Search

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 manageme, Depto. de Biodiversidad, Ecología y Evolución, Fac. de Ciencias Biológicas, TRUE, pub

Les formes d'agriculture se revendiquant de l'agroécologie (agriculture biologique, agriculture de conservation des sols, agriculture régénératrice) sont souvent basées sur des principes ou des cahiers des charges qui ne garantissent pas toujours une réduction des impacts négatifs des pratiques ou un niveau de fourniture de services à la hauteur des promesses annoncées. La littérature fait ressortir les rôles indispensables des microorganismes du sol et du potentiel d'oxydo-réduction (ou rédox) en interaction avec le pH pour la santé du sol et des plantes. L'étude des processus écologiques montre comment il est possible de réduire fortement voire de s'affranchir, progressivement, des énergies fossiles et des intrants de synthèse, en combinant les choix des cultures et intercultures, la gestion de la biomasse, du sol et des intrants de synthèse (type et mode d'application). Sur ces bases, il est possible de contextualiser les pratiques à mettre en oeuvre selon l'état de santé du sol dont un indicateur simple est le rapport matières organiques% / argiles%.

Conversion of semi-natural habitats, such as field margins, fallows, hedgerows, grassland, woodlots and forests, to agricultural land could increase agricultural production and help meet rising global food demand. Yet, the extent to which such habitat loss would impact biodiversity and wild species is unknown. Here we survey species richness for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders, wild bees) and agricultural yield across a range of arable, grassland, mixed, horticulture, permanent crop, for organic and non-organic agricultural land on 169 farms across 10 European regions. We find that semi-natural habitats currently constitute 23% of land area with 49% of species unique to these habitats. We estimate that conversion of semi-natural land that achieves a 10% increase in agricultural production will have the greatest impact on biodiversity in arable systems and the least impact in grassland systems, with organic practices having better species retention than nonorganic practices.

Agriculture is a human activity that receives the most direct benefits from ecosystem services (ES) while it is one of the most influent on their sustainability and is also directly impacted by global changes. One main challenge for future agroecological systems is thus to encourage the co-occurrence of multiple services both to agriculture and from agriculture. In this article, we questioned through a large-scale study, the ability of conservation agriculture to support not only supporting services related to soils, as it was originally designed for, but also overall biotic potential for multiservice agriculture. We assessed the expression levels of ES from and to agroecosystems (input and output services respectively) within 5 crop management systems, comparing different forms of conservation, organic and conventional agricultures. Fifty winter wheat and fava bean fields in southwestern France were monitored for 17 ES: seven input services (either supporting or regulating) and ten output services (either provisioning or out of direct agricultural income). Observed co-variations and antagonisms between services occurred only for input services and were related to services based on mobile agents or soil properties. Regarding pest regulations, opposite responses were observed between aphids and bruchids, attributed to contrasted responses of the pests to habitat diversity and especially notable in fields under conservation agriculture. As to soil quality, conservation agriculture exhibited significantly higher levels of soil structure stability than conventional and organic systems but slightly lower water infiltration. For output services, our results showed that crop production was not jeopardized by conservation agriculture practices with, for instance, no significant differences in levels of winter wheat yields between systems based on direct seeding or plowing. Organic agriculture however improved crop health regarding diseases but significantly decreased yields

This article present observational and experimental data describing a range of biotic and abiotic parameters that can be related to ecosystem services under contrasted types of crop management: conventional, conservation and organic agricultures. Ninety fields, either cultivated with winter wheat or fava bean, located in Southwestern France, near Toulouse, were monitored for two growing seasons (2014-2016). The dataset encompass data about crop pests (aphids, grain borer, bean beetles, slugs), crop pest natural enemies (hoverflies, parasitoids, predators), soil sensitivity to erosion, crop productivity, pathogenic fungal infection and root colonization by mycorrhiza. This article present detailed protocols applied for each measurement and data collected to describe the context of each field: soil structure, landscape and crop management indicators. The data presented here can be found in Portail Data INRA repository (DOI: 10.15454/KEW1GK) and were exhaustively used and discussed in the research article Conservation agriculture as a promising trade-off between conventional and organic agriculture in bundling ecosystem services [1].

Developing agroecological practices that enhance biological control of crop pests is a major issue for the tran-sition of agriculture towards sustainable and biodiversity-friendly systems. Agroecological infrastructures (AEI) are devoted to the support of ecosystem service providers, although they have mixed effects on natural enemies of crop pests. In temperate regions, alley cropping agroforestry involves within-field AEI, in the form of tree rows and associated understory vegetation strips. The objective of this study was to assess the potential of generalist predators (carabid beetles and cursorial spiders) to control weed seeds and invertebrate pests in alley cropping vs pure crop systems, under two contrasting farming systems (conventional vs organic). Predator surveys were carried out in May and June 2017 in South-Western France over 12 winter cereal fields. Our study revealed that the effect of alley cropping was modulated by the farming system. Under conventional farming, alley cropping had a negative effect on the activity-density and species richness of generalist predators, especially regarding carnivorous carabids whose activity-density was reduced by nearly 50%. Under organic farming, alley cropping enhanced both the activity-density and complementarity of generalist predators, with a two-fold increase in the activity-density of seed-feeding carabids (predominantly granivorous and omnivorous), potentially promoting weed seed and invertebrate pest control. Our results suggest that the effectiveness of AEI in promoting natural enemies depends on the farming system at the field scale, which affects resource availability and determines spillover intensity between habitats. AEI are often perceived as sources of natural enemies. However, sink and retention effects (i.e. reduced or delayed spillover into crop fields due to higher attractiveness of AEI) should not be overlooked as they can explain the mixed impacts of AEI on natural enemy communities.

1. Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake. 2. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources. 3. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived. 4. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. 5. Policy Implications. To conserve pollin

Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help