Search

The benefits of organic farming to biodiversity in agricultural landscapes continue to be hotly debated, emphasizing the importance of precisely quantifying the effect of organic vs. conventional farming., We conducted an updated hierarchical meta-analysis of studies that compared biodiversity under organic and conventional farming methods, measured as species richness. We calculated effect sizes for 184 observations garnered from 94 studies, and for each study, we obtained three standardized measures reflecting land-use intensity. We investigated the stability of effect sizes through time, publication bias due to the 'file drawer' problem, and consider whether the current literature is representative of global organic farming patterns., On average, organic farming increased species richness by about 30%. This result has been robust over the last 30 years of published studies and shows no sign of diminishing., Organic farming had a greater effect on biodiversity as the percentage of the landscape consisting of arable fields increased, that is, it is higher in intensively farmed regions. The average effect size and the response to agricultural intensification depend on taxonomic group, functional group and crop type., There is some evidence for publication bias in the literature; however, our results are robust to its impact. Current studies are heavily biased towards northern and western Europe and North America, while other regions with large areas of organic farming remain poorly investigated., Synthesis and applications. Our analysis affirms that organic farming has large positive effects on biodiversity compared with conventional farming, but that the effect size varies with the organism group and crop studied, and is greater in landscapes with higher land-use intensity. Decisions about where to site organic farms to maximize biodiversity will, however, depend on the costs as well as the potential benefits. Current studies have been heavily biased towards agricultural systems in the developed world. We recommend that future studies pay greater attention to other regions, in particular, areas with tropical, subtropical and Mediterranean climates, in which very few studies have been conducted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research relating to ecosystem services has increased, partly because of drastic declines in biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. However, the mechanistic linkages between land use, biodiversity and service provision are poorly understood and synthesized. This is particularly true for many ecosystem services provided by mobile organisms such as natural enemies to crop pests. These species are not only influenced by local land use but also by landscape composition at larger spatial scales., We present a conceptual ecological production function framework for predicting land-use impact on biological control of pests by natural enemies. We develop a novel, mechanistic landscape model for biological control of cereal aphids, explicitly accounting for the influence of landscape composition on natural enemies varying in mobility, feeding rates and other life history traits. Finally, we use the model to map biological control services across cereal fields in a Swedish agricultural region with varying landscape complexity., The model predicted that biological control would reduce crop damage by 45-70% and that the biological control effect would be higher in complex landscapes. In a validation with independent data, the model performed well and predicted a significant proportion of biological control variation in cereal fields. However, much variability remains to be explained, and we propose that the model could be improved by refining the mechanistic understanding of predator dynamics and accounting for variation in aphid colonization., We encourage scientists working with biological control to adopt the conceptual framework presented here and to develop production functions for other crop-pest systems. If this kind of ecological production function is combined with production functions for other services, the joint model will be a powerful tool for managing ecosystem services and planning for sustainable agriculture at the landscape scale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent intensification of the arable landscape by modern agriculture has had negative effects on biodiversity. Organic farming has been introduced to mitigate negative effects, but is organic farming beneficial to biodiversity? In this review, we summarize recent research on the effects of organic farming on arable biodiversity of plants, arthropods, soil biota, birds, and mammals. The ecosystem services of pollination, biological control, seed predation, and decomposition are also included in this review. So far, organic farming seems to enhance the species richness and abundance of many common taxa, but its effects are often species specific and trait or context dependant. The landscape surrounding the focal field or farm also seems to be important. Landscape either enhances or reduces the positive effects of organic farming or acts via interactions where the surrounding landscape affects biodiversity or ecosystem services differently on organic and conventional farms. Finally, we discuss some of the potential mechanisms behind these results and how organic farming may develop in the future to increase its potential for sustaining biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study on the relationship between agricultural intensification and biological control. It mentions that the authors examined aphid pest populations in cereal and open fields and stressed the importance of parasitoids and vegetation-dwelling predators in various European region. The authors concluded that region-specific landscape management is needed for aphid control.

Organic farming in Europe has been shown to enhance biodiversity locally, but potential interactions with the surrounding landscape and the potential effects on ecosystem services are less well known. In cereal fields on 153 farms in five European regions, we examined how the species richness and abundance of wild plants, ground beetles and breeding birds, and the biological control potential of the area, were affected by organic and conventional farming, and how these effects were modified by landscape complexity (percentage of arable crops within 1000 m of the study plots). Information on biodiversity was gathered from vegetation plots, pitfall traps and by bird territory mapping. The biological control potential was measured as the percentage of glued, live aphids removed from plastic labels exposed in cereal fields for 24 h. Predation on aphids was highest in organic fields in complex landscapes, and declined with increasing landscape homogeneity. The biological control potential in conventional fields was not affected by landscape complexity, and in homogenous landscapes it was higher in conventional fields than in organic fields, as indicated by an interaction between farming practice and landscape complexity. A simplification of the landscape, from 20% to 100% arable land, reduced plant species richness by about 16% and cover by 14% in organic fields, and 33% and 5·5% in conventional fields. For birds, landscape simplification reduced species richness and abundance by 34% and 32% in organic fields and by 45·5% and 39% in conventional fields. Ground beetles were more abundant in simple landscapes, but were unaffected by farming practice. Synthesis and applications. This Europe-wide study shows that organic farming enhanced the biodiversity of plants and birds in all landscapes, but only improved the potential for biological control in heterogeneous landscapes. These mixed results stress the importance of taking both local management and regional landscape complexity into consideration when developing future agri-environment schemes, and suggest that local-regional interactions may affect other ecosystem services and functions. This study also shows that it is not enough to design and monitor agri-environment schemes on the basis of biodiversity, but that ecosystem services should be considered too. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]