¿Qué se valora del bosque nativo y cómo se pueden restaurar los agroecosistemas? Percepciones y preferencias de productores agrícola-ganaderos del Espinal, al sureste de Córdoba

Malena Villarruel Parma; Fernando Zamudio; Esteban Kowaljow

doi:10.25260/EA.24.34.2.0.2322

Authors

Malena Villarruel Parma Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, CONICET.
Fernando Zamudio Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, CONICET. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1204-0715
Esteban Kowaljow Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, CONICET. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8442-8693

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.24.34.2.0.2322

Keywords:

ecosystem services, socioecosystems, surveys, valuations, stakeholders, decisions

Abstract

Agroecosystems are socioecosystems where people perceive, value, and benefit from the goods and services provided by nature, while also modifying it according to their preferences and decisions. Due to intensive management, functions, services, and biodiversity have been altered and lost, making the ecological restoration of these landscapes a current priority. To recognize the perceptions and valuations of ecosystem services associated with native forests, and their relationship with the restoration preferences of producers in the Espinal Region, southeast of Córdoba, tools derived from ethnobiological approaches (in-depth interviews with key actors, semi-structured surveys, free listings, Likert scales, and projective tests) were used. Models were created to evaluate the relationship between sociodemographic and productive variables, valuations, and restoration preferences. The regulatory and support services associated with native forests were the most mentioned and valued. Provisioning services were the least valued, particularly by older producers with patches of forest already present on their fields. Agricultural producers preferred to restore areas with low-quality soils and areas with temporary or permanent flooding. Those producers with forest fragments on their fields chose to enrich them, while the rest preferred the implementation of forest buffers. For this purpose, they selected native plant species from the region, which they associated with forest patches and which were also recommended by experts. Including valuations assigned to native forests, age, and the presence of patches owned by the producers being studied, along with economic, contractual, and field characteristics (soil type, presence of flooding), will allow the design of restoration actions adapted to the specific contexts of each producer and, therefore, ensure their success.

References

Albuquerque, U. P., D. Ludwig, I. S. Feitosa, J. M. B. de Moura, W. S. F. Júnior, et al. 2020. Addressing Social-Ecological Systems across Temporal and Spatial Scales: a Conceptual Synthesis for Ethnobiology. Human Ecology 48(5):557-571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-020-00189-7.

Aronson, J., J. N. Blignaut, S. J. Milton, D. Le Maitre, K. J. Esler, A. Limouzin, N. Lederer, et al. 2010. Are socioeconomic benefits of restoration adequately quantified? A meta‐analysis of recent papers (2000-2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 other scientific journals. Restoration Ecology 18(2):143-154. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00638.x.

Barral, M. P., J. M. R. Benayas, P. Meli, and N. O. Maceira. 2015. Quantifying the impacts of ecological restoration on biodiversity and ecosystem services in agroecosystems: A global meta-analysis. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 202:223-231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.01.009.

Barral, M. P., S. Villarino, P. Cristiana, M. Baumann, T. Kuemmerle, and M. Mastrangelo. 2020. Widespread and major losses in multiple ecosystem services as a result of agricultural expansion in the Argentine Chaco. J Appl Ecol 57(12):2485-2498. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13740.

Berkes, F., J. Colding, and C. Folke. 2003. Navigating Social-Ecological Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bertram, D. 2007. Likert Scale are the meaning of life. Topic Report 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957.

Blanco, J., N. Dendoncker, C. Barnaud, and C. Sirami. 2019. Ecosystem disservices matter: Towards their systematic integration within ecosystem service research and policy. Ecosystem Services 36:100913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100913.

Burkart, R., N. O. Bárbaro, R. O. Sánchez, and D. A. Gómez. 1999. Eco-regiones de la Argentina. Banco Componente Educación Ambiental del PRODIA. Interamericano de Desarrollo. Pp. 43.

Burnett, K. M., T. Ticktin, L. L. Bremer, S. A. Quazi, C. Geslani, C. A. Wada, K. B. Winter, et al. 2019. Restoring to the future: Environmental, cultural, and management trade‐offs in historical versus hybrid restoration of a highly modified ecosystem. Conservation Letters 12(1):e12606. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12606.

