Features of ecosystem services supply by agroecosystems of the Samara Region gardens

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The concept of ecosystem services, which has been developed over the past 20 years in foreign and native scientific literature, is to a different extent specified in relation to various types of ecosystems. A relatively new approach is its application to orchards as important components of human agricultural activity. The ecosystem functions they perform as regards to the volume and implementation effectiveness depend on the regional soil and climatic conditions and the technologies used. For the Samara Region, this problem is considered for the first time. Trends associated with the dynamics of the fruit and berry plantations area in the Russian Federation are discussed, including general indicators decrease simultaneously with the intensive orchards growth. At present, the Samara Region is significantly ahead of neighboring regions in the gardens area, with their minimum area in the Ulyanovsk Region. Other territorial units belonging to the Middle Volga horticultural province of the Saratov Region such as republics of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan possess significant areas occupied by the gardens. In addition to large horticultural farms, the cultivation of fruit crops in the Samara Region is widespread among the local population. Horticultural agrocenoses of industrial and individual kinds, participating in the implementation of ecosystem services do it differently not only because of their different area scale. The authors explain this provision with examples related to specific groups of ecosystem services. The main target ecosystem service, growing of fruits, in terms of assortment and volume in the Samara Region is supplied to a greater extent at the expense of the individual orchards of the population. Agrotechnical features, implying large-scale treatment of industrial gardens with chemicals, pose a greater risk of environmental pollution. A greater variety of cultivated crops, varieties and organisms trophically associated with them as well as less intensive chemicalization level provide the gardens of the population with a leading position in the conservation of biological diversity, both natural and cultivated.

About the authors

Lyudmila Mikhailovna Kavelenova

Samara National Research University

Author for correspondence.
Email: lkavelenova@mail.ru

doctor of biological sciences, professor, head of Ecology, Botany and Nature Protection Department

Russian Federation, Samara

Anna Borisovna Petrova

Samara National Research University

Email: viksian@yandex.ru

teaching expert of Ecology, Botany and Nature Protection Department

Russian Federation, Samara

Maria Ivanovna Antipenko

Research Institute of Horticulture and Medicinal Plants «Zhigulevskie Sady»

Email: antipenko28@rambler.ru

candidate of agricultural sciences, leading researcher

Russian Federation, Samara

Anatoly Nikolaevich Minin

Research Institute of Horticulture and Medicinal Plants «Zhigulevskie Sady»

