Abstract: As the degradation of global ecosystem services (ES) continues in the last five decades, maintaining or even enhancing the ES of agro-ecosystem is one of the approaches to mitigate the global ES loss. This study provides the first estimate of an economic valuation of ES provided by organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input (low, medium and high). Our results show that organic matter inputs significantly affect the total ES value on organic cereal crop production systems. The system with high organic matter input has the highest gross total ES value (US$ 1969 ha(-1) yr(-1)), followed by the low organic matter input system (US$ 1688 ha(-1) yr(-1)), and the lowest ES value are found in the medium organic matter input system (US$ 1492 ha(-1) yr(-1)). Organic matter inputs have strong positive relationship with non-marketable ES values, while this relationship was not found in marketable ES values. Monetizing the ES can be used by land managers and policy makers to adjust management practices in terms of organic matter input in cereal production system with a long term goal for sustainable agriculture.

Abstract: Background. Ecosystem services (ES) generated within agricultural landscapes, including field boundaries, are vital for the sustainable supply of food and fibre. However, the value of ES in agriculture has not been quantified experimentally and then extrapolated globally. Methods. We quantified the economic value of two key but contrasting ES (biological control of pests and nitrogen mineralisation) provided by non-traded non-crop species in ten organic and ten conventional arable fields in New Zealand using field experiments. The arable crops grown, same for each organic and conventional pair, were peas (Pisum sativum), beans (Phaseolus vulgaris), barley (Hordeum vulgare), and wheat (Triticum aestivum). Organic systems were chosen as comparators not because they are the only forms of sustainable agriculture, but because they are subject to easily understood standards. Results. We found that organic farming systems depended on fewer external inputs and produced outputs of energy and crop dry matter generally less than but sometimes similar to those of their conventional counterparts. The economic values of the two selected ES were greater for the organic systems in all four crops, ranging from US$ 68-200 ha(-1) yr(-1) for biological control of pests and from US$ 110-425 ha(-1)yr(-1) for N mineralisation in the organic systems versus US$ 0 ha(-1)yr(-1) for biological control of pests and from US$ 60-244 ha(-1)yr(-1) for N mineralisation in the conventional systems. The total economic value (including market and non-market components) was significantly greater in organic systems, ranging from US$ 1750-4536 ha(-1)yr(-1), with US$ 1585-2560 ha(-1)yr(-1) in the conventional systems. The non-market component of the economic value in organic fields was also significantly higher than those in conventional fields. Discussion. To illustrate the potential magnitude of these two ES to temperate farming systems and agricultural landscapes elsewhere, we then extrapolate these experimentally derived figures to the global temperate cropping area of the same arable crops. We found that the extrapolated net value of the these two services provided by non-traded species could exceed the combined current global costs of pesticide and fertiliser inputs, even if utilised on only 10% of the global arable area. This approach strengthens the case for ES-rich agricultural systems, provided by non-traded species to global agriculture.

Abstract: The diversity in farmers’ objectives and responses to external drivers is usually not considered in integrated assessment studies that investigate impacts and adaptation to climate and socio-economic change. Here, we present an approach to assess how farmers’ stated objectives relate to their currently implemented practices and to preferred adaptation options, and we discuss what this implies for assessments of future changes. We based our approach on a combination of multi-criteria decision-making methods. We consistently assessed the importance of farmers’ objectives and adaptation preferences from what farmers say (based on interviews), from what farmers actually do (by analysing current farm performance) and from what farmers want (through a selected alternative farm plan). Our study was performed for six arable farms in Flevoland, a province in the Netherlands. Based on interviews with farmers, we reduced the long list of possible objectives to the most important ones. The objectives we assessed included maximization of economic result and soil organic matter, and minimization of gross margin variance, working hours and nitrogen balance. In our sample, farmers’ stated preferences in objectives were often not fully reflected in realized farming practices. Adaptation preferences of farmers largely resembled their current performance, but generally involved a trend towards stated preferences. Our results suggest that in Flevoland, although farmers do have more objectives, in practical decision-making they focus on economic result maximization, while for strategic decision-making they account for objectives influencing long-term performance and indicators associated with sustainability, in this case soil organic matter.