Comparing direct land use impacts on biodiversity of conventional and organic milk-based on a Swedish case study
Comparing direct land use impacts on biodiversity of conventional and organic milk-based on a Swedish case study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11367-013-0638-5
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
影响因子：
4.8
通讯作者：
Koellner, Thomas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Mueller, Carina;de Baan, Laura;Koellner, Thomas
阻止生物多样性的丧失，同时为不断增长和增加的世界人口提供粮食安全是一项挑战。解决这一困境的一个可能办法是有机农业，预计这将提高农田的生物多样性。然而，有机产品往往需要更大的面积。这项研究表明，我们如何可以量化和比较的直接土地利用对生物多样性的有机和传统的食品，如milk.This研究评估直接土地利用的影响1升牛奶离开农场大门。关于土地占用的清单数据是从瑞典南部15个农场的生命周期评估研究中提取的。直接的土地使用变化数据来自粮农组织统计数据库。空间分异特征因子的占领（CFOCC）和转换（CFTrans）计算的基础上的相对差异的植物物种丰富度的农业用地相比，（半）自然区域参考。关于植物物种丰富度和生态系统再生时间（用于计算转化影响）的数据来自文献综述。为了说明各区域之间生物多样性价值的差异，采用了基于绝对物种丰富度、脆弱性和不可替代性的加权系统，有机牛奶对土地使用的直接影响低于传统牛奶，尽管它需要的面积大约是传统牛奶的两倍。占领的影响占主导地位的结果，有机牛奶比传统牛奶小得多，有机土地使用的CFOCC小得多。对于转型影响，两种耕作方式之间的差异更为明显。影响最大的是浓缩饲料（传统牛奶）中的豆粕，原因是其种植国（即巴西和阿根廷）大规模砍伐森林。然而，缺乏可靠的数据给评估转型影响带来了挑战。总体而言，结果是高度敏感的农场之间的土地占用面积的差异，CFOCC和假设转换面积。结果的敏感性和鲁棒性进行了测试和讨论。虽然有机牛奶需要约两倍的土地，传统的，它仍然有较低的直接土地利用对生物多样性的影响。这突出表明，评估土地利用影响的重要性，不仅要根据面积，而且要考虑到对生物多样性的实际影响。所提出的方法可以量化和比较热点和冷点在牛奶生产的农业阶段，并可能也适用于其他农产品。然而，需要进行更多的研究，以便量化土地使用的间接影响。
Halting the loss of biodiversity while providing food security for a growing and prospering world population is a challenge. One possible solution to this dilemma is organic agriculture, which is expected to enhance biodiversity on the farmland. However, organic products often require larger areas. This study demonstrates how we can quantify and compare the direct land use impacts on biodiversity of organic and conventional food products such as milk.This study assessed direct land use impacts of 1 l of milk leaving the farm gate. Inventory data on land occupation were extracted from a life cycle assessment study of 15 farms in southern Sweden. Direct land use change data were derived from the FAO statistical database. Spatially differentiated characterization factors of occupation (CFOcc) and transformation (CFTrans) were calculated based on the relative difference of plant species richness on agricultural land compared to a (semi) natural regional reference. Data on plant species richness and regeneration times of ecosystems (for calculating transformation impacts) were derived from a literature review. To account for differences in biodiversity value between regions, a weighting system based on absolute species richness, vulnerability and irreplaceability was applied.Organic milk had a lower direct land use impact than conventional milk, although it required about double the area. Occupation impacts dominated the results and were much smaller for organic than conventional milk, as CFOcc of organic land uses were considerably smaller. For transformation impacts, differences between the two farming practices were even more pronounced. The highest impacts were caused by soymeal in concentrate feeds (conventional milk) due to large-scale deforestation in its country of cultivation (i.e. Brazil and Argentina). However, lack of reliable data posed a challenge in the assessment of transformation impacts. Overall, results were highly sensitive to differences in land occupation area between farms, the CFOcc and assumptions concerning transformed area. Sensitivity and robustness of results were tested and are discussed.Although organic milk required about twice as much land as conventional, it still had lower direct land use impacts on biodiversity. This highlights the importance of assessing land use impacts not only based on area but also considering the actual impacts on biodiversity. The presented approach allows to quantify and compare hot- and coldspots in the agricultural stage of milk production and could potentially also be applied to other agricultural products. However, more research is needed to allow quantification of indirect land use impacts.