The Main Agroecological Structure (MAS) of the Agroecosystems

21 Pages·2017·2.72 MB·English

sustainability
Article
The Main Agroecological Structure (MAS) of the
Agroecosystems: Concept, Methodology
and Applications
TomásEnriqueLeón-Sicard1,* ID,JavierToroCalderón1 ID,LivenFernandoMartínez-Bernal1
andJoséAlejandroCleves-Leguízamo2
1 InstitutodeEstudiosAmbientales(IDEA),UniversidadNacionaldeColombia,Bogotá,Colombia;
[email protected](J.T.C.);[email protected](L.F.M.-B.)
2 FacultadSeccionalDuitama,EscueladeAdministracióndeEmpresasAgropecuariasUniversidad
PedagógicayTecnológicadeColombia,Duitama,Colombia;[email protected]
* Correspondence:[email protected]
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:8)(cid:1)
(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)
Received:8May2018;Accepted:3August2018;Published:3September2018
Abstract:ThisdocumentpresentstheconceptoftheMainAgroecologicalStructureofagroecosystems
(MAS) from the perspective of environmental thinking (ecosystem-culture relationships) and
consideredasadissipativeculturalstructure. Itdiscussesthepossibleapplicationsofthisconcept
(resilience,production,diversity)bothinsideandoutsidethefarms. ThepotentialMAScanbeuseful
intheplanningprocessesofthefarmsbecauseitallowsthequantificationoftheinternalandexternal
corridors,includingnaturalvegetation. Atthesametime,itcanbeanimportanttoolinthecontextof
landscapemanagementbecauseitshowsaseriesofculturalrelations(economic,social,symbolicand
technological)thatarenormallyoverlookedbythepartialanalysisoflandscapeecology.
Keywords: agrobiodiversity;environment;ecosystem;culture;farms;planning
1. Introduction
Theconceptofenvironmentinthecontextofagroecologycanbeunderstoodas: “allthenatural
componentsoftheearth(air,water,soils,vegetation,animals),alongwithalltheprocesses[social,
economicandcultural]thatoccurwithinandamongthesecomponents”[1].
There is enough scientific evidence to prove that the activities developed by human beings
(e.g.,agriculture)ineluctablycausepositiveornegativechangesovertheenvironment. Therefore,
projectdevelopmentdecisionmakingimpliescomplexinterdisciplinaryprocessestooptimizeresources
inasustainableway[2–7].
Thewayweperceiveandinteractwithnatureisfundamentaltomakedecisionsaboutthewayin
whichananthropogenicactivitysuchasagricultureshouldbedeveloped.Thatsetofideas,conceptsand
valueswithwhichwethinkandinteractwiththeenvironmentcanbecalledenvironmentalthinking[8].
Environmentalthinkinginessencerecognizesthathumanitybuiltasystemofadaptationtothe
ecosystemsbasedprimarilyonculture,thereforedifferentfromthatofotherlivingbeings. Theculture
hasbeendefinedasthenon-biologicalheritageofhumanity[9]orasallthosetheoreticalandpractical
processes that are expressed in the symbolic structures, human organization and technological
platformsofhumanity[10–12]. Fromthispointofview,foodproductionsystemscanbeunderstoodas
setsofactivitiesthathumangroupsorganize,directandcarryoutaccordingtotheirobjectivesand
resources,influencingandbeinginfluencedbytheecosystemandbiophysicalenvironmentwherethey
arelocated[13]. Thisaspectdenotestherelevanceandcomplexityoftheecosystem-cultureinteraction
intheagrarianmatters[12].
Sustainability2018,10,3131;doi:10.3390/su10093131 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability2018,10,3131 2of21
Ontheotherhand,itiswidelyacceptedthatagricultureistheresultoftheculturalmodificationof
ecosystems,whenthesetransformationsareaimedatsatisfyingthebasicneedsoffood,fibersandother
materialsaccordingtotheconditioningfactorsoftheecosystem-culturecoevolution[14,15]. Thistype
ofmodificationinteractswithsomepropertiesofthenaturalsystemssuchasvulnerability.Thisconcept
must be taken into account for the planning of productive systems, for example, agroecosystems,
becauseitdescribesstatesofsusceptibilitytoharm,powerlessnessandmarginalityofbothphysical
andsocialsystemsanddirectstheactionstoenhancewell-beingthroughthereductionofrisk[16,17].
Thestudyofthesecomplexrelationshipsistheobjectofagroecology[18],asciencethatfocuses
ontheenvironmentalanalysisofagroecosystems[19,20]andrecognizestheirmultiplebiophysical,
symbolic,social,economic,politicalandtechnologicalinteractions[21].
Agroecologystudiesandproposesanswerstocomplexproblemsthroughagrarianpracticesbased
ontraditionalorancestralknowledge,thepromotionofbiologicalandculturaldiversity,theautonomy
of producers and the conservation and proper management of natural resources. It also proposes
aninterdisciplinaryapproachinscientificresearchandstimulatesthebiologicalregulationsevenin
large-scaleagriculture[22–26].
Thiscomplexityalsodemandsrobustinstrumentsandmethodologiestoaddressthoseissues.
InarecentinternationalmeetingpromotedbyfourFrenchNGOs,itwasrecognizedthat“thepriority
isperhapsnottodefineasingleevaluationmethod[... ]buttospecifythefieldsofinvestigation
andevaluation,aswellastrulydistinctiveindicatorsinthecaseofagroecologybyusingtheexisting
methods and tools” [27]. These fields and evaluation criteria must also inevitably focus on three
complementary and relevant scales: plot, farm, territory. Similarly, the authors recognize that the
agricultural practices at these different scales calls for several types of indicators of technical and
socio-economic performance, agro-environmental aspects, social aspects (wellbeing, culture and
knowledge)andalsotheresilienceoffarmsandterritoriesfacingclimateoreconomicrisks.
Withinthesepracticesorstrategiesthatarisefromagroecology,León-Sicard[22]proposestostudy
whathecalledtheMainAgroecologicalStructureofthemajoragroecosystems(MAS).Thisconcept
refers to the arrangements of the internal and external connectors of the farms (fences, hedges,
living fences or patches of forest) and can relate to the probability of resilience or adaptation of
agrariansystemstodisturbancesofdifferentnature. TheMAScanbetheoreticallyassociatedwitha
dissipativestructure,withpossiblebeneficialeffectsontheestablishmentanddevelopmentofcrops
atdifferentscales,fromsubsistenceagricultureinsmallareastointensiveproductiveprocessesof
agro-industrialcharacter. Likewise,theMASmayallowthedesignandimplementationofadaptation
andmitigationoptionstothechangingclimate,asacontributiontoriskmanagement.
This document presents the theoretical bases of the concept, the general methodology for its
calculationandthedescriptionofsomepreliminaryapplicationsinColombia.
2. TheoreticalBasesoftheMAS
Theagroecosystemisanecosystemdeliberatelymodifiedbyhumanbeingsinordertoobtain
goodsandserviceswithdifferentpurposesandthereforeitistheplacewheredynamicrelationships
betweenthecultureanditsphysical-biologicalenvironmentarepresented[28,29].
Whatiscalledhereas“culturalcontext”referstothehumanactasawhole, mediatedbythe
thought(symbols)andbyitssocial,economic,politicalandmilitaryorganization,expressedindifferent
technologicalplatformsandintimatelyinterrelatedwiththeorganizationofsocieties. Thusconceived,
theagroecosystemexpressesanecosystemorder,moldedbytheculturalorder.
Severalauthorshaveconsideredagroecosystemsasunitsofanalysiswheredifferenttypesof
ecosystemprocessesandsocio-economicrelationshipsconverge(energyflows,materialcycles)[19,20].
Furthermore,theagroecosystemhasbeendefinedas“thesetofrelationshipsandinteractionsbetween
soils,climates,cultivatedplants,organismsofdifferenttrophiclevels,adventitiousplantsandhuman
groups in certain physical and geographical spaces. The study of agroecosystems includes their
energy flows and information, material cycles and their symbolic, social, economic and political
Sustainability2018,10,3131 3of21
relations,whichareexpressedindifferenttechnologicalformsofmanagementwithinspecificcultural
contexts”[22]. Theinteractionsbetweenthesecomponentsoccurwithindiffuselimitsthatcango
beyondthefarm[21].
TheoriginoftheMASisderivedfromtheworksofvanderHammenandAndrade[30,31]in
Colombia,whoproposedtheideaoftheEcologicalSupportStructureoftheNation(ESS)tofacilitate
thecomprehension,atthecountrylevel,ofthecurrentstateofitsplantcover. Theauthorsrecognized
twocomponentsoftheEES:theMainEcologicalStructureoftheLandscape(MES)andtheEcological
Infrastructure (EI); in the latter, they included the remnants of vegetation in the agroecosystems,
althoughtheydidnotelaboratetheformulationofthisidea. However,withtheseconceptstheauthors
gavemeaningtothestudyoflandscapeecologyandprovidedabackgroundtoarticulate,intheoryand
practice,themanagementofrelictsandpatchesofnaturalvegetation,includingbiologicalcorridors
andwoodedmasses.
In this way, the concept of the Main Agroecological Structure of agroecosystems is born to
complement this unfinished relationship proposed by professors van der Hammen and Andrade
andtoprovideaframeofreferenceforagroecologyintermsofanaturalpropertyorfeatureofthe
agroecosystems: theirownstructure.
