Search

Transitioning to low‐input agricultural systems such as organic farming has been acknowledged as a way to mitigate negative effects of agriculture on biodiversity. However, the speed, magnitude and context dependence of biodiversity recovery after converting to organic farming remain uncertain. In this study, we explored the response of plant communities to time since transition to organic farming in a variety of production contexts.Using a spatially replicated space‐for‐time substitution design, we surveyed plant communities in small‐grain cereal and ley fields in conventional and organic farms, distributed along independent gradients of time since transition to organic farming and proportion of seminatural grasslands in the landscapes. We selected a set of response traits to explore the mechanism of potential time lag in that response to conversion. These traits were selected to characterize the sensitivity of plant species to agricultural inputs and their ability to respond swiftly to environmental changes.We found an increase in plant species richness and evenness in cereal fields with increasing time since transition to organic farming, and a similar but less pronounced pattern in leys. After 30 years of continuous organic farming, organic cereal fields harboured more than twice the number of plant species than newly converted fields. Importantly, we found that the dependence on insect pollination, sensitivity to herbicides and dispersal capacity of plants modulated the effects of time since transition on plant communities in cereal fields. This suggests that both management and biotic interactions shape plant community structure in response to organic practices over time.Policy implications. Our study highlights that benefits of organic farming for plant diversity are likely to take decades to become substantial after conversion. We found this slow recovery of plant communities to be driven by both the gradual improvement of habitat quality after conversion and species' dispersal limitation. Assessments of biodiversity benefits of organic farming should therefore consider this time delay to avoid underestimating its environmental performance. Farmers should also be supported during this ecological transitional phase during which yield‐enhancing ecosystem services reliant on plant diversity might build up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective conservation schemes are needed to advance the dual objectives of biodiversity conservation and agronomic production in agricultural landscapes. Understanding how plant and arthropod taxa respond to both local habitat patch characteristics and landscape complexity is crucial for planning effective agri‐environment schemes. This study investigated the relative effects of local variables (plant and insect diversity ≤100 m from patch habitat center) and landscape variables (landscape composition and configuration metrics ≤5 km from patch habitat center) on the diversity of plants and arthropods within noncrop habitat patches (1) at different spatial extents ranging from 0.1 to 5 km, while (2) quantifying differential effects of local and landscape variables on particular components of diversity (i.e., species richness and abundance), and accounting for (3) particular components of landscape extent (0.1‐, 0.5‐, 1‐, 2‐, and 5‐km radii) and complexity (i.e., landscape composition and configuration). Landscape variables were significantly correlated with local plant and arthropod species richness and abundance at all spatial extents. Biodiversity responses to landscape variables were largely scale‐dependent, as pairwise comparisons were significantly different between all spatial extents except between 1‐ and 2‐km extents, and correlations were lowest at the 5‐km extent. Partial R2 values for predicting local biodiversity were highest when both local and landscape variables were included as predictors of species richness and abundance, increasing from 0.163 to 0.469 when landscape variables were included, underscoring the importance of considering both local and landscape effects on local diversity. Landscape configuration variables accounted for more variation in plant and arthropod species richness than composition variables. However, models performed best when composition and configuration were considered together rather than alone, suggesting that both components of landscape complexity should be considered for identifying and managing conservation areas in crop fields. Existing conservation schemes that incentivize farmers to create or conserve seminatural patch habitat within crop fields may be more effective when combined with landscape‐scale designs that enhance landscape complexity across the Northern Great Plains. Local conservation efforts should be coordinated with landscape‐level efforts to ultimately enhance biodiversity and desired ecosystem service outcomes across agricultural landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ground‐nesting wild bees provide essential pollination services in agroecosystems, but they are jeopardized by intensive agricultural management. To mitigate such negative impacts, agri‐environment schemes have been implemented. While the success of enhancing floral food resources is relatively well studied, the role of agri‐environmental schemes in providing suitable nesting habitat remains underexplored.We studied the effectiveness of meadow extensification according to the Swiss agri‐environment scheme in promoting nesting of ground‐nesting bees. Using a paired design, we quantified their nests during four rounds (March–June) in pairs of nine randomly selected extensively (i.e. no fertilizer input, postponed first mowing) and nine intensively managed meadows with similar soil properties, slope, exposure and landscape context. Nest numbers and vegetation characteristics were surveyed in areas of 250 m2. Vegetation properties were also assessed in 0.5 × 0.5 m plots around nest locations and randomly selected locations without nests within each meadow to assess their role as drivers of nesting incidence (nest presence/absence) at this plot scale.We found substantially higher nest numbers of ground‐nesting bees in extensively (mean ± SE per sampling round = 46.8 ± 14.2) compared to intensively managed meadows (0.8 ± 0.3; no nests in three of nine intensively managed meadows). Extensively managed meadows harboured nests of several dominant crop pollinator species, including aggregations of, for example, Lasioglossum malachurum contributing to high nest densities in some of them. Number of nests was negatively related to grass cover and vegetation height, which were lower in extensively compared to intensively managed meadows. Plot‐level nesting incidence increased with bare ground and moss cover, and decreased with grass cover.Synthesis and applications. Our study shows that extensively managed meadows are better nesting habitats for ground‐nesting bees than intensively managed meadows, if reduced management intensity is associated with altered vegetation characteristics such as reduced grass cover and vegetation height, and small‐scale availability of bare ground, driving these effects. This highlights that maintaining and promoting extensive management of meadows can promote ground‐nesting wild bees, including dominant crop pollinators, not only by enhancing floral resources but also by improving nesting opportunities in agroecosystems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The effectiveness of organic farming on biodiversity has been widely documented especially for plants, arthropods and birds; however, the effects of the transition period required to become an organic farm on wildlife remain poorly understood.We assessed the effects of organic farming on insectivorous bats in citrus orchards in the Republic of Cyprus employing two matched designs (conventional vs. 3‐year organic‐transitional and conventional vs. organic‐certified) and a third unmatched design (3‐year organic‐transitional vs. organic‐certified). We specifically investigated whether the transition period prior to full organic certification influenced bat activity with a special focus on any moderation effects from surrounding semi‐natural areas.The activity of three (Pipistrellus kuhlii, Hypsugo savii and Miniopterus schreibersii) of four bat species was significantly lower in farms undergoing the transitional period than in conventional farms, and P. kuhlii and H. savii were significantly less active in organic transitional farming systems that in organic‐certified ones. Furthermore, the activity of the most dominant species (P. kuhlii) was significantly higher on organic than transitional and conventional citrus orchards, thus suggesting a time‐lag effect. Landscape complexity measured as the amount of semi‐natural areas did not moderate the effects of farming system for any study species.Synthesis and application. The transition to organic farming had persistent detrimental effects on bats and potentially on the pest suppression services they provide. Future agri‐environmental policy should consider the transition period and implement measures to mitigate any negative effects on biodiversity, alongside promoting asynchronous transition of nearby farms. Our findings further highlight the crucial need to consider the time since transition to organic farming when assessing potential benefits of organic management on biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Result‐based payments (RBPs) reward land users for conservation outcomes and are a promising alternative to standard payments, which are targeted at specific land use measures. A major barrier to the implementation of RBPs, particularly for the conservation of mobile species, is the substantial monitoring cost. Passive acoustic monitoring may offer promising opportunities for low‐cost monitoring as an alternative to human observation. We develop a costing framework for comparing human observation and passive acoustic monitoring and apply it to a hypothetical RBP scheme for farmland bird conservation. We consider three different monitoring scenarios: daytime monitoring for the whinchat and the ortolan bunting, nighttime monitoring for the gray partridge and the common quail, and day‐and‐night monitoring for all four species. We also examine the effect of changes in relevant parameters (such as participating area, travel distance and required monitoring time) on the cost comparison. Our results show that passive acoustic monitoring is still more expensive than human observation for daytime monitoring. In contrast, passive acoustic monitoring has a cost advantage for nighttime as well as day‐and‐nighttime monitoring in all considered scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of the homo oeconomicus is often used to model human behaviour in economic contexts. However, other factors like tradition or the preference to comply with social norms can play a role in decision‐making processes.To emphasize the need for incorporating non‐pecuniary values in economic models, we use data for participation in several agri‐environment schemes (AES) in Europe and show that dynamical patterns can not be simulated by models using the homo oeconomicus concept.The presented data show gradually increasing participation levels in AES even if payment levels are constant. Furthermore, low participation levels are sometimes observed despite appropriate incentive schemes.We propose and investigate a dynamic mathematical model to implement social norms in farmers' land‐use decision‐making in the face of AES. This socio‐economic model can help to explain the variety of observed behavioural patterns. It can generate multistable dynamics regarding the level of AES participation in the long‐term. We further assume that informative campaigns can modify farmers' perception of norms. Campaigns can have a stabilizing effect if strong enough.The attempt of this work is to gain a better understanding of how the integration of social human behaviour in economic models affects simulation patterns. