Biodiversität in LCA: Fundament zur Abschätzung

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Biodiversität in LCA: Fundament zur Abschätzung"

Elijah Griffin
6 years ago
Views:

1 Eidgenössisches Departement für Wirtschaft, Bildung und Forschung WBF Agroscope Biodiversität in LCA: Fundament zur Abschätzung Philippe Jeanneret & Markus van der Meer 23. November 17 I gutes Essen, gesunde Umwelt

2 Plan Systemgrenzen, global versus lokal Die Methode SALCA-Biodiversität Information zur Abschätzung eines Kultur-Typs: der Obstbau Zusammenfassung und Perspektive 2

Action-oriented measures need main actors involvement local stakeholders,

3 Global versus Local Estimation of land use impact on biodiversity importance at global scale «big picture» relatively rough land use classes are sufficient Action-oriented measures need main actors involvement local stakeholders, farmers, farmers community, extension services T Newbold et al. Nature 5, (15) 3

4 Global versus Local Chaudhary et al. 15 De Baan et al. 13 Local characterization factors (CFloc) for each land use type and data sources Land use ID Land use type Source Biome_I D Taxa_paper Taxa Used Local_CF 5.1 Agriculture, arable (annual crops) GLOBIO 1 trees Plant Agriculture, arable (annual crops) GLOBIO 4 Mosses Plant Agriculture, arable (annual crops) Elshout et al weeds Plant Agriculture, arable (annual crops) Elshout et al weeds Plant Agriculture, arable (annual crops) Elshout et al weeds Plant Agriculture, arable (annual crops) Elshout et al weeds Plant Agriculture, arable (annual crops) Elshout et al weeds Plant Agriculture, arable (annual crops) Elshout et al weeds Plant 0.97 Figure 1. (a) Median regional occupation characterization factors (CFs) per ecoregion for mammals and the land use type annual crops calculated using the Countryside SAR from eq 1. 4

Farming practices like fertilization, mowing, grazing,

5 Agricultural land use and biodiversity the context Management of crops and care of semi-natural habitats Farming practices like fertilization, mowing, grazing, tillage, pesticide application, etc. Gabriela Brändle, ART J.-Y. Humbert, ART 5

6 Biodiversity and the agricultural land use the context Components of agricultural land use with impacts on biodiversity: Proportion of semi-natural habitats, type and diversity of crops X. Junge, B. Schüpbach, R. Briegel, G. Brändle, ART X. Junge, B. Schüpbach, R. Briegel, G. Brändle, ART 6

SALCA-Biodiversity Estimation of impacts on biodiversity

Species Groups (ISG) Insecticide application AA-1 ISG-1

Spiders AA-4 ISG-4 Wild flower strips AA-5 ISG-11

7 SALCA-Biodiversity Estimation of impacts on biodiversity Agricultural Activities (AA) Biodiversity = Indicator Species Groups (ISG) Insecticide application AA-1 ISG-1 Birds Mowing AA-2 AA-3 Impact ISG-2 ISG-3 Butterflies Spiders AA-4 ISG-4 Wild flower strips AA-5 ISG-11 Bottom-up approach: Scores based on scientific and expert knowledge 7

8 Impact of agricultural activities on biodiversity selected indicators Habitat type Practice - Level I Practice - Level II Option Rating Meadow Cutting Number of cuts no cut 5 Meadow Cutting Number of cuts cut = very extensively used meadow 4 Meadow Cutting Number of cuts cut = extensively used meadow 4 Meadow Cutting Number of cuts cut = low input meadow 2 Meadow Cutting Number of cuts cut = fairly intensive meadow 1 Meadow Cutting Number of cuts cut = intensive meadow 1 Meadow Cutting Number of cuts cut = too intensive meadow 1 Impact of every option on each indicator is estimated with a rating between 0 and 5, impact of options are rated relatively to each other, there is no ; Habitat type and practices have coefficients reflecting their significance for the indicator; Coefficients and ratings are estimated according to published investigations and expert knowledge; Coefficients and ratings are grouped to scores. 8

They need infrastructure, care and plant protection with high environmental impact The development of

9 Material & Methods - Background We now aim to extend the expert system to fruit growing systems. Intensive orchards (low, middle & high stem) ensure the supply of fresh fruits. They need infrastructure, care and plant protection with high environmental impact The development of expert systems s.l. relies strongly on available information from the scientific literature. First search => We need a system 9

