View in EDS

Agroecological farming promotes yield and biodiversity but may require subsidy to be profitable.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Agroecological farming promotes yield and biodiversity but may require subsidy to be profitable.
Authors: Woodcock, B. A.1 (AUTHOR) bawood@ceh.ac.uk, Cook, S.2 (AUTHOR), Hulmes, L.1 (AUTHOR), Hulmes, S.1 (AUTHOR), Torrance, M.2 (AUTHOR), Redhead, J.1 (AUTHOR), Swain, J.2 (AUTHOR), Ostler, R.2 (AUTHOR), Rainey, J.3 (AUTHOR), Weites, M. G.1 (AUTHOR), Heard, M. S.1,4 (AUTHOR), Nowakowski, M.5 (AUTHOR), Bullock, J. M.1 (AUTHOR), Carvell, C.1 (AUTHOR), Storkey, J.2 (AUTHOR), Pywell, R. F.1 (AUTHOR)
Source: Journal of Applied Ecology. Aug2025, Vol. 62 Issue 8, p1902-1913. 12p.
Subjects: Biodiversity, Ecosystem services, Subsidies, Chemical yield, Agricultural policy, Agricultural ecology, Sustainability
Abstract: Intensive arable agriculture uses agrochemicals to replace ecosystem services (e.g. pest control and soil health) while simultaneously degrading others (e.g. pollination). Agroecological farming aims to reduce this reliance on agrochemicals. Whether these practices maintain yields at a scale relevant to farm business viability is unclear.In a 4‐year replicated study across 17 English farms we assessed the ability of farmer co‐designed agroecological systems to support regulating services, beneficial invertebrates, crop yield and profitability. We test three management systems: (1) 'business‐as‐usual (BAU)' control; (2) 'enhancing‐ES' supporting beneficial invertebrates with wildflower field margins and protecting soils with cover crops; (3) 'maximising ES' with the further addition of soil organic matter and in‐field strips to bring beneficial invertebrates into the crop.Soil carbon stocks were highest in the maximising‐ES system. Predation and pollination ecosystem services were higher in the enhancing‐ES and maximising‐ES systems, as were earthworms and other populations of beneficial predatory and pollinating invertebrates. Pest snail biomass was also lowest in the enhancing‐ES and maximising‐ES systems, although aphid numbers were higher.The enhancing‐ES and maximising‐ES systems increase yields of cereals and oilseed rape. However, the loss of productive agricultural land and establishment costs exceeded the value of increased yields. Only enhancing‐ES breaks even with agri‐environmental subsidies.Synthesis and applications. These results highlight that while evidence for the role of ecosystem services in supporting crop yield can be found, overcoming economic constraints within conventional farming systems is likely to be a key barrier to widespread uptake. Agri‐environmental subsidy payments can offset these costs, but only for moderate interventions. Transition to more sustainable farming systems needs to overcome these economic constraints with new policy interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Applied Ecology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 187163728
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Agroecological farming promotes yield and biodiversity but may require subsidy to be profitable.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Woodcock%2C+B%2E+A%2E%22">Woodcock, B. A.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<i> bawood@ceh.ac.uk</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Cook%2C+S%2E%22">Cook, S.</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hulmes%2C+L%2E%22">Hulmes, L.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Hulmes%2C+S%2E%22">Hulmes, S.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Torrance%2C+M%2E%22">Torrance, M.</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Redhead%2C+J%2E%22">Redhead, J.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Swain%2C+J%2E%22">Swain, J.</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ostler%2C+R%2E%22">Ostler, R.</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rainey%2C+J%2E%22">Rainey, J.</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Weites%2C+M%2E+G%2E%22">Weites, M. G.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Heard%2C+M%2E+S%2E%22">Heard, M. S.</searchLink><relatesTo>1,4</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nowakowski%2C+M%2E%22">Nowakowski, M.</searchLink><relatesTo>5</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Bullock%2C+J%2E+M%2E%22">Bullock, J. M.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Carvell%2C+C%2E%22">Carvell, C.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Storkey%2C+J%2E%22">Storkey, J.</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Pywell%2C+R%2E+F%2E%22">Pywell, R. F.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Journal+of+Applied+Ecology%22">Journal of Applied Ecology</searchLink>. Aug2025, Vol. 62 Issue 8, p1902-1913. 12p.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Biodiversity%22">Biodiversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ecosystem+services%22">Ecosystem services</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Subsidies%22">Subsidies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Chemical+yield%22">Chemical yield</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Agricultural+policy%22">Agricultural policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Agricultural+ecology%22">Agricultural ecology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sustainability%22">Sustainability</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Intensive arable agriculture uses agrochemicals to replace ecosystem services (e.g. pest control and soil health) while simultaneously degrading others (e.g. pollination). Agroecological farming aims to reduce this reliance on agrochemicals. Whether these practices maintain yields at a scale relevant to farm business viability is unclear.In a 4‐year replicated study across 17 English farms we assessed the ability of farmer co‐designed agroecological systems to support regulating services, beneficial invertebrates, crop yield and profitability. We test three management systems: (1) 'business‐as‐usual (BAU)' control; (2) 'enhancing‐ES' supporting beneficial invertebrates with wildflower field margins and protecting soils with cover crops; (3) 'maximising ES' with the further addition of soil organic matter and in‐field strips to bring beneficial invertebrates into the crop.Soil carbon stocks were highest in the maximising‐ES system. Predation and pollination ecosystem services were higher in the enhancing‐ES and maximising‐ES systems, as were earthworms and other populations of beneficial predatory and pollinating invertebrates. Pest snail biomass was also lowest in the enhancing‐ES and maximising‐ES systems, although aphid numbers were higher.The enhancing‐ES and maximising‐ES systems increase yields of cereals and oilseed rape. However, the loss of productive agricultural land and establishment costs exceeded the value of increased yields. Only enhancing‐ES breaks even with agri‐environmental subsidies.Synthesis and applications. These results highlight that while evidence for the role of ecosystem services in supporting crop yield can be found, overcoming economic constraints within conventional farming systems is likely to be a key barrier to widespread uptake. Agri‐environmental subsidy payments can offset these costs, but only for moderate interventions. Transition to more sustainable farming systems needs to overcome these economic constraints with new policy interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: <i>Copyright of Journal of Applied Ecology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=187163728
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/1365-2664.70079
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 1902
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Biodiversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ecosystem services
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Subsidies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Chemical yield
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Agricultural policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Agricultural ecology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Sustainability
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Agroecological farming promotes yield and biodiversity but may require subsidy to be profitable.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Woodcock, B. A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Cook, S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hulmes, L.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hulmes, S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Torrance, M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Redhead, J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Swain, J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ostler, R.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rainey, J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Weites, M. G.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Heard, M. S.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nowakowski, M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Bullock, J. M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Carvell, C.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Storkey, J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Pywell, R. F.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Text: Aug2025
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 00218901
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Applied Ecology
              Type: main
ResultId 1