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Promoting wildlife habitat on working agricultural land is a growing conservation priority, and agri‐environment schemes are using payments for environmental services (PES) to reach these privately owned lands. PES can be ecologically effective, but also expensive, putting pressure on these schemes to be cost‐effective, maximizing the conservation value of their limited resources. This study assesses the cost‐effectiveness of four PES schemes in California that paid rice growers to provide temporary flood habitat on their working lands in support of shorebirds. It examines whether the schemes (1) paid for flood habitat only when needed (targeting); (2) paid for habitat that was actually delivered and would not otherwise be provided (additionality); (3) sacrificed as little habitat as possible when the habitat competed with production (ag/wildlife balance); and (4) fostered a commitment among growers to maintain the habitat after payments ended (permanence). Results show that the schemes fell short in each of the four goals, and they expose several factors that undermined their cost‐effectiveness. First, variable weather patterns altered the date in which the shorebird‐habitat gap emerged year‐to‐year, creating a dynamic and unpredictable target for the schemes to address. Second, growers' views on the compatibility of the flood habitat with their rice production varied widely and changed rapidly as the agricultural calendar progressed, making it a challenge to mitigate potential ag/wildlife conflicts. Third, water for flood habitat is expensive, and growers proved unwilling to shoulder that expense once payments ended. These results highlight the need for schemes to adopt design elements that can add flexibility, such as cancelation clauses, so that they can adjust to dynamic targets and adapt to changing ag/wildlife relationships. Results also suggest that PES schemes operating on working lands may require long‐term external support. That finding amplifies the imperative that schemes use their conservation resources cost‐effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While abiotic drivers of yields represent important limiting factors to crop productivity, the role of biotic drivers that could be directly managed by farmers (e.g. agri‐environment schemes supporting key ecosystem services) remains poorly understood. Precision yield mapping provides an opportunity to understand the factors that limit agricultural yield through the interpretation of high‐resolution cropping data. This has the potential to inform future precision agricultural management, such as the targeted application of agrochemicals, promoting increased sustainability in modern agricultural systems.We used precision yield measurements from a network of 1174 fields in England (2006–2020) to identify drivers of within‐field yield variation in winter wheat and oilseed rape. Potential drivers included climate, topography and landscape composition and configuration. We then explored relationships between in‐field yield patterns and local landscape context, including the presence of features associated with ecosystem benefits.Proximity to the field edge was associated with reduced yields in 85% of wheat and 87% of oilseed fields. This translating to an approximate reduction of 10% in wheat and 18% in oilseed yields lost due to field edge effects.We found evidence that reduced yields at the field edges were associated with biotic features of the surrounding landscape, including the occurrence of semi‐natural habitats. Specifically, agri‐environment scheme (AES) presence increased the rate at which yields at field edges approach those of the field centres. This suggests that AES occurrence within a landscape (rather than field adjacent) may increase edge effects. However, these trends are unclear and suggest interactions between drivers and the spatial and temporal scale of investigation.Synthesis and applications. While we found evidence of landscape context mitigating against field edge effects, these were counterintuitive. For example, AES at a landscape scale appeared to increase the severity of edge effects. This study highlights a lack of environmental data at sufficiently high spatiotemporal resolution to match that of precision agriculture data. This mismatch is hindering the effective integration of precision agriculture data in an environmental policy and/or management context and potentially leading to unnecessarily poorly informed decisions related to AES deployment. This may limit environmental and economic benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The biodiversity and climate crises demand ambitious policies lowering the environmental impacts of farming. Most current interventions incentivise so‐called land‐sharing approaches to address the widespread trade‐off between farm yields and on‐farm environmental outcomes by compensating farmers who adopt yield‐reducing interventions that encourage wildlife or reduce net emissions within farmed land.Here, we present the first quantification of the likely costs to taxpayers of land sharing compared with land sparing, in which large areas are removed from production altogether because of high‐yielding practices elsewhere in the landscape. Focusing on arable production in the United Kingdom, we used a choice experiment to explore farmer preferences and estimated the overall costs of contrasting agri‐environment schemes that delivered increased populations of three well‐studied farmland birds and reduced net carbon emissions in England. We included capital, administration and monitoring costs, and lost food production.Sparing delivered our target biodiversity and carbon emission outcomes at 79% of the food production cost and 48% of the taxpayer cost of sharing. The difference in subsidy payments required by farmers roughly tracked lost food production but other costs favoured sparing even more strongly.The cost‐related merits of sparing would probably increase further in studies incorporating (1) the many species and ecosystem services not deliverable on farmland, (2) the costs of food imports to compensate domestic lost production and (3) countries without as long and extensive a history of agriculture as the United Kingdom.Our results suggest that, for at least some conservation outcomes, continuing a land‐sharing approach in countries such as the United Kingdom is not only an inefficient use of government funds but also undermines conservation and food security in food‐exporting countries which bear the burden of compensating domestic production forgone in the name of conservation. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ground‐nesting wild bees are crucial for the pollination of wild plants and crops and thus human wellbeing. Arable land currently covers 14 million km2 globally, but little is known about the role of arable fields as potential nesting habitats and how agricultural management, such as tillage system, affects nesting.We quantified nest density and nesting incidence (plot‐level nest presence/absence) of ground‐nesting bees in 12 conventionally tilled and 13 no‐till winter cereal fields in southwestern Switzerland. In each field, nests were quantified in eight belt transects at increasing distances from field edges within an area of 400 m2, and vegetation cover and soil properties were measured at nest sites and sites without nests.Nest density ranged from 0 (32% of fields) to 16 nests (mean: 4.0 nests) per 400 m2, corresponding to 0 to 400 nests ha−1 (mean: 101 nests ha−1). Fifteen nesting species were captured.Nest density was not significantly different between tillage systems. Nest density declined exponentially with distance from the field edge. Nest density and incidence were positively related to proportion of bare ground. Nests occurred across a wide range of soil textures and tended to increase with soil bulk density and sand content. Moreover, nest density tended to increase with the proportion of and proximity to areas under agri‐environment scheme in the surrounding landscape.Synthesis and applications. Our study shows that arable fields, irrespective of tillage system, are used as nesting sites by various ground‐nesting bee species, including important crop pollinators. The concentration of nests along field edges suggests that incentives to maintain small field sizes and to increase edge density have a great potential to support nesting of ground‐nesting bees in agricultural landscapes. Moreover, measures to reduce crop cover, for example, through increased row spacing, offer a promising way to promote nesting opportunities in arable fields, in particular, if floral‐rich agri‐environment scheme areas are locally available. Further studies are needed to better understand to what extent tilled arable fields are suitable nesting habitats for ground‐nesting bees or whether they act as ecological traps due to the adverse effects of tillage on bee offspring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agri‐environment schemes (AESs), ecological focus areas (EFAs), and organic farming are the main tools of the common agricultural policy (CAP) to counteract the dramatic decline of farmland biodiversity in Europe. However, their effectiveness is repeatedly doubted because it seems to vary when measured at the field‐versus‐landscape level and to depend on the regional environmental and land‐use context. Understanding the heterogeneity of their effectiveness is thus crucial to developing management recommendations that maximize their efficacy. Using ensemble species distribution models and spatially explicit field‐level information on crops grown, farming practice (organic/conventional), and applied AES/EFA from the Integrated Administration and Control System, we investigated the contributions of five groups of measures (buffer areas, cover crops, extensive grassland management, fallow land, and organic farming) to habitat suitability for 15 farmland bird species in the Mulde River Basin, Germany. We used a multiscale approach to identify the scale of effect of the selected measures. Using simulated land‐use scenarios, we further examined how breeding habitat suitability would change if the measures were completely removed and if their adoption by farmers increased to meet conservation‐informed targets. Buffer areas, fallow land, and extensive grassland were beneficial measures for most species, but cover crops and organic farming had contrasting effects across species. While different measures acted at different spatial scales, our results highlight the importance of land‐use management at the landscape level—at which most measures had the strongest effect. We found that the current level of adoption of the measures delivers only modest gains in breeding habitat suitability. However, habitat suitability improved for the majority of species when the implementation of the measures was increased, suggesting that they could be effective conservation tools if higher adoption levels were reached. The heterogeneity of responses across species and spatial scales indicated that a mix of different measures, applied widely across the agricultural landscape, would likely maximize the benefits for biodiversity. This can only be achieved if the measures in the future CAP will be cooperatively designed in a regionally targeted way to improve their attractiveness for farmers and widen their uptake. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For decades, agri‐environment schemes (AES) within the United Kingdom have served as a policy tool for conserving butterflies. However, the UK's 2016 decision to leave the European Union (EU) means the overarching framework for AES, the EU Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), is being replaced by a new independent agri‐environment policy, the Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme. Here, we examine the shift from CAP towards ELM and explore its implications for butterfly conservation across England, as a devolved administration, within the United Kingdom. We identify the key changes between the current Countryside Stewardship scheme and the incoming ELM scheme and present recommendations for policymakers to ensure policy design and delivery can benefit efforts to conserve butterflies, and indeed wildlife more generally, in England. This is an opportune moment to contribute to discussions on the emerging agri‐environment scheme policy within the United Kingdom as the ELM scheme is trialed, revised, and implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We estimate farmers' preferences for outcome‐based (or results‐based) payment for ecosystem service scheme in Japan. To this end, we use a two‐stage stated preference approach—the first stage models farmers' decisions to adopt outcome‐based contracts using a discrete choice experiment. The second stage estimates the areas of land which farmers who choose to participate will enrol in the scheme. Based on a sample of 333 respondents, our results show that most farmers are willing to participate in outcome‐based contacts. A variety of contract attributes are found to influence farmers' decisions on participation. However, once a farmer decides to participate, their decision on how much farmland to enrol in is likely to be influenced solely by the per‐hectare payment. Therefore, to encourage more farmers to participate and enrol more farmland, policy‐makers' decisions on the level of payments offered are critically important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Natural enemy pest control is becoming more desirable as restrictions increase on pesticide use. Carabid beetles are proven agents of natural‐enemy pest control (NPC), controlling pests and weeds in crop areas. Agro‐ecological measures can be effective for boosting carabid abundance and associated NPC, but the benefits of specific interventions to production are seldom communicated to farmers. We explore pathways to improved NPC by engaging farmers and increasing knowledge about farm management practices (FMPs) beneficial to carabids using engagement materials. We used a questionnaire to measure awareness, beliefs and attitudes to carabids and analysed these within a framework of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), relative to a control group. RESULTS: We found awareness of carabid predation to be associated with beliefs of pest and weed control efficacy. Within the framework of TPB, we found that current implementation of FMPs was higher if farmers perceived them to be both important for carabids and easy to implement. This was also true for future intention to implement, yet the perceived importance was influenced by engagement materials. Field margins/buffer strips and beetle banks (16% and 13% of responses) were the most favoured by farmers as interventions for carabids. CONCLUSION: The TPB is a valuable tool with which to examine internal elements of farmer behaviour. In this study self‐selected participants were influenced by online engagement in a single intervention, proving this approach has the potential to change behaviour. Our results are evidence for the effectiveness of raising awareness of NPC to change attitudes and increase uptake of sustainable practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Flower strips are a fundamental part of agri‐environment schemes (AESs) introduced by the European Union to counteract the loss of biodiversity and related ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Although vegetation composition of the strips is essential for most fauna groups, comprehensive studies analysing vegetation development and influencing factors are rare.From 2017 to 2019, we investigated the vegetation composition of 40 perennial wildflower strips (WFSs) implemented in 2015 or 2016, and 20 cereal fields without WFS across Saxony‐Anhalt, Germany. We analysed environmental factors on plot (cover of grasses, shading, soil fertility) and four landscape‐scale levels (habitat diversity, proportion of WFS and open habitats). The provision of nectar and pollen resources was estimated by the newly developed Pollinator Feeding Index (PFI). All strips had been implemented by farmers as AES with species‐rich seed mixtures comprising 30 native forbs.In all study years, forb species richness, cover and related nectar and pollen supply were much higher on WFSs than on controls, confirming the effectiveness of this AES. Although sown native forbs contributed the most to the high PFI values, spontaneously established forbs expanded the total range of species considerably, especially in winter and spring. While sown forb communities remained similar over time, spontaneous forbs showed a higher species turnover. Altogether, shading and grass cover had the greatest negative effect on the performance of the sown forbs. Landscape variables had only minor effects and were inconsistent in their importance across scale levels and years.Synthesis and applications. Successfully established perennial wildflower strips (WFSs) sown with species‐rich native seed mixtures provided a forb‐rich and diverse vegetation throughout the AES funding period of 5 years. By supplying feeding resources for pollinators under various landscape situations, WFSs have significant potential to promote farmland biodiversity and related ecosystem services. We recommend the mandatory use of species‐rich wildflower mixtures for perennial flower strips and to avoid their creation in heavily shaded field edges. Advisory services for farmers are necessary to prevent failures in WFS implementation and management and to improve their ecological effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pollinating insects provide economic value by improving crop yield. They are also functionally and culturally important across ecosystems outside of cropland. To understand landscape‐level drivers of pollinator declines, and guide policy and intervention to reverse declines, studies must cover (a) multiple insect and plant taxa and (b) a range of agricultural and semi‐natural land uses. Furthermore, in an era of woodland restoration initiatives and rewilding ideologies, the contribution of woodland and woody linear features (WLFs; e.g. hedgerows) to pollinator abundance demands further investigation.We demonstrate fine‐scale analysis of high‐quality, co‐located measurements from a national environmental survey. We relate pollinator transect counts to ground‐truth habitat and WLF maps across 300 1 km squares in Wales, UK. We look at effects of habitat type, flower cover, WLF density and habitat diversity on summer abundance (July and August) of eight insect groups, representing three insect orders (Lepidoptera, Hymenoptera and Diptera).Compared with improved grassland (the dominant habitat in Wales), pollinator abundance is consistently higher in cropland and woodland—especially broadleaved woodland. For mining bees and two hoverfly groups, abundance is predicted to be at least 1.5× higher in woodland ecosystems than elsewhere. Furthermore, we estimate contributions of WLFs to abundance in agriculturally improved habitats to be up to 14% for honeybees and up to 21% for hoverflies.The abundance of all insect groups increases with flower cover, which is a key mechanism through which woodland, cropland and grassland support pollinators. Importantly, we observe diminishing returns of increasing flower cover for abundance of non‐Apis pollinator groups, expecting roughly twice the increase in abundance per % flower cover from 0% to 5%, as compared with 10% to 15%. However, the shape of the relationship was inverted for honeybees, which showed steeper increases in abundance at higher flower cover.Synthesis and applications. We provide a holistic view of the drivers of pollinator abundance in Wales, in which flower cover, woodland, hedgerows and cropland are critical. We propose a key role for woodland creation, hedge‐laying and farmland heterogeneity within future land management incentive schemes. Finally, we suggest targeting of interventions to maximise benefits for non‐Apis pollinators. Specifically, increasing floral provision in areas where existing flower cover is low—for example, in flower‐poor improved grasslands—could effectively increase pollinator abundance and diversity while prioritising wild over managed species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural intensification has led to dramatic losses of species and associated ecosystem services. In the European Union, agri‐environment schemes (AESs) have been developed to mitigate these challenges. There are two opposing AES strategies, targeting either production or non‐production areas. Organic farming focuses on production and conservation on the same land‐use area, whereas flower strips adjacent to crop fields are in favour of intensified conventional production combined with conservation strips outside the cultivated area.We investigated pest and natural enemy abundances of organic farming versus establishing flower strip in 10 agricultural landscapes in Central Germany along a gradient of mean field size (1.24–6.78 ha). We focused on three winter wheat fields per landscape: conventional field (control), conventional field with adjacent flower strip and organic field. We sampled crop pests such as cereal leaf beetles (CLBs) and cereal aphids as well as their natural enemies.Our results indicated that the abundance of CLB larvae was more than two times higher in conventional farming with and without flower strip than that in the organic farming. The abundance of natural enemies was supported by landscapes with small mean field size, that is their numbers increased c. threefold when field size decreased from 7 to 2 ha.Aphid abundance was lower in organic fields and conventional control fields than in conventional fields with flower strips suggesting a potential disservice of flower strips. Parasitoids and natural enemies benefited from flower strips, but they were obviously not able to control the aphids.Synthesis and applications. The major pests in cereals, aphids and CLBs infested organic farming less than flower strips along conventional fields. However, the abundance of natural enemies of pests benefited from flower strips and, in addition, from decreasing field size in agricultural landscapes. Hence, enhancing predator populations for more effective biological pest control may be best with decreasing field sizes combined with organic farming and flower strips. Altogether, organic farming might contribute much more to low pest damage than a conventional farming strategy with flower strips. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural intensification is a major driver of biodiversity loss, with the implementation of Agri‐Environment Schemes (AESs) being a widespread policy designed to prevent further loss, and to maintain or restore ecosystem health. Upland grassland soils are disproportionately impacted by intensification including drainage, artificial fertiliser use, compaction and erosion while the effect of AES management on below‐ground microarthropods, which mediate a range of ecosystem processes, is largely unknown.This study tested the effects of AES management of upland grasslands on microarthropod communities using a large‐scale factorial field experiment. The study focused on microarthropods with distinct taxa‐specific responses observed.Oribatid mite abundance was associated with wetter, more extensive pastures with native grasses characteristic of semi‐improved grassland managed by AESs, whereas Collembola abundance was associated with drier, more intense, reseeded (Lolium perenne dominated) pastures characteristic of conventionally managed improved grasslands.Differences in taxa responses may be driven by life‐history traits and resilience to disturbance. There was no net effect of management, habitat or their interaction on total microarthropod family diversity or abundance.Synthesis and Applications. Results from this study suggest that in floristically simple upland agroecosystems the impact of agri‐environment measures on below‐ground soil biota are context‐dependent (differing between contrasting grassland types), and taxa‐specific, rather than leading to general increases in biodiversity per se, and the responses of soil microarthropods are driven by environmental variation caused by overall management of grassland fields. Measures should aim to increase the availability of areas of semi‐improved grassland, with native plant mixtures, adjacent to improved grasslands, to maximise the habitats available to soil microarthropods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Farmland birds, including breeding waders, have declined