10 Material & Methods - a Systematic Map AIMS: To balance policies and practices based on experience & evidence // Avoid biases due to e.g. author (unconscious selection) or publication access Results: public database / identify research gaps and/or publications relevant for a review or meta-analysis Requires a strong and clear extraction strategy. Full description of methods is available here: 10

Systematic Map - the record The coding strategy: Which Information is contained in the articles?

practices (APO) StudyDesign StudyDesign StudyDesign StudyDesign StudyDesign StudyDesign StudyDesign MeasuresOfChange

MeasuresOfChange MeasuresOfChange MeasuresOfChange laboratory modelling monitoring on farm pseudoexperimental single na

11 Systematic Map - the record The coding strategy: Which Information is contained in the articles? o 45 fields, subdivided in code-lists o + 11 fields - indicator species group (ISG) o + 22 fields - production o + 50 fields - practices (APO) StudyDesign StudyDesign StudyDesign StudyDesign StudyDesign StudyDesign StudyDesign MeasuresOfChange MeasuresOfChange MeasuresOfChange MeasuresOfChange MeasuresOfChange MeasuresOfChange MeasuresOfChange MeasuresOfChange MeasuresOfChange MeasuresOfChange MeasuresOfChange laboratory modelling monitoring on farm pseudoexperimental single na 1_diff_diversity 1_diff_dispersal 1_diff_abundance 1_diff_DA 1_diff_DisDA 2_impact_lethality_disturbance 2_impact_life_traits 2_impact_organisms 2_impact_LLO 3_census 4_other 11

12 Decision Systematic Map: process & State of the Art Controls Title Consistency Check (Kappa-Test) Contents Build cross tables APO vs ISG* Study Quality Assessm. * APO: Agricultural Practices in Orchards // ISG: Indicator Species Groups Subset reviewed by all authors 12

Preliminary Results - Production & Research Share of pome fruit, stone fruit and olive orchards on arable and perennial land use (coloration) and n of publications Fundament found zur Abschätzung per

13 Preliminary Results - Production & Research Share of pome fruit, stone fruit and olive orchards on arable and perennial land use (coloration) and n of publications Fundament found zur Abschätzung per country/state/region Landnutzung in Ökobilanzen (numbers). The fifteen countries with the highest relevance 13 are high-lighted Ph. Jeanneret, with M. a van green der Meer background. [In order to avoid a search and language bias, all publications found on specialist sites are not shown: n pub = 828] / [Source of production data: FAOstat, USDA-FAS, national statistic offices and others] / [Source of GIS data: GADM database ( version 2.8, November 15]

14 Preliminary Results Chronology The search focus «impact of APO on ISG» gains high interest Birds: popular feature (Sympathieträger) & predators Spiders: potential function as predators became aware end of the 90s 1 2 «neglected» ISG --- others Awareness: Pollinators are dying 1: honey bees / pesticides 2: wild bees / pollination mainly on ground mainly pests Although most have potential as predators 14

15 Preliminary Results Research (1) Treatments (field studies / n= 692) Practices not only mentioned but explicitly surveyed ORG / IP / CON 15

16 Preliminary Results Research (2) Treatments (field studies / n= 692) Major interventions with Possible high impact => Lack of research (= gap) Duration years n publications > 10 6 Lack of long-term studies 16

17 SALCA-BD pre-evaluation N of publications // Only CH & neighbouring regions North of the Alps // n pub = 109 Field studies Reports/Reviews, Labo, Extension 17

discussed) 3 discussed (found in results and/or advanced discussion) 4 main focus (major

18 SALCA: CH+limit - DL of APO & ISG Description Level 1 only marginally mentioned a couple of times throughout the text 2 addressed but not deepened (minor finding in results and/or shortly discussed) 3 discussed (found in results and/or advanced discussion) 4 main focus (major finding in the results and deepened discussion Shows how well the themes are assessed in the articles. 18

19 SALCA: CH+limit - Now we have a lot of information. But Is there always an impact described? And How do we evaluate evidence-based impact? 19

