Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net
The Open Agriculture Journal, 2014, 8, 1-11
Open Access
School of Environmental Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 Canada; 2Department of
Biological and Medical Engineering, ShangLuo University, ShangLuo, Shaanxi 726000, PR China; 3Agri-Green Technologies Secretariat, Agri-Environment Services Branch Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6,
Canada; 4Agroforestry Development Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Indian Head, SK, S0G 2K0, Canada
Abstract: Production of biomass for bioenergy will depend on the sustainability of the production resource-base: the soil,
water, air and the diversity of the ecosystem as a whole. For soil, potential sustainability indicators, including soil nitrogen
and phosphorus, total organic matter, components associated with soil erosion and bulk density are discussed. Indicators
related to the water resource water quality, water availability index, nitrate levels in water and biological oxygen demand
are also discussed. Greenhouse gases and their sequestration potentials are discussed for maintaining atmospheric air quality. For biodiversity, a biodiversity index and soil biota index were selected as potential indicators. In addition to the production resource-base, the paper also discusses the importance of economic and social sustainability indices. To summarize, we are suggesting that a common method of visualizing the above indicated indices is to generate amoeba diagrams.
This paper also provides a review on the term sustainability and specific indicators, with metrics where possible, are described as candidates for inclusion as potential indicators appropriate for agroforestry based bioenergy systems in Canada.
Three agroforestry based bioenergy systems are described and specific indicators are discussed within the bounds of these
systems.
1874-3315/14
Thevathasan et al.
Under weak sustainability, the transfer of capital or revenue from the site of production to purchase resources in an
effort to compensate for existing production site limitations
or loss of capital due to export is acceptable. A life cycle
analysis (LCA) of such a scenario will obviously reveal a
loss of capital from another area. This creates an interesting
conundrum. For example, rock phosphate is mined for the
benefit of high output agriculture. Where this resource is not
conserved, either exported with the crop or lost due to erosion, replacement is required. This requires further mining of
a finite resource. However, managing an agronomic system
without the requirement for exogenous inputs renders the
value of those potential inputs (e.g. rock phosphate) essentially zero. Under the paradigm of strong sustainability, the
management system would conserve as much phosphorus as
possible minimizing the requirement for external inputs, delaying the depletion of such resources to some time in the
future.
The mosaic approach is essentially the same as the three
pillars mentioned earlier. Ecological sustainability requires
maintenance of ecological processes. Feasibility is the key
concept in economic sustainability, and social acceptability
is required to create the social pillar [11]. The Helmholtz
concept is based on an understanding of sustainability
whose central ethical postulate is justice [11]. This concept
is set apart from traditional models of sustainability and establishes somewhat different goals, specifically (1) securing
human existence, (2) maintaining societys productive potential and (3) preserving societys options for development and
Table 1. Sustainability indicators selected for an expert survey (rankings in brackets), adapted from Buchholz et al. (2009).
Social
Economic
Environmental
Planning [16]
Thevathasan et al.
Rates of erosion may be measured directly or approximated through the use of the Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE) [35].
A=RxKxLxSxCxP
(1)
-1
-1
results of analysis for a variety of naturally occurring potential contaminants as well as several chemical characteristics
of water. Interpretation of the composite values requires
some level of experience and skill. Also, sample collection
and analysis can be quite costly. However, it does allow for
an incomplete set of values while reporting summaries that
are comparable across regions. Still, there is no rationale
behind establishing a specific output value as a limit for
sustainability. Despite the benefits, this index does not appear to be a prime candidate as a sustainability criteria within
the context of this work as SRWC receive less or no external
fertilizer and agro chemical inputs to the system [30].
500-1000
<500
(2)
Thevathasan et al.
R = (1-(x-1)/5-1))*100
(3)
With x = runoff ratio. Scores >100 are set to 100 and <0
are set to 0. A value 50 or less suggests vulnerability.
