Farmers’ management of functional biodiversity goes beyond pest management in organic European apple orchards

S. Penvern; S. Fernique; A. Cardona; A. Herz; E. Ahrenfeldt; A. Dufils; L. Jamar; M. Korsgaard; D. Kruczyńska; S. Matray; L. Ozolina-Pole; M. Porcel; B. Ralle; B. Steinemann; W. Świergiel; M. Tasin; J. Telfser; F. Warlop; L. Sigsgaard

doi:10.1016/j.agee.2019.05.014

Farmers’ management of functional biodiversity goes beyond pest management in organic European apple orchards

S. Penvern^*, S. Fernique, A. Cardona, A. Herz, E. Ahrenfeldt, A. Dufils, L. Jamar, M. Korsgaard, D. Kruczyńska, S. Matray, L. Ozolina-Pole, M. Porcel, B. Ralle, B. Steinemann, W. Świergiel, M. Tasin, J. Telfser, F. Warlop, L. Sigsgaard

^*Corresponding author for this work

Section for Organismal Biology

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Supporting functional biodiversity (FB), which provides natural pest regulation, is an environmentally sound and promising approach to reduce pesticide use in perennial cultures such as apple, especially in organic farming. However, little is known about farmers’ practices and motivations to implement techniques that favor FB, especially whether or not they really expect anything from FB in terms of pest regulation. In fact, FB-supporting techniques (FB-techniques) are massively questioned by practitioners due to inadequate information about their effectiveness. An interview survey was performed in eight European countries(i) to describe farmers’ practices and identify promising FB-techniques: (ii) to better understand their perceptions of and values associated with FB; and (iii) to identify potential drivers of (non-)adoption. Fifty-five advisors and 125 orchard managers with various degrees of experience and convictions about FB were interviewed and a total of 24 different FB-techniques which can be assigned to three different categories (ecological infrastructures, farming practices and redesign techniques) were described. Some were well-established measures (e.g., hedges and bird houses), while others were more marginal and more recent (e.g., animal introduction and compost). On average, farmers combined more than four techniques that had been implemented over a period of 13 years, especially during their establishment or conversion period. In general, it was difficult for farmers to evaluate the effectiveness of individual FB-techniques on pest regulation. They considered FB-techniques as a whole, targeting multiple species, and valued multiple ecosystem services in addition to pest regulation. The techniques implemented and their associated values differed among farmers who adopted various approaches towards FB. Three different approaches were defined: passive, active and integrated. Their appraisal of FB is even more complex because it may change with time and experience. These findings provide empirical evidence that the practical implementation of promising techniques remains a challenge, considering the diversity of situations and evaluation criteria. Increased cooperation between researchers, farmers and advisors should more effectively target research, advisory support and communication to meet farmers’ needs and perceptions.

Original language	English
Article number	106555
Journal	Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
Volume	284
Pages (from-to)	1-11
ISSN	0167-8809
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.05.014
Publication status	Published - 15 Nov 2019

Keywords

Ecosystem service
Fruit
On-farm conservation practice
Practitioner'sdecision-making
Stakeholder value
Tracking innovation

Access to Document

10.1016/j.agee.2019.05.014

Cite this

Penvern, S., Fernique, S., Cardona, A., Herz, A., Ahrenfeldt, E., Dufils, A., Jamar, L., Korsgaard, M., Kruczyńska, D., Matray, S., Ozolina-Pole, L., Porcel, M., Ralle, B., Steinemann, B., Świergiel, W., Tasin, M., Telfser, J., Warlop, F., & Sigsgaard, L. (2019). Farmers’ management of functional biodiversity goes beyond pest management in organic European apple orchards. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 284, 1-11. Article 106555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.05.014

Penvern, S, Fernique, S, Cardona, A, Herz, A, Ahrenfeldt, E, Dufils, A, Jamar, L, Korsgaard, M, Kruczyńska, D, Matray, S, Ozolina-Pole, L, Porcel, M, Ralle, B, Steinemann, B, Świergiel, W, Tasin, M, Telfser, J, Warlop, F & Sigsgaard, L 2019, 'Farmers’ management of functional biodiversity goes beyond pest management in organic European apple orchards', Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol. 284, 106555, pp. 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.05.014

@article{dee944f2cbea4413afe3c062e63496f0,

title = "Farmers{\textquoteright} management of functional biodiversity goes beyond pest management in organic European apple orchards",

abstract = "Supporting functional biodiversity (FB), which provides natural pest regulation, is an environmentally sound and promising approach to reduce pesticide use in perennial cultures such as apple, especially in organic farming. However, little is known about farmers{\textquoteright} practices and motivations to implement techniques that favor FB, especially whether or not they really expect anything from FB in terms of pest regulation. In fact, FB-supporting techniques (FB-techniques) are massively questioned by practitioners due to inadequate information about their effectiveness. An interview survey was performed in eight European countries(i) to describe farmers{\textquoteright} practices and identify promising FB-techniques: (ii) to better understand their perceptions of and values associated with FB; and (iii) to identify potential drivers of (non-)adoption. Fifty-five advisors and 125 orchard managers with various degrees of experience and convictions about FB were interviewed and a total of 24 different FB-techniques which can be assigned to three different categories (ecological infrastructures, farming practices and redesign techniques) were described. Some were well-established measures (e.g., hedges and bird houses), while others were more marginal and more recent (e.g., animal introduction and compost). On average, farmers combined more than four techniques that had been implemented over a period of 13 years, especially during their establishment or conversion period. In general, it was difficult for farmers to evaluate the effectiveness of individual FB-techniques on pest regulation. They considered FB-techniques as a whole, targeting multiple species, and valued multiple ecosystem services in addition to pest regulation. The techniques implemented and their associated values differed among farmers who adopted various approaches towards FB. Three different approaches were defined: passive, active and integrated. Their appraisal of FB is even more complex because it may change with time and experience. These findings provide empirical evidence that the practical implementation of promising techniques remains a challenge, considering the diversity of situations and evaluation criteria. Increased cooperation between researchers, farmers and advisors should more effectively target research, advisory support and communication to meet farmers{\textquoteright} needs and perceptions.",

keywords = "Ecosystem service, Fruit, On-farm conservation practice, Practitioner'sdecision-making, Stakeholder value, Tracking innovation",

author = "S. Penvern and S. Fernique and A. Cardona and A. Herz and E. Ahrenfeldt and A. Dufils and L. Jamar and M. Korsgaard and D. Kruczy{\'n}ska and S. Matray and L. Ozolina-Pole and M. Porcel and B. Ralle and B. Steinemann and W. {\'S}wiergiel and M. Tasin and J. Telfser and F. Warlop and L. Sigsgaard",

year = "2019",

month = nov,

day = "15",

doi = "10.1016/j.agee.2019.05.014",

language = "English",

volume = "284",

pages = "1--11",

journal = "Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment",

issn = "0167-8809",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Farmers’ management of functional biodiversity goes beyond pest management in organic European apple orchards

AU - Penvern, S.

AU - Fernique, S.

AU - Cardona, A.

AU - Herz, A.

AU - Ahrenfeldt, E.

AU - Dufils, A.

AU - Jamar, L.

AU - Korsgaard, M.

AU - Kruczyńska, D.

AU - Matray, S.

AU - Ozolina-Pole, L.

AU - Porcel, M.

AU - Ralle, B.

AU - Steinemann, B.

AU - Świergiel, W.

AU - Tasin, M.

AU - Telfser, J.

AU - Warlop, F.

AU - Sigsgaard, L.