across Europe. One frequently advocated strategy to facilitate population recovery is using agri‐environment schemes (AES) to improve vegetation structure. A key example is cutting dense rush Juncus to open the sward which aims to increase the abundance of wading birds, for example by improving foraging conditions. Effects on breeding success are, however, unknown. This is a critical knowledge gap as high nest and chick predation rates are a key driver of wader declines. For wader species that nest across a range of sward structures, for example Eurasian curlew Numenius arquata and common snipe Gallinago gallinago, converting denser swards to more open ones may reduce opportunities for nest concealment and thus increase predation risk. Due to the difficulties of locating large numbers of wader nests, we assess rush management impacts on nest predation risk using artificial wader nests (n = 184) in two upland areas of England, using fields in which rush is managed according to AES prescriptions (treatment; n = 21) or un‐managed (control; n = 22) fields. Daily nest predation rates (DPRs) were twice as high in treatment (0.064 day−1) than control fields (0.027 day−1). Within treatment fields, DPRs were twice as high for nests in cut rush patches (0.108 day−1) than in uncut rush (0.055 day−1). Modelling links higher DPRs associated with rush cutting to the resultant shorter and less dense vegetation. Our results highlight the need to assess how AES prescriptions that alter vegetation structure impact all aspects of the target species' fitness and thus determine population recovery. Studies using real wader nests should test whether AES rush management inadvertently creates an ecological trap by altering vegetation structure, and identify the sward structure and configuration that optimizes trade‐offs between foraging conditions and nest predation risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural biodiversity and associated ecosystem functions are declining at alarming rates due to widespread land use intensification. They can only be maintained through targeted landscape management that supports species with different habitat preferences, dispersal capacities and other functional traits that determine their survival. However, we need better understanding whether short‐term measures can already improve functional diversity in European agroecosystems.We investigated spatio‐temporal responses of bees (solitary bees, bumblebees and honey bees), hoverflies, carabid beetles and spiders to newly established grassland strips in Lower Austria over 3 years, and along a distance gradient to old grasslands. Specifically, we asked if new grasslands, compared to old grasslands and cereal fields, serve as temporal dispersal habitat or corridor, and how species‐specific traits affect dispersal patterns. Using a trait‐based functional diversity approach, we investigated year and distance effects for nine selected key traits per taxon (e.g. body size, feeding guild and habitat preferences).Our results show that the functional diversity of predators and pollinators (i.e. functional richness and evenness), as well as community‐weighted means of selected key traits in new grasslands significantly differed from adjacent cereal fields, but only slowly adjusted to adjacent old grasslands. These effects significantly decreased with increasing distance to old grasslands for carabids and spiders, but not for mobile bees and hoverflies.Synthesis and applications. Over 3 years, newly established grassland strips supported larger sized and actively foraging/hunting species in the agricultural landscape. Adjacent crops likely benefit from such measures through enhanced functional diversity and related ecosystem services. However, our results also suggest that 3‐year period is too short to enhance the occurrence of pollinators and epigeic predators in new grasslands. Agri‐environment measures need to be complemented by the conservation of permanent habitats to effectively maintain species and functional diversity. Our findings should be acknowledged by European policy and agricultural decision makers for the design of more effective agri‐environment schemes, taking into account trait‐dependent species responses to land use change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scant floral resources are a major cause of declining pollinator populations in farmland. Measures to increase floral resources on arable land include agronomically non‐productive approaches, like flowering fields (seed mixture of flowering forbs sown on fallows) and production‐integrated approaches like organically farmed crops sustaining flowering arable wild plants. However, little is known about their relative efficacy for bumblebee conservation.We observed weight gain, foraging activity, worker body size, queen brood cell number and analysed stored pollen types of Bombus terrestris colonies experimentally sited adjacent to arable fields farmed under four crop‐use types: (i) cereal mono‐crops (winter wheat) under conventional farming, (ii) non‐productive conventional flowering fields, (iii) organic cereal mono‐crops (winter spelt) and (iv) organic legume mixed‐crops (lentil mixed‐crop). Additionally, we analysed the effects of flower cover in the surrounding landscape.Colonies located adjacent to organic winter spelt fields had higher foraging activity and larger body sizes, whereas other colony performance measures were unaffected by local crop‐use type. Phacelia tanacetifolia, which was only cultivated in flowering fields, accounted for about 50% of the total pollen amount irrespective of crop‐use type. This indicated a landscape‐wide attraction for B. terrestris to flowering fields. Flower cover in the surrounding landscape did not affect colony development, but negatively affected pollen diversity.We conclude that although the pollen supply of flowering fields in the surrounding landscape strongly attracts bumblebees, local bumblebee populations could still benefit from less intensive farming practices increasing flowering wild plant diversity, such as with flower‐rich organic winter cereals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Land protection efforts represent large societal investments and are critical to biodiversity conservation. Land protection involves a complex mosaic of areas managed by multiple organizations, using a variety of mechanisms to achieve different levels of protection. We develop an approach to synthesize, describe, and map this land protection diversity over large spatial scales. We use cluster analysis to find distinct "communities" of land protection based on the organizations involved, the strictness of land protection, and the protection mechanisms used. We also associate identified land protection communities with socioenvironmental variables. Applying these methods to describe land protection communities in counties across the coterminous United States, we recognize five different land protection communities. Two land protection communities occur in areas with low human population size at higher elevations and include a large amount of protected land primarily under federal management. These two community types are differentiated from one another by the particular federal agencies involved, the relative contributions of smaller actors, and the amount of protection by designations vs. conservation easements or covenants. Three remaining land protection communities have less overall protection. Land in one community is primarily protected by federally managed rental contracts and government managed easements; another is managed by a diversity of non‐federal actors through fee‐ownership and easements; and the third stands out for having the lowest amount of formally recorded protection overall. High elevation and poor quality soils are over‐represented in U.S. protected lands. Rental contracts help fill in gaps in counties with high productivity soil while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fills in gaps in low‐elevation counties. Counties with large numbers of threatened species have more and stricter protection, particularly by regional entities like water management districts. The ability to synthesize and map land protection communities can help conservation planners tailor interventions to local contexts, position local agencies to approach collaborations more strategically, and suggest new hypotheses for researchers regarding interactions among different protection mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increased farming intensity led to massive declines across multiple farmland taxa. In Europe, measures introduced to counteract these losses include those considered agronomically productive, such as organic farming, as well as those that support no direct production of crops, such as non‐crop flowering fields in conventional farming systems.We studied biodiversity effects of non‐productive flowering fields managed under conventional farming compared to both an organically managed cereal mono‐crop (organic winter spelt fields) and a flowering mixed‐crop (organic lentil mixed‐crop fields) as well as conventionally managed winter wheat fields, which served as control crop. These four crop‐use types were studied on six sites over 3 years (17 sites in total) to assess their impact on the activity density (cover for plants), species richness and community composition of wild plants, carabids, spiders, butterflies and wild bees.Species richness of wild plants was highest under organic farming and at field edges when compared to the interior. In the case of carabids and spiders, species richness was highest at the field edges, but there was no difference between the four crop‐use types. In contrast, activity density and species richness of butterflies and wild bees responded only to flowering crop‐use types, showing no edge effects. Arable land cover in 500 m buffer area also affected community composition of all taxa, with the exception of spiders, but had only minor effects on activity densities and species richness.Synthesis and applications. Our findings underline that there is no single best measure to promote biodiversity on arable land. Instead a mosaic of non‐productive and productive measures such as conventional flowering fields, organic crops and field edge habitats might be more appropriate to support the regional species pool in arable‐dominated landscapes. To support a range of complementary biodiversity‐promoting farming practices, agricultural policy should foster the coordination and collaboration between multiple farmers within the same region by covering additional costs for coordination and prioritizing collaborative schemes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intensification of agriculture has resulted in a simplification and fragmentation of agroecosystems. Yet, its impact on the reproductive success and population dynamics of wild bees, and how adverse effects can be mitigated, remains poorly understood.We established populations of seven solitary bee species varying in body size in experimentally sown wildflower strips (WFS), existing semi‐natural habitats (SNH; forest edges) and isolated sites lacking WFS and SNH in the local surrounding (350 m radius) to test (a) whether the wild bee species use planted flowers of WFS to provision offspring with pollen, (b) whether vicinity to WFS reduces their foraging trip duration, (c) parasitism rate and (d) whether it increases bee reproductive success of nesting populations. Furthermore, we tested whether the effect size depends on the body size of the bee species considered.We show that wild bees nesting in WFS provisioned their offspring primarily with pollen from plants of WFS. This led to shorter foraging trips of all bee species nesting in WFS compared to bees nesting in isolated (unrestored) sites and overall increased reproductive success (i.e. more viable offspring). Reproductive success of bees nesting in WFS was also higher, and parasitism rates lower, compared to bees nesting at forest edges. Smaller—potentially less mobile—bee species benefitted more than larger ones from WFS plantings in terms of reproductive success.Synthesis and applications. Our findings demonstrate that diverse WFS can enhance the