The simplest method for monitoring water availability
may be to use piezometers. These are simply tubes, open at
the bottom and covered with a filter sock, installed in the
ground to a depth that corresponds with the groundwater
table. The water flows into the tube and sits at a height exactly that of the groundwater. A dipstick or other measuring
device is simply lowered into the tube and the depth of the
water can be established. Additionally, samples can be collected for chemical and biological analysis.
Economic Indices
Microeconomic Indicator
Nitrate
Health Canada [41] has established a maximum acceptable concentration (MAC) of nitrate in potable water of 10
mg L-1 as nitrate-nitrogen. Additionally, Health Canada has
established a MAC of 3.2 mg L-1 for nitrite. Both nitrate and
nitrite are associated with soil nitrogen transformations, are
water soluble and mobile in the soil environment and can be
expected to be influenced by changing land use practices.
Thus, sampling the water table for changes in nitrate and
nitrite should prove to be an effective indicator.
At the pilot scale, monitoring changes in surface water
characteristics would be impossible. Surface water run-off
can be captured and analyzed.
Biological Oxygen Demand and Chemical Oxygen Demand
Biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen
demand (COD) are common methods of evaluating water
quality. BOD can be related to the nutrient load within the
water while COD can be used to evaluate the quantity of
organic compounds.
Environmental Biodiversity Indices
Biodiversity Index
It is widely accepted that increasing biodiversity enhances stability and resilience within an ecosystem. Higher
redundancy in an ecosystem, or more specifically within
guilds, should result in greater stability [42]. Creating a more
complex landscape mosaic, in this case by introducing a new
agronomic crop, should create opportunities for greater biodiversity. However, there does not exist a critical value
above or below which ecosystem collapse is inevitable or
considered likely.
(4)
Fig. (1). Example of an amoeba diagram. From Bell and Morse (2000) [NPV- Net Present Value; BOD Biological Oxygen Demand; GHG
Greenhouse Gas].
Thevathasan et al.
the shelterbelt as well as benefits associated with habitat, biodiversity, GHG sequestration, etc. Under drier conditions typical of the prairies, poplar is preferred and rotation length may
be in the order of 7-10 years. In more humid climates hybrid
willow may be incorporated and shorter rotations are possible.
Two general design options are viable. The first would
include 1 or 2 rows of long-lived evergreens (spruce, pine)
with several rows of SRWC species. The second may consist
of only SRWC but to maintain the beneficial effect of modifying wind patterns shelterbelts would be closely spaced.
[46] suggest the distance between shelterbelts of 10-15 times
the expected height at harvest age. With either design, the
width of the planting should be a multiple of the width of the
equipment used for planting and/or harvesting and also
should accommodate land that will be occupied by the
growth of trees in the rows. As harvesters are typically quite
specialized, and more expensive to operate, this is likely the
overriding consideration in planning the width in addition to
spray boom width.
The proposed suite of sustainability indicators, discussed
in relation to SRWC systems, may not all be appropriate for
assessing a system such as this. Shelterbelts are typically
designed to optimize soil protection and enhance conditions
for crop growth. As such, their influence on open waters may
be negligible but may contribute positively to reduce surface
overflow or run off. However, they may influence ground
water reserves (quantity) and use of fertilizers and crop protection products (quality). Monitoring changes in ground
water would be of great importance. Shelterbelts designed to
address habitat fragmentation as well as crop protection may
result in increased observations of species of special interest
(e.g. locally identifies species at risk). While such observations would be factored in to any measure of biodiversity,
their presence or absence may be given special weight in the
overall assessment of sustainability.
Shelterbelts designed for the sole purpose of odour
and/or dust reduction to enhance the air quality have to be
placed around livestock production facilities or closer to the
farm production facilities. Four primary factors are thought
to contribute to these odour issues: a) urban expansion and
housing development closer to farming communities, b) increased production and application of manure to soils, c)
long range transportation of odour due to lack of vegetative
barriers, d) current municipal policies have limited producer
incentives to control activities beyond minimum regulatory
requirements [47]. Shelterbelts are also being used as sound
barriers contributing to acceptable noise levels for a healthy
living. In this context, sound levels of 66 dBA and 50 dBA
have been recommended as acceptable daytime and nighttime sound levels, respectively. These numbers can be considered as an acceptable indicator for sound as influenced by
shelterbelts. However, there are no defined sustainability
indicators related to shelterbelts and air quality at the present
time, therefore, development of such indicators in relation to
shelterbelt designs should be considered in the future.
