New methods of crop production and farmland birds: effects of plastic mulches on species richness and abundance

Abstract

Summary1. Modern methods of crop production are regarded as one of the major factors moderating ecosystem processes in agricultural landscapes and may negatively affect farmland biodiversity. One method which is on the increase is mulching: the use of plastic foil to cover crops at sowing in order to promote early growth by reducing the negative effects of variable temperatures and to limit pesticide use. However, almost nothing is known of the role of mulching on farmland biodiversity. 2. In this study, carried out in southern Poland in 2011, we investigated the impact of mulching with plastic foil on the number of species and abundance of farmland birds at two spatial scales. 3. At the local scale, bird species number and abundance were lower in areas where foil was used than those in the control areas, both during the period when the foil was used and after it was removed from the crops. At the landscape scale, we found a significant negative relationship between the proportion of crops covered by foil and bird species richness and abundance. Farmland specialists, nonfarmland birds, ground nesters and above-ground nesting species were all negatively affected by foil mulching. Foil had a negative effect on potential resources for birds including adult butterflies and their larvae and weed species. 4. Synthesis and applications. Our results provide the first evidence that the use of foil for mulching has negative effects on farmland bird populations, probably through the trophic cascade and habitat disturbance. Therefore, foil mulches must be considered as another factor contributing to the decline of farmland biodiversity. We suggest limiting the use of this method of vegetable production at the farm level. Decreasing the field size and converting some arable fields into grassland patches are proposed as mitigation measures in landscapes with high foil cover.

Risk assessment of pesticide seed treatment for farmland birds using refined field data

“…Mulching crop fields with plastic foil, although avoids the access of birds to seeds, has negative effects on farmland bird populations (Skórka et al . ). Sown cereal seeds constitute an essential food source for many avian species in agricultural areas during autumn in winter (more than 50% of the ingested biomass according to our study).…”

Influence of Land-Use Type on Forest Bird Community Composition in Mount Kenya Forest

“…Such information is important for understanding the roles of natural and human modified habitats on biodiversity and in particular birds. Some studies [31][32][33] have demonstrated that the diversity of birds is negatively correlated with percentage of land used for intensive human activity and levels of homogeneity within agroecosystems at both local habitat and regional landscape scales. It is important to have clear understanding of how birds respond to habitat modification at local level for effective conservation strategies in Kenya.…”

Field sizes and the future of farmland biodiversity in European landscapes

“…The evidence for higher diversity and abundance of organisms in landscapes where the agricultural area is subdivided into smaller fields stems from studies using existing differences in field size between landscapes. These include both contrasts across the former political border dividing Europe into East and West (Batáry et al., 2017; Šálek et al., 2018) and the general variation in mean field size within regions in Europe (Concepción et al., 2020; Hass et al., 2018; Konvicka, Benes, & Polakova, 2016; Martin et al., 2019; Sirami et al., 2019; Skórka, Lenda, Moroń, & Tryjanowski, 2013; Zellweger‐Fischer et al., 2018) and North America (Fahrig et al., 2015; Monck‐Whipp, Martin, Francis, & Fahrig, 2018), covering multiple taxa and controlling for field‐scale management intensity. The effect sizes are significant, since moving from a field size of 1–6 hectares has a similar negative effect on farmland biodiversity as the difference observed when moving from 35% to 0% seminatural habitat cover in the surrounding landscape.…”