reproductive success of multiple solitary wild bee species, thereby mitigating negative impacts of agroecosystem simplification through the provision of suitable floral resources and reduced foraging times required for offspring provisioning. Our study further indicates that a relatively fine‐meshed network of wildflower plantings and nesting habitats is required to most effectively enhance reproduction and populations of solitary bees in agricultural landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Farmland ponds are a highly threatened freshwater habitat which has undergone dramatic losses during the last 200 years due to land drainage schemes and agricultural intensification. Agri‐environment schemes (AES) incentivize farmers to adopt farming methods to benefit biodiversity, yet there are a paucity of data evaluating the success of artificially created AES ponds as analogues of natural ponds in an attempt to recreate lost environments.We examined variation in environmental parameters and aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate communities between 38 natural ponds and 91 artificial ponds that were created in south‐west Ireland (n = 129).Artificial ponds in agricultural grassland did not replicate natural ponds in adjacent semi‐natural habitats differing significantly in size, pH, conductivity, productivity (indicated by submerged and emergent plant cover including algae) and surrounding vegetation structure that is, sward height. These differences significantly influenced aquatic and terrestrial invertebrate community structure with a suite of indicator taxa in both natural and artificial ponds.The conservation value of artificial ponds in agricultural grasslands should not be underestimated as they had 43% higher aquatic species richness and 33% higher aquatic species abundance than natural ponds in adjacent semi‐natural habitats.Synthesis and applications. We demonstrate that artificial agri‐environment scheme ponds created in agricultural grasslands, whilst not direct analogues of natural ponds in adjacent semi‐natural habitats, do fulfil a role in preserving high local biodiversity albeit representing a different community of species. Creation of ponds in farmland as well as in adjacent natural habitats could provide a wider range of environmental conditions and richer associated macroinvertebrate communities, increasing landscape connectivity and further enhancing regional biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Floral plantings are promoted to foster ecological intensification of agriculture through provisioning of ecosystem services. However, a comprehensive assessment of the effectiveness of different floral plantings, their characteristics and consequences for crop yield is lacking. Here we quantified the impacts of flower strips and hedgerows on pest control (18 studies) and pollination services (17 studies) in adjacent crops in North America, Europe and New Zealand. Flower strips, but not hedgerows, enhanced pest control services in adjacent fields by 16% on average. However, effects on crop pollination and yield were more variable. Our synthesis identifies several important drivers of variability in effectiveness of plantings: pollination services declined exponentially with distance from plantings, and perennial and older flower strips with higher flowering plant diversity enhanced pollination more effectively. These findings provide promising pathways to optimise floral plantings to more effectively contribute to ecosystem service delivery and ecological intensification of agriculture in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high‐quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post‐2020 CAP, we performed a European‐scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator‐friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early‐season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator‐friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen‐fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes.Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well‐managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post‐2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco‐schemes and agri‐environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target‐orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of People & Nature is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Mitigating the detrimental impacts of intensive farming on biodiversity requires the implementation of cost‐effective conservation actions. Targeted agri‐environment schemes (AESs) to enhance populations of threatened species inhabiting farmland have been proposed for this purpose, yet their effectiveness for nocturnal wildlife remains unknown.We assessed whether hedgerow management prescribed by targeted AESs to improve habitat conditions for the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus ferrumequinum) in England may positively influence the species, the entire bat assemblage and the insect prey of bats. We specifically investigated the responses of bats (occurrence, activity and species richness) and insects (biomass, abundance and diversity) to time since last trimming (from 1 up to 10 years). We explored the mechanisms underlying the effects of AES via changes in trimming regime on bats. Moreover, we investigated the effects of landscape context on bats as we expected that highly mobile species would benefit further from landscape‐scale management.Bat species richness significantly increased with time since last trimming. Three bat taxa of major conservation concern in Western Europe substantially benefited from the targeted prescription, namely R. ferrumequinum, Rhinolophus hipposideros and Plecotus spp. Insect family richness and dipteran abundance were also significantly greater at hedgerows that were untrimmed for at least 3 years. The activity of more common bat species (i.e. pipistrelle bats) was not influenced by time since last trimming.Changes in trimming regime strongly affected hedgerow height which directly and indirectly (by increasing prey abundance) influenced bat occurrence, activity and species richness along hedgerows.The activity of highly mobile bat species was mainly associated with a range of landscape attributes. The amount of semi‐natural grassland within 0.5 km of the sampling sites positively influenced R. ferrumequinum while the presence of urban areas negatively affected light‐sensitive bat species.Synthesis and applications. The implementation of targeted agri‐environment schemes can include effective measures to enhance bats and their insect prey in farmland. Although we highlight the success of current prescriptions on hedgerow management, we suggest that their effectiveness can easily be optimized by encouraging farmers to keep hedgerows untrimmed for longer periods (>3 up to 10 years). We also highlight that a multi‐scale management approach is required to successfully promote bats in farmland. The implementation of targeted agri‐environment schemes can include effective measures to enhance bats and their insect prey in farmland. Although we highlight the success of current prescriptions on hedgerow management, we suggest that their effectiveness can easily be optimized by encouraging farmers to keep hedgerows untrimmed for longer periods (>3 up to 10 years). We also highlight that a multi‐scale management approach is required to successfully promote bats in farmland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Grasslands occur around the globe and, in temperate regions, their natural management by fire, drought and wild herbivores has largely been replaced by grazing with domestic livestock. Successful management for agriculture is not always suitable for conservation and can have a detrimental effect on biodiversity. Conservation grazing of saltmarshes, delivered through agri‐environment schemes, may provide a solution to counteract biodiversity loss by providing farmers with financial incentives to graze these internationally important coastal wetlands more sensitively.To assess whether conservation grazing is being achieved and whether agri‐environment schemes are effective in delivering this management, we conducted a national survey on English saltmarshes, scoring the management on each site as optimal, suboptimal or detrimental in terms of suitability for achieving conservation aims for five aspects of grazing: presence, stock type, intensity, timing and habitat impact.Although most saltmarshes suitable for grazing in England were grazed, conservation grazing was not being achieved. Sites under agri‐environment management for longer did score higher and approached optimal levels in terms of grazing intensity in one region, but sites with agri‐environment agreements were no more likely to be grazed at optimal conservation levels than sites without them overall, indicating that agri‐environment schemes, in their current form, are an ineffective delivery mechanism for conservation grazing on saltmarsh.The low specificity of agri‐environment prescription wording may contribute to this failure, with prescriptions either being vague or specifying suboptimal or detrimental management objectives, particularly for grazing intensity, timing and stock type. These objectives are often set too high or too low, during unsuitable periods or using stock types inappropriate for achieving conservation aims.Synthesis and applications. Our national survey indicates that agri‐environment schemes are not currently delivering conservation grazing on English saltmarshes. Agri‐environment schemes are the only mechanism through which such grazing can be implemented on a national scale, so improving their effectiveness is a priority. Policymakers, researchers and managers need to work together to ensure better translation of conservation guidelines into schemes, increasing the specificity of management prescriptions and improving understanding of the need for management measures. A more detailed and reliable system of auditing to ensure that management activities are taking place would be beneficial or alternatively moving to a results‐based scheme where payments are made on desirable outcomes rather than on evidence of management. Our national survey indicates that agri‐environment schemes are not currently delivering conservation grazing on English saltmarshes. Agri‐environment schemes are the only mechanism through which such grazing can be implemented on a national scale, so improving their effectiveness is a priority. Policymakers, researchers and managers need to work together to ensure better translation of conservation guidelines into schemes, increasing the specificity of management prescriptions and improving understanding of the need for management measures. A more detailed and reliable system of auditing to ensure that management activities are taking place would be beneficial or alternatively moving to a results‐based scheme where payments are made on desirable outcomes rather than on evidence of management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agri‐environment schemes (AES) have been criticized for being inadequately monitored and for not delivering the expected benefits to nature. Consequently, the Welsh Government funded a comprehensive programme of monitoring of AES between 2009 and 2012. The AES assessment focused on Tir Gofal (which translates as "Land in Care") but also included the Organic Farming Scheme, and monitoring focused on a range of taxa of conservation importance: arable plants, grassland fungi, bats (six species), butterflies (three species), birds (five species), water vole and brown hare.Field surveys were carried out on matched farms and fields within and outside of AES. Response variables were spatial trends of abundance, occurrence and species richness, and were modelled against AES status. Existing data were also available for two bird species.Few differences were observed between AES and non‐AES farms and fields. Those that were observed were for species that use arable habitats (which are uncommon in Wales): arable plants, yellowhammers and brown hares. The lack of differences in non‐arable habitats may reflect the smaller contrast between AES and non‐AES management in these habitats. It may also reflect the original condition of habitat entered into AES prescriptions, as most non‐arable prescriptions were defined by mandatory management of existing habitats, rather than optional habitat creation or restoration, which is the case for most arable prescriptions.Despite the lack of differences observed, AES may help to maintain populations of species, making it more likely that they will persist in the landscape. There is evidence, from this monitoring programme and elsewhere, that AES can increase the populations of species, when well targeted and implemented.Policy implications. Our results indicate that Welsh Agri‐environment schemes (AES) have been only partly successful in achieving their stated aim of "maintaining and enhancing species abundance". They can be used to improve AES design and management, both in Wales and more widely, by identifying and promoting effective management interventions, and by identifying ineffective management interventions and seeking alternatives. Comprehensive monitoring of AES, combined with specific targets regarding expected outcomes, is essential to determine whether AES are providing value for money. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The decline of farmland birds across Europe is a well‐documented case of biodiversity loss, and despite land stewardship supported by funding from agri‐environment schemes (AES), the negative trends have not yet been reversed.To investigate the contribution of AES towards farmland bird conservation, we compared abundance of five farmland bird species across 13 years and 53 farms (158 farm years = AES, 72 farm years = non AES) in Northeastern Scotland (UK), a region with relatively mixed farmland.Between 2003 and 2015, on both AES and control farms, skylark (Alauda arvensis) showed a nonsignificant decline, and tree sparrow (Passer montanus) and yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella) nonsignificant increases, whereas reed bunting (Emberiza schoeniclus) and linnet (Carduelis cannabina) populations remained relatively stable.We did not detect a significant association between AES and avian abundance or population trends for any of these species, but there were positive associations with some AES management options.Possible explanations for the lack of a significant AES‐bird abundance association include poor uptake of the best AES options for farmland birds, suboptimal implementation, spill‐over effects from AES onto control farms, and the relatively good state of farmland habitats outwith AES in Northeastern Scotland.Synthesis and applications. We documented a weak effect size of participation in agri‐environment schemes on farmland bird abundance. We therefore recommend future monitoring studies be designed after consulting a power analysis. Among different land management options, we found that species‐rich grasslands, water margins, and wetland creation enhanced breeding bird abundance, highlighting the importance of relatively undisturbed herbaceous or grassland vegetation for farmland conservation. We documented a weak effect size of participation in agri‐environment schemes on farmland bird abundance. We therefore recommend future monitoring studies be designed after consulting a power analysis. Among different land management options, we found that species‐rich grasslands, water margins, and wetland creation enhanced breeding bird abundance, highlighting the importance of relatively undisturbed herbaceous or grassland vegetation for farmland conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wildflower strips (WFS) are increasingly used to counteract the negative consequences of agricultural intensification. To date, it is poorly understood how WFS promote flower visitation and pollination services in nearby insect‐pollinated crops. We therefore ask whether WFS enhance pollination service in adjacent strawberry crops, and how such an effect depends on the distance from WFS. Over 2 years, we examined the effects of experimentally sown WFS compared to grassy strips on pollination services in adjacent strawberry (Fragaria ananassa) crops across a total of 19 study sites. Moreover, we examined flower visitation, species richness and community composition of the most important insect pollinator taxa at different within‐field locations varying in distance to WFS. We found increased pollination services at the edge of WFS compared to locally reduced pollination services at the center, which resulted in no significant difference in seed set between WFS and control fields. Total flower visits and species richness of pollinators were higher in WFS than in adjacent strawberry fields. Moreover, wild bee visitation was enhanced in adjacent strawberry crops near WFS compared to field centers, and intermediate at field edges near grassy strips. Our study demonstrates that diverse WFS can increase wild bee visitation and pollination services in the field edges of adjacent strawberry crops, but that overall visitation and pollination services do not increase. Moreover, our findings show that major pollinator taxa exhibit distinct responses, resulting in a shift of pollinator community composition as a function of distance to WFS with direct effects on crop pollination. Our results that WFS enhance rather than reduce crop pollination services near WFS should distract possible concerns by farmers that WFS may locally absorb rather than export crop pollinators. Considering the spatial restricted enhancement of wild bees and associated pollination services we suggest to establish WFS in the center of crop fields. Wildflower strips (WFS) are increasingly used to counteract the negative consequences of agricultural intensification on pollinators. We therefore show whether WFS enhance pollination service in adjacent strawberry crops, and how such an effect depends on the distance from WFS. Moreover, we show which of the major pollinator groups might cause such an effect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Farmland birds are among the most threatened bird species in Europe, largely as a result of agricultural intensification which has driven widespread biodiversity losses. Breeding waders associated with grassland and arable habitats are particularly vulnerable and a frequent focus of agri‐environment schemes (AES) designed to halt and reverse population declines. We review existing literature, providing a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of policy and management interventions used throughout Europe to improve population and demographic metrics of grassland‐breeding waders. Targeted AES and site protection measures were more likely to be effective than less targeted AES and were ten times more likely to be effective than would be expected by chance, particularly for population trend and productivity metrics. Positive effects of AES and site protection did not appear synergistic. Management interventions which had the greatest chance of increasing population growth or productivity included modification of mowing regimes, increasing wet conditions, and the use of nest protection. Success rates varied according to the species and metric being evaluated. None of the policy or management interventions we evaluated were associated with a significant risk of negative impacts on breeding waders. Our findings support the use of agri‐environment schemes, site protection, and management measures for grassland‐breeding wader conservation in Europe. Due to publication bias, our findings are most applicable to intensively managed agricultural landscapes. More studies are needed to identify measures that increase chick survival. Despite broadly effective conservation measures already in use, grassland‐breeding waders in Europe continue to decline. More research is needed to improve the likelihood and magnitude of positive outcomes, coupled with wider implementation of effective measures to substantially increase favorable land management for these species. Our findings support the use of agri‐environment schemes, site protection, and conservation management measures such as grassland, wet feature, and predation management for grassland‐breeding wader conservation in Europe. Despite broadly effective conservation measures already in use, grassland‐breeding waders in Europe continue to decline. To reverse declines, wider implementation of effective measures is needed to substantially increase the amount of land managed favorably for these species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Floral foraging resources are valuable for pollinator conservation on farmland, and their provision is encouraged by agri‐environment schemes in many countries. Across Europe, wildflower seed mixtures are widely sown on farmland to encourage pollinators, but the extent to which key pollinator groups such as solitary bees exploit and benefit from these resources is unclear. We used high‐throughput sequencing of 164 pollen samples extracted from the brood cells of six common cavity‐nesting solitary bee species (Osmia bicornis, Osmia caerulescens, Megachile versicolor, Megachile ligniseca, Megachile centuncularis and Hylaeus confusus) which are widely distributed across the UK and Europe. We documented their pollen use across 19 farms in southern England, UK, revealing their forage plants and examining the structure of their pollen transport networks. Of the 32 plant species included currently in sown wildflower mixes, 15 were recorded as present within close foraging range of the bees on the study farms, but only Ranunculus acris L. was identified within the pollen samples. Rosa canina L. was the most commonly found of the 23 plant species identified in the pollen samples, suggesting that, in addition to providing a nesting resource for Megachile leafcutter bees, it may be an important forage plant for these species. Higher levels of connectance and nestedness were characteristic of pollen transport networks on farms with abundant floral resources, which may increase resilience to species loss. Our data suggest that plant species promoted currently by agri‐environment schemes are not optimal for solitary bee foraging. If a diverse community of pollinators is to be supported on UK and European farmland, additional species such as R. canina should be encouraged to meet the foraging requirements of solitary bees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Declining pollinator populations have caused concern about consequences for food production, and have initiated an increasing number of initiatives that aim to mitigate pollinator loss through enhancement of floral resources. Studies evaluating effects of mitigation measures generally demonstrate positive responses of pollinators to floral resource enhancement. However, it remains unclear whether this represents landscape‐level population effects or results from a spatial redistribution of individuals from otherwise unaffected populations. Here, we present a method for estimating landscape‐level population effects using data from commonly used standardized pollinator transect surveys. The approach links local density responses of pollinators in both mitigation sites and surrounding landscape elements to the area these habitats occupy in mitigation landscapes as well as control landscapes to obtain landscape‐level population estimates. We demonstrate the method using data from a 2‐year study examining the effects of experimental wildflower enhancements on wild bumblebees and solitary bees in Dutch agricultural landscapes. The results show that conclusions based on local responses may differ significantly from those based on landscape‐level responses. Wildflower enhancements significantly enhanced landscape‐level abundance of both bumblebees and solitary bees. Bumblebees showed a pronounced positive local density response in mitigation sites and the surrounding landscape that was in line with significant landscape‐level increases in abundance. However, solitary bees showed no local response to mitigation sites, and the landscape‐level increases in abundance only became apparent when the area of bee habitat was taken into account. Incorporating the area of both newly created and pre‐existing pollinator habitats into effect estimates