| Literature DB >> 27725673 |
Yann Clough1,2, Vijesh V Krishna3, Marife D Corre4, Kevin Darras2, Lisa H Denmead2, Ana Meijide5, Stefan Moser3, Oliver Musshoff3, Stefanie Steinebach6, Edzo Veldkamp4, Kara Allen4, Andrew D Barnes7,8, Natalie Breidenbach9, Ulrich Brose7,8,10, Damayanti Buchori11, Rolf Daniel12, Reiner Finkeldey9, Idham Harahap11, Dietrich Hertel13, A Mareike Holtkamp3, Elvira Hörandl14, Bambang Irawan15, I Nengah Surati Jaya16, Malte Jochum7, Bernhard Klarner17, Alexander Knohl5, Martyna M Kotowska13, Valentyna Krashevska17, Holger Kreft18, Syahrul Kurniawan4,19, Christoph Leuschner13, Mark Maraun17, Dian Nuraini Melati20, Nicole Opfermann14, César Pérez-Cruzado20, Walesa Edho Prabowo21, Katja Rembold20, Akhmad Rizali22, Ratna Rubiana11, Dominik Schneider12, Sri Sudarmiyati Tjitrosoedirdjo23, Aiyen Tjoa24, Teja Tscharntke2, Stefan Scheu17.
Abstract
Smallholder-dominated agriculturEntities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27725673 PMCID: PMC5062595 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms13137
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Figure 1Land-use change in smallholder-dominated mosaic agricultural landscapes.
Aerial photo (Photo: Heiko Faust) (a) and changes in the land-use composition (b) of the studied landscapes around the national park Bukit Duabelas and the Harapan Forest Restoration concession in Jambi Province, Indonesia from 1990 to 2011, based on land-use classification inferred from remote sensing. Rainforest (dark green diamonds), rubber (light green filled circles), oil palm (red squares), shrub/bushland (grey up-pointing triangles), and ‘others' (blue down-pointing triangles), which includes amongst others food crops, timber and fruit tree plantations. See Table 1 for the 1990–2011 land-use change matrix.
Figure 2Land-uses and associated ecological functions.
Forest remnants (a,e), jungle rubber (b,f), rubber plantation (c,g) and oil palm plantation (d,h). Ecological functions are represented as flower diagrams. For each function, the minimum (circle centre) is the 5th quantile and the maximum (circle edge) is the 95th quantile of the standardized ecosystem function indicators, observed in a plot of any land-use types. The outer edge of the flower petals indicates the estimate for the aggregate ecosystem function in a given land use relative to these minima and maxima. Because the importance of functions may differ between stakeholders, unweighted values are presented. Photo credits: Katja Rembold (a), and Yann Clough (b–d).
Land-use/land cover change (%) from 1990 to 2011 in the study landscapes in Jambi Province (Indonesia) based on land-use classification inferred from remote sensing.
| 1990 | |||||||
| Forest | 36.60 | 10.59 | 0.89 | 5.79 | 12.66 | 66.52 | 29.92 |
| Oil palm | 7.46 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 7.53 | 0.06 | |
| Other | 0.66 | 1.10 | 0.06 | 0.32 | 2.14 | 1.04 | |
| Rubber | 0.03 | 0.01 | 20.39 | 0.00 | 20.43 | 0.04 | |
| Shrub/bush | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.35 | 3.38 | 0.04 | |
| Total 2011 | 36.60 | 18.77 | 2.00 | 26.24 | 16.39 | 100.00 | |
| Gain | 0.00 | 11.31 | 0.90 | 5.85 | 13.04 | ||
Figure 3Economic functions for three agricultural land-uses.
Measures for agricultural input use (a–b), profitability functions (c–d), and farmer risk aversion (e) in three agricultural land-uses (Jambi, Indonesia): material inputs (a), labour inputs (b), gross margin per hectare (c) in units of 103 Indonesian Rupiah (IDR) ha−1 yr−1 and gross margin per labour unit (d) in units of 103 IDR h−1. Farmers risk aversion (e) is measured with a Holt–Laury lottery, higher values indicate higher risk aversion. Summary statistics of all variables are in Supplementary Table 2. Boxplots indicate the lower quartile, median and upper quartile, with whiskers extending to the most extreme data point that is no more than 1.5 times the interquartile range from the edge of the box. Horizontal bars indicate the estimated mean indicator variable value; letters indicate significant differences (F/Wald-tests; P<0.05) in these linear model (c–e) and linear mixed model (a–b) estimates between the land-use types. Boxplots within land-use (from left to right) are labelled within the panels (from top to bottom and left to right).
