Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri‐environment schemes in five European countries

Kleijn, David; Baquero, Rocío A.; Clough, Yann; Dı́az, Mario; Esteban, J. de; Fernandez, Fernando A. S.; Gabriel, Doreen; Herzog, Félix; Holzschuh, Andrea; Jöhl, R.; Knop, Eva; Kruess, Andreas; Marshall, E. J. P.; Steffan‐Dewenter, Ingolf; Tscharntke, Teja; Verhulst, J.; West, T. M.; Yela, José Luís

doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00869.x

Cited by 868 publications

(615 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

589

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Agricultural intensification, for instance, results in increased mechanization, more frequent mowing, increasing livestock densities, the removal of landscape elements such as hedges and hedgerows, lowering of groundwater levels, intensified nitrogen and phosphorus emission and deposition, and intensified use of pesticides. These developments in turn contribute to disturbance, loss of habitat, and eventually loss in flora and fauna (Baudron & Giller, 2014;EEA, 2010;Geiger, Bengtsson, Berendse, Goedhart, & Inchausti, 2010;Henle, Alard, Clitherow, Watt, & Young, 2008;Kleijn, Baquero, Clough, West, & Yela, perspective shifts attention away from conservation measures to behavioural change and to the actors involved and how they interact. Such a perspective also widens the scope by not only including public policies such as AES but also private initiatives.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting nature conservation by Dutch farmers: a governance perspective

Runhaar

Melman

Boonstra

et al. 2016

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reconciling productive agricultural practices with nature conservation is not only an ecological challenge, but also a demanding matter of governance. This paper analyses the potential as well as the limitations of various governance arrangements, and explores ways to enhance the governance of nature conservation in agricultural landscapes. We assume four conditions to contribute to the performance of these arrangements: farmers should be motivated, demanded, enabled, and legitimized to participate in arrangements that promote nature conservation by farmers. We analyse 10 distinct Dutch governance arrangements in the period 2000-2016, including agri-environment schemes but also privately initiated arrangements. The arrangements target a large but unknown share of farmers and farmlands, but nature conservation ambition levels are generally low to moderate. The expected low-to-moderate performance is associated with a low-tomoderate motivation, demand, and ability. Underlying are stronger forces driving towards intensification and problems farmers face in recuperating the cost of nature conservation. New greening requirements in the EU Common Agricultural Policy and in agri-food supply chains are first, cautious steps addressing these fundamental drivers of ecological degradation. More ambitious greening requirements may contribute to a higher motivation and ability of larger groups of farmers to implement nature conservation measures.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting nature conservation by Dutch farmers: a governance perspective

Runhaar

Melman

Boonstra

et al. 2016

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, it was shown that AES have limited effects on biodiversity Europewide (e.g. Kleijn et al 2006), and this also applies to grassland breeding shorebirds in the Netherlands (Kleijn et al 2001;Verhulst et al 2007). Management agreements at the individual farmer level, consisting of a postponed mowing date for the protection of nests and chicks, had a very limited positive effect on breeding bird numbers compared to fields with no additional management measures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of spatial mosaic management for grassland breeding shorebirds

Oosterveld¹,

Nijland²,

Musters

et al. 2010

J Ornithol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since 2000, a new management technique has been introduced to stop the rapid decline of grassland breeding shorebirds in the Netherlands, called 'mosaic management'. The most important difference from earlier Agri-Environment Schemes is that the mosaic management is conducted at a landscape scale (150-650 ha) rather than an individual farm scale (50-60 ha) and that there is purposeful planning of the spatial distribution and layout of management measures within a local area. We tested the effectiveness of the mosaic management by analysing breeding population trends of Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), Redshank (Tringa totanus) and Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) in comparison with three other management types: individual management, regular farmland and nature reserves. After the introduction of mosaic management, populations of Black-tailed Godwit and Redshank stabilised and Northern Lapwing populations increased. Oystercatcher decreased, but this was also due to reduced winter survival. Populations in the mosaic management areas showed a greater annual improvement of 0-18% compared to other management types. The mosaic areas did not appear to be 'sink' areas as productivity in the mosaic areas seemed to be sufficient to support the observed densities. However, with the exception of Northern Lapwing, the change of trend was not greater in the mosaic areas than in the other management types. So, for the species other than Northern Lapwing, the good performance cannot be attributed to the mosaic management. The mosaic areas were good breeding habitats beforehand and continue to be so. It is possible that the mosaic management is part of the success, but not exclusively so. Our results show that modern farming can still be combined with grassland breeding shorebird management. However, further study of success factors is urgently needed for the conservation of the remaining good habitats on farmland and restoration of lost ones.

show abstract

“…To remedy this situation, new financial incentives for biodiversity-friendly farming have been introduced into agricultural policy. However, when evaluated, the measures implemented so far have only been partly successful (ECA, 2012;Kleijn et al, 2006). On the one hand, this may be due to ecological reasons.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Appropriate metrics to inform farmers about species diversity

Lüscher

Schneider

Turnbull

et al. 2014

Environmental Science & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farmers are key players in actions to halt biodiversity loss from farmland. However, if farmers are to sustain biodiversity, they must first be adequately informed about biodiversity and understand its drivers. Measuring biodiversity at the farm scale is difficult because of the structural complexity of many farms, and because different aspects of diversity can be considered desirable, e.g. species richness or rarity. In this study we examined 19 grassland farms in Central Switzerland, and sampled plants, earthworms, spiders and bees using a stratified sampling design. We considered several metrics of species diversity, but found two particularly useful at farm scale: average richness (area-weighted) and farm uniqueness in terms of species identity. Average richness reflects the expected species richness in a random sample taken on the farm, and farm uniqueness is the contribution of a farm to the total species richness of all farms under study. Average richness and farm uniqueness are complementary and reflect different aspects of biodiversity. We demonstrate how combining these metrics enables tailored recommendations for enhancing species diversity on the farm. AbstractFarmers are key players in actions to halt biodiversity loss from farmland. However, if farmers are to sustain biodiversity, they must first be adequately informed about biodiversity and understand its drivers. Measuring biodiversity at the farm scale is difficult because of the structural complexity of many farms, and because different aspects of diversity can be considered desirable, e.g. species richness or rarity. In this study we examined 19 grassland farms in Central Switzerland, and sampled plants, earthworms, spiders and bees using a stratified sampling design. We considered several metrics of species diversity, but found two particularly useful at farm scale: average richness (area-weighted) and farm uniqueness in terms of species identity. Average richness reflects the expected species richness in a random sample taken on the farm, and farm uniqueness is the contribution of a farm to the total 2 species richness of all farms under study. Average richness and farm uniqueness are complementary and reflect different aspects of biodiversity. We demonstrate how combining these metrics enables tailored recommendations for enhancing species diversity on the farm.

show abstract

Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri‐environment schemes in five European countries

Cited by 868 publications

References 38 publications

Promoting nature conservation by Dutch farmers: a governance perspective

Promoting nature conservation by Dutch farmers: a governance perspective

Effectiveness of spatial mosaic management for grassland breeding shorebirds

Appropriate metrics to inform farmers about species diversity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About