Search

Policy makers and farmers need to know the status of farmland biodiversity in order to meet conservation goals and evaluate management options. Based on a review of 11 monitoring programs in Europe and North America and on related literature, we identify the design choices or attributes of a program that balance monitoring costs and usefulness for stakeholders. A useful program monitors habitats, vascular plants, and possibly faunal groups (ecosystem service providers, charismatic species) using a stratified random sample of the agricultural landscape, including marginal and intensive regions. The size of landscape samples varies with the grain of the agricultural landscape; for example, samples are smaller in Europe and larger in North America. Raw data are collected in a rolling survey, which distributes sampling over several years. Sufficient practical experience is now available to implement broad monitoring schemes on both continents. Technological developments in remote sensing, metagenomics, and social media may offer new opportunities for affordable farmland biodiversity monitoring and help to lower the overall costs of monitoring programs.

Farmland is a major land cover type in Europe and Africa and provides habitat for numerous species. The severe decline in farmland biodiversity of the last decades has been attributed to changes in farming practices, and organic and low-input farming are assumed to mitigate detrimental effects of agricultural intensification on biodiversity. Since the farm enterprise is the primary unit of agricultural decision making, management-related effects at the field scale need to be assessed at the farm level. Therefore, in this study, data were collected on habitat characteristics, vascular plant, earthworm, spider, and bee communities and on the corresponding agricultural management in 237 farms in 13 European and two African regions. In 15 environmental and agricultural homogeneous regions, 6-20 farms with the same farm type (e.g., arable crops, grassland, or specific permanent crops) were selected. If available, an equal number of organic and non-organic farms were randomly selected. Alternatively, farms were sampled along a gradient of management intensity. For all selected farms, the entire farmed area was mapped, which resulted in total in the mapping of 11 338 units attributed to 194 standardized habitat types, provided together with additional descriptors. On each farm, one site per available habitat type was randomly selected for species diversity investigations. Species were sampled on 2115 sites and identified to the species level by expert taxonomists. Species lists and abundance estimates are provided for each site and sampling date (one date for plants and earthworms, three dates for spiders and bees). In addition, farmers provided information about their management practices in face-to-face interviews following a standardized questionnaire. Farm management indicators for each farm are available (e.g., nitrogen input, pesticide applications, or energy input). Analyses revealed a positive effect of unproductive areas and a negative effect of intensive management on biodiversity. Communities of the four taxonomic groups strongly differed in their response to habitat characteristics, agricultural management, and regional circumstances. The data has potential for further insights into interactions of farmland biodiversity and agricultural management at site, farm, and regional scale., (© 2016 by the Ecological Society of America.)

Floral plantings are promoted to foster ecological intensification of agriculture through provisioning of ecosystem services. However, a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of different floral plantings, their characteristics and consequences for crop yield is lacking. Here we quantified the impacts of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control (18 studies) and pollination services (17 studies) in adjacent crops in North America, Europe and New Zealand. Flower strips, but not hedgerows, enhanced pest control services in adjacent fields by 16% on average. However, effects on crop pollination and yield were more variable. Our synthesis identifies several important drivers of variability in effectiveness of plantings: pollination services declined exponentially with distance from plantings, and perennial and older flower strips with higher flowering plant diversity enhanced pollination more effectively. These findings provide promising pathways to optimise floral plantings to more effectively contribute to ecosystem service delivery and ecological intensification of agriculture in the future.