TheMASisthereforedefinedas“theinternalconfigurationorspatialarrangementofthefarm
andtheconnectivitybetweenitsdifferentsectors,patchesandcorridorsofvegetationorproductive
systems.TheMASallowsthemovementandexchangeofdifferentanimalandvegetablespecies,offers
shelter,habitatandfood,providesmicroclimaticregulation,affectstheyieldsandtheconservationof
naturalresourcesandotherecosystemandculturalaspectsofthemajoragroecosystems”[22].
Themajoragroecosystem(farm)iscomposedofminoragroecosystems(lots,plots,cultivation
sites,forestareas,agroforestrysitesorsilvopastoralsystems). ThespecificfeaturesoftheMASare
givenaccordingtothewayinwhichtheseminoragroecosystemsrelatetoforestsorothertypesof
tree,herbaceousorscrubvegetationcoverswithinthemajoragroecosystem. Thisconcept,whichaims
at describing the structural and functional relationships of major agroecosystems in light of their
determining cultural factors can be used for different applications (relationships with production,
planthealth,associatedbiodiversity,foodautonomy,resilience),includingfutureuses,suchasbeinga
taxonomiccriterionforthedefinitionofagroecosystems[18].
When it comes to designing agroecosystems, which can be resilient to different types of
disturbances, it is necessary to understand their inherent complexity [32]. In this sense, the MAS
accounts for both functional (unintentional) and planned agrobiodiversity, offering planning
possibilities through the so-called ‘potential MAS,’ with repercussions at farm level (yields) and
alsoatthelevelofagroecosystemmatricesinlandscapeunitsatsmallerscales(sidewalks,riverbasins,
municipalities,regions)[22].
Agroecosystems are considered as systems far from equilibrium because there are constant
exchangesofmatter,energyandinformationwiththeenvironmentanditisimpossibletoobtainafinal
andpermanentbalanceduetothecontinuousentropygeneratedintheirtransformationprocesses.
However,thesesystemsevolveandadapttotheirenvironmentuntiltheyreachtheweakestpossible
dissipationthroughmechanismsofself-organizationorauto-poiesis[33–35].
Whenagroecosystemsfacefluctuations(changesintemperature,rainfallorattacksbyinsectsor
pathogens)andwhenthesedisturbancesincreaseinsteadofdisappearing,thesesystemscanundergo
anorganizedstructuraltransformation,whichwouldallowmaintainingtheirfunctionalityintimeand
space,towardsanewtemporarystatecalled“dissipativestructure.”Thisstructureistheamplified
fluctuationstabilizedbytheinteractionswiththeenvironmentanditprevailsbecauseitiscontinuously
nourishedbytheenergeticflowcomingfromthedisturbance[34,36]. Theformationandsubsistence
ofthedissipativestructurerequiresatleastthreeconditions: (1)thesystemmustbeopenandisable
tocontinuouslyexchangematterandenergywiththeexternalenvironment;(2)Thesystemmustbe
in a state of non-equilibrium or far from equilibrium, because those states are the source of order;
(3)Non-linearinteractions,aswellascertainnonlineardynamicequationsmustexistinthesystem[37].
Sustainability2018,10,3131 4of21
Sinceitspromulgation,thetheoryofdissipativestructureshasshownawidescopeofapplication
anditiscurrentlysupportedbyseveraltheoreticalframeworksinengineering,medicine,psychology,
agricultureandhumansciences[37–43].Forthisreason,thistheoryisbecominganimportantreference
inthemodernscientificsystem[44].
The concept of dissipative structure was applied in ecology since the 1970s to explain the
relationshipsthatexistbetweenpredatorsandtheirprey[45]andinthestudyofbiologicalstructures
and functions at the genetic level [46]. In the 1980s it was used to address the evolution of
ecosystems[47]andexplaintherelationshipsbetweenspeciesandecosystems[48].Inthelatetwentieth
century,itwasappliedtotheanalysisofthedistributionofplants[49]andinthedesignofprocesses
tomanageandcontrolweedplants[50].
In summary, the theoretical approach of dissipative structures can be applied to explain the
behaviorofbiological,physical,chemicalandsocialsystems,tostudytheevolutionoftheirstructures
intermsofacertain“orderacquisition”[35]andalsototheanalysisofresilience.
Iftheagroecosystemisconceivedasanopensystemthatconstantlyinteractswiththeenvironment
(physical,biotic,social,economicandcultural),thentheMAScanalsobeconsideredasadissipative
structurethatallowsthesystemtoincreaseorimprovethepossibilitiesofmaintainingitsfunctionality
byincorporating,dissipatingorusingthematter,energyorinformationcomingfromthedisturbance.
