On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe

Abstract

Worldwide agriculture is one of the main drivers of biodiversity decline. Effective conservation strategies depend on the type of relationship between biodiversity and land-use intensity, but to date the shape of this relationship is unknown. We linked plant species richness with nitrogen (N) input as an indicator of land-use intensity on 130 grasslands and 141 arable fields in six European countries. Using Poisson regression, we found that plant species richness was significantly negatively related to N input on both field types after the effects of confounding environmental factors had been accounted for. Subsequent analyses showed that exponentially declining relationships provided a better fit than linear or unimodal relationships and that this was largely the result of the response of rare species (relative cover less than 1%). Our results indicate that conservation benefits are disproportionally more costly on high-intensity than on low-intensity farmland. For example, reducing N inputs from 75 to 0 and 400 to 60 kg ha −1 yr −1 resulted in about the same estimated species gain for arable plants. Conservation initiatives are most (cost-)effective if they are preferentially implemented in extensively farmed areas that still support high levels of biodiversity.

Impacts of agricultural land-use changes on biodiversity in Taihu Lake Basin, China: a multi-scale cause–effect approach considering multiple land-use functions

“…According to Kleijn et al (2009), in Europe reducing inputs from 75 to 0 kg N ha -1 resulted in about the same estimated species gain as reducing inputs from 400 to 60 kg N ha -1 . In Taihu Lake Basin, without any fertilisers, rice yields around 4.5-6.0 ton ha -1 can be obtained under current soil fertility conditions (Wang et al 2004;Jing et al 2007), but considering the objectives of increasing food production and self-sufficiency, this is not enough.…”

“…Moving to extensive fertiliser application is thus not feasible, which would imply that relatively little species gain can be obtained in agricultural fields. Closely looking at the relationships in Kleijn et al (2009), however, also shows that there is a large variability along the relationship, which is largely due to local characteristics and specific management. When farmers consider both objectives of food production and increasing biodiversity, management may be adapted such that it contributes to both (e.g.…”

“…At farm and landscape levels many studies (e.g. Herzog et al 2006;Billeter et al 2008;Kleijn et al 2009) have been based on empirical species abundance data. At higher levels using cause-effect relationships is a major approach (e.g.…”

“…A wide variety of studies have used annual nitrogen input per site in kg N ha -1 year -1 (referred to as N input) as one of the key indicators of agricultural intensity or land-use intensity (Schmitzberger et al 2005;Dormann et al 2007;Hendrickx et al 2007;Billeter et al 2008;Kleijn et al 2009). Schmitzberger et al (2005) and Kleijn et al (2009) used N input as a single indicator, because fertiliser use is generally correlated with yield and other variables characterising farming (e.g. pesticide use, agricultural population density, cattle density).…”

Disturbance impacts of land use change on biodiversity conservation priority areas across China: 1990–2010

“…Habitat fragmentation results in a reduction in area, an increase in remnant isolation, the creation of edge, and an alteration in the habitat structure of the remnants, all of which may contribute either directly or indirectly to changes in species survival (Newmark et al, 2011). There are also other disturbance factors such as multiple cropping intensity, levels of fertilizer and pesticide use in cropland, and grassland management systems (Grondin et al, 2013;Kleijn et al, 2009;Kuemmerle et al, 2013;Tao et al, 2008;Vačkář et al, 2012;Yan et al, 2013). Different patterns of cropping intensity or land use management systems would exert varying pressure on local biodiversity.…”