Fertilization using manure minimizes the trade-offs between biodiversity and forage production in agri-environment scheme grasslands.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
31
03
2023
accepted:
16
08
2023
medline:
2
11
2023
pubmed:
4
10
2023
entrez:
4
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A common practice used to restore and maintain biodiversity in grasslands is to stop or decrease the use of fertilizers as they are a major cause of biodiversity loss. This practice is problematic for farmers who need fertilizers to increase forage and meet the nutritional needs of livestock. Evidence is needed that helps identify optimal fertilizer regimes that could benefit biodiversity and livestock production simultaneously over the long-term. Here, we evaluated the impact of different fertilizer regimes on indicators related to both biodiversity (plant, pollinator, leaf miners and parasitoid Shannon-Weiner diversity, bumblebee abundance, nectar productivity and forb species richness), and forage production (ash, crude protein, ruminant metabolizable energy and dry matter). To this end, we used data from a grassland restoration experiment managed under four nutrient inputs schemes for 27 years: farmyard manure (FYM; 72 kg N ha-1 yr-1), artificial nitrogen-phosphorus and potassium (NPK; 25 kg N ha-1 yr-1), FYM + NPK (97 kg N ha-1 yr-1) and no-fertilizer. Results showed strong trade-offs between biodiversity and forage production under all treatments even in applications lower than the critical load in the EU. Overall, farmyard manure was the fertilizer that optimized production and biodiversity while 97 kg N ha-1 yr-1 of fertilizer addition (FYM+NPK) had the most negative impact on biodiversity. Finally, forage from places where no fertilizer has been added for 27 years did not meet the nutritional requirements of cattle, but it did for sheep. Rethinking typical approaches of nutrient addition could lead to land management solutions suitable for biological conservation and agriculture.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37792796
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290843
pii: PONE-D-23-09762
pmc: PMC10550152
doi:
Substances chimiques
Manure
0
Fertilizers
0
Nitrogen
N762921K75
Soil
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0290843Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Villa-Galaviz et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Anim Ecol. 2021 Feb;90(2):404-414
pubmed: 33067860
J Anim Ecol. 2015 Sep;84(5):1144-63
pubmed: 26172345
J Environ Manage. 2003 Feb;67(2):129-38
pubmed: 12654274
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2016 May 19;371(1694):
pubmed: 27114579
Nat Ecol Evol. 2017 Aug;1(8):1136-1145
pubmed: 29046565
Nat Commun. 2017 Nov 14;8(1):1290
pubmed: 29138387
PM R. 2017 Mar;9(3):306-310
pubmed: 28237692
Nature. 2016 Feb 4;530(7588):85-8
pubmed: 26842058
Ecol Appl. 2020 Apr;30(3):e02057
pubmed: 31837241
Biom J. 2008 Jun;50(3):346-63
pubmed: 18481363
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Sep 20;119(38):e2203385119
pubmed: 36095174
Ecol Appl. 2015 Apr;25(3):589-95
pubmed: 26214906
J Environ Manage. 2009 Oct;91(1):22-46
pubmed: 19717221
J Ecol. 2019 Jul;107(4):1704-1719
pubmed: 31341333
Nat Ecol Evol. 2018 Mar;2(3):427-436
pubmed: 29453352