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

Abstract

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.

Flower resource and land management drives hoverfly communities and bee abundance in seminatural and agricultural grasslands

“…A key part of these initiatives is the increasing understanding of the significant role of wild insect species in providing pollination services, both within agricultural and seminatural habitats (Garibaldi et al, 2013;Rader et al, 2015). There is an increasing body of research on how wild pollinators respond to agricultural management (Connelly, Poveda, & Loeb, 2015;Lüscher et al, 2016), and what management methods could be employed to restore pollinator populations (Bruppacher, Pellet, Arlettaz, & Humbert, 2016;Hardman et al, 2016;Kovács-Hostyánszki et al, 2017). However, there are still gaps in our understanding of how pollinator populations respond to grassland communities and their management (Dicks et al, 2013;Mayer et al, 2011).…”

The importance of size, location, and vegetation composition of perennial fallows for farmland birds

“…Despite these benefits, farmland bird indices are decreasing in the EU (PECBMS 2016) and Switzerland (see "Swiss Bird Index-Priority Species Agriculture" in Sattler, Knaus, Schmid, & Strebel, 2016). Possible reasons for this are low floristic and structural diversity (ecological quality) of implemented options and the low uptake of the most appropriate options by farmers (Birrer, Spiess, Herzog, Kohli, & Lugrin, 2007;Breeze, Bailey, Balcombe, & Potts, 2014;Hardman et al, 2015). A few studies described specifically what these qualities are for biodiversity and birds in particular.…”

Arable weeds and non-target plants in prospective risk assessment for plant protection products : Specific protection goal and exposure assessment goal options

“…According to Hardman et al (2015) three broad mechanisms can be mentioned by which local habitat diversity, and consequently local biodiversity, can be decreased: (i) decreased non-crop habitat diversity, (ii) decreased crop diversity and intensification of agronomic practises (e.g. fertiliser and pesticide use) and (iii) increasing the grain of the agricultural landscape by increasing field size (e.g.…”