Inthissense, forexample, thegreatestavailableagrobiodiversityinafarmallowsdifferentplants
located in diversified strata and with various phenotypes and genotypes to have greater physical
resistancetoclimaticdisturbancesbutalsowiderrangesofresponse(ineconomicandsocialterms)to
disturbancesofdifferentorigins.
UnderstandingtheMASasadissipativestructureallowsustoanalyzethecomponentsofthe
agroecosystemandstrengthenthosethatareabletodissipatethedisturbance. Forexample,inthe
eventofadisturbancerelatedtotheincreaseinevapotranspirationorthedecreaseinavailablewater,
itispossibletousespeciesthataremoreresistant,greencoverstoprotectthesoilorotherstrategies,
whicharethemselvestheconsequenceofsocialoreconomicprocesses. Itwouldalsoenablesolutions
ofculturalnaturesuchassavingwaterorcollectingrain,mediatedbytheculturalfeaturesofparticular
agrariansocieties.
Assuming this theoretical approach to thermodynamics, the MAS could be considered as a
culturaldissipativestructurethat,insofarasitincreases,itimprovesthepossibilitiesofinteractionand
adaptationtodifferenttypesofdisturbances,duetotheinherentcomplexityofgreateragrobiodiversity
andconnectivitybetweensectorsofagroecosystems. Inthisway,ahigherMASwouldhelpdispelthe
negativeeffectsofexternalfactors,whetherculturalorecosystem-related.
3. MethodologicalApproach
The concept of MAS is formulated precisely to encourage the necessary dialogue between
landscape ecology and agroecology, a topic that had been partially addressed since the 1990s,
whenseveralauthorsrecognizedtheinterconnectionsandcomplexitiesofthespatialdistributionof
ecosystemsandtheneedofacknowledgingtheirconnectionswithhumanactivities[51].
Sometheoristsoflandscapeecologynotedthattheoldmatricesofforestsorsavannashadbeen
replacedbymatricesinwhichagriculturalhumanactivitiespredominated. However,theanalysis
ofthelandscapewasmainlybasedonthemanagementofwildlifeandothernaturalresources[52].
Landscapeecologyhasfocusedonstudyingthecomposition,structure,functionalityandchangesof
thelandscapeandinthissensetheanalyseshavebeenconcentratedinthreeofitsmaincomponents:
matrices,patchesandcorridors[52]. Thus,severalapproachesrelatethesizeofthepatchesandtheir
relativeisolationfromthemainplantcovers(theoryofbiogeographicislands)[53]withthepopulation
equilibriumandthediversityofspecies.
However,itisaboveallthebook“Thematrixofnature: linkingagriculture,conservationand
foodsovereignty”[54]whichclarifiesthegenerallinksbetweenconservationbiologyandagroecology
in relationship with landscape studies. After confirming that the decrease in songbirds in eastern
Sustainability2018,10,3131 5of21
UnitedStatesoccurredinthesameproportionasthereductionofshade-growncoffeecropsinLatin
America(whichwerereplacedbyunshadedmonoculture)[55],theauthorsstatedthatagroecosystems
areimportantcomponentsofthenaturalworld,intimatelylinkedtotheconservationofbiodiversity.
Thistopichadbeenfrequentlyignoredinmoststudiesonthesubject. Inthisway,theMASoffersan
additionalconceptualizationtotheparadigmofconservationbiologybasedonthematrixofnature,
proposedbyPerfectoandhercolleagues[54].
Inthissense,theMASisnotpartofthedebatebetween“landsharing”versus“landsparing”butit
seekstoestablish“inward”linksoftheagroecosystem,whichfacilitatesthe“outward”understanding
ofthemanagementofbiodiversityandagrobiodiversity,inlinewithboththeecologicalrestoration[56]
andthenewparadigmofbiologicalconservation[54].
Theneedforthischangeofparadigmisevidentwhensomeecologicalstudies,eventhoughthey
appealforlandscapemetrics,failtounderstandthecomplexdynamicsofagroecosystemsandavoid
referring to their cultural and ecosystem conditions, ignoring that among the elements of culture,
wemustinsistontechnological,symbolicandorganizationalfactors.
Somestepsinthisdirectionhavebeentakenbythenewparadigmofecologicalrestorationthatis
consideredasastrategytoguaranteethesustainabilityoftheprocessesthatmaintaintheecosystem
servicesthatnaturalandsemi-naturalecosystemsandagroecosystemprovide[56].
Ecologicalrestorationisdefinedas“theprocessofassistingtherecoveryofanecosystemthathas
beendegraded,damagedordestroyed”[57]oras“aprocessthatrecoversandimprovesthefunctionality
ofanecosystemwithinlandscapesmadeupofagriculturalproductionandconservationareas”[58].