PY - 2019/11/15

Y1 - 2019/11/15

N2 - Supporting functional biodiversity (FB), which provides natural pest regulation, is an environmentally sound and promising approach to reduce pesticide use in perennial cultures such as apple, especially in organic farming. However, little is known about farmers’ practices and motivations to implement techniques that favor FB, especially whether or not they really expect anything from FB in terms of pest regulation. In fact, FB-supporting techniques (FB-techniques) are massively questioned by practitioners due to inadequate information about their effectiveness. An interview survey was performed in eight European countries(i) to describe farmers’ practices and identify promising FB-techniques: (ii) to better understand their perceptions of and values associated with FB; and (iii) to identify potential drivers of (non-)adoption. Fifty-five advisors and 125 orchard managers with various degrees of experience and convictions about FB were interviewed and a total of 24 different FB-techniques which can be assigned to three different categories (ecological infrastructures, farming practices and redesign techniques) were described. Some were well-established measures (e.g., hedges and bird houses), while others were more marginal and more recent (e.g., animal introduction and compost). On average, farmers combined more than four techniques that had been implemented over a period of 13 years, especially during their establishment or conversion period. In general, it was difficult for farmers to evaluate the effectiveness of individual FB-techniques on pest regulation. They considered FB-techniques as a whole, targeting multiple species, and valued multiple ecosystem services in addition to pest regulation. The techniques implemented and their associated values differed among farmers who adopted various approaches towards FB. Three different approaches were defined: passive, active and integrated. Their appraisal of FB is even more complex because it may change with time and experience. These findings provide empirical evidence that the practical implementation of promising techniques remains a challenge, considering the diversity of situations and evaluation criteria. Increased cooperation between researchers, farmers and advisors should more effectively target research, advisory support and communication to meet farmers’ needs and perceptions.

AB - Supporting functional biodiversity (FB), which provides natural pest regulation, is an environmentally sound and promising approach to reduce pesticide use in perennial cultures such as apple, especially in organic farming. However, little is known about farmers’ practices and motivations to implement techniques that favor FB, especially whether or not they really expect anything from FB in terms of pest regulation. In fact, FB-supporting techniques (FB-techniques) are massively questioned by practitioners due to inadequate information about their effectiveness. An interview survey was performed in eight European countries(i) to describe farmers’ practices and identify promising FB-techniques: (ii) to better understand their perceptions of and values associated with FB; and (iii) to identify potential drivers of (non-)adoption. Fifty-five advisors and 125 orchard managers with various degrees of experience and convictions about FB were interviewed and a total of 24 different FB-techniques which can be assigned to three different categories (ecological infrastructures, farming practices and redesign techniques) were described. Some were well-established measures (e.g., hedges and bird houses), while others were more marginal and more recent (e.g., animal introduction and compost). On average, farmers combined more than four techniques that had been implemented over a period of 13 years, especially during their establishment or conversion period. In general, it was difficult for farmers to evaluate the effectiveness of individual FB-techniques on pest regulation. They considered FB-techniques as a whole, targeting multiple species, and valued multiple ecosystem services in addition to pest regulation. The techniques implemented and their associated values differed among farmers who adopted various approaches towards FB. Three different approaches were defined: passive, active and integrated. Their appraisal of FB is even more complex because it may change with time and experience. These findings provide empirical evidence that the practical implementation of promising techniques remains a challenge, considering the diversity of situations and evaluation criteria. Increased cooperation between researchers, farmers and advisors should more effectively target research, advisory support and communication to meet farmers’ needs and perceptions.

KW - Ecosystem service

KW - Fruit

KW - On-farm conservation practice

KW - Practitioner'sdecision-making

KW - Stakeholder value

KW - Tracking innovation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067841593&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.agee.2019.05.014

DO - 10.1016/j.agee.2019.05.014

M3 - Journal article

AN - SCOPUS:85067841593

SN - 0167-8809

VL - 284

SP - 1

EP - 11

JO - Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

JF - Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

M1 - 106555

ER -

Farmers’ management of functional biodiversity goes beyond pest management in organic European apple orchards

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this