A review of concepts and criteria for assessing agroecosystem health including a preliminary case study of southern Ontario |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Biology & CESAM, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitáro de Santiago, 3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal;2. Institute of Biological and Health Sciences (ICBS), Federal University of Alagoas, Maceió, AL, Brazil;3. Greensway AB, Ulls väg 29A, 75651 Uppsala, Sweden;4. University of Iceland, South Iceland Research Centre, Lindarbraut 4, IS-840 Laugarvatn, Iceland;1. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), ISRA/Centre de Recherche Océanographique de Dakar-Thiaroye (CRODT), UMR 195 LEMAR, BP 1386 Dakar, Senegal;2. Unite Mixte Internationale UMMISCO, Centre IRD de l’Ile de France, 32 avenue Henri Varagnat, 93143 Bondy Cedex, France;3. Sorbonne University, Université Pierre et Marie Curie (UPMC), Paris 6, France;4. Université Cheikh Anta Diop, UMI 209 IRD UMMISCO-UCAD, Dakar, Senegal;5. Institut Sénégalais de Recherche Agricole (ISRA)/Centre de Recherche Océanographique de Dakar-Thiaroye (CRODT), BP 2221, Dakar, Senegal;6. Minister of the Environment and Sustainaible Development – Ministère de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable (MEDD), DEEC/DAMCP, Dakar, Senegal;7. Minister of the Marine Economy and Fisheries – Ministère de l’économie Maritime et des pêches, Direction des Pêches Maritimes (DPM), Dakar, Senegal;8. Center for Tropical Marine Ecology-Leibniz – Zentrum für Marine Tropenökology (ZMT), Fahrenheitstr 6, 28359 Bremen, Germany;1. Instituto de Biología Subtropical, Universidad Nacional de Misiones—Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Bertoni 85, CP: 3370, Puerto Iguazú, Misiones 423511, Argentina;2. Asociación Civil Centro de Investigaciones del Bosque Atlántico (CeIBA), Bertoni 85, CP: 3370, Puerto Iguazú, Misiones, Argentina;3. Department of Geography, University of Florida, 1405 NW 38th St., Gainesville, FL, USA;4. Instituto de Ecología Animal (IDEA), FCEFyN, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba (UNC), León 2022, CP: 5014, Córdoba Capital, Argentina;5. Facultad de Ciencias Forestales (UNaM), Bertoni 124, CP: 3380. Eldorado, Misiones, Argentina;1. Department of Archaeology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa;2. Department of Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, University of Tübingen, Schloss Hohentübingen, 72070, Tübingen, Germany;3. Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities, ROCEEH (The Role of Culture in Early Expansions of Humans), Rümelinstr. 23, 72070, Tübingen, Germany;4. Senckenberg Centre for Early Prehistory and Quaternary Ecology, University of Tübingen, Schloss Hohentübingen, 72070, Tübingen, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | The model of agroecosystem health has been advocated as an appealing guideline for agricultural research. Yet, some ambiguity remains in how the concept can be defined and how the general criteria for assessing the health of an agroecosystem at a particular scale can be selected. This paper reviews the literature from various disciplines pertinent to the concept of agroecosystem health. It focuses on assessing the applicability of assorted concepts, norms, and criteria to agroecosystem health assessment, and develops a general definition of agroecosystem health. A classification scheme is proposed which scattered while potentially useful concepts in the literature are discussed, using southern Ontario as a case study to further illustrate the usefulness of the conceptual framework in studying agroecosystem health. Agroecosystem health can be characterized from four different perspectives that are related to agroecosystem structure, function, organization, and dynamics. Given the complexity of agroecosystems, the health of the systems at different scales cannot be fully captured from one perspective only. Criteria, such as resource availability, diversity, and accessibility, are some of the existing concepts capable of depicting the structural state of agroecosystem health. Concepts including productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness appear very useful for assessing the functional performance of agroecosystems. As any agroecosystem interacts actively with its external environments and changes over time, such characteristics are not necessarily captured by structural or functional criteria. Organizational criteria, such as autonomy and self-dependence, are useful to characterize the organizational nature inherent to agroecosystem health. Stability and resilience on the other hand are two appealing concepts capable of revealing the temporal dimension of agroecosystem health. Numerous empirical studies that are used to illustrate how these concepts developed in different disciplines of agricultural research can be potentially employed to facilitate the assessment of agroecosystem health. It is argued that any holistic investigation of the health of an agroecosystem needs to examine biophysical, economic, and human conditions of the system and to evaluate these conditions from perspectives pertinent to system structure, function, organization, and dynamics. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