accounts for density‐dependent processes such as dilution, spillover and local concentration of individuals. It, therefore, results in more reliable estimates of the response to mitigation measures of pollinators, as well as other mobile arthropod groups that are often being surveyed using transect surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Wild bees are declining in intensively farmed regions worldwide, threatening pollination services to flowering crops and wild plants. To halt bee declines, it is essential that conservation actions are based on a mechanistic understanding of how bee species utilize landscapes. We aimed at teasing apart how foraging resources in the landscape through the nesting season affected nesting and reproduction of a solitary bee in a farmland region. We investigated how availability of floral resources and potentially resource‐rich habitats surrounding nests affected nest provisioning and reproduction in the solitary polylectic bee Osmia bicornis. The study was performed in 18 landscape sectors dominated by agriculture, but varying in agricultural intensity in terms of proportion of organic crop fields and seminatural permanent pastures. Pasture‐rich sectors contained more oak (Quercus robur), which pollen analysis showed to be favored forage in early season. More oaks ≤100 m from nests led to higher proportions of oak pollen in nest provisions and increased speed of nest construction in early season, but this effect tapered off as flowering decreased. Late‐season pollen foraging was dominated by buttercup (Ranunculus spp.), common in various noncrop habitats. Foraging trips were longer with more oaks and increased further through the season. The opposite was found for buttercup. Oak and buttercup interacted to explain the number of offspring; buttercup had a positive effect only when the number of oaks was above the mean for the studied sectors. The results show that quality of complex and pasture‐rich landscapes for O. bicornis depends on preserving existing and generating new oak trees. Lignose plants are key early‐season forage resources in agricultural landscapes. Increasing habitat heterogeneity with trees and shrubs and promoting suitable late‐flowering forbs can benefit O. bicornis and other wild bees active in spring and early summer, something which existing agri‐environment schemes seldom target. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Agri‐environment schemes (AES) are the main policy mechanism available for reversing the widespread declines of European farmland biodiversity. We assessed the impact of AES land management on the abundance of bird species whose populations have declined as a consequence of agricultural intensification. The AES involved the deployment of a whole‐farm package of wildlife‐friendly land management options covering an average of 7% of the farmed area. The study was conducted across three English regions and focused on species of conservation concern and on a wider suite of farmland birds comprising the UK Government's Farmland Bird Indicator (FBI). Changes in avian abundance on AES farms were compared with those measured across the wider farmed landscape as part of a national bird monitoring scheme. Twelve out of 17 priority species, and the FBI, showed more positive changes in abundance on AES farms in at least one region. Eight species exhibited sustained responses to AES management in at least one region, and eight species exhibited a temporary enhancement in abundance in at least one region. Temporary responses to AES management followed a large scale failure of key AES options to establish during successive wet and cold summers, and involved species known to depend on the habitats provided by these options. In order to offset ongoing declines of FBI species in the wider farmed countryside of 2.3–4.1% per annum, we estimate 26–33% of FBI populations would need to be subject to AES‐type management. This study demonstrates the potential for AES land management to substantially enhance the abundance of priority farmland birds and highlights the need for option packages that are resilient to the impacts of variable weather conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sown wildflower strips can support insects that collect pollen for their larvae. How these strips affect flower visitors with carnivorous larvae, however, is almost unknown. We studied the impact of wildflower strips and their surroundings on two common solitary wasps: the caterpillar-hunting Ancistrocerus nigricornis Curtis and the spider-hunting Trypoxylon figulus Linnaeus., Trap-nest locations at 22 semi-natural habitats in central Germany formed independent gradients in landscape complexity and distance to either one or several wildflower strips in their surroundings. For each brood cell, we recorded the number of prey items, total caterpillar weight and spider species richness., Ancistrocerus nigricornis built more cells in proximity to wildflower strips and with increasing amount of surrounding grassland. Fewer prey items provided in landscapes with large shares of semi-natural habitats suggest that in these landscapes high-quality prey is available. In contrast, T. figulus built more cells with increasing distance of nests to wildflower strips. If there were few strips, T. figulus built more cells in grassland-rich landscapes, whereas low shares of grassland were compensated when several wildflower strips were present. Benefits of flowering strips for T. figulus seem related to flower resources for adults, rather than through prey provisioning., In conclusion, wildflower strips promote prey-hunting wasps through species-specific effects on adult and larval food provisioning. Considering the differential effects of wasps on crop pests (caterpillars) and natural enemies (spiders), the functional role of wildflower strips in agroecosystems may be much greater than assumed when solely focusing on pollination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Enhancing key floral resources is essential to effectively mitigate the loss of pollinator diversity and associated provisioning of pollination functions in agro-ecosystems. However, effective floral provisioning measures may diverge among different pollinator conservation targets, such as the conservation of rare species or the promotion of economically important crop pollinators. We examined to what extent such diverging conservation goals could be reconciled., We analysed plant-bee visitation networks of 64 herbaceous semi-natural habitats representing a gradient of plant species richness to identify key resource plants of the three distinct conservation target groups: rare bees (of conservation concern), dominant wild crop-pollinating bees and managed crop-pollinating bees (i.e. honeybees)., Considering overall flower visitation, rare bees tended to visit nested subsets of plant species that were also visited by crop pollinators (46% and 77% nestedness in the dissimilarity between rare bees and wild crop pollinators or managed honeybees respectively). However, the set of preferred plant species, henceforth 'key plant species' (i.e. those species disproportionately more visited than expected according to their floral abundance) was considerably more distinct and less nested among bee target groups., Flower visits of all bee target groups increased with plant species richness at a similar rate. Importantly, our analyses revealed that an exponential increase in the flower abundance of the identified key plant species and complementarity in the bee visitation pattern across plant species ─ rather than total flower abundance ─ were the major drivers of these relationships., Synthesis and applications. We conclude that the multiple goals of preserving high bee diversity, conserving rare species and sustaining crop pollinators can be reconciled if key plant species of different target groups are simultaneously available. This availability is facilitated by a high floral resource complementarity in the plant community. The list of identified key resource plant species we provide here can help practitioners such as land managers and conservationists to better design and evaluate pollinator conservation and restoration measures according to their goals. Our findings highlight the importance of identifying and promoting such plant species for pollinator conservation in agricultural landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Severe declines in biodiversity have been well documented for many taxonomic groups due to intensification of agricultural practices. Establishment and appropriate management of arable field margins can improve the diversity and abundance of invertebrate groups; however, there is much less research on field margins within grassland systems. Three grassland field margin treatments (fencing off the existing vegetation 'fenced'; fencing with rotavation and natural regeneration 'rotavated' and; fencing with rotavation and seeding 'seeded') were compared to a grazed control in the adjacent intensively managed pasture. Invertebrates were sampled using emergence traps to investigate species breeding and overwintering within the margins. Using a manipulation experiment, we tested whether the removal of grazing pressure and nutrient inputs would increase the abundance and richness of breeding invertebrates within grassland field margins. We also tested whether field margin establishment treatments, with their different vegetation communities, would change the abundance and richness of breeding invertebrates in the field margins. Exclusion of grazing and nutrient inputs led to increased abundance and richness in nearly all invertebrate groups that we sampled. However, there were more complex effects of field margin establishment treatment on the abundance and richness of invertebrate taxa. Each of the three establishment treatments supported a distinct invertebrate community. The removal of grazing from grassland field margins provided a greater range of overwintering/breeding habitat for invertebrates. We demonstrate the capacity of field margin establishment to increase the abundance and richness in nearly all invertebrate groups in study plots that were located on previously more depauperate areas of intensively managed grassland. These results from grassland field margins provide evidence to support practical actions that can inform Greening (Pillar 1) and agri-environment measures (Pillar 2) of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Before implementing specific management regimes, the conservation aims of agri-environment measures should be clarified by defining the target species or taxonomic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Crop diversification has been introduced as an environmental strategy in the 'Greening' of the EU Common Agricultural Policy ( CAP) for 2015-2020. The primary target of crop diversification is soil and ecosystem resilience, but claims for potential benefits for farmland biodiversity are also common. However, understanding of relationships between the number (compositional heterogeneity) and spatial arrangement (configurational heterogeneity) of crop fields and biodiversity is generally poor, making such claims relatively unfounded., In this study, we monitored crop and farmland bird diversity on 178 farms across Sweden's main agricultural areas. From a pre-implementation assessment, we show that >97% of the assessed farms would not be required to change their management under the CAP crop diversification measure (minimum of three crops for farms with 30+ ha), suggesting that this measure has generated little change on Swedish farms., While accounting for non-crop elements and farming system (conventional or organic), we show that crop structural diversity (i.e. the management and vegetation structure of crops) rather than crop diversity senso lato positively affected richness of non-crop breeding bird species with stronger effects in arable, compared with forest-dominated landscapes. No such effects were observed among field-nesting farmland bird species., Organic farming had little influence on farmland birds with positive effects only in the most arable-dominated landscapes and for field-nesting species only. In forest-dominated