'Reflexive learning' in Socio-Ecological Research: Supporting Biodiversity in Vineyards

It is established that agricultural practices, especially the use of herbicides, contribute to the deterioration of ecosystems and negatively impact human health. It is therefore necessary to consider alternative weed... [ view full abstract ]

It is established that agricultural practices, especially the use of herbicides, contribute to the deterioration of ecosystems and negatively impact human health. It is therefore necessary to consider alternative weed management practices. While previous studies have evaluated ecological impacts of promoting non-crop vegetation in agricultural fields, they did not address the costs and benefits of this practice as perceived by stakeholders. To reduce this knowledge gap, we choose vineyards as case-study and investigated, in parallel (a) the agro-ecological effects of mechanical trimming of non-crop vegetation that support biodiversity; (b) the impediments for advancing sustainable agricultural practices generally, and particularly regarding management of non-crop vegetation. The research methods combined an ecological field experiment, a literature review, and interviews with stakeholders and a roundtable discussion.

In the ecological experiment, the abundance and diversity of herbs and arthropods was found to be lower in herbicide-treated vineyards than in paired plots subjected to trimming, especially in the spring. However, the weed management practice did not affect the insect pests, their arthropod natural enemies, the crop yield or grape quality. Thus, vegetation trimming did not increase the risk of insect pest damage, while providing other known benefits, such as cooling of the soil and reduced erosion. The social/policy component of the study revealed that the main barriers to the adoption of vegetation-friendly practices are their lack of awareness to the importance of biodiversity, the farmers’ preference for familiar protocols and their concern about the expenses of implementing new ones. We found several advantages to adoption of socio-ecological framework. One is the opportunity to facilitate ‘reflexive learning’ and to enhance trust utilizing different configurations of social capital. In particular, this approach can help highlight and bridge the gap between the ecologists’ normative assumptions and the empirical findings of their study. Particularly, ecologists’ assumption that managing for biodiversity conservation presents a win-win strategy, often does not resonate with the concerns of farmers, and more-so when the experimental results are ambiguous. In a socio-ecological research framework, the scientists gain a better understanding of stakeholder concerns and ideally learn how to better communicate science, facts and uncertainties.