112 p.
  52. 52. Cherubini F, Ulgiati S. Crop residues as raw materials for biorefinery systems – a LCA example study. Applied Energy. 2010;87:47–57.
  53. 53. Diamond J. Evolution, consequences and hereafter of establish and animal domestication. Nature. 2002;418:700–707.
  54. 54. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar Fifty. et al. Ecosystem services in determination making: time to deliver. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environs. 2009;7(1):21–28.
  55. 55. Reidsma P, Telenburg T, van den Berg M, Alkemade R. Impacts of land‐use change on biodiversity: an assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the European union. Agronomics, Ecosystems and Surround. 2006;114(1):86–102.
  56. 56. Paoletti MG. The office of earthworms for assessment of sustainability and as bioindicators. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Surroundings. 1999;74:137–155.
  57. 57. Weeks ES, Mason N. Prioritising land‐utilize decisions for the optimal delivery of ecosystem services and biodiversity protection in productive landscape. In: Grillo O, editor. Biodiversity – the dynamic balance of the planet. Rijeka, Republic of croatia: InTech; 2014. p. one–32.
  58. 58. EEA. Eutrophication in Europe's littoral waters. Topic written report seven/2001. Copenhagen: EEA; 2001. 86 p.
  59. 59. Garbach K, Milder JC, Montenegro M, Karp DS, DeClerck FAJ. Biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystem. In: Van Alfen N, editor. Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems, Volume two. Netherlands: Elsevier; 2014. p. 21–forty.
  60. 60. Zhang W, Ricketts T, Kremen C, Carney Chiliad, Swinton S. Ecosystem services and dis‐services to agriculture. Ecological Economics. 2007;64:253–260.
  61. 61. Kremen C, Ostfeld R. A phone call to ecologists: measuring, analysing, and managing ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Surroundings. 2005;3:540–548.
  62. 62. MEA. Millenium ecosystem assessment synthesis report. USA, Washington D.C.: Island Press; 2005. 155 p.
  63. 63. Willer H, Lernoud J. The world of organic agriculture 2015: summary. In: RIOA FiBL & IFOAM: the globe of organic agriculture. Statistics and emerging trends; 2015. p. 24–30.

Written Past

Radoslava Kanianska

Submitted: Jan 21st, 2016 Reviewed: April 15th, 2016 Published: July 27th, 2016

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Eatables Attribution 3.0 License, which permits unrestricted utilise, distribution, and reproduction in whatsoever medium, provided the original piece of work is properly cited.

wickershamdeeks1936.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/51201

0 Response to "What are the benefits to society and the costs to the lithosphere of agriculture?"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel