Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Energy Efficiency in Agrarian Systems From An Agroecological Perspective PDF
Energy Efficiency in Agrarian Systems From An Agroecological Perspective PDF
To cite this article: Gloria I. Guzmán & Manuel González de Molina (2015) Energy Efficiency
in Agrarian Systems From an Agroecological Perspective, Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Systems, 39:8, 924-952, DOI: 10.1080/21683565.2015.1053587
924
Energy Efficiency From Agroecological Perspective 925
INTRODUCTION
Energy return on the investment (EROIs) are indicators (Gupta and Hall 2011:
28; Pervanchon, Bockstaller, and Girardin 2002: 150) that aim to measure the
efficiency of energy use and, in doing so, provide information about decision
making on this vital aspect of the operation of productive activities. This
important tool for “energy analysis” or “net energy analysis” (Hall, Balogh,
and Murphy 2009: 26) is strictly economic in origin and is based on the same
valuation criteria as monetary investments, that is, on cost-benefit analysis. It
has been used for some time for the conversion of oil and other primary
energy sources into fuel and other energy products, when attempting to
measure the efficiency of the process (Cleveland et al. 1984; Hall, Cleveland,
and Kaufmann 1986; Cleveland 1992; Hall, Powers, and Schoenberg 2008,
2009; Mulder and Hagens 2008; Giampietro, Mayumi, and Sorman 2010; Hall
2011: 2–3). It provides a numerical indicator that can be quickly and easily
used for comparison with other similar energy processes in both space and
time (Murphy et al. 2011: 8).
When applied to agriculture, it measures the amount of energy invested
in order to obtain a unit of energy in the form of biomass. Put more simply,
we could say that in agriculture an EROI measures the “energy cost” (Scheidel
and Sorman 2012: 3) of net biomass produced to be used by society (Martínez
Alier 2011), whether in the form of foodstuffs, raw materials, or biofuels. This
indicator is particularly important in the context of the current energy crisis,
especially in the context of industrialized agriculture which uses large
amounts of external energy, both directly and indirectly, and is facing the
challenge of reducing energy costs and GHG emissions. Given that the
endosomatic metabolism of people and the production of raw materials that
are difficult to produce synthetically can only be satisfied by producing edible
biomass, the efficiency of energy use in agriculture has become a basic issue
(Tello et al. 2015: 9).
However, using EROI as the sole indicator can produce contradictory
results, depending on the system boundaries chosen. Furthermore, it is a
prime example of the need for multiple criteria in analysis. As highlighted
by Giampietro, Mayumi, and Sorman (2010), energy efficiency cannot be
reduced to a single figure or a single criterion for analysis, especially when
applied to agriculture. In addition to the advisability of using several EROIs, an
analysis should be carried out from different perspectives to aid coherent
decision-making on energy use. This spirit has guided proposals made else-
where for the use of several EROIs in the study of agriculture and its history
(Tello et al. 2015). This proposal has a “microeconomic” focus equivalent to
the perspective of the farmer. This social perspective addresses the profit-
ability of the investment in energy for the production of net biomass for the
farmer (microeconomic perspective) or for society as a whole (macroeco-
nomic perspective).
926 G. I. Guzmán and M. González de Molina
aerial part of the plants, while root biomass and crop residues are often
ignored. An agroecological approach should take into account all the biomass
produced within the limits of the agroecosystem, that is, all the net primary
production (NPP). The reason for this is that the reproduction of the fund
elements of agroecosystems depends directly or indirectly on the total bio-
mass produced, not just that which is harvested.
The fund elements of agroecosystems generate flows of ecosystem ser-
vices, part of which are used for their own renovation (De Groot et al. 2003;
Ekins et al. 2003; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Folke et al. 2011).
According to Schröter et al. (2014), every agroecosystem has a specific capa-
city to provide these services, depending on soil and climate conditions. Since
agroecosystems are dependent on human management, the quantity and
quality of fund elements and the rate at which they provide services depends
on how they are managed. An adequate provision of services will depend on
the state of health of the agroecosystem, that is, on the sustainability of its
fund elements (Cornell 2010; Costanza 2012). Conversely, the degradation of
the fund elements of an agroecosystem can lead to the reduction of ecosystem
service supply (Burkhard, Fath, and Müller 2011).
These services are usually grouped into four categories: supply, regula-
tion, support, and cultural services. Supply includes the extraction of goods
(timber, firewood, foodstuffs, and fibers); regulating services help to modulate
ecosystem processes (carbon sequestration, climate regulation, pest and dis-
ease control, and waste recycling); support services contribute to the provi-
sion of all the other categories (photosynthesis, soil formation, and nutrient
recycling); while cultural services contribute to spiritual wellbeing (recreation,
religion, spiritual, and aesthetic values) (De Groot et al. 2010).
EROIs have traditionally been calculated on the sole basis of supply
services, given that these have a direct impact on society or the farmer,
ignoring the fact that regulation and maintenance services are essential for
supply services to survive over time. They are not maintained and they do not
reproduce themselves independently, but through human intervention. How-
ever, as in the case of ecosystems, maintenance and reproduction depend on
an adequate supply of energy in the form of biomass. In other words, the fund
elements of an agroecosystem, upon which an adequate supply of ecosystem
services—including the production of socially useful biomass (food, fuel, and
fibers)—depends, are maintained (and accumulate or increase their capacity)
by means of adequate biomass flows.
As stated by Gliessman (1998): “The greater the modification of natural
processes that humans try to force on the environment in the production of
food, the greater the amount of cultural energy required. Energy is needed to
maintain a low-diversity system, to limit the interference, and to modify the
physical and chemical conditions of the system in order to maintain optimal
growth and development of the crop organisms” (272–273). Low entropy
systems can be obtained by recirculating energy within the agroecosystem,
Energy Efficiency From Agroecological Perspective 929
The study area is located in the municipality of Santa Fe, in the center of the
region of La Vega de Granada, some 12 km west of the city of Granada
(Spain) in the southeast of the Iberian Peninsula. This area has great agricul-
tural potential, being an agroecosystem with a high response to green revolu-
tion technologies. Some 85.59% of the municipality’s land has a slope of less
than 3%, deep soils with potentially high production. These mainly fall into
the category of xerofluvents. However, this potential is only fulfilled when
access to water is guaranteed through irrigation; this is key given that annual
rainfall is only around 390 mm and occurs primarily in the winter months
(González De Molina and Guzmán 2006).
Cropland
Constantly irrigated 288 0.076 1333 0.352 2134 0.598
Semi-irrigated 1281 0.340 464 0.123 0 0.000
Dry farming land 1128 0.300 1239 0.328 785 0.220
Forestland
Poplar groves 3 0.001 53 0.014 440 0.123
Pinar 0 0 0 0 210 0.059
Pastureland
Dehesa/pastures 366 0.097 93 0.025 0 0.000
Wet pastureland 700 0.186 600 0.159 0 0.000
land could be put to good use. Poplar and (to a far lesser extent) ash, were
planted along the river crossing through the territory, mainly in order to
defend the cropland from frequent floods, but also to provide timber and
firewood. Offcuts from the pruning of olive trees and firewood from some
mulberry and walnut trees also added to these resources, but this was not
enough to meet the fuel requirements of the inhabitants. Firewood and timber
had to be imported from neighboring wooded areas. It was, at the time, an
agroecosystem with little tree cover. Table 1 shows the distribution of the
territory broken down by usage in the three periods studied.
Fodder and forage requirements for cattle were provided by land which
remained unfarmed: thickets and meadows in the flood zone, whose produc-
tion was short lived, but above all with the land situated in the highest part of
the municipality dominated by shrubs and grasses, known as “dehesa boyal”
(lit. ox meadow) (366 ha). The scarcity of pasture that produced on open
Mediterranean hillside also forced inhabitants to devote a substantial part of
cropland to the production of grains to complement livestock feed. This meant
that cereal production for livestock was competing with cereal production for
human consumption. Nevertheless, an equilibrium had been reached based on
the use of draft livestock that satisfied both traction and fertilization needs.
Annual manure production from livestock in 1752 was sufficient to satisfy
the demands of the lands under constant irrigation (these were regularly
fertilized). On lands that were watered on an occasional basis (referred to,
henceforth, as semi-irrigated), olives and grapevines were grown in associa-
tion, and above all, wheat and barley, on a one year sown/one year fallow
regime (these were not fertilized).
expense of nonarable land, which included some sections recovered from the
river and some resulting from the drying out of part of the marshlands. A large
part of the dehesa was also ploughed. The new culture was centered on the
production of barley on non-irrigated land and wheat and sugar beet on
irrigated land. Poplar groves for timber supplies had begun to occupy agri-
cultural land.
In the irrigated land, the sugar beet is introduced during the 1880s. It
would be the predominant crop for the next forty years. Within a new rotation
which included wheat and, in some cases, potatoes, its cultivation spread until
it occupied no less than 86% of the irrigated area, giving rise to a heretofore
unseen level of productive specialization. Traditional crops for personal con-
sumption went into considerable and almost permanent decline. The sugar
beet crop represented an increase in nutrient requirements. Three-year rota-
tion (broad beans–sugar beet–wheat or potato) shortened the previous rota-
tion by a half and moreover increased the doses of manure used. To cover
these requirements solely with manure, supplies would need to be doubled,
which must be imported from relatively distant territories, rendering it impos-
sible to take on the consequent increase in costs. Under these circumstances,
substitution with chemical fertilizers was becoming advisable not only from an
agricultural perspective, but also from a financial one. In fact, the spread of
sugar beet was made possible by this nonorganic input (4666.5 GJ), allowing
farmers to reduce “land costs” in the agroecosystem. Santa Fe’s agroecosystem
was now unable to maintain this intensity of biomass production without the
support of non-local input.
the aerial biomass, without taking into account the root biomass, which has
attracted criticism (Smil 2013). In this study, we have taken root biomass into
account, due to its relevant role in the maintenance of complex food chains
and in the accumulation of organic material in the soil. However, we have not
taken into account the biomass lost during the growing phase of the plants
(death of roots, exudation of compounds, litterfall, etc.) (Smil 2013), due to
the difficulty in quantifying such loss.
The NPPact of historical and modern agroecosystems does not appear in
agricultural statistics, which usually focus on the harvested portion of the
NPPact. It therefore has to be estimated, for which there are different
approaches. For example, experimentally recreating past conditions and car-
rying out direct measurements that can be extrapolated (experimental his-
tory), or using algorithms that take into account variations in vegetation and
soil and climatic conditions, or using conversion factors which allow the
NPPact to be estimated from the harvested biomass, taking into account the
changes which have occurred over the period studied, or extrapolating from
studies based on different agro-climatic and management conditions. The
three latter options have been preferred in this research.
The use made by society of the NPPact of the agroecosystems can be
broken down into the following portions:
Socialized Vegetable Biomass (SVB): this is the vegetable biomass (tim-
ber, firewood, cereal grain, olives, etc.) which is directly appropriated by
human society, considered as it is extracted from the agroecosystem, that is,
prior to its industrial processing, if any (transformation into flour, oil, etc.). In
this way, we avoid the effect of changes in agro-industrial efficiency on the
comparison of the agroecosystems studied.
Recycling Biomass (RcB): this is the biomass that is not directly appro-
priated by society (SVB) or accumulated in the structures of living plants, but
which is reincorporated into the agroecosystem. Seeds and vegetative repro-
duction organs (tubers, rhizomes, seedlings…) form part of the RcB. How-
ever, the greater part of the RcB is that which is recycled through livestock
farming or through other wild heterotrophic organisms. From society’s per-
spective, the RcB can be divided into two portions:
Animal Biomass (SAB). We have called the sum of the Socialized Vegetal
Biomass and the Biomass Reused, the Appropriated Biomass (ApB).
– Unharvested Biomass (UhB): this is the biomass that is returned to the
agroecosystem by abandonment, not in the pursuit of any specific aim. Its
return does not involve the investment of any human work. This is the case
of crop residues which do not receive any specific treatment, the portion of
pasture not consumed by the livestock, the remains of trees and the greater
part of the root systems which are not harvested by society and which are
recycled by wild heterotrophic organisms. In the case of uncontrolled
accidental wildfire, we consider that portion of the biomass which remains
in the agroecosystem to be recycling biomass (IPCC 2006: 2.48–2.49). The
UhB can be divided into Aboveground Unharvested Biomass (AUhB) and
Belowground Unharvested Biomass (BUhB), depending on the location of
this biomass when it is abandoned.
CROPLAND NPPACT
The cropland NPPact is the biomass of the crops and also of the associated
weeds which are not eliminated by the farmers’ control strategies. Counting
the weed biomass is fundamental to any analysis which aims to capture the
effect of agricultural industrialization. Though in agriculture today there is
very little of this biomass, due to the use of herbicides, it was very significant
in traditional agriculture, playing a relevant role in the dynamics of agroeco-
systems. To calculate the aerial biomass of weeds in traditional agricultural
systems, we have used data from contemporary Organic Farming trials and for
more recent periods, data from conventional agriculture (Guzmán et al. 2014).
The NPPact of the crops is obtained from conversion factors which allow
it to be estimated from crop production (SVB), which is the most commonly
available data, especially in historical sources.
The conversion factors allow the user: a) to calculate the total biomass
(aerial + belowground biomass), b) to convert the fresh biomass into dry
biomass and vice versa, and c) to convert the biomass into gross energy.
For most coefficients we do not expect large variations over time. For
some, like the harvest index, which changes over time, we have also provided
information for pre-industrial time periods in some crops.
936 G. I. Guzmán and M. González de Molina
GRASSLAND NPPACT
The biomass of pastureland was calculated by means of an algorithm adapted
to the agro-climatic conditions of Santa Fe on the dehesa (905.4 kg d.m./ha),
and from studies based on similar agro-climatic and management conditions
for flooded pastureland (1400 kg d.m./ha) and fallow land (356 kg d.m./ha).
The calculations can be found in Guzmán et al. (2014).
WOODLAND NPPACT
The woodland NPPact includes the biomass of the trees and of the pasture
which grows below them. The NPPact of the poplar is estimated from the
SVB. We have considered that there was equilibrium between the wood
accumulated annually and the wood extracted (SVB), and so the situation
was stationary. The root biomass/aerial biomass ratio can be found in Guz-
mán et al. (2014). The production of ligneous biomass in pine forests in Santa
Fe, present only in 1997, was estimated by the regional government (CMAOT
2014). The production of pasture is insignificant in these pine forests (Robles
2008). The conversion factors for biomass into gross energy can be found in
the supplementary information.
External final EROI relates EI to the final output crossing the agroecosys-
tem boundaries (Carpintero and Naredo 2006; Pracha and Volk 2011). In the
academic literature, it has frequently been called “net efficiency,” and it is one
of the indicators most commonly used to evaluate agriculture from the energy
perspective (Guzmán and Alonso 2008). This ratio links the agrarian sector
with the rest of the energy system of a society—and, thus, assesses to what
extent the agroecosystem analyzed becomes a net provider or rather a net
consumer of energy.
This tells us the efficiency with which the biomass that is intentionally
returned to the agroecosystem is transformed into a product that is useful to
society. This indicator has not habitually been used but its usefulness is growing
since this biomass can have alternative uses (e.g., biofuels), since poor manage-
ment can cause environmental problems (e.g., pig slurry pollution) or due to
the ecosystem services it can provide (e.g., soil carbon sequestration).
Other EROIs developed from an economic point of view are the Fossil
final EROI (SB/Fossil energy) or the return on investment for other factors of
production, such as labor. Since they are widely used, we are not going to
explain them in this article.
From an ecological point of view, the SB is the result not only of the
energy expressly invested by society in the operation of the agroecosystem,
but also that which is really recycled without human intervention. This EROI
gives a more exact idea of the energy investment required to obtain it. From
an agroecological point of view, the relationship between this indicator and
the Final EROI is of great interest.
700
600
400 1752
1904
300
1997
200
100
0
Cropland Pastureland Forestland Total
the use made of the land, has been variable and, up to a point, contra-
dictory. The NPPact/ha of cropland increased spectacularly between 1752
and 1904. Over this period, it multiplied by 1.55 as a result of the expansion
of irrigation and the use of chemical fertilizers which allowed the intensifica-
tion of rotation. However, from 1904 to 1997, productivity stagnated. First,
crops which generate abundant biomass (sugar beet and wheat) were totally
or partially substituted by horticultural products (garlic, asparagus, etc.)
whose production of dry matter is lower. The cultivation of sugar beet
disappeared, while the crop area of wheat was reduced by half. As a result,
although the NPPact increased for the same crop (e.g., for wheat, it rose
from 150 to 335 GJ/ha), it only grew overall from 145.5 GJ/ha to 159.6 GJ/
ha. Second, the use of herbicides reduced weed biomass from 32.5 GJ/ha to
15.4 GJ/ha. On pastureland, the fall in productivity in 1997 with respect to
previous years was due to the disappearance of the most productive pas-
tureland, flooded riverbank pastureland that was wet for most of the year.
Furthermore, dehesa was converted to pine forest, where production of
pasture is insignificant. The reduction in these spaces was more than com-
pensated for by the increase in forest land, due to the poplar coming to be
considered a crop in the second half of the 20th century. The old cultivars
were replaced by hybrids, and fertilizers and herbicides were used.
Figure 2 breaks down the NPPact by its use in relative terms. The SVB rose
from 1752 to 1904, paralleled by a fall in RuB, which reached a minimum in
1904. This is the result of the expansion of agricultural usage (agriculturaliza-
tion) of the territory that progressively reduced livestock farming, due to the
privatization of common land promoted by the liberal laws, thereby hindering
the feeding of the livestock, especially for small farmers (González De Molina
and Guzmán 2006). This allowed an increase in the area devoted to crops for
human use (wheat, sugar beet), and at the same time increased the average
yield of crops thanks to increased irrigation and the use of chemical fertilizers.
The expulsion of livestock farming considerably increased the AUhB, which
Energy Efficiency From Agroecological Perspective 941
100%
90%
80% Accumulated Biomass
70%
60% Belowground Un‐harvested
Biomass
50%
Aboveground Un‐harvested
40%
Biomass
30%
Reused Biomass
20%
10%
Socialized Vegetal Biomass
0%
1752 1904 1997
Year
became available for other heterotrophic species. In 1904, however, there was a
fall in relative terms in BUhB brought about by the cultivation of sugar beet and
potato, whose harvesting involved the extraction of the root from the soil. The
AB grew slightly between 1752 and 1904 due to the increased crop area of
poplar, although its cultivation was no more intensive.
Between 1904 and 1997, SVB multiplied by 2.8 in absolute terms
(Table 2) and almost doubled in relative terms (Figure2). The case of wheat
TABLE 2 Biomass production (GJ) and EROIs in Santa Fe (1752–1997); basic data
is paradigmatic. For this crop, to the increase in NPPact were added the
highest harvest index of the modern varieties and the chemical control of
weeds. In all, this meant that the population went from socializing 12.4% of
the NPPact of a hectare of wheat to socializing 31.3%. However, the crop that
most contributed to the increase in SVB was the poplar. In 1997, 61.5% of the
SVB was timber and firewood, compared with 9.2% in 1904.
The RuB was multiplied by 2.5 in absolute terms and by 1.44 in relative
terms. This increase was not due to an increase in livestock farming with
respect to 1904. In fact, the percentage of RuB devoted to animal feed fell
from 92.6% to 57.6%. In 1997, animal feed for livestock (mainly intensive dairy
farming) was partially imported, representing 13.5% of EI. This increase in the
RuB was due to the generalization of the burning of waste (straw, thin
pruning waste, etc.) in the fields.
Last, the AB grew spectacularly thanks to the poplar. Overall, the relative
increase in these uses of NPPact in 1997 was possible partly as a result of the
sharp fall in UhB which became available to sustain wild food chains in the
soil and in the air. Wildlife has been practically expelled from the
municipality.
EXTERNAL INPUTS
9215
NPPact
Un-harvested 521,624 Feed
Biomass
75,501
335,494
Reused Biomass
81,505
Feed livestock
Manure 31,005
Timber and
Food fuelwood Socialized Animal
85,558 8672 Biomass
7227
SOCIALIZED BIOMASS
101,457
CONCLUSIONS
FUNDING
This work springs from the international research project on Sustainable Farm
Systems: Long-Term Socio-Ecological Metabolism in Western Agriculture
funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
and Spanish research project HAR2012-38920-C02-01 funded by Ministerio de
Economía y Competitividad (Spain).
Energy Efficiency From Agroecological Perspective 947
NOTE
1. See Ayres and Simonis (1994) Fischer-Kowalski (1998, 2003); Fischer-Kowalski and Hüttler (1998);
Giampietro, Mayumi, and Sorman (2012); González De Molina and Toledo (2011); and González De Molina
and Toledo (2014) on the concept of social metabolism and its application to agriculture
REFERENCES
Adams, R. N. 1975. Energy and structure. A theory of social power. Austin, TX:
University of Texas Press.
Adams, R. N. 1988. The eight day: Social evolution as the self-organization of energy.
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Altieri, M. A. 1989. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Ayres, R. U. 2007. On the practical limits to substitution. Ecological Economics:
61:115–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.02.011
Ayres, R. U., and U. E. Simonis. 1994. Industrial metabolism: Restructuring for
sustainable development. Tokyo: United Nations University Press.
Badgley, C., J. Moghtader, E. Quintero, E. Zakem, M. J. Chappell, K. Avilés-Vázquez,
A. Samulon, and I. Perfecto. 2007. Organic agriculture and the global food
supply. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22(2):86–108.
Bulatkin, G. A. 2012. Analysis of energy flows in agro-ecosystems. Herald of the
Russian Academy of Sciences 82(4):326–34. DOI: 10.1134/S1019331612040089
Burkhard, B., B. D. Fath, and F. Müller. 2011. Adapting the adaptive cycle: Hypothe-
seson the development of ecosystem properties and services. Ecological Model-
ling 222:2878–90.
Carpintero, O., and J. M. Naredo. 2006. Sobre la evolución de los balances energé-
ticos de la agricultura española, 1950–2000. Historia Agraria 40:531–54.
Cleveland, C. J. 1992. Energy quality and energy surplus in the extraction of fossil
fuels in the U.S. Ecological Economics 6:139–62. DOI: 10.1016/0921-8009(92)
90010-P.
Cleveland, C. J., R. Costanza, C. A. S. Hall, and R. Kaufmann. 1984. Energy and the U.
S. economy: A biophysical perspective. Science 225(4665):890–97. DOI: 10.1126/
science.225.4665.890
Consejería de Medio Ambiente y Ordenación del Territorio de Andalucía (CMAOT)
2014. Biomasa Forestal de Andalucía. http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/med
ioambiente/bioforan/plantillas/biomasa/index.html?especie=halepensis
(accessed October 13, 2014).
Cornell, S. 2010. Valuing ecosystem benefits in a dynamic world. Climate Research
45:261–72. DOI: 10.3354/cr00843
Costanza, R. 2012. Ecosystem health and ecological engineering. Ecological Engineer-
ing 45:24–29. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.03.023.
de Groot, R., R. Alkemade, L. Braat, L. Hein, and L. Willemen. 2010. Challenges in
inte-grating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning,
management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7:260–72. DOI:
10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006
948 G. I. Guzmán and M. González de Molina
De Groot, R., J. Van Der Perk, A. Chiesura, and A. Van Vliet. 2003. Importance and
threatas determining factors for criticality of natural capital. Ecological Economics
44:187–204. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00273-2
Ekins, P., S. Simon, L. Deutsch, C. Folke, and R. De Groot. 2003. A framework for
thepractical application of the concepts of critical natural capital and strong sus-
tainability. Ecological Economics 44:165–85. DOI: 10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00272-0
Fath, B. D., S. E. Jørgensen, B. C. Patten, and M. Straškraba. 2004. Ecosystem growth
and development. Biosystems 77:213–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystems.2004.06.001
Fischer-Kowalski, M. 1998. Society’s metabolism. The intellectual history of material
flow analysis, part I, 1860 – 1970. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2(1):61–78. DOI:
10.1162/jiec.1998.2.1.61
Fischer-Kowalski, M. 2003. On the history of industrial metabolism. In Perspectives on
Industrial Ecology, eds. D. Bourg, and S. Erkman. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
Fischer-Kowalski, M., and W. Hüttler. 1998. Society’s metabolism: The intellectual
history of materials flow nnalysis, Part II, 1970–1998. Journal of Industrial
Ecology 2:107–36. DOI: 10.1162/jiec.1998.2.4.107
Fluck, R. C., and C. D. Baird. 1980. Agricultural Energetics. Westport, CT: AVI.
Folke, C., Å. Jansson, J. Rockström, P. Olsson, S. R. Carpenter, F. S. Chapin, A.-S.
Crépin, G. Daily, K. Danell, J. Ebbesson, T. Elmqvist, V. Galaz, F. Moberg, M.
Nilsson, H. Österblom, E. Ostrom, Å. Persson, G. Peterson, S. Polasky, W. Steffen,
B. Walker, and F. Westley. 2011. Reconnecting to the biosphere. Ambio 40:719–
38. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-011-0184-y
Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1971. The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Giampietro, M., T. F. H. Allen, and K. Mayumi. 2006. The epistemological predica-
ment associated with purposive quantitative analysis. Ecological Complexity
3:307–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.005
Giampietro, M., K. Mayumi, and J. Ramos-Martin. 2008. Multi-Scale Integrated Ana-
lysis of Societal and Ecosystem Metabolism (MUSIASEM): An outline of rationale
and theory. Document de Treball. Departament d’Economia Aplicada, Universi-
dad Autónoma de Barcelona (Spain). http://www.recercat.cat/handle/2072/
5232?show=full (accessed February 12, 2013).
Giampietro, M., K. Mayumi, and A. H. Sorman. 2010. Assessing the quality of alter-
native energy sources: Energy return on the investment (EROI), the metabolic
pattern of societies and energy statistics. Working Papers on Environmental
Sciences. Barcelona: ICTA.
Giampietro, M., K. Mayumi, and A. H. Sorman. 2012. The metabolic pattern of
societies: Where economists fall short. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
Gliessman, S. R. 1998. Agroecology: Ecological processes in sustainable agriculture.
Chelsea, MI: Ann Arbor Press.
González de Molina, M., and G. I. Guzmán. 2006. Tras los pasos de la insustentabil-
idad. Agricultura y Medio ambiente en perspectiva histórica (siglos XVIII–XX).
Barcelona: Icaria.
González de Molina, M., and V. Toledo. 2011. Metabolismos, naturaleza e historia.
Una teoría de las transformaciones socio-ecológicas. Barcelona: Icaria.
González de Molina, M., and V. T. Toledo. 2014. Social metabolisms: A theory on
socio-ecological transformations. New York: Springer.
Energy Efficiency From Agroecological Perspective 949
Gupta, A. K., and C. A. S. Hall. 2011. A review of the past and current state of EROI
data. Sustainability 3:1796–809. DOI: 10.3390/su3101796
Guzmán, G. I., E. Aguilera, D. Soto, A. Cid, J. Infante, R. García Ruiz, A. Herrera, I.
Villa, and M. González de Molina. 2014. Methodology and conversion factors to
estimate the net primary productivity of historical and contemporary agroeco-
systems (I). Sociedad Española de Historia Agraria-Documentos de Trabajo
1406. www.seha.info (accessed April 5, 2014).
Guzmán, G. I., and A. M. Alonso. 2008. A comparison of energy use in conventional
and organic olive oil production in Spain. Agricultural Systems 98:167–76. DOI:
10.1016/j.agsy.2008.06.004
Guzmán, G. I., and M. González de Molina. 2009. Preindustrial agriculture versus
organic agriculture. The land cost of sustainability. Land Use Policy 26:502–10.
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.07.004
Guzmán, G. I., M. González de Molina, and A. M. Alonso. 2011. The land cost of
agrarian sustainability. An assessment. Land Use Policy 28:825–35. DOI: 10.1016/
j.landusepol.2011.01.010
Guzmán, G. I., M. González de Molina, and E. Sevilla, eds. Introducción a la
Agroecología como desarrollo rural sostenible. Madrid, Spain: Mundi-Prensa.
Haberl, H., K. H. Erb, F. Krausmann, V. Gaube, A. Bondeau, C. Plutzar, S. Gingrich,
W. Lucht, and M. Fischer-Kowalski. 2007. Quantifying and mapping the human
appropriation of net primary production in earth’s terrestrial ecosystems. PNAS
104(31):12942–47.
Hall, C. A. S. 2011. Introduction to special issue on new studies in EROI (Energy
Return on Investment). Sustainability 3:1773–77. DOI: 10.3390/su3101773
Hall, C. A. S., S. Balogh, and D. J. Murphy. 2009. What is the minimum EROI that a
sustainable society must have? Energies 2:25–47. DOI: 10.3390/en20100025
Hall, C. A. S., C. J. Cleveland, and R. Kaufmann. 1986. Resource quality: The ecology of
the economic process. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Hall, C. A. S., R. Powers, and W. Schoenberg. 2008. Peak oil, EROI, investments and
the economy in an uncertain future. In Biofuels, solar and wind as renewable
energy systems, ed., D. Pimentel, 109–32. New York: Springer.
Häyhäa, T., and P. P. Franzese. 2014. Ecosystem services assessment: A review under
an ecological-economic and systems perspective. Ecological Modelling 289:124–
32. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.07.002
IPCC. 2006. Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Volume 4: Agricul-
ture, Forestry and Other Land Use. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/
2006gl/vol4.html (accessed March 3, 2014).
Jørgensen, S. E., and B. D. Fath. 2004. Application of thermodynamic principles in
ecology. Ecological Complexity 1:267–80. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2004.07.001
Jørgensen, S. E., B. D. Fath, S. Bastianoni, J. C. Marques, F. Müller, S. N. Nielsen, E.
Tiezzi, and R. E. Ulanowicz. 2007. A new ecology: Systems perspective. The
Netherlands: Elsevier.
Lacasta, R., and R. Meco. 2011. La rotación en cultivos herbáceos de secano. In Agricul-
tura ecológica en secano, eds. R. Meco Murillo, C. Lacasta Dutoit, and M.M. Moreno
Valencia. Madrid: Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Rural y Marino and Mundi-Prensa.
950 G. I. Guzmán and M. González de Molina
Scheidel, A., and A. Sorman. 2012. Energy transitions and the global land rush:
Ultimate drivers and persistent consequences. Global Environmental Change
22 (3):588–95. DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.12.005
Schrödinger, E. 1984. ¿Qué es la vida? Barcelona: Tusquets.
Schröter, M., D. N. Barton, R. P. Remme, and L. Hein. 2014. Accounting for capacity and
flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark,
Norway. Ecological Indicators 36:539–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.09.018
Sieferle, R. P. 2011. Cultural evolution and social metabolism. GeografiskaAnnaler:
Series B, Human Geography 93(4):315–24.
Smil, V. 2013. Harvesting the biosphere. What we have taken from nature. Cam-
bridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Swannack, T. M., and W. E. Grant. 2008. Systems ecology. In Encyclopedia of Ecology,
eds. S.E. Jorgensen, and B. Fath, 3477–81Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Tello, E., E. Galán, G. Cunfer, G. I. Guzmán, M. González de Molina, F. Krausmann,
S. Gingrich, V. Sacristán, I. Marco, R. Padró, and D. Moreno-Delgado. 2015. A
proposal for a workable analysis of Energy Return On Investment (EROI) in
agroecosystems. Part I: Analytical approach. Social Ecology Working Paper 156.
IFF-Social Ecology. https://www.uni-klu.ac.at/socec/inhalt/1818.htm (accessed
January 15, 2015).
Tittonell, P., E. Scopel, N. Andrieu, H. Posthumus, P. Mapfumo, M. Corbeels, G. E.
Van Halsema, R. Lahmar, S. Lugandu, J. Rakotoarisoa, F. Mtambanengwe, B.
Pound, R. Chikowo, K. Naudin, B. Triomphe, and S. Mkomwa. 2012. Agroecol-
ogy-based aggradation-conservation agriculture (ABACO): Targeting innovations
to combat soil degradation and food insecurity in semi-arid Africa. Field Crops
Research 132:168–74. DOI: 10.1016/j.fcr.2011.12.011
Toledo, V. M. 1993. La racionalidad ecológica de la producción campesina. In
Ecología, campesinado e Historia, eds. E. Sevilla, and M. González De Molina,
197–218. Madrid, Spain: La Piqueta.
Tscharntke, T., Y. Clough, T. C. Wanger, L. Jackson, I. Motzke, I. Perfecto, J. Van-
dermeer, and A. Whitbread. 2012. Global food security, biodiversity conservation
and the future of agricultural intensification. Biological Conservation 151:53–59.
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068
Ulanowicz, R. E. 2004. On the nature of ecodynamics. Ecological Complexity 1:341–
54. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2004.07.003
NOMENCLATURE