Intercropping
SRWC may also be incorporated into an intercropping
system where either SRWC are grown as an understory crop
within a timber plantation or intercropped with other tradi-
Fig (2). Generalized riparian forest buffer design. Adapted from Welsch (1991).
Thevathasan et al.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
CONCLUSION
It is demonstrated that agroforestry systems have better
economic, social and environmental benefits than conventional agriculture. These benefits include increased farmer
income, enhanced habitat, biodiversity, GHG sequestration,
more efficient nutrient cycling, increased infiltration of surface waters, enhanced trapping of sediment and potential
pollutants, etc. This study has attempted to provide a review
of the key organizations involved in developing methodolo-
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
11
Wall GJ, Coote DR, Pringle EA, Shelton IJ. RUSLEFAC Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation for Application in Canada: A
Handbook for Estimating Soil Loss from Water Erosion in Canada.
Research Branch, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Ottawa,
2002.
Contribution:
AFC/AAC2244E.
Available
at:
http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/publications/manuals/2002-92/ruslecan.pdf.
Hudson NW. Field measurement of soil erosion and runoff. FAO,
Rome, 1993. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0848E/T0848E00.htm.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). Canadian water quality guidelines for the protection of aquatic life:
CCME Water Quality Index 1.0, Technical Report. In: Canadian
environmental quality guidelines, 1999, Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, 2001.
Falkenmark, MJ, Lundqvist J, Widstrand C. Macro-scale water
scarcity requires micro-scale approaches: aspects of vulnerability in
semi-arid development. Nat Resour Forum 1989; 13:258-267.
Brown A, Matlock MD. A review of water scarcity indices and
methodologies. Food, beverage and agriculture, White paper 2011;
106.
Gleick, PH. Vulnerability of water systems. In: Waggoner PE (Ed)
Climate change and the US water resources. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1990; pp. 223-40.
Health Canada. 1987; Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewhsemt/pubs/wat-er-eau/nitrate_nitrite/index-eng.php
Isbell FV, Calcagno A, Hector J, et al. High plant diversity is
needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 2011; 477: 199-202.
Bloem J, Schouten AJ, Sorensen SJ, Rutgers M, van der Werf A,
Breure AM. Monitoring and evaluating soil quality. Pp 23-49. In:
Bloem J, Hopkins DW, Benedetti A, Eds. Microbiological methods
for assessing soil quality. CAB International, 2006; pp. 23-49.
Tisdell C. Economic indicators to assess the sustainability of conservation farming projects: An evaluation. Agric Ecosyst Environ
1996; 57:118-31.
Bell S, Morse S. Sustainability indicators: measuring the immeasurable. London: Earthscan, 2000.
Josiah SJ, Kuhn G. Planning and design considerations for hybrid
poplar timberbelts. Agroforestry notes 21 USDA, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2000.
Tyndall JC, Wallace DC. Windbreaks: A fresh tool to mitigate
odors from livestock production facilities. Agroforestry notes 41
USDA, Lincoln, Nebraska, 2011.
Kuhn GA, Rietveld WJ. Opportunities for growing short-rotation
woody crops in agroforestry practices. Agroforestry notes 10
USDA, Lincoln, Nebraska, 1998.
Thevathasan NV, Gordon AM. Ecology of tree intercropping systems in the North temperate region: Experiences from southern Ontario Canada. Agrofor Syst 2004; 61: 257-83.
Williams PA, Koblents H, Gordon AM. Bird use of an intercropped
maize old fields in southern Ontario. In: Ehrenreich JH, Ehrenreich
DL, Eds., In: Proceedings of the Fourth North American Agroforestry Conference 1995, Boise, Idaho, United States, 1995; pp. 15862.