landscapes, organic farms even held lower field-nester densities compared with conventional farms, possibly due to the dominance of grasslands on organic farms that in these landscapes support lower densities of field-nesting species compared with cereals., Policy implications. Our study illustrates the importance of a consideration of structural instead of species diversity of crops for biodiversity, in this case farmland birds. We also underline the absence of such a distinction in current EU Common Agricultural Policy Greening, while simultaneously setting levels on crop diversification too low resulting in little to no change in landscape-scale crop diversity on Swedish farmland. We recommend that future efforts to manage farmland biodiversity should include ways of increasing the structural diversity of crops at the scale of farms and landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wetlands have undergone significant loss and degradation over the past century, primarily through agricultural development. In the UK, wet grassland habitats support important breeding wader populations, but agricultural intensification has led to severe population declines. Management on nature reserves can be successful at attracting breeding waders, but productivity has been limited by the impacts of generalist predators of nests and chicks in these relatively small areas. Targeting agri-environment management to form buffer zones around reserves has been proposed as a potential strategy to improve landscape connectivity. However, the implications of such strategies for predator movement and activity are unknown. Here we assess whether predation rates of wader nests and predator activity within and across a wet grassland reserve are influenced by whether adjacent farmland is under agri-environment scheme (AES) management for breeding waders. In fields adjacent to AES-managed land, fox activity was higher and nest predation rates remained constant with increasing distance from the reserve edge into the reserve. Conversely, fox activity and wader nest predation rates were lower in fields close to the reserve edge and adjacent to commercial land, and increased with distance from the reserve edge although only to levels seen elsewhere on the reserve. This suggests that predators concentrate activity away from commercial farmland, and that the consequences for nest predation of deploying AES around nature reserves will likely depend on the extent to which they attract breeding waders and the strength of any consequent density-dependent effects on predation rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Land-stewardship programmes are a major focus of investment by governments for conserving biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. These programmes are generally large-scale (e.g. >1000 km) spanning multiple biogeographic regions but developed using spatially limited (e.g. landscape-scale; <100 km) ecological data interpolated across broad areas for one, or a few, well-studied taxonomic groups. Information about how less-studied taxa respond to regional differences in management and environmental effects has potential to further inform land-stewardship conservation programmes, but suitable data sets are rarely available. In this study, we sought to enhance planning of large-scale conservation programmes by quantifying relationships between reptile assemblages and key environmental attributes at regional scales within a large-scale (>172 000 km2) Australian land-stewardship programme. Using 234 remnant woodland monitoring sites spanning four distinct biogeographic regions, we asked: Do reptile assemblages show different environmental associations across biogeographically distinct regions? We found that environmental features important to reptile diversity differed over each region. Abundance and rare species richness of reptiles responded at regional-scales to elevation, native groundcover and aspect. We identified four implications from our study: (1) large-scale conservation schemes can achieve better outcomes for reptiles using regional-scale knowledge of environmental associations; (2) regional-scale knowledge is particularly valuable for conservation of rare reptile taxa; (3) consideration of abiotic environmental features which cannot be directly managed (e.g. aspect, elevation) is important; (4) programmes can be tailored to better support reptile groups at higher conservation risk. Our study shows that reptile-environment associations differ among biogeographic regions, and this presents opportunity for tailoring stronger policy and management strategies for conserving large-scale agricultural landscapes globally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mass-flowering crops ( MFCs) are increasingly cultivated and might influence pollinator communities in MFC fields and nearby semi-natural habitats ( SNHs). Across six European regions and 2 years, we assessed how landscape-scale cover of MFCs affected pollinator densities in 408 MFC fields and adjacent SNHs. In MFC fields, densities of bumblebees, solitary bees, managed honeybees and hoverflies were negatively related to the cover of MFCs in the landscape. In SNHs, densities of bumblebees declined with increasing cover of MFCs but densities of honeybees increased. The densities of all pollinators were generally unrelated to the cover of SNHs in the landscape. Although MFC fields apparently attracted pollinators from SNHs, in landscapes with large areas of MFCs they became diluted. The resulting lower densities might negatively affect yields of pollinator-dependent crops and the reproductive success of wild plants. An expansion of MFCs needs to be accompanied by pollinator-supporting practices in agricultural landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

1. Sown flower strips are increasingly implemented within agri-environment schemes (AES) to increase functional biodiversity and ecosystem services such as pollination or natural pest control, but their effectiveness in achieving these goals remains poorly studied. 2. We tested the performance of experimentally sown annual flower strips specifically designed to promote natural enemies of aphids and their pest control services (tailored flower strips) in adjacent potato crops (n = 8) compared with control fields (n = 10). Flower strips consisted of 11 plant species providing abundant floral and extra-floral resources. 3. The abundance of key natural enemies of aphids (hoverflies, lacewings and ladybirds) and hoverfly species richness was greatly enhanced in tailored flower strips compared with potato control strips. This resulted in an average increase in the number of eggs deposited by hoverflies and lacewings by 127% and 48%, respectively, and a reduction in the number of aphids by 75% in adjacent potato crops. 4. Synthesis and applications. We conclude that tailored flower strips can be an effective agrienvironmental measure to enhance natural enemies and aphid control in nearby crops. Indeed, tailored flower strips may help to reduce insecticide input in potato production as they significantly decrease the probability that action thresholds are reached. Promoting natural enemy abundance and diversity, as observed for hoverflies, may increase the stability of pest control and provide additional benefits to agro-ecosystems in terms of natural enemy conservation. We thus recommend establishing tailored flower strips as a promising management option to reconcile the objectives of ecological intensification and biodiversity conservation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organic farming not only increases plant diversity, but also simultaneously promotes biological weed control through provisioning of ample resources to seed predators., Harpalus affinis (Schrank, 1781) was collected from organically or conventionally managed winter-wheat fields with high or low surrounding shares of organic fields, aiming to test the impact of agricultural management on its activity density, body size and nutritional condition. Body size and nutritional condition were then related to the arable weed seed predation of this granivorous carabid beetle., Activity density of H. affinis was 3.5-fold higher in organically compared with conventionally managed fields, if these were primarily surrounded by conventional fields. Body size was larger in fields surrounded by large proportions of organically managed land, independent of local management. The nutritional condition of beetles was unaffected by local or landscape scale farming. Per capita seed predation significantly increased with body size, whereas nutritional condition had no effect., The results of the present study suggest that organic farming at local and landscape scales enhances the potential of species to control arable weeds by increasing activity densities and intraspecific body size. Seed predation therefore not only depends on local and landscape effects on the community composition of local guilds of granivores, but also on the contribution of individual species to this important ecosystem service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agri-environment schemes (AES) compensate farmers for land use measures that are costly to them but beneficial to biodiversity and the environment. We present an ecological-economic modeling procedure for the design of cost-effective AES to conserve grassland biodiversity, which is applicable to large areas, covers many endangered species and grassland types, and includes several hundred different types of mowing regimes, grazing regimes, and combinations of mowing and grazing regimes as land use measures. The modeling procedure also accounts for the spatial variations in the land use measures' costs and in the effects on species and grassland types. The procedure's main novelty is that it considers variations of the costs and impacts on species and grassland types that arise from different timings of the land use measures. Considering the spatial and the temporal dimension of land use measures makes the modeling procedure spatiotemporally explicit. We demonstrate the power of the modeling procedure by evaluating an existing grassland AES in Saxony, Germany, and identify substantial improvements in terms of cost-effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate progress on political biodiversity objectives, biodiversity monitoring provides information on whether intended results are being achieved. Despite scientific proof that monitoring and evaluation increase the (cost) efficiency of policy measures, cost estimates for monitoring schemes are seldom available, hampering their inclusion in policy programme budgets., Empirical data collected from 12 case studies across Europe were used in a power analysis to estimate the number of farms that would need to be sampled per major farm type to detect changes in species richness over time for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders and bees). A sampling design was developed to allocate spatially, across Europe, the farms that should be sampled., Cost estimates are provided for nine monitoring scenarios with differing robustness for detecting temporal changes in species numbers. These cost estimates are compared with the Common Agricultural Policy ( CAP) budget (2014-2020) to determine the budget allocation required for the proposed farmland biodiversity monitoring., Results show that the bee indicator requires the highest number of farms to be sampled and the vascular plant indicator the lowest. The costs for the nine farmland biodiversity monitoring scenarios corresponded to 0·01%-0·74% of the total CAP budget and to 0·04%-2·48% of the CAP budget specifically allocated to environmental targets., Synthesis and applications. The results of the cost scenarios demonstrate that, based on the taxa and methods used in this study, a Europe-wide farmland biodiversity monitoring scheme would require a modest share of the Common Agricultural Policy budget. The monitoring scenarios are flexible and can be adapted or complemented with alternate data collection options (e.g. at national scale or voluntary efforts), data mobilization, data integration or modelling efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]