Drivers,constraints and trade-offs associated with recultivating abandoned cropland in Russia,Ukraine and Kazakhstan |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Georges Lemaitre Earth and Climate Research Centre, Earth and Life Institute, Université Catholique de Louvain, 1348 Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium;2. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique F.R.S.—FNRS, 1000 Brussels, Belgium;3. Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Theodor-Lieser-Strasse 2, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany;4. Geography Department, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany;5. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resources Management, University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 10, 1350 København K, Denmark;6. Institute of Steppe of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS), Pionerskaya str. 11, 460000 Orenburg, Russia;7. Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human–Environment Systems (IRI THESys), Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany;1. AnserGIS, Värpinge Bygata 4, 227 63 Lund, Sweden;2. Norwegian Forest and Landscape Institute, P.O. Box 115, NO-1431 Ås, Norway;3. Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1172 Blindern, NO-0318 Oslo, Norway;4. Swedish University of Agricultural Science, P.O. Box 7070, SE-750 07 Uppsala, Sweden;1. Institute of Geography and Spatial Management, Jagiellonian University, ul. Gronostajowa 7, 30-387 Krakow, Poland;2. Institute of Forest Resources Management, University of Agriculture in Kraków, al. 29 Listopada 46, 31-425 Kraków, Poland;3. WSL, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Zuercherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland;1. Institute for Technology and Resources Management in the Tropics and the Subtropics, Cologne University of Applied Sciences, Cologne, Germany;2. Institute for Geodesy and Geoinformation, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany;3. Institute of Geography, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany;4. Departament of Geography, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil;1. Department of Remote Sensing, Würzburg University, Am Hubland, 97074 Würzburg, Germany;2. CAREC, Almaty, Kazakhstan;3. University of Bonn, Germany;1. Institute of Geography, Slovak Academy of Sciences, ?tefánikova 49, Bratislava 814 73, Slovakia;2. Institute of Landscape Ecology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Akademická 2, Nitra 949 01, Slovakia;1. LICOS Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance, University of Leuven (KU Leuven), Waaistraat 6 - bus 3511, 3000 Leuven, Belgium;2. IAMO The Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies, Theodor-Lieser-Str. 2, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany;3. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management (IGN), University of Copenhagen, Øster Voldgade 10, DK-1350 København K, Denmark;4. Institute of Environmental Sciences, Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Tovarisheskaya Str. 5, Kazan 420097, Russia;5. Geography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany |
| |
| Abstract: | Further cropland expansion might be unavoidable to satisfy the growing demand for land-based products and ecosystem services. A crucial issue is thus to assess the trade-offs between social and ecological impacts and the benefits of converting additional land to cropland. In the former Soviet Union countries, where the transition from state-command to market-driven economies resulted in widespread agricultural land abandonment, cropland expansion may incur relatively low costs, especially compared with tropical regions.Our objectives were to quantify the drivers, constraints and trade-offs associated with recultivating abandoned cropland to assess the potentially available cropland in European Russia, western Siberia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan—the region where the vast majority of post-Soviet cropland abandonment took place. Using spatial panel regressions, we characterized the socio-economic determinants of cropland abandonment and recultivation. We then used recent maps of changes in cropland to (i) spatially characterize the socio-economic, accessibility and soil constraints associated with the recultivation of abandoned croplands and (ii) investigate the environmental trade-offs regarding carbon stocks and habitat for biodiversity.Less cropland abandonment and more recultivation after 2000 occurred in areas with an increasing rural population and a younger labor force, but also improved yields. Synergies were observed between cropland recultivation and intensification over the 2000s. From 47.3 million hectares (Mha) of cropland abandoned in 2009, we identified only 8.5 (7.1–17.4) Mha of potentially available cropland with low environmental trade-offs and low to moderate socio-economic or accessibility constraints that were located on high-quality soils (Chernozems). These areas represented an annual wheat production potential of ～14.3 (9.6–19.5) million tons (Mt). Conversely, 8.5 (4.2–12.4) Mha had high carbon or biodiversity trade-offs, of which ～10% might be attractive for cropland expansion and thus would require protection from recultivation. Agro-environmental, accessibility, and socio-economic constraints suggested that the remaining 30.6 (25.7–30.6) Mha of abandoned croplands were unlikely to provide important contributions to future crop production at current wheat prices but could provide various ecosystem services, and some could support extensive livestock production. Political and institutional support could foster recultivation by supporting investments in agriculture and rural demographic revitalization. Reclaiming potentially available cropland in the study region could provide a notable contribution to global grain production, with relatively low environmental trade-offs compared with tropical frontiers, but is not a panacea to address global issues of food security or reduce land-use pressure on tropical ecosystems. |
| |
| Keywords: | Land use Cropland reclamation Rewilding Food production Carbon Biodiversity |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