Theabilitytorestoreanagroecosystemdependsonalargeamountofknowledgeatdifferent
scales,whichincludesinformationonthestateofthelandscapeandtheinterrelationofecological,
cultural and historical factors. In other words, it is necessary to know the historical and current
relationshipbetweenthenaturalsystemandthesocioeconomicsystem,whichisrelated,amongother
things,totheavailabilityofthenativebiotanecessaryfortherestorationofvegetationspotslocated
nearorwithinagroecosystems.Inhighlytransformedlandscapes,thematrixisahomogenousnetwork
ormosaicsofagroecosystemswithoutnativevegetationspotsandwithoutvegetationcorridors[56].
Even so, many ecological restoration theorists focus more on ecosystem-type concepts and
strategiesorterritorialprotectionmodelsthatoptimizetherelationshipsamonghabitats,speciesand
populationsinordertoguaranteetheconservationofbiodiversity(species,habitats,landscapes)[57,59].
Althoughtheyconsideragroecosystemsaspartofthelandscapematrix,theystillseethemonlyas
isolatedcropsandnotasentitieslimitedbytheprivateproperty(farms,haciendas,ejidos,cooperatives)
andthereforedonotconsiderthatagroecosystemscanthemselvescontainecosystems[59,60].
A conceptual approach to this process was made, debating the ideas that several researchers
haveinrelationtotheconceptofagroecosystembecausesomeofthemclaimthatitcanbeacrop,
whereasothersarguethatanagroecosystemisacultivationsite(crop),anindividualfarmoraset
offarmsdistributedinthelandscape[18]. Theauthorrevieweddifferentdefinitionsandconcepts
fromtheeconomy(whichusestermssuchasproductionsystemsappliedtopeasant,agro-industrial
orcapitalistunits),sociology(whichusesconceptsrelatedtopropertyandlandtenurewhenreferring
toagroecosystemsofsmall,largeormedium-sizedlandowners,tenants,smallholdings,settlersor
indigenousorAfrican-Americanfarms),orcommonterms(i.e.,coffeeorlivestockagroecosystems).
Fromthatdiscussion,theauthorproposedtodifferentiatethreehierarchicalclasses:agroecosystems
oflowerlevel(crops,meadowsorforestsystems),agroecosystemsofhigherlevel(farms,haciendas,
ejidos,cooperativesoranyotherlegalnamethatdelimitsandgrantsrightsofproperty)andmatrixof
agroecosystems(aggregatesoffarmsinthelandscape).
Thefarmisaunitofanalysisofmuchgreaterspatialandtemporalstabilitythancropsandother
areas dedicated to pasture or agroforestry sites; therefore, it can be defined more easily and with
greaterprecision,althoughitisrecognizedthatchangeisaninherentcharacteristicofagroecosystems
(majorandminor). Thetruthisthatthetemporarymobility(monthly, biannual, annual, biannual
Sustainability2018,10,3131 6of21
orinlustrumsanddecades)ofthefarmingplotsthatmakeupthefarmsisamajorobstacleforits
characterizationanddenominationasagroecosystems.
Thefarmsubsumesnotonlythesitesorareasofcultivationorlivestockandforestryproduction
butitalsoinvolvesallthelogicandproductionpossibilitiesmarkedbythewilloftheowners,whoare
affectedbyotherparameters,suchaslandtitles,technicalassistance,accesstocredit,institutional
support,extensionandresearchservices,qualityofinfrastructure,responsestomarketdemandsor
publicpolicies. Likewise,theeffectsoftechnologiesarebettermanifestedatthefarmscalethanatthe
croplevel[18].
Inanycase,mostoftheeffortstoincreasetheconnectivityofnaturalvegetationaremadewithin
themajoragroecosystemsorfarms,asituationthatsubstantiallyaffectstheproductivesystem.
The index of the Main Agroecological Structure emerges as the answer for this need of
connectingthelandscapewiththeelementsofthefarms. TheMAShasfiveecosystemorbiological
indicators(connectionofthefarmwiththeecologicalstructureofthelandscape,extensionofexternal
connectors,extensionofinternalconnectors,diversityofexternalconnectorsanddiversityofinternal
connectors)andfiveindicatorsofculturalorder(landuseandsoilconservation,weedmanagement,
otherecologicalorconventionalmanagementpractices,perception-awarenessandcapacityforaction).
Therearenorigidboundariesthatdeterminethiscategorization(biologicalorcultural),sothe
following are the arguments supporting their selection. The first five indicators, of a biological
nature,representpartofthefunctionaldiversityproposedbysomeauthors[61],measuredintermsof
extension,percentageanddiversity,atthescaleofthefarm. Theygiveanideaoftheconnectivityof
theedgesofthefarmsandtheircommunicationwiththesurroundinglandscape. Thelinearextension
and the percentages regarding the perimeter of the farms can be easily measured, as well as their
diversity(evenbyusingotherknownindicatorssuchasShannonorSimpson).
The first indicator (connection of the farm with the ecological structure of the landscape)
assessesthedistanceofthefarmormajoragroecosysteminrelationtothesurroundingfragments
ofnaturalvegetation(mainlyforestcovers)andthequalityoftheexistingcorridors.Inthissense,
itisworthnotingthattherearedifferentkindsoffragmentsandcorridors,aswellasdifferenttypes
of distances that serve for the communication of several species. Thus, a given fragment will not
havethesamevalueiftheassessmentismadeforpredatoryinsectsthanforbirdsorbatsthataffect
agriculturalproduction.
Severalauthorsrecognizetheimportanceofthelinksconnectingelementsofthefarms(hedgerows
orlivingfences)withthecorridorsandpatchesofnaturalvegetation,aswellastheirhighvariability
of origin, floral composition and structure [62,63]. The literature on these topics has increased in
recent years, noting how fences and hedgerows generate ecological functions of habitat for birds,
smallmammalsandreptilesandhowtheyplaykeyrolesintheregulationofmicroclimaticconditions
(speedofwind,frostprevention,evapotranspiration)[64].
Buthedgerowsandlivefenceshavenotonlybeenstudiedfromthepointofviewofsoilprotection
ormicroclimaticregulationbutalsofromtheperspectiveoftheirinfluenceontheregulationofinsect
herbivorous,themanagementoftheassociatedbiodiversityand,ofcourse,inrelationtoagronomic
factorsofproductionandplanthealth[61,65,66].
Theextensionanddiversificationofinternalandexternalconnectors(theotherfourindicators
ofthebiologicalorder)areusefulfortheintegralmanagementofthemajoragroecosystemandits
components(production,regulationofinsectsanddiseases,soilconditioners,microclimaticcontrolsor
germplasmbanks,amongotheraspects). Thereisanextensivebibliographyonthesubjectcompiled
byAltieriandNicholls[61]revealingthatvegetationinstalledinrowsaroundorwithinthefieldsof
cultivationhasgreatinfluenceonthepresence,abundance,mobility,classandlapsesofpermanenceof
phytophagesandtheirnaturalenemies.Afeatureofthehedgerowsthatisevaluatedbytheseindicators
is precisely their contribution in terms of functionality for the management of the agroecosystem.
Thisfunctionalityisexpressedinthegreatestdiversitypossible;thatis,inthepresenceofplantsthat
Sustainability2018,10,3131 7of21
offerpollinationservices,decoysortraps,allelopathy,shelter,food,effectsagainstfrost,temperature
andhumidityregulations,decreaseinsurfacerunoff,shadeanderosioncontrol,amongotherservices.
The remaining five indicators belong to the cultural order, because they depend on and are
explainedbyhumanbehavior. Thelanduses(sixthindicator)ofafarmaretheresultoffactorssuchas
educationalprocesses,traditions,theexternalinfluenceofagriculturalpolicies(taxes,remuneration
rates,incentives)andmaterialpossibilities(familycomposition,income,markets,availabilityoflabor).
Thisisalsotrueforsoilconservationpractices,whichdependontechnological,social,economicand
politicalfactors.
Themanagementofweeds(seventhindicator)isthedirectresultofthelevelofknowledgeof
thefarmerandthetypeofthesystem(whetherecologicalorconventional),whichcorrespondstothe
eighthindicatorandisreferredtointhispaperas“OtherManagementPractices.”Thesepracticesare
alsotheresultofcomplexculturalvariablesthatdeterminethefarmer’spositioninfavororagainst
themanagementofagrobiodiversity.
Finally,thelevelofawarenessandknowledgeoffarmersaboutthebenefits(ninthindicatorofthe
index)andtherealpossibilitiesofplantinghedges,fencesorlivefences(tenthindicator),alsoemerge
fromculturalprocessesrelatedtotraining,educationandfinancialcapacitiesoffarmers.
Theparametersproposedbytheauthorsofthemethodology[67,68]fortheevaluationofthe
MASaresummarizedinTable1.
Table1.IndicatorstoestimatetheMainAgroecologicalStructure[67].
Parameter Acronym Description
Connectionwiththemain Assessesthedistanceofthefarminrelationtothenearby
ecologicallandscape CMELS fragmentsofnaturalvegetation,mainlyforestcoversand
structure bodiesofwater.
Extensionofexternal Evaluatesthepercentageofthelinearextensionoflive
EEC
connectors fenceslocatedintheperimeterofthefarms.