Cabrera, Á. L. 1976. Regiones fitogeográficas argentinas. Pp. 1-85 en W. F. Kugler (ed.). Enciclopedia argentina de agricultura y jardinería. Tomo 2. Fascículo 1. 2a edición. Acme. Buenos Aires. Argentina.

Cáceres, D. M., E. Tapella, F. Quétier, and S. Díaz. 2015. The social value of biodiversity and ecosystem services from the perspectives of different social actors. Ecology and Society 20(1):62. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07297-200162.

Chan, K. M., R. K. Gould, and U. Pascual. 2018. Editorial overview: relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 35:A1-A7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.11.003.

Collier, M. J. 2021. Are field boundary hedgerows the earliest example of a nature-based solution? Environmental Science and Policy 120:73-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.02.008.

Córdoba, G. S., and E. Zepharovich. 2022. How rural actors relate to nature. Perceptions of ecosystem services in the semi-arid Chaco of northern Argentina. Land Use Policy 121:106324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106324.

de Groot, R. S., R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein, and L. Willemen. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7(3):260-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.

Díaz, S., S. Demissew, J. Carabias, C. Joly, M. Lonsdale, N. Ash, D. Zlatanova, et al. 2015. The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 14:1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.

dos Santos, J. E., and A. De Fiori. 2005. Perception of environmental impacts in relation to land use. International Journal of Environment and Sustainable Development 4(2):166-180. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJESD.2005.007238.

FAO and PNUMA. 2020. El estado de los bosques del mundo 2020. Los bosques, la biodiversidad y las personas. Roma. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8642es.

Fischer, J., M. Riechers, J. Loos, B. Martin-Lopez, and V. M. Temperton. 2021. Making the UN decade on ecosystem restoration a social-ecological endeavour. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 36(1):20-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.08.018.

Gonzalez, E., D. A. Landis, M. Knapp, and G. Valladares. 2020. Forest cover and proximity decrease herbivory and increase crop yield via enhanced natural enemies in soybean fields. Journal of Applied Ecology 57(11):2296-2306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13732.

Higgs, E., D. A. Falk, A. Guerrini, M. Hall, J. Harris, R. J. Hobbs, S. T. Jackson, J. M. Rhemtulla, and W. Throop. 2014. The changing role of history in restoration ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:499-506. https://doi.org/10.1890/110267.

Houspanossian, J., R. Giménez, J. I. Whitworth-Hulse, M. D. Nosetto, W. Tych, P. M. Atkinson, E. G. Jobbágy, et al. 2023. Agricultural expansion raises groundwater and increases flooding in the South American plains. Science 380(6652):1344-1348. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.add5462.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon et al. (eds.). Cambridge Univ. Press, New York.

IPBES. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondízio, et al. (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany.

Ladio, A. H., and U. P. Albuquerque. 2014. The concept of hybridization and its contribution to urban ethnobiology. Ethnobiology and Conservation, 3. https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2014-11-3.6-1-9.

Lewis, J. P., D. E. Prado, and I. M. Barberis. 2006. Los remanentes de bosques del espinal en la provincia de Córdoba. Pp. 254-260 en A. Brown, U. Martínez Ortiz, M. Acerbi and J. Corcuera (eds.). Situación Ambiental Argentina en el 2005. Buenos Aires.

Lewis, J. P., S. Noetinger, D. E. Prado, and I. M. Barberis. 2009. Woody vegetation structure and composition of the last relicts of Espinal vegetation in subtropical Argentina. Biodiversity and Conservation 18:3615-3628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-009-9665-8.

Ley Plan Provincial Agroforestal (N° 10467). 2017. Boletín Oficial de la Provincia de Córdoba 179.

Ley de Presupuestos mínimos de protección ambiental de los bosques nativos (Ley N° 26331). (2007). Boletín Oficial de Argentina, N° 31310, 2.

Marques, V., S. Ursi, E. Lima, and G. Katon. 2020. Environmental perception: Notes on transdisciplinary approach. Scientific Journal of Biology and Life Sciences 1(2):1-9. https://doi.org/10.33552/SJBLS.2020.01.000511.