20 SALCA: CH+limit Reliability of the scoring Evaluate the impact described in articles + SQA-weight Publication N Nr_160 Nr_169 Nr_282 Nr_945 Nr_964 Nr_1738 Nr_2587 Nr_3148 Nr_3680 SQA-%-Weight Reviewer Score weighted mean = Final SCORE 4 => a) Final Score which will then be included in the SALCA calculation LEGEND: Impact Values: 5 very good 4 good 3 neutral 2 bad 1 very bad IMPACT OF A PRACTICE ON AN INDICATOR SPECIES GROUP: weighted mean (according to the SQA - Study Quality Assessment) of the publications describing the respective Impact Publications from Switzerland and neighbouring regions Ground and Tree Management floor_bareground floor_disking floor_fertilisation floor_flowering_miture floor_grazing floor_greencover floor_mowing floor_mulch_film floor_mulch_mulching floor_tillage tree_growth_sheath tree_pruning tree_thinning c_amphibian 4 1 c_bat c_bird c_butterfly c_carabid c_grasshopper c_mammals_other c_mouse c_reptile 4 1 c_slug_snail c_spider cb_honey_bee cb_wild_bee cfl_grass cfl_weed tree_training_system... => b) table opposing the weighted score and the number of publications on which it relies. N of Publications irrelevant lacking 1-4 unreliable 5-8 usable 9-12 reliable >12 sure Accordingly we score statements and findings about the habitat value of orchards (not shown). Plant Protection Management pp_coating pp_mating_disruption pp_natural_enemy pp_other pp_trap_strip ppp_copper ppp_fungicide ppp_herbicide ppp_ins_broad ppp_ins_selective ppp_ins_specific ppp_ins_undef ppp_molluscicide ppp_rodenticide ppp_sulphur ppp_undefined ppp_undifferentiated c_amphibian c_bat 2 1 c_bird c_butterfly c_carabid c_grasshopper c_mammals_other c_mouse c_reptile c_slug_snail c_spider cb_honey_bee cb_wild_bee cfl_grass 1 1 cfl_weed 1 1 Design and other Management surface_elements_flowers surface_elements_hedge surface_elements_other surface_fences surface_harvest surface_irrigation surface_landscape_contex surface_landscape_contex surface_landscape_contex surface_material_other technique_applicationmeth technique_drift technique_machines top_hailnet top_roofing c_amphibian c_bat c_bird c_butterfly c_carabid c_grasshopper c_mammals_other c_mouse c_reptile c_slug_snail c_spider cb_honey_bee cb_wild_bee cfl_grass cfl_weed

Review for SALCA - Preliminary results A broad Systematic Mapping allows a rigorous identification of relevant literature according to a defined

For a scoring, different types of literature can be used, when implementing a study quality assessment (SQA) and weighting the results/statements.

21 Review for SALCA - Preliminary results A broad Systematic Mapping allows a rigorous identification of relevant literature according to a defined topic and to narrow down the important texts for SALCA-BD on the basis of the description level. For a scoring, different types of literature can be used, when implementing a study quality assessment (SQA) and weighting the results/statements. Local evidence-based impact evaluation is possible for some few APO vs ISG but for most, information lacks. => International literature has to be considered for the scoring in SALCA-Biodiversity. 21

22 60 60 Relationships between expert system 50 output and observed species richness at field scale (n = 667) of 132 farms across European regions Grassland flora No. of species per field Field scale/study region Field scale/habitat type 0 Field 5 scale/study 10 15region 0 Field 5 scale/study region Arable crop flora No. of species per field Spiders No. of species per field Grassland flora No. No. of of species per per field field AT CH NO Wild bees No. of species per field AT BG CH DE FR GB HU NO 25 Cereals Forest pasture Grain legumes Leys Maize Meadow 15 Oleaginous crops Pasture 10 5 Spiders species per field Scores Scores Scores Scores Black lines 30 indicate predicted values of 30best-fit negative binomial generalized mixed effects models over all regions. Dashed lines indicate 25 Fundament 95% confidence zur Abschätzung interval. Slope Landnutzung (relationship) 25 in Ökobilanzen for each ISG is positive significant in best model with habitat type as random intercept Ph. Jeanneret, and region M. van der as Meer random intercept and/or slope. Lüscher et al. 17 The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 22

23 Summary and Perspective Estimation of the land use impact on biodiversity requires consideration of local, management-dependent conditions Searching for information on land use impact on biodiversity is very time-consuming Studies quantifying impact of specific management options on biodiversity indicators are often scarce For biodiversity, field surveys are relevant to improve models but are expensive Experts involvement increases the source of information for the impact assessment 23

Danke für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit Philippe Jeanneret philippe.

24 Danke für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit Philippe Jeanneret Agroscope gutes Essen, gesunde Umwelt 24

Impact of agricultural land use and production on biodiversity in LCA

Federal Department of Economic Affairs FDEA Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART Impact of agricultural land use and production on biodiversity in LCA Philippe Jeanneret, Daniel Baumgartner