Search

Under the EU's new "Farm to Fork" strategy, crop production systems should rapidly become more environmentally friendly. In particular, by adopting agroecological measures that support functional biodiversity and improve ecosystem services for crop production, this paper contributes to the ongoing efforts in characterizing the socio-economic effects that the upscaling of these measures entails, by looking into two key measures: flower strips and mulching. One important socio-economic aspect of their adoption is their potential impact on agricultural income; however, knowledge on costs and benefits of measures enhancing functional biodiversity at the farm level is still limited. In order to improve these shortcomings our approach makes use of data from field experiments completed with interviews to provide cost–benefit results for flower strips and organic mulching. The estimations show that for "flower strips," on average costs could be covered by compensation payments. Regarding the in-crop measure "organic mulching," the benefits potentially outweigh the costs under the frame conditions of organic agriculture. The analysis also highlights some obstacles and knowledge gaps in the estimation of benefits, especially for off-crop measures like flower strips. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Result-based agri-environment payments (RBAPs) represent an innovative approach to incentivizing sustainable farming by linking payments to measurable environmental outcomes, such as biodiversity enhancement, water quality, and soil health. This paper explores the mechanisms used to calculate these payments across different countries, including Germany and Ireland, where result-based schemes are well-established. Drawing on design process analyses and case studies, the aim of the research is to investigates how payments are structured to reflect costs such as opportunity costs, management expenses, income forgone and transaction costs. Results indicate that while RBAPs offer flexibility and encourage farmer innovation, they also introduce complexity in payment calculation, requiring detailed cost assessments and robust monitoring systems. Despite these challenges, the schemes in these countries demonstrate the potential of result-based approaches to deliver targeted environmental benefits. The study concludes that successful RBAPs must balance fair compensation for farmers with effective incentive structures, while addressing risks and uncertainties associated with achieving ecological outcomes. This research provides valuable insights into the design and calculation of result-based payments.

Abstract Under the EU’s new “Farm to Fork” strategy, crop production systems should rapidly become more environmentally friendly. In particular, by adopting agroecological measures that support functional biodiversity and improve ecosystem services for crop production, this paper contributes to the ongoing efforts in characterizing the socio-economic effects that the upscaling of these measures entails, by looking into two key measures: flower strips and mulching. One important socio-economic aspect of their adoption is their potential impact on agricultural income; however, knowledge on costs and benefits of measures enhancing functional biodiversity at the farm level is still limited. In order to improve these shortcomings our approach makes use of data from field experiments completed with interviews to provide cost–benefit results for flower strips and organic mulching. The estimations show that for “flower strips,” on average costs could be covered by compensation payments. Regarding the in-crop measure “organic mulching,” the benefits potentially outweigh the costs under the frame conditions of organic agriculture. The analysis also highlights some obstacles and knowledge gaps in the estimation of benefits, especially for off-crop measures like flower strips.

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]

Semi-natural habitats (SNHs) surrounding agricultural fields contribute significantly to biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. SNHs can be divided into large habitat patches such as contiguous patches of forests, and smaller, interspersed linear habitat types such as grassy field margins. Traditional small-holder agricultural farmlands in China, replete with rich linear habitats, are notably beneficial for biodiversity. However, as these farmlands undergo consolidation to enhance the efficiency of machinery, linear habitats are being removed, a process that could adversely affect biodiversity. Appropriate agri-environmental measures (AEM), such as the restoration of field margins via strategic planting, could serve as an effective countermeasure to maintain biodiversity in consolidated land. This paper discusses how biodiversity monitoring can aid in evaluating the impact of land consolidation and the efficacy of AEM in China, from species richness and species composition perspectives. The paper also discusses the function of linear habitats and how they interact with large habitat patches in promoting biodiversity, while noting that outcomes are likely to vary among taxa. Long-term, multiple-taxa and comprehensive assessments are recommended in further studies, and a collaborative approach that involves multiple stakeholders is essential to ensure a success implication of AEM in China.

Semi-natural habitats (SNHs) surrounding agricultural fields contribute significantly to biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. SNHs can be divided into large habitat patches such as contiguous patches of forests, and smaller, interspersed linear habitat types such as grassy field margins. Traditional small-holder agricultural farmlands in China, replete with rich linear habitats, are notably beneficial for biodiversity. However, as these farmlands undergo consolidation to enhance the efficiency of machinery, linear habitats are being removed, a process that could adversely affect biodiversity. Appropriate agri-environmental measures (AEM), such as the restoration of field margins via strategic planting, could serve as an effective countermeasure to maintain biodiversity in consolidated land. This paper discusses how biodiversity monitoring can aid in evaluating the impact of land consolidation and the efficacy of AEM in China, from species richness and species composition perspectives. The paper also discusses the function of linear habitats and how they interact with large habitat patches in promoting biodiversity, while noting that outcomes are likely to vary among taxa. Long-term, multiple-taxa and comprehensive assessments are recommended in further studies, and a collaborative approach that involves multiple stakeholders is essential to ensure a success implication of AEM in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Embedded within the European Union's Green Deal is a re-enforced scope to encourage farmers' participation in primarily voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Although outside of the European Union, the newly announced agri-environment schemes in England mirror such a policy shift towards incentivising participation in order to deliver more and better climate public goods. Farmers' viewpoints regarding such schemes and contracts are therefore important to examine, as they should be main determinants of current and future enrolment. In this paper, upland Yorkshire farmers were asked to express their opinions for the Landscape Recovery scheme that aims to encourage collaboration and achieve landscape-wide interventions to ensure lasting delivery of climate public goods. Viewpoints show divergent views between environmentally conscious farmers and pragmatic farmers objecting to the functioning of agri-environmental schemes. Farmer viewpoints lean towards 'broad and shallow' schemes that would have simple contract requirements and only achieve marginal gains in the delivery of agri-environmental climate public goods while still showing concern about the natural environment and its impact on farming. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

Invertebrates inhabiting grasslands benefit from uncut grass refuges, yet effects on the plant community have not been properly quantified. We experimentally investigated the effects on the vegetation of two different types of refuges. While both consisted in not mowing 10–20% of a meadow area, they differed in their rotation frequency: (1) in within-year rotational refuges (WYRR), the location of the refuge within a meadow was changed at each mowing operation, usually twice a year; (2) in between-years rotational refuges (BYRR), the refuge changed location only between years. A third mowing regime without any refuge was included as control (C) for comparison. The study was conducted in thirty extensively managed meadows across the Swiss lowlands. The vegetation was sampled at two 1-m2 plots within each of the four strata defined by a stratified random design that accounted for the spatial location of the uncut refuge over the years. There were no overall significant negative effects of WYRR on plant species richness and composition at the meadow scale, although a small negative effect was detected locally (i.e. at the refuge scale) where a WYRR had been implemented more than once in the preceding three years. Leaving BYRR negatively impacted plant species richness (-11%), even reducing the number of indicator plant species by 22% (from 4.5 to 3.5 per 2 m2), regardless of when and where refuges were left uncut. A beta-diversity analysis revealed no difference at community level between the two refuge types and control meadows. Previous studies had evidenced positive effects of uncut refuges on herbivore and pollinator communities, while this study shows that the plant community is not affected as long as the location of the refuge is changed at each mowing operation. We thus recommend this measure for promoting biodiversity in extensively managed grasslands.

Abstract 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.

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]

Some studies question the effectiveness of incentive-based environmental public policies (IEPPS) on inducing changes in farmers' practices due to certain psychological mechanisms. Rooted in self-determination theory, the extant literature notably focuses on the motivation crowding phenomenon while overlooking the central concept of the basic psychological needs (BPN) of humans: autonomy, competence and social relatedness. This article explores farmers' BPNs and their fulfillment in the case of farmland arrangements for the protection of natural areas (FAPAs). These IEPPs grant access to land at low rents under conditions of environmentally friendly agricultural practices. We analyze interviews with farmers engaged in FAPAs in a French basin with computer-assisted text-based qualitative data analysis methods. FAPAs create a social context that thwarts farmers' BPN for autonomy due to a noninclusive design that extends beyond constraints on practices. An inclusive FAPA design and support to BPNs for competence and relatedness could improve farmers' engagement in action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Leaving 10% of the meadow uncut as a refuge is positive for the invertebrate community. • We experimentally investigated the effect on the vegetation. • Within-year rotational uncut refuges do not impact negatively the vegetationa s long as the refuges change location at each mowing event. • The refuge should not be placed at the same location for three consecutive years. Invertebrates inhabiting grasslands benefit from uncut grass refuges, yet effects on the plant community have not been properly quantified. We experimentally investigated the effects on the vegetation of two different types of refuges. While both consisted in not mowing 10–20% of a meadow area, they differed in their rotation frequency: (1) in within-year rotational refuges (WYRR), the location of the refuge within a meadow was changed at each mowing operation, usually twice a year; (2) in between-years rotational refuges (BYRR), the refuge changed location only between years. A third mowing regime without any refuge was included as control (C) for comparison. The study was conducted in thirty extensively managed meadows across the Swiss lowlands. The vegetation was sampled at two 1-m2 plots within each of the four strata defined by a stratified random design that accounted for the spatial location of the uncut refuge over the years. There were no overall significant negative effects of WYRR on plant species richness and composition at the meadow scale, although a small negative effect was detected locally (i.e. at the refuge scale) where a WYRR had been implemented more than once in the preceding three years. Leaving BYRR negatively impacted plant species richness (-11%), even reducing the number of indicator plant species by 22% (from 4.5 to 3.5 per 2 m2), regardless of when and where refuges were left uncut. A beta-diversity analysis revealed no difference at community level between the two refuge types and control meadows. Previous studies had evidenced positive effects of uncut refuges on herbivore and pollinator communities, while this study shows that the plant community is not affected as long as the location of the refuge is changed at each mowing operation. We thus recommend this measure for promoting biodiversity in extensively managed grasslands. [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]

This study presents an innovative empirical application to the assessment of agri-environment measures on environmental and economic efficiency. Using a multi-equation representation with desirable technology and its accompanying undesirable by-production technology, we investigate the effects of agri-environment measures on farm-level environmental and economic efficiency. A combination of propensity score matching and a difference-in-difference approach is used to estimate the policy effect. The application focuses on a balanced sample of Bavarian dairy farms surveyed between 2013 and 2018. Results suggest that agri-environment schemes do not alter farms' economic efficiency, whereas environmental efficiency does not seem to be stimulated by schemes participation. [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 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.

Simple Summary: Insect pest management in oilseed rape (OSR) is challenging for farmers due to the lack of effective insecticides, so conservation biocontrol—reliance on natural pest control and management methods to support populations of the natural enemies of crop pests—is part of the solution for a greener future. Sown wildflower field margins are known to benefit many natural enemies of crop pests. However, the most effective natural enemies of OSR pests are parasitoids, which specialise in attacking these pests, which in turn specialise on Brassica host plants (including OSR), but few field margin mixtures contain brassicas. We screened six different species in the field to find the plants with the best potential as 'banker plants' to support parasitoid populations whilst not exacerbating the pests. Forage rape was the best 'all-rounder'; supporting good numbers of pollen beetle parasitoids and also supporting parasitoids of weevil and brassica pod midge pests. Careful consideration of the brassica component of field margin mixtures could extend functionality towards enhanced biocontrol of specialist pests. European agri-environment schemes include the use of flower-rich field margins to promote on-farm biodiversity, but species mixtures rarely include Brassicaceae. As pests of oilseed rape (OSR; Brassica napus) and their parasitoids are mostly brassica specialists, including brassica 'banker plants' in the mixtures would help support these important biocontrol agents and improve pest control throughout the crop rotation. We assessed the potential of six brassicaceous plants (replicated plots grown in the field) to enhance populations of parasitoids of OSR pests whilst minimising proliferation of their pest hosts. Fodder radish (Raphanus sativus) facilitated high production of parasitoids of the pollen beetle pest (Brassicogethes aeneus) but may proliferate Ceutorhynchus weevil pests due to low parasitism. Turnip rape (B. rapa) and the B. rapa hybrid 'Tyfon' showed potential to perform a trap cropping function for pests, but their early flowering phenology resulted in B. aeneus larvae escaping parasitisation, potentially assisting proliferation of this pest. Forage rape B. napus exhibited similarly high B. aeneus parasitoid production characteristics to R. sativus but did not potentiate problems with other pests, indicating that it would be a favourable banker plant option. Careful selection of plants in field margin mixtures is therefore needed to maximise their benefits and ideally the whole crop pest-beneficial complex needs to be studied, as focus on a single major pest risks unintended consequences with other pest problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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.

Since 1992, the European Union puts in place agri-environment schemes (AES), such as unharvested set-aside fields with winter bird crops (WBC), to counteract farmland biodiversity declines that are associated with agricultural intensification since the second half of the 20th century. These measures aim at, among other things, improving habitat quality and food availability for farmland birds throughout the year. In this study in Dry Hesbaye, an agricultural region in eastern Flanders (Belgium), we use spatial generalized linear mixed models to investigate how species richness and the observation probability of ten bird species with different food diets are associated during winter (November - March) with WBC implementation in arable crop fields and the presence of landscape elements within 50 m of these fields. Our results show that species richness and the observation probabilities of nine out of ten wintering farmland bird species under study are increased at crop fields with WBC implementation. Species richness and observation probabilities are also associated with the presence of nearby landscape elements such as hedgerows, woodland, unpaved roads, or grass margins. We conclude that unharvested set-aside fields promote local diversity and observation probabilities of most of the species under study. In addition, AES measures should be implemented after considering the aforementioned natural or semi-natural nearby landscape elements, which also influence local diversity and species’ observation probability.

Abstract 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.

There is limited knowledge on why farmers adopt pollinator-supporting practices, which is crucial to stimulate their adoption. The dependence of farmers on pollination may influence their perception of pollinators and their willingness to adopt these practices. We addressed why farmers adopt pollinator-supporting practices using a 2011 survey conducted within a cereal plain in western France, where farmers were moderately dependent on pollination for crops like oilseed rape and sunflower. We assessed the factors influencing the adoption of practices to promote pollination, including pollination dependence. We found no effect for pollination dependence. Conversely, we found that farm size, pesticide use, advisory services and the perception of costs decreased the willingness to adopt, while older farmers were more incline to adopt. We also evaluated perceptions related to pollinators: more than 85% of farmers considered bees important for crop production and recognized pesticides as a major cause of decline. We found no effect of pollination dependence on farmers’ perceptions. Compared to similar studies over the past decade, we found similarities, particularly regarding pollinator-related perceptions. Finally, we compared the willingness to adopt in 2011 with the actual adoption in 2024, showing that there has been little change. This raises questions on the pathways to promote the adoption of pollinator-supporting practices to ensure for the future of pollinator conservation.

Embedded within the European Union’s Green Deal is a re-enforced scope to encourage farmers’ participation in primarily voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Although outside of the European Union, the newly announced agri-environment schemes in England mirror such a policy shift towards incentivising participation in order to delivery more and better climate public goods. Farmers’ viewpoints regarding such schemes and contracts are therefore important to examine as they should be main determinants of current and future enrolment. In this paper, upland Yorkshire farmers are asked to express their opinions for the landscape Recovery scheme that aims to encourage collaboration and achieve landscape-wide interventions to ensure lasting delivery of climate public goods. Viewpoints show a dichotomy between pragmatic and environmentally-conscious farmers with preferences leaning towards ‘broad and shallow’ schemes that would have simple contract requirements and only achieve marginal gainsin the delivery of agri-environmental climate public goods.

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]

Context: Agri-environment schemes support land management interventions that benefit biodiversity, environmental objectives, and other public goods. Process-based model simulations suggest the English scheme, as implemented in 2016, increased wild bee pollination services to pollinator-dependent crops and non-crop areas in a geographically heterogeneous manner. Objectives: We investigated which interventions drove the scheme-wide predicted pollination service increase to oilseed rape, field beans and non-cropped areas. We determined whether the relative contribution of each intervention was related to floral and/or nesting resource quality of the intervention, area of uptake, or placement in the landscape. Methods: We categorised interventions into functional groups and used linear regression to determine the relationship between predicted visitation rate increase and each category's area within a 10 km grid tile. We compared the magnitude of the regression coefficients to measures of resource quality, area of uptake nationally, and placement to infer the factors underpinning this relationship. Results: Hedgerow/woodland edge management had the largest positive effect on pollination service change, due to high resource quality. Fallow areas were also strong drivers, despite lower resource quality, implying effective placement. Floral margins had limited benefit due to later resource phenology. Interventions had stronger effects where there was less pre-existing semi-natural habitat. Conclusions: Future schemes could support greater and more resilient pollination service in arable landscapes by promoting hedgerow/woodland edge management and fallow interventions. Including early-flowering species and increasing uptake would improve the effect of floral margins. Spatial targeting of interventions should consider landscape context and pairing complimentary interventions to maximise whole-scheme effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agricultural intensification has a profound negative impact on farmland biodiversity worldwide. Birds closely associated with agricultural landscapes are a key indicator group for evaluating sustainability in land use. We identified key determinants of hatching success in northern lapwings (Vanellus vanellus) in agricultural landscapes of Estonia. In total, we monitored 133 nests to record the causes of nest failures on 85 field plots from three farming management types over two years. Hatching success as indicated by daily survival rate of nests was significantly lower in organic (94%) when compared to conventionally managed (98%) cultivated fields. We showed that this was mainly caused by increased nest predation by mammalian and avian predators in organic fields. Landscape elements, such as drainage ditches with tall vegetation decreased nest predation by mammalian predators. Depredation of nests by avian species was negatively related to the breeding density of lapwings, suggesting the effectiveness of their collective defense against raptors and corvids. We conclude that the hatching success for ground-breeding birds in arable fields is mainly affected by differences in nest predation. Agri-environment schemes, such as providing funding for organic farming, effectively increase the diversity and abundance of wild animals, while also increasing the number of nest predators as a side effect. The challenge is to control the abundance of mammalian and avian nest predators using different methods. Regional agricultural policy should support the retention of ditches with tall vegetation in agricultural landscapes that can effectively reduce nest predation by mammals. • Hatching success of lapwings was lower in organic than in conventionally managed fields. • Organic fields were associated with increased nest predation. • Drainage ditches with high vegetation were related to decreased nest predation by mammalian predators. • Nest predation by birds was negatively related to the breeding density of lapwings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agriculture intensification is one of the most impacting drivers of European biodiversity decline. The Natura 2000 (N2000) network constitutes a key tool for conservation of species and natural habitats in Europe. Its action to counteract negative impacts of agriculture is mainly based on implementation of Agri-environment schemes (AES) in the N2000 sites. As economical resources are usually limited, spatial targeting is essential for such conservation policy. Here we evaluated whether AES distribution was in spatial coordination with species and habitat conservation states, and agriculture-driven pressures in the French N2000 network. Using the Pressure-State-Response framework, we tested the hypothesis that AES were mainly implemented in sites mostly exposed to pressures, having higher representativeness of species and habitats and higher degradation levels. We combined different sources of information (i.e., standard data forms of the N2000 policy, data collected by the observatory of rural development and national geographical information) to produce pressure, state and response spatial indicators. We declined the analysis per category of pressures related to agricultural activities and considered species and habitat vulnerability to each pressure category. We found limited spatial coordination between AES, pressure and state variables: only 37 % of the fitted models were significant. Significant relationships between AES implementation and agricultural intensification pressure were mostly negative. Considering all indicators, our hypotheses were disproven for more than half of the significant relationships. The results revealed a spatial mismatch between AES distribution and the ecological needs within the N2000 network, as more resources were devoted to sites less exposed to pressure. Our results raise the need of a more strategic approach for the N2000 policy. Indeed, the state of biodiversity conservation and the level of human pressures should be automatically considered a-priori of any implementation of management measures to effectively focus the efforts on the causes of current biodiversity crisis. • We assess agri-environmental schemes (AES) targeting in French Natura 2000 network. • AES distributions compared to agricultural pressures and biodiversity variables. • AES financial expenses and cover poorly target pressures and biodiversity. • More AES are implemented in Natura 2000 sites showing less agricultural pressures. • Better efficiency of N2000 policy needs strategic approaches for AES implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Soil carbon sequestration (SCS) practices on French agricultural land are part of the portfolio of actions available to policymakers in the field of climate change mitigation and are central to the success of the “4 per 1,000” initiative, launched by France in 2015. To date, there has been limited research considering their applicability to vineyards. A survey was circulated to 506 French winegrowers to identify the adoption rate of six SCS practices in the viticultural sector (applying organic amendments, using biochar, returning pruning residues to the soil, no-tillage, cover cropping, and introducing or preserving hedges in the vineyard) and to explore motives and barriers to adoption. The survey also investigated ways of overcoming barriers to adoption and winegrowers' perception of agri-environment measures. Differences in motivations and barriers between SCS practices were found, and winegrowers themselves suggested a need for improved communication of evidence about SCS practices and better-targeted policy incentives to support adoption.

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]