Suchergebnisse

Ecological intensification is an innovative, knowledge-based approach to agriculture. It combines emerging understanding of how agro-ecosystems function with agronomic knowledge, to manage agricultural ecosystems in a way that secures high yields with reduced environmental impacts. Policy makers have an interest in ecological intensification, as it can help them respond to multiple international targets and strategies implemented this decade to improve sustainability. It can deliver elements of the second Sustainable Development Goal, 'Zero Hunger', which includes a target to 'ensure sustainable food production systems … that increase productivity and production, help maintain ecosystems …… and progressively improve land and soil quality'. In contrast to more technological, production-focused views of sustainable agriculture sometimes called 'sustainable intensification' [1], it represents a set of 'nature-based solutions' for agriculture. Nature-based solutions are prominent in the European Union's Research and Innovation policy agenda. Ecological intensification is also recommended as a policy option to mitigate declines in wild pollinators globally [2]. Several available routes to promote or enable ecological intensification in agriculture are much discussed. They include voluntary financial incentives for farmers (e.g. agri-environment schemes in Europe or conservation measures financed by the Farm Bill in the US); obligations for farmers, such as compulsory greening measures in the European Common Agricultural Policy; and market-based instruments such as certification schemes or 'Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)'. However, none of these options gets to the essence of ecological intensification. The underlying idea is that farmers themselves manage ecosystem services actively and knowingly, to support their own productive systems. Ecological intensification should not have a cost, which requires compensation or additional income from market prices. It should pay for itself, in reduced inputs and enhanced productivity, and indeed it has been shown to do so, albeit in only a small number of studies so far [3]. What is actually needed to enable ecological intensification are policies to support farmer education and training, provision of ecological advice and trans-disciplinary agricultural research to investigate what measures are feasible and provide reliable returns on farm. References [1] Dicks L.V., et al. (in review). What agricultural practices are most likely to deliver 'sustainable intensification' in the UK? Food and Energy Security. [2] Dicks, L. V., et al. (2016). Ten policies for pollinators. Science, 354(6315), 975-976. [3] Pywell, R. F., et al. (2015). Wildlife-friendly farming increases crop yield: evidence for ecological intensification. Proc. Roy. Soc. B, 282(1816). ; peerReviewed

Sustainable intensification is a process by which agricultural productivity is enhanced whilst also creating environmental and social benefits. We aimed to identify practices likely to deliver sustainable intensification, currently available for UK farms but not yet widely adopted. We compiled a list of 18 farm management practices with the greatest potential to deliver sustainable intensification in the UK, following a well‐developed stepwise methodology for identifying priority solutions, using a group decision‐making technique with key agricultural experts. The list of priority management practices can provide the focal point of efforts to achieve sustainable intensification of agriculture, as the UK develops post‐Brexit agricultural policy, and pursues the second Sustainable Development Goal, which aims to end hunger and promote sustainable agriculture. The practices largely reflect a technological, production‐focused view of sustainable intensification, including for example, precision farming and animal health diagnostics, with less emphasis on the social and environmental aspects of sustainability. However, they do reflect an integrated approach to farming, covering many different aspects, from business organization and planning, to soil and crop management, to landscape and nature conservation. For a subset of ten of the priority practices, we gathered data on the level of existing uptake in English and Welsh farms through a stratified survey in seven focal regions. We find substantial existing uptake of most of the priority practices, indicating that UK farming is an innovative sector. The data identify two specific practices for which uptake is relatively low, but which some UK farmers find appealing and would consider adopting. These practices are: prediction of pest and disease outbreaks, especially for livestock farms; staff training on environmental issues, especially on arable farms. ; This work was funded by the Department for Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Welsh Government, as part of the Sustainable Intensification Research Platform . LVD is funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (grant codes NE/K015419/1 and NE/N014472/1). WJS is funded by Arcadia.

Cover crops are considered to be beneficial for multiple ecosystem services, and they have been widely promoted through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the EU and Farm Bill Conservation Title Programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), in the USA. However, it can be difficult to decide whether the beneficial effects of cover crops on some ecosystem services are likely to outweigh their harmful effects on other services, and thus to decide whether they should be promoted by agricultural policy in specific situations. We used meta-analysis to quantify the effects of cