Presentation of Jim Harris, Professor at Cranfield University, at Food, Fertilizers and Natural Resources Conference by Fertilizers Europe
•
0 gefällt mir•537 views
Empfohlen
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Presentation of Jim Harris, Professor at Cranfield University, at Food, Fertilizers and Natural Resources Conference by Fertilizers Europe
Ähnlich wie Presentation of Jim Harris, Professor at Cranfield University, at Food, Fertilizers and Natural Resources Conference by Fertilizers Europe (20)
Mehr von Fertilizers Europe
Mehr von Fertilizers Europe (6)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Presentation of Jim Harris, Professor at Cranfield University, at Food, Fertilizers and Natural Resources Conference by Fertilizers Europe
- 1. Preserving biodiversity and soil Professor Jim Harris structure and function School of Applied Sciences Cranfield University Bedfordshire UK
- 2. Talk outline • Global challanges • Life in the soil and soil function • Effects of land use • Ecosystem service framework for monitoring and decision support • Options for the future to maintain and enhance soil resources • Conclusions
- 3. Challenges • Global climate change • Sea level rise • Agricultural intensification • Food and water security • Loss of biodiversity
- 4. Ellis and Ramankutty 2008
- 6. Life in the soil/soil function Soils are remarkably complex •Physically •Chemically •Biologically
- 7. 5 cm 5 mm
- 8. HOW MUCH LIFE IS THERE ? SOIL BIOMASS • handful of arable soil (c. 200g) • approximately 0.5 g of fresh biomass (mainly ‘microbial’) • Over 10,000 species per gram (conservative estimate)
- 9. 5 tonnes per hectare – equivalent to 100 sheep grassland – 20 times greater = 2000 sheep per hectare
- 11. THE WORKING SOIL ENGINE FOOD WEBS: SOIL ORGANIC PLANT MATERIAL CARBON MATTER BACTERIA THE FUEL OF FUNGI THE SOIL ENGINE PROTOZOA NEMATODES INSECTS ARACHNIDS MOLLUSCS WORMS MAMMALS
- 12. C storage Regulated by Soil •Structure C biota •Chemistry •C input quality & quantity •Community phenotype C loss
- 13. Effects of land use on soil biodiversity, function and carbon
- 14. Organic Matter losses due to land-use 600 500 OM loss kg/ha/yr 400 300 200 100 0 Forest Bare Agriculture Agroforestry Land-use type Redrawn from McDonald et al (2002)
- 15. Change in soil carbon in response to change in land use (redrawn from Guo and Gifford 2002) Crop to secondary forest Crop to plantation Crop to pasture Percentage change Native forest to pasture Pasture to crop Native forest to crop Native forest to plantation Pasture to plantation Overall -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60
- 16. Hendrix et al 1986
- 17. Increasing susceptibility to disturbance
- 18. Cumulative perennial ryegrass yields with and without earthworms, in organically and inorganically fertiliser regimes Redrawn from Boyle et al (1997)
- 19. Soil type Susceptibility To each Degradation Pressure Degradation Pressures Actual Lost Land Use •Physical degradation Services Costs •Chemical •Biological Resultant Ecosystem Service flow Benefits
- 20. Ecosystem services approach for monitoring what is going on •Framework for assessment •Natural Capital
- 21. Land Use Change •Deforestation •Urbanization •Agricultural Expansion •Conversion to grazing •Agricultural intensification Ecological knowledge Ecosystem consequences •Food, fibre, timber for human consumption •Climate feedbacks •Disease •Water quantity and quality •Biodiversity Societal values Assessment of trade-offs
- 24. Critically, these are RENEWABLE services
- 25. Options for the future to maintain and enhance soil resources •No/min till •Land sparing •Mixed landscapes •Reserves and hydroponics
- 26. Effect of soil management on soil microbial biomass-C (redrawn from Feng et al 2003) 250 Conventional No-till 200 Biomass-C (ug/g) 150 100 50 0 Feb May October Month
- 27. Effect of soil managment on soil organic matter 40 Conventional 35 No-till 30 Organic matter (g/kg) 25 20 15 10 5 0 0 to 1 1 to 3 3 to 7.6 7.5 to 15.2 Depth (cm)
- 28. Location of straw residues dependant on tillage type 100 90 Conventional 80 Reduced No-till Percentage of total 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 Depth (cm) Redrawn from Tebrugge and During 1999
- 29. Effect of conventional and no-till managment on aggregate stability (redrawn from Rhoton et al 2002) 60 Percentage of soil by weight 50 Conventional No-till 40 30 20 10 0 0 to 1 1 to 3 3 to 7.6 7.5 to 15.2 Depth (cm)
- 30. Effect of land-use on sediment losses Grass ley Direct sowing Stubble Buffer strip Winter wheat (no added P) Winter wheat Stubble tillage Cultivation Cross-ploughing Normal Ploughing 0 200 400 600 800 1000 mg/litre Redrawn from Puustinen et al 2004
- 31. Economic return (redrawn from Al-Kaisi and Xin 2004) 250 200 Economic return (USD/ha) 150 100 50 0 No-till Chisel-plough Ploughed Tillage type
- 32. Redrawn from Hodgson et al (2010) Ecol.Lett
- 33. Combining land-use can lead to significant biodiversity gains – Butterfly abundances in different land use types Redrawn from Hodgson et al (2010) Ecol.Lett
- 34. Conclusions • Achieving food security and soil health is a complex issue requiring careful consideration and quantification of trade-offs • The Ecosystem Services approach offers a sound framework to analyse options • The options for land use require a greater understanding of our soils, and a higher resolution to make decisions resulting in sustainable landscapes.
- 35. Thank you for listening!
- 37. Methodology Potential Ecosystem Map • Digital Terrain Model • Soil Maps • Geology Maps • Climate data • Land-use data • Hydrological function • Socio-economic models • Climate change scenarios
- 38. One model to bind them all…….