Statistical results including interactions between indicator variable and land-use system.
| Material inputs | Land-use system | 1 | 955 | 45.41 | <0.0001 |
| Variable | 2 | 955 | 0.00 | 1.0000 | |
| Village type | 1 | 955 | 3.40 | 0.0655 | |
| Interaction LUS × Var | 2 | 955 | 11.56 | <0.0001 | |
| Interaction LUS × VT | 1 | 955 | 1.77 | 0.1713 | |
| Interaction Var × VT | 2 | 955 | 11.42 | <0.0001 | |
| Interaction LUS × VT × Var | 2 | 955 | 3.77 | 0.0048 | |
| Labour inputs | Land-use system | 2 | 496 | 83.24 | <0.0001 |
| Variable | 1 | 496 | 0.00 | 1.0000 | |
| Village type | 1 | 496 | 0.68 | 0.40 | |
| Interaction LUS × Var | 2 | 496 | 10.08 | 0.0001 | |
| Interaction LUS × VT | 2 | 496 | 0.37 | 0.6942 | |
| Interaction Var × VT | 1 | 496 | 0.07 | 0.0737 | |
| Interaction LUS × VT × Var | 2 | 496 | 6.73 | 0.0013 | |
| Gross margin per ha | Land-use system | 2 | 414 | 58.55 | <0.0001 |
| Village type | 1 | 414 | 10.97 | 0.0010 | |
| Interaction | 2 | 414 | 0.28 | 0.7533 | |
| Gross margin per labour hour | Land-use system | 2 | 416 | 16.74 | <0.0001 |
| Land-use system | 2 | 414 | 7.01 | 0.0084 | |
| Village type | 1 | 414 | 0.82 | 0.4429 | |
| Holt–Laury | Land-use system | 2 | 84 | 3.27 | 0.0427 |
| Naturalness | Land-use system | 3 | 29 | 95.55 | <0.0001 |
| Variable | 2 | 54 | 0.95 | 0.9676 | |
| Interaction | 6 | 54 | 2.27 | 0.0502 | |
| Biodiversity | Land-use system | 3 | 199 | 10.29 | 0.0001 |
| Variable | 8 | 199 | 0.03 | 1.0000 | |
| Interaction | 24 | 199 | 6.58 | <0.0001 | |
| Genetic plant diversity | Land-use system | 3 | 28 | 7.60 | <0.0001 |
| Stability in climatic conditions | Land-use system | 3 | 28 | 22.93 | <0.0001 |
| Variable | 4 | 112 | 0.00 | 1.0000 | |
| Interaction | 12 | 112 | 7.81 | <0.0001 | |
| Soil processes and functioning | Land-use system | 3 | 28 | 6.81 | 0.0014 |
| Variable | 3 | 84 | 0.00 | 1.0000 | |
| Interaction | 9 | 84 | 1.43 | 0.1871 | |
| Nutrient leaching fluxes | Land-use system | 3 | 26 | 7.11 | 0.0012 |
| Variable | 7 | 182 | 0.00 | 1.0000 | |
| Interaction | 21 | 182 | 1.73 | 0.0291 | |
| Yield | Land-use system | 2 | 21 | 74.94 | <0.0001 |
| NPP | Land-use system | 3 | 28 | 34.81 | <0.0001 |
| Carbon stocks | Land-use system | 3 | 31 | 11.61 | <0.0001 |
| Variable | 1 | 25 | 0.00 | 1.0000 | |
| Interaction | 3 | 25 | 6.85 | 0.0016 | |
| Soil fertility | Land-use system | 3 | 26 | 7.72 | 0.0008 |
| Variable | 5 | 130 | 0.00 | 1.0000 | |
| Interaction | 15 | 130 | 2.10 | 0.0132 |
The multiple indicator variables used for each response variable are shown in Figure 4; because indicator variables may systematically differ in responses to land use, we test the interaction between indicator variable identity (listed in the table as Variable) and land-use. Linear models and F-tests were used with models with a single indicator variable, linear mixed models and Wald-tests for models with multiple indicator variables. denDF, denominator d.f. for F-tests; LUS, land-use system; NPP, net primary production; numDF, numerator d.f. for F-tests; Var, variable; VT, village type.
Figure 4Multiple aggregate ecosystem functions and their indicators.
Naturalness (a), observed local species richness (b), genetic diversity of plants (c), stability in climatic conditions (d), soil processes and functioning (e), nutrient leaching fluxes (f), yield/harvested biomass (g), NPP minus exported harvest (h) carbon stocks (i). Indicators for naturalness (a) are: proportion forest species among bird communities, proportion indigenous tree species, proportion common weed species present. Indicators for biodiversity/species richness (b) are: number of species/OTU of trees, understory plants, birds, litter invertebrates, termites, ants, testate amoebae, archaea and bacteria recorded per plot. Indicator for genetic diversity of plants (c) is Shannon diversity based on 10 individuals for 10 dominant plant species per plot. Indicators for stability in climatic conditions (d) are: lower 5% percentile for air humidity, higher 95% percentile for air temperature (additive inverse), and ranges (additive inverse) between percentiles 5 and 95% for air temperature, soil moisture range and soil temperature. Indicators for soil processes and functioning (e) are: litter mass loss after 6 months, soil microbial biomass, soil basal respiration and soil specific respiration. Indicators for nutrient leaching fluxes (f) are: total dissolved nitrogen (TDN), dissolved organic carbon (DOC), Na, Ca, Mg, total Al, total P and total S. Indicators for carbon stocks (i) are: estimated carbon in total plant biomass and SOC. All variables were standardized to allow joint plotting; summary statistics of raw variables are in Supplementary Table 3. Boxplots indicate the lower quartile, median and upper quartile, with whiskers extending to the most extreme data point that is no more than 1.5 times the interquartile range from the edge of the box. Horizontal bars indicate the estimated mean indicator variable value; letters indicate significant differences (F/Wald-tests; P<0.05) in mean levels of these linear model (c,g,h) and linear mixed model (a,b,d–f,i) estimates between the land-use types. Boxplots within land-use (from left to right) are labelled within the panels (from top to bottom and left to right).