Extensionofinternal Evaluatesthepercentageofthelinearextensionoftherows
EIC
connectors ofvegetationbutinternally.
Diversificationofexternal Evaluatesthediversityoflivefencesorhedgeslocatedinthe
DEC
connectors perimeterofthemajoragroecosystem.
Diversificationofinternal
DIC Evaluatesthediversificationofinternallivefences.
connectors
Thisparameterevaluatesthedistributionpercentageof
UseandSoilConservation USC differentcoverswithinthefarmandtheconservationofthe
soil(evidencesoferosion).
ManagementofWeeds MW Evaluatesthemanagementpracticesandsystemsofweeds.
Isanindicatorthatexpressesthetypeofproductionsystem
OthermanagementPractices OP
(ecological,conventionalorintransition)ofeachfarm.
Evaluatesthedegreeofconceptualclarityandawarenessof
Perception-Awareness PA
producersregardingagrobiodiversity.
Evaluatesthecapacitiesandpossibilitiesoffarmersto
LevelofCapacityforAction CA
establish,maintainorimprovetheirMAS
Eachoftheaforementionedindicatorsareevaluatedina0to10scale,accordingtothefollowing
tablesandcriteriadevelopedbytheauthors[18].
3.1. ConnectionoftheFarmwiththeMainEcologicalLandscapeStructure(CMELS)
This parameter assesses the relationships of the agroecosystem with the elements of the
surrounding landscape through metrics such as the density of patches or fragments of natural
vegetation and bodies of water, as well as the distance between them and their average distance
Sustainability2018,10,3131 8of21
tothecenteroftheagroecosystem. Itcanbedeterminedthroughthefollowingprocedurebyusingany
typeofremotesensingimage,suchasaerialphotographs,satelliteordroneimages(Figure1):
Sustainability 2018, 10, x 8 of 20
1. Definetheareaofinfluenceofthelandscapeofthestudiedfarm,startingfromacirclewhose
1. Dceenfitneer ctohien acirdeeas owf iitnhfltuheencceen otef rthofe tlhaendmsacjaoprea gorfo tehceo ssytusdteimed. Tfahremc,i rsctlaerthinasg afrroamdi uas ctihrcaltei swthwoicsee
ctehnetleorn cgoeinstcisdidees wofitthh ethfaer cmen.ter of the major agroecosystem. The circle has a radius that is twice
the longest side of the farm.
2. Determineallthetypesofcover(especiallyfragmentsofforests, shrubs, cropsandbodiesof
2. Determine all the types of cover (especially fragments of forests, shrubs, crops and bodies of
water)outsidethemajoragroecosystembutwithintheareaofinfluenceofthecircle. Thisstep
water) outside the major agroecosystem but within the area of influence of the circle. This step
canbedonebyusingthecategoriesproposedbytheCorine(CoordinationofInformationSystem
can be done by using the categories proposed by the Corine (Coordination of Information
onEnvironment)LandCovermethodology.
System on Environment) Land Cover methodology.
3. Determine the average distance of the identified vegetation covers to the center of the farm
3. Determine the average distance of the identified vegetation covers to the center of the farm
(whichisalsothecenteroftheareaofinfluence).
(which is also the center of the area of influence).
4. Alltheobtainedpercentagesareweightedandadded,onascaleof0to10. Theresultingvalue
4. All the obtained percentages are weighted and added, on a scale of 0 to 10. The resulting value
represents,inthisnumericalscale,theConnectionofthemajoragroecosystemwiththeMain
represents, in this numerical scale, the Connection of the major agroecosystem with the Main
EcologicalLandscapeStructure(CMELS).
Ecological Landscape Structure (CMELS).

FFiigguurree 11.. TThhee CCMMEELLSS ooff tthhee ““AAggrrííccoollaa EEll NNaarraannjjaall”” FFaarrmm..
The scales presented in Table 2 are intended for the interpretation of the distances and
qualification of the attributes analyzed in the determination of the CMELS.
Sustainability2018,10,3131 9of21
ThescalespresentedinTable2areintendedfortheinterpretationofthedistancesandqualification
oftheattributesanalyzedinthedeterminationoftheCMELS.
Table2.ConnectionwiththeMainEcologicalLandscapeStructure(CMELS).
Metric Description Connectivity Value
Thegreaterthedistance, High(0–150m) 10
1.DFF thelesschanceof MediumHigh(150–300m) 8
Distancebetweenforest harboringagreater Medium(300–450m) 6
fragments degreeofbiological MediumLow(450–600m) 4
connectivity. Low(≥600m) 2
High(0–150m) 10
2.DFFCF Relatedtoexchangesof MediumHigh(150–300m) 8
Distanceofforestfragmentsto organismsbetween Medium(300–450m) 6
thecenterofthefarm. forestsandcrops. MediumLow(450–600m) 4
Low(≥600m) 2
High(0–150m) 10
Thegreaterthedistance,
3.DBW MediumHigh(150–300m) 8
thelessavailablewater
Distancebetweenbodiesof Medium(300–450m) 6
andthelessbiotic
water MediumLow(450–600m) 4
interrelations.
