Environmentally friendly management as an intermediate strategy between organic and conventional agriculture to support biodiversity

Marja, Riho; Herzon, Irina; Viik, Eneli; Elts, Jaanus; Mänd, Marika; Tscharntke, Teja; Batáry, Péter

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2014.08.005

Cited by 41 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Also AEMs effects on bumblebees species richness, abundance and species composition did not differ between two different land‐use intensity regions in Estonia (Marja et al . ). However, Aviron et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effectiveness of agri‐environmental management on pollinators is moderated more by ecological contrast than by landscape structure or land‐use intensity

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agri‐environment management (AEM) started in the 1980s in Europe to mitigate biodiversity decline, but the effectiveness of AEM has been questioned. We hypothesize that this is caused by a lack of a large enough ecological contrast between AEM and non‐treated control sites. The effectiveness of AEM may be moderated by landscape structure and land‐use intensity. Here, we examined the influence of local ecological contrast, landscape structure and regional land‐use intensity on AEM effectiveness in a meta‐analysis of 62 European pollinator studies. We found that ecological contrast was most important in determining the effectiveness of AEM, but landscape structure and regional land‐use intensity played also a role. In conclusion, the most successful way to enhance AEM effectiveness for pollinators is to implement measures that result in a large ecological improvement at a local scale, which exhibit a strong contrast to conventional practices in simple landscapes of intensive land‐use regions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Effectiveness of agri‐environmental management on pollinators is moderated more by ecological contrast than by landscape structure or land‐use intensity

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, Marja et al. () also demonstrated that Estonian AES promoted bumblebees, both within the fields and at their margins. Environmentally friendly management involves requirements to conserve or sow field margins with a flower mix of at least three species (including graminaceous); organic farming does not have such a requirement, but abundances of bumblebee threatened species, small‐sized colony species and forest‐scrub species were still higher than per conventional farming.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Additional information about the regions, and selection of study farms, is available in Marja et al. ().…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Crop rotation and agri‐environment schemes determine bumblebee communities via flower resources

Marja¹,

Viik²,

Mänd

et al. 2018

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…Direct comparisons of organic farms with non‐organic biodiversity‐targeted AES are scarce (but see Marja et al . ). This research gap was highlighted by Hole et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife‐friendly schemes

Hardman

Harrison

Shaw

et al. 2015

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Restoration and maintenance of habitat diversity have been suggested as conservation priorities in farmed landscapes, but how this should be achieved and at what scale are unclear. This study makes a novel comparison of the effectiveness of three wildlife‐friendly farming schemes for supporting local habitat diversity and species richness on 12 farms in England.The schemes were: (i) Conservation Grade (Conservation Grade: a prescriptive, non‐organic, biodiversity‐focused scheme), (ii) organic agriculture and (iii) a baseline of Entry Level Stewardship (Entry Level Stewardship: a flexible widespread government scheme). Conservation Grade farms supported a quarter higher habitat diversity at the 100‐m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Conservation Grade and organic farms both supported a fifth higher habitat diversity at the 250‐m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Habitat diversity at the 100‐m and 250‐m scales significantly predicted species richness of butterflies and plants. Habitat diversity at the 100‐m scale also significantly predicted species richness of birds in winter and solitary bees. There were no significant relationships between habitat diversity and species richness for bumblebees or birds in summer.Butterfly species richness was significantly higher on organic farms (50% higher) and marginally higher on Conservation Grade farms (20% higher), compared with farms in Entry Level Stewardship. Organic farms supported significantly more plant species than Entry Level Stewardship farms (70% higher) but Conservation Grade farms did not (10% higher). There were no significant differences between the three schemes for species richness of bumblebees, solitary bees or birds. Policy implications. The wildlife‐friendly farming schemes which included compulsory changes in management, Conservation Grade and organic, were more effective at increasing local habitat diversity and species richness compared with the less prescriptive Entry Level Stewardship scheme. We recommend that wildlife‐friendly farming schemes should aim to enhance and maintain high local habitat diversity, through mechanisms such as option packages, where farmers are required to deliver a combination of several habitats.

show abstract

Environmentally friendly management as an intermediate strategy between organic and conventional agriculture to support biodiversity

Cited by 41 publications

References 47 publications

Effectiveness of agri‐environmental management on pollinators is moderated more by ecological contrast than by landscape structure or land‐use intensity

Effectiveness of agri‐environmental management on pollinators is moderated more by ecological contrast than by landscape structure or land‐use intensity

Crop rotation and agri‐environment schemes determine bumblebee communities via flower resources

Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife‐friendly schemes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About