Mastrangelo, M. E. 2018. Aproximaciones al estudio del comportamiento de los productores agropecuarios en el Chaco Seco. Ecología Austral 28(2):418-434. https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.18.28.2.0.644.

Mastrangelo, M. E., M. C. Gavin, P. Laterra, W. L. Linklater, and T. L. Milfont. 2013. Psycho‐social factors influencing forest conservation intentions on the agricultural frontier. Conservation Letters 7(2):103-110. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12033.

Mastrangelo, M. E., N. Pérez-Harguindeguy, L. Enrico, E. Bennett, S. Lavorel, G. S. Cumming, K. Zoeller, et al. 2019. Key knowledge gaps to achieve global sustainability goals. Nature Sustainability 2(12):1115-1121. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0412-1.

Matteucci, S. D., M. E. Silva, and A. F. Rodríguez. 2016. Clasificaciones de la tierra:¿ provincias fitogeográficas, ecorregiones o paisajes? Fronteras 14(14):1-16.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Ministerio de Agricultura y Ganadería, INTA, and IDECOR. 2020. Mapa de cartas de suelos de la Provincia de Córdoba. Informe técnico. URL: mapascordoba.gob.ar/viewer/mapa/334.

Monfreda, C., N. Ramankutty, and J. A. Foley. 2008. Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000 Global Biogeochem Cycles 22. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB002947.

Nicholson, C. C., I. Koh, L. L. Richardson, A. Beauchemin, and T. H. Ricketts. 2017. Farm and landscape factors interact to affect the supply of pollination services. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 250. https://doi.org/113-122.10.1016/j.agee.2017.08.030.

Ortega-Uribe, T., M. E. Mastrangelo, D. Villarroel Torrez, A. G. Piaz, M. Vallejos, J. E. Saenz Ceja, M. Maass, et al. 2014. Estudios transdisciplinarios en socio-ecosistemas: Reflexiones teóricas y su aplicación en contextos latinoamericanos.

Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419-422. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172133.

Pereira-Lima, F., and R. Pereira-Bastos. 2019. Perceiving the invisible: Formal education affects the perception of ecosystem services provided by native areas. Ecosystem Services 40:101029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.101029.

R Core Team. 2022. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

Rey Benayas, J. M., J. M. Bullock, and A. C. Newton. 2008. Creación de islotes forestales para reconciliar la restauración ecológica, la conservación y el uso de la tierra agrícola. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6(6):329-336. https://doi.org/10.31167/csef.v0i28.9807.

Roulier, C., C. B. Anderson, S. A. Ballari, and E. A. Nielsen. 2020. Estudios sociales y socioecológicos sobre restauración ecológica: Una revisión de la literatura a escala global e iberoamericana. Ecología Austral 30(1):19-32. https://doi.org/10.25260/EA.20.30.1.0.940.

Sutrop, U. 2001. List task and a cognitive salience index. Field Methods 13:263-276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X0101300303.

Teixeira, H. M., A. J. Vermue, I. M. Cardoso, M. P. Claros, and F. J. Bianchi. 2018. Farmers show complex and contrasting perceptions on ecosystem services and their management. Ecosystem Services 33:44-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.08.006.

Van Vooren, L., R. Bert, B. Steven, P. De Frenne, V. Nelissen, P. Pardon, and K. Verheyen. 2017. Ecosystem service delivery of agri-environment measures: A synthesis for hedgerows and grass strips on arable land. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 244:32-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.04.015.

Wajner, M., D. Tamburini, and F. Zamudio. 2019. Ethnozoology in the mountains. What does the cognitive salience of wild animals tell us?. Ethnobiology and Conservation 8:9. https://doi.org/10.15451/ec2019-07-8.09-1-23.

Wolverton, S. 2013. Ethnobiology 5: interdisciplinarity in an era of rapid environmental change. Ethnobiology Letters 4:21-25. https://doi.org/10.14237/ebl.4.2013.11.

Zabala, J. A., J. M. Martínez-Paz, and F. Alcon. 2021. A comprehensive approach for agroecosystem services and disservices valuation. Science of the Total Environment 768:144859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.144859.

Zamudio, F., and N. I. Hilgert. 2015. Multidimensionality and variability in folk classification of stingless bees (Apidae: Meliponini). Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 11(1):41. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-015-0029-z.