Low(≥600m) 2
High(0–150m) 10
4.DBWCF Relatedtotheliving MediumHigh(150–300m) 8
Distanceofbodiesofwaterto conditionsofdifferent Medium(300–450m) 6
thecenterofthefarm. organisms MediumLow(450–600m) 4
Low(≥600m) 2
3.2. ExtensionoftheExternalConnectors(EEC)
Thisparameterevaluatesthelinearextensionandthesurfaceoflivefenceslocatedintheperimeter
ofthefarms(Table3). AremotesensingimagecanalsobeusedforestimatingtheEEC.
Table3.ExtensionoftheExternalConnectors(EEC).
Description Value Remark
Between75%and100%oftheperimeterofthemajoragroecosystem
Continuousperimeter 10
surroundedbylivefencesofnativeand/orexoticspecies.
Moderatelycontinuous Between50%and75%oftheperimeterofthemajoragroecosystem
8
perimeter surroundedbylivefencesofnativeand/orexoticspecies.
Between25%and50%oftheperimeterofthemajoragroecosystem
Discontinuousperimeter 6
surroundedbylivefencesofnativeand/orexoticspecies.
Stronglydiscontinuous Between12%and25%oftheperimeterofthemajoragroecosystem
3
perimeter surroundedbylivefencesofnativeand/orexoticspecies.
Extremelydiscontinuous Lessthan12%oftheperimeterofthemajoragroecosystemis
0
perimeter surroundedbylivefencesofnativeand/orexoticspecies
3.3. ExtensionoftheInternalConnectors(EIC)
Thisparametermeasuresthelinearextensionoftherowsofvegetationbutattheinternallevelof
theagroecosystem(Table4). Remotesensingimagesarealsousefulforthispurpose. Figure2presents
anexampleofdelimitationofexternalandinternalconnectorsinafarmlocatedintheColombian
Orinoquiaregion,madefromGoogle—Earthimages.
Sustainability2018,10,3131 10of21
Table4.ExtensionofInternalConnectors(EIC).
Description Value Remarks
Between75%and100%oftheinternalareasofthemajoragroecosystem
Highconnectivity 10
connectedwithlivefencesorhedgesofnativeand/orexoticspecies.
Between50%and75%oftheinternalareasofthemajoragroecosystem
Mediumconnectivity 8
connectedwithlivefencesorhedgesofnativeand/orexoticspecies.
Between25%and50%oftheinternalareasofthemajoragroecosystem
SustLaoinwabicliotyn n20e1c8ti, v1i0t,y x 6 10 of 20
connectedwithlivefencesorhedgesofnativeand/orexoticspecies.
Between12%and25%oftheinternalareasofthemajoragroecosystem
Verylowconnectivity 3 Between 12% and 25% of the internal areas of the major agroecosystem
Very low connectivity 3 connectedwithlivefencesorhedgesofnativeand/orexoticspecies.
connected with live fences or hedges of native and/or exotic species.
ExEtrxetmremelye llyowlo woro nron o LLeessss tthhaann 1122%% ooff tthhee iinntteerrnnaall aarreeaass ooff tthhee mmaajjoorr aaggrrooeeccoossyysstteemm
00
cocnonnenceticvtiitvyit. y. ccoonnnneecctteedd wwiitthh lliivvee ffeenncceess oorr hheeddggeess ooff nnaattiivvee aanndd//oor rexexootitci cspspeeciceies.s .

FFiigguurree 22.. EEEECC aanndd EEIICC ooff ““CCííttrriiccooss ddeell MMiilleenniioo”” FFaarrmm.. NNoottee tthhee ccoonnnneeccttiioonn wwiitthh ggaalllleerryy ffoorreessttss..
3.4. Diversity of External Connectors (DEC)
This parameter assesses the diversity and functionality of live fences or hedges located in the
perimeter of the major agroecosystem (Table 5). This analysis includes sampling the types of
herbaceous, shrub, or tree vegetation that are part of these living fences. Samples can be taken using
the same fences as transects or a random sampling can also be made in plots of different areas. The
collected material is then identified according to the vernacular and scientific names (with the
support of botanists and local inhabitants) and classified within the taxonomic categories of family,
gender and, as far as possible, species. Other biodiversity indexes (abundance, wealth, equitability)
can be used depending on the financial resources and the objectives of the research.