Sustainable intensification (SI) responds to the concurrent challenges of increasing food production while reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture. As an early disclosure of innovation, patents are a useful indicator of technology market potential. However, we lack understanding of the extent to which current agricultural technology patents relate to the goals of SI and which kinds of technologies can potentially address SI. Here, we analyzed the diffusion and focus of more than one million patents issued during the period 1970–2022. We explored the degree to which the patents relate to SI through the co-occurrence of efficiency and environmental friendliness targets. Our results reveal that while the rate of patent issuance has dramatically increased over the past five decades, the rate at which patents diffused to different countries had decreased over time. The USA was the biggest net exporter of patents and had produced by far the most high-impact patents (in the top 1% most-cited patents). Since 1970, only 4% of agricultural patents and 6% of high-impact patents were related to SI targets (i.e., promoting both agricultural efficiency and environmental friendliness), but the attention to SI has increased over time. The most highly cited SI-related patents had become more diverse over time, shifting from digital, machine, and energy technologies in 1980s to the current era of agroecology, information, and computer networking. Our results provide an early indication of promising technologies that may play a greater role for SI in the future, subject to the challenges of market transfer and farm adoption and complemented by non-technological innovations in farm management and institutional support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The slow adoption by the agricultural sector of practices to promote biodiversity are thought to originate from three interrelated issues. First, we know little about which incentives effectively motivate farmers to integrate biodiversity into daily farm management. Second, few studies so far have produced evidence that biodiversity-based approaches produce benefits in terms of key variables for farmers (yield, profit). Third, there is a large communication gap between the scientists investigating biodiversity-based farming practices and the farmers who have to implement them. To overcome these barriers, SHOWCASE will review and test the effectiveness of a range of economic and societal incentives to implement biodiversity management in farming operations and examine farmer and public acceptance. Focus will be on three promising approaches: (i) result-based incentives, (ii) involvement in citizen science biodiversity monitoring and (iii) biodiversity-based business models. SHOWCASE will co-produce together with stakeholders solid interdisciplinary evidence for the agro-ecological and socio-economic benefits of biodiversity management in 10 contrasting farming systems across Europe. SHOWCASE will also design communication strategies that are tailor-made to farmers and other key stakeholders operating in different socio-economic and environmental conditions. SHOWCASE will develop a multi-actor network of 10 Experimental Biodiversity Areas in contrasting European farming systems that will be used for in-situ research on biodiversity incentives and evidence for benefits as well as knowledge exchange. This network will be used to identify and test biodiversity indicators and targets relevant to all stakeholders and use them in a learning-by-doing approach to improve benefits of biodiversity management on farms, both within the network and beyond. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We map megatrends to gain foresight on the future of European agriculture. • Mapped megatrends are climate, demography, value system, and environmental regulation. • Different regions face pressures from different combinations of megatrends. • Regions range from highly susceptible to systemic change to highly persistent. • For sustainability transitions, megatrends inform what governance is needed. A range of intensifying pressures is making the future of European agriculture dynamic and contested. Insights into these pressures are needed to inform debates about the future of the sector. In this study, we use a foresight approach to identify, quantify and map megatrends. Megatrends are long-term driving forces which are observable today and will likely have transformational potential in the future. By mapping these megatrends at the regional scale, we establish a geography of megatrends and detect where they coincide. Four megatrends significant for the future of European agriculture at the regional scale are assessed: Climate change, demographic change, (post-) productivism shifts, and increasingly stringent environmental regulations. The direction and intensity of these megatrends differs between regions, which drives regions into different systemic lock-ins or dynamics. In most regions, megatrends converge to destabilize the current system, forewarning impending systemic changes. While the specific megatrends contributing to this instability differ regionally, this result highlights that many regions are on a dynamic rather than stable trajectory, and the governance challenge is to steer these dynamics towards a desirable future. However, some regions are found to be highly persistent, indicating that megatrends reinforce business as usual, and change needs to be triggered through purposeful governance. In a minority of regions megatrends may drive marginalization as the current system becomes increasingly unviable. We argue that research and policies concerning agricultural sustainability transitions should be cognizant of the regional diversity of European megatrends and the pressures they create. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In 1993 the Swiss agricultural policy was revised with – amongst other goals – the objective of improving the environmental performance of agriculture. A voluntary agri-environmental scheme to promote integrated production (IP) was introduced. In 1999 the IP standards were integrated in cross compliance requirements and termed Proof of Ecological Performance (PEP). We evaluated the effectiveness of this policy in terms of reducing diffuse nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P) pollution of ground and surface water. We combined monitoring schemes covering the reference period from before the introduction of IP/PEP (1990–1992) with the evaluation of cause/effect relationships in selected case-study areas. The evaluation showed an overall reduction of diffuse N and P pollution from agriculture even though some goals were not reached. Nitrate leaching declined, but only a 3–4mgL−1 reduction was observed rather than the intended decrease of 5mgL−1. The P pollution of surface waters from agriculture decreased by only 10–30% instead of 50%. The intended reduction of the nitrogen surplus of Swiss agriculture by 33% was not attained, but the P surplus of Swiss agriculture was more than halved. IP/PEP practices that improved N and P management included reduced N and P fertiliser inputs and pig and poultry feedstuffs with reduced N and P contents, both of which are a consequence of the requirement of equilibrated farm nutrient balances, as well as increased use of cover cropping and of conservation tillage systems. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Ecological focus areas (EFAs) are a key element of European agri-environmental measures, which aim at mitigating the negative impact of intensive agricultural practices on biodiversity. They are mostly implemented at local scale, such as action-based EFAs (prescribed minimum biodiversity-friendly management) and result-based EFAs (prescribed minimum biodiversity outcome). Implementation at the landscape scale as part of a collaborative landscape-targeted approach is less frequent. There, farmers of a given region jointly determine where and which measures are implemented in order to create a biodiversity-friendly landscape. The effectiveness of the three different, but often intertwined approaches to promote farmland biodiversity, has hardly ever been studied. To this end, we analyzed data from 121 1-km2 squares distributed across the Swiss agricultural landscapes. At local scale (10-m2 units), we found that plant species richness was higher in all EFA categories compared to management units outside EFAs, but tended to be highest in result-based and in collaborative landscape-targeted EFAs. At landscape scale (1-km2 units), plant species richness was positively related to a large total area of all EFAs, while butterfly and bird richness were positively related to a large total area of all EFAs with a high share of collaborative landscape-targeted EFAs. We conclude that while result-based, and especially collaborative landscape-targeted EFAs come along with higher transaction costs, they contribute substantially to farmland biodiversity at different spatial scales. [Display omitted] • At local scale all ecological focus areas (EFAs) increased plant species richness. • Highest increases were found in result-based and collaborative landscape-targeted EFAs. • At landscape scale, plant species richness increased with increasing total area of all EFAs. • Species richness of birds and butterflies increased with increasing area of collaborative landscape-targeted EFAs. • Collaborative approaches for implementation of EFAs at landscape scale is crucial for effective biodiversity conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Targeted conservation and promotion of wild bees in agroecosystems requires understanding of relationships between different groups of bees and available floral resources across land-use types during the season and at the landscape scale. Here, we quantified floral resource amount and diversity across habitat types at different times during the season at the scale of entire landscapes (500 m radius) across 20 different agricultural landscapes. Moreover, we examined whether floral resource metrics obtained from these high-resolution floral resource maps are more suitable to assess and predict abundance and species richness of different bee pollinator groups, including rare species and important crop pollinators, sampled in these agricultural landscapes compared to traditional land-cover metrics. Floral resource availability shifted from flower-rich woody vegetation early in the season to herbaceous vegetation such as grasslands and crops later in the season, which was associated with a ten-fold decline in overall floral resource availability. Forest edges had highest per-area floral contributions in spring, whereas floral diversity of grasslands, in particular if extensively managed, was continuously high. Total wild bee species richness, as well as rare species richness and abundance of important crop pollinators, increased with floral resource availability and/or diversity contributed by forest edges and floral diversity of permanent grasslands. Rare bee richness was also positively related to floral resource amount provided by crops. Total bee richness and important crop pollinator abundance, but not rare bee richness, were positively related to overall floral resource amount, but not floral diversity, in the landscape. Floral resource maps based on floral resource supply by major habitat types early or late in the season predicted wild bee species richness (R 2 =0.61) better than traditional descriptors of landscape composition such as proportion of semi-natural habitat. The pronounced temporal shifts in floral resource availability for pollinators from woody towards herbaceous vegetation during the season highlights the importance of taking a landscape-scale perspective on pollinator conservation. Our findings indicate that both rare bees and important crop pollinators benefit from complementary floral resources of forest edges and grasslands in agroecosystems. This reveals a potential synergy between the conservation of endangered species and the landscape scale management to promote pollination services. Our study also highlights that floral resource maps are useful tools in supporting more targeted pollinator conservation and pollination service management at the landscape level. • Floral resource complementarity across habitats during the season supports bees. • Pronounced floral resource shifts from woody to herbaceous vegetation during season. • Floral resources of forest edges and grasslands key for rare bees and crop pollinators. • Floral resource maps better predict wild bees than landscape composition. • Functional resource maps are useful tools for targeted pollinator conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Patch LULC is the most important predictor of bird richness and abundance. • Woody structures increase bird richness, followed by extensive management. • Semi-natural structures and heterogeneity are beneficial on landscape-scale. • The effect of surrounding structure is only small, and interacts with patch LULC. Agricultural intensification has profoundly changed agricultural landscapes with important biodiversity impacts. There is increasing knowledge on the general effects of landscape structure and management practices on plant and animal species but understanding the role of surrounding landscape structure for patch-scale biodiversity is more complex. While it can be reasonably assumed, that adjacent habitats are more important than more distant ones, the importance of landscape structure has often been tested at the landscape scale but rarely at smaller scales such as patch-surroundings. We assessed the influence and interdependences of landscape composition and configuration (LCC) and land use/land cover (LULC) on bird species richness and abundance through a multi-scale analysis with specific focus on the surrounding patches. In two agricultural regions in Switzerland, we collected point data of birds on 36 transects (500 m) and combined them with detailed spatial data on LULC. Bird richness and abundance were correlated to sets of landscape metrics as proxies for LCC computed at the transect-scale as well as for the patch surroundings. We analysed patch LULC as well as the most important patch-surrounding metrics using generalized linear mixed models. The results illustrate that patch LULC is the most important predictor of bird richness and abundance. Woody structures increase bird richness, followed by extensive management on patch scale. On the transect-scale semi-natural structure and heterogeneous LCCs are beneficial for bird richness and abundance. The effect of patch-surrounding structure LCCs is only small and interacts with patch LULC. Birds in grassland benefit from fallows in the surroundings, while in cropland they tend to respond positively to surrounding extensive grassland. Our results highlight that considering surroundings can help improve patch-based biodiversity assessments, which will then better predict the consequences of farmland management and make the outcome more applicable for practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A composite landscape scenery indicator applicable in life cycle assessment. • The indicator measures a farm's contribution to visual quality of the landscape. • It consists of two sub-indicators. One for diversity and one for naturalness. • The diversity indicator measures both, land-use and seasonal diversity. • The indicator combines human values with a strictly scientific concept. Agricultural life cycle analysis (LCA) provides information about the environmental footprint of farming. Life cycle sustainability assessment (LCSA) includes social and economic indicators. As a contribution to LCSA, we developed an indicator measuring the impact of individual farms on visual landscape quality based on state-of-the-art theory for landscape aesthetic assessment and conforming to general LCA principles. The indicator is a composite consisting of two independent sub-indicators, the aggregated diversity indicator (ADI) and the area-weighted preference value (AWPV). Both sub-indicators are based on the preference values of the Swiss population for the most frequent crop types and farmland features. The two sub-indicators were calculated when the land-use types with an available preference value represented 75% of a farms' utilised agricultural area. Following this rule, we were able to evaluate 91% of Swiss farms. The ADI measures a farm's contribution to land-use diversity and to seasonal diversity, while the AWPV measures a farm's contribution to perceived naturalness. The two sub-indicators are combined to form the composite landscape indicator (CLI). The two sub-indicators were computed from Swiss farm structure data for 2015 without additional data collection. Two scenarios were defined to test the independence of the two sub-indicators from each other and the response of the CLI against landscape changes. The first scenario enriched the crop diversity of the farms to test the response of the ADI. The second scenario increased the number of standard trees on farms to test the AWPV. The results showed that the two sub-indicators complement one another by responding to different changes in landscape quality. In both cases, the CLI showed on average increasing values after enriching crop diversity or increasing the number of standard trees on selected farms. The solid conceptual grounding of the two sub-indicators in landscape aesthetic theory combined with LCA principles renders them reproducible and independent of the observer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]