A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low‐intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species‐rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10 years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under‐representation of the low‐intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence‐based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low‐intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species‐rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now.
In many parts of the world, farmland pollinators decreased significantly during the last half of the 20th century mainly due to land‐use changes and agricultural intensification.
We studied the effect of different typical crop rotations and agri‐environment schemes (AES) on bumblebee diversity in Estonia. We compared species abundances between four crop rotation types (cereal rollover [no change from 1 year to the next], cereal to mass‐flowering crops [hereafter MFC], MFC rollover and MFC to cereal fields) where all counts were conducted in the second year and in three farming types (conventional farming, organic farming and environmentally friendly management).
We surveyed bumblebees and flower cover along 401 field margins in five consecutive years and recorded 20 species and more than 6,000 individuals. Abundances of long‐tongued and threatened bumblebee species were higher at the field margins of cereal rollover fields than for the other three crop rotation types. In addition, cereal rollover field margins had higher abundances of medium colony species, generalists and forest‐scrub species than MFC rollover and MFC to cereal or cereal to MFC field margins. Bumblebee species richness was higher at the field margins of both AES types than those of conventional farming. However, in general, the strongest driver of bumblebee presence was flower cover.
Higher bumblebee abundances in cereal rollover field margins were probably owing to a concentration effect there and/or a dilution effect into MFC fields. Both AES schemes supported increasing flower cover in field margins and thereby diversity of bumblebees, indicating positive AES impacts upon wild pollinators.
Synthesis and applications. Crop rotation and agri‐environment schemes determine bumblebee richness and abundance via the availability of flower resources, but crop rotation constrains bumblebees differently based on their traits. Therefore, future agri‐environmental policy should account for these management options. Crop rotation could be a simple, but efficient solution to increase the biodiversity of agricultural landscapes.
No repellent effect of the insecticide on honey bees was found even 24 h after spraying. The density of oilseed rape flowers most likely played a major role in choosing the foraging area.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.