Email: iv-minina@yandex.ru

candidate of agricultural sciences, senior researcher

Russian Federation, Samara

References

  1. Costanza R., d'Arge R., De Groot R.et al. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital // Nature. 1997. Vol. 387 (6630). P. 253–260.
  2. Daily G. Nature's services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington: Island Press, 1997. 392 p.
  3. De Groot R.S., Wilson M.A., Boumans R.M. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services // Ecological Economics. 2002. Vol. 41. P. 393–408.
  4. Boyd J., Banzhaf S. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units // Ecological Economics. 2007. Vol. 63. P. 616–626.
  5. Fisher B., Turner R.K. Ecosystem services: classification for valuation // Biological Conservation. 2008. Vol. 141. P. 1167–1169.
  6. Haines-Young R., Potschin M. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being // Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. P. 110–139.
  7. Бобылев С.Н., Захаров В.М. Экосистемные услуги и экономика. М.: Изд-во ООО «Типография Левко», 2009. 72 с.
  8. Букварёва Е.Н., Замолодчиков Д.Г. Экосистемные услуги России: Прототип национального доклада. Услуги наземных экосистем. Т. 1. М.: Изд-во Центра охраны дикой природы, 2016. 148 с.
  9. Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being // Synthesis Report. Washington DC: Island Press, 2005. 160 p.
  10. Bastian O., Grunewald K., Syrbe R.-U. Classification of ES // Ecosystem services – concept, methods and case studies. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2015. P. 45–53.
  11. Chapin F.S., Matson P.A., Vitousek P.M. Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer New York Dordrechit Heidelberg London, 2011. P. 428–430.
  12. Zhang W., Ricketts T., Kremen C., Carney K., Swinton S. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture // Ecological Economics. 2007. Vol. 64. P. 253–260. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024.
  13. Sandhu H.S., Wratten S.D., Cullen R., Case B. The future of farming: the value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach // Ecological Economics. 2008. Vol. 64. P. 835–848. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.007.
  14. Sandhu H.S., Wratten S.D., Cullen R. Organic agriculture and ecosystem services // Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2010. Vol. 13. P. 1–7. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.11.002.
  15. Kragt M.E., Robertson M.J. Quantifying ecosystem services tradeoffs from agricultural practices // Ecological Economics. 2014. Vol. 102. P. 147–157. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.04.001.
  16. Krieger D. The economic value of Forest ecosystem Services: a review. Washington DC: Wilderness Society, 2001. P. 1–31.
  17. Fagerholm N., Torralba M., Burgess P.J., Plieninger T. A systematic map of ecosystem services assessments around European agroforestry // Ecological Indicators. 2016. Vol. 62. P. 47–65. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.016.
  18. Garcia-Nieto A., Garcia-Llorente M., Iniesta-Arandia I., Martin-Lopez B. Mapping forest ecosystem services: from providing units to beneficiaries // Ecosystem Services. 2013. Vol. 4. P. 126–138. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.03.003.
  19. Baumgartner J., Bieri M. Fruit tree ecosystem service provision and enhancement // Ecological Engineering. 2006. Vol. 27. P. 118–123. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.12.005.
  20. Montanaro G., Xiloyannis C., Nuzzo V., Dichio B. Orchard management, soil organic carbon and ecosystem services in Mediterranean fruit tree crops // Scientia Horticulturae. 2017. Vol. 217. P. 92–101. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2017.01.012.
  21. Demestihas C., Plenel D., Genard M., Raynal Ch., Lescourret F. Ecosystem services in orchards. A review // Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2017. Vol. 37, iss. 12. doi: 10.1007/s13593-017-0422-1.
  22. Simon S., Bouvier J., Debras J., Sauphanor B. Biodiversity and pest management in orchard systems. A review // Agronomy for Sustainable Development. 2010. Vol. 30. P. 139–152. doi: 10.1051/agro/2009013.
  23. Andersen L., Kuhn B.F., Bertelsen M., Bruus M., Larsen S.E., Strandberg M. Alternatives to herbicides in an apple orchard, effects on yield, earthworms and plant diversity // Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. 2013. Vol. 17. P. 1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.004.
  24. Roy S., Byrne J., Pickering C. A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones // Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2012. № 11. P. 351–363.
  25. Кавеленова Л.М., Розно С.А., Хныкина А.С. Деревья в озеленении города: к концепции баланса «Экологические услуги / Проблемы, расходы, риски» // Экология родного края: проблемы и пути их решения. Кн. 1. Киров: ВятГУ, 2018. С. 111–114.
  26. Площади многолетних насаждений в Российской Федерации [Электронный ресурс] // Сайт Федеральной службы государственной статистики. – https://rosstat.gov.ru/enterprise_economy.
  27. Мониторинг закладки садов и ягодников в РФ [Электронный ресурс] // Сайт овощи: цены, аналитика, трейдинг. – https://www.vegprice.ru/news/12842-monitoring-zakladki-sadov-i-yagodnikov-v-rf.
  28. Площадь плодоносящих садов в 2017 г. вновь снизилась [Электронный ресурс] // Сайт овощи: цены, аналитика, трейдинг. – https://www.vegprice.ru/news/7530-ploshchad-plodonosyashchih-sadov-v-2017g-vnov-snizilas.
  29. Площадь садов в регионах РФ [Электронный ресурс] // Сельхозпортал. – https://сельхозпортал.рф/analiz-posevnyh-ploshhadej.
  30. Азаров О.И., Деменина Л.Г., Петрова А.Б. Некоторые особенности производства продукции садоводства в регионах РФ и субъектах Приволжского Федерального округа: статистика и актуальные проблемы // Известия Самарского научного центра РАН. 2017. Т. 19, № 2 (3). С. 401–405.
  31. Петрова А.Б., Савицкая К.А., Кавеленова Л.М., Деменина Л.Г. О вкладе пригородных урбанизированных территорий в улучшение состояния природной среды и обеспечение населения плодово-ягодной продукцией // Экологический сборник 7: тр. молодых ученых. всерос. (с междунар. уч.) молодежная науч. конф. / под ред. канд. биол. наук С.А. Сенатора, О.В. Мухортовой и проф. С.В. Саксонова. Тольятти: ИЭВБ РАН, «Анна», 2019. С. 361–365. doi: 10.24411/9999-010A-2019-10092.
  32. Валовой сбор плодов, ягод и винограда // Самарский статистический ежегодник. Самара: Самарастат, 2019. С. 187.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download
2. Figure 1 - Relationship between conditions and cultivation techniques, ecosystem functions and ecosystem services in orchard agroecosystems (from [21])

Download (66KB)
Indexing metadata
3. Figure 2 - Dynamics of the areas under fruit and berry plantations in the Russian Federation (according to [26])

Download (30KB)
Indexing metadata
4. Figure 3 - Areas occupied by gardens in various subjects of the Volga Federal District (from [29])

Download (57KB)
Indexing metadata
5. Figure 4 - Dynamics of indicators of gross harvest of fruits and berries in farms of all categories in the Volga Federal District (according to [26])

Download (58KB)
Indexing metadata

Copyright (c) 2021 Kavelenova L.M., Petrova A.B., Antipenko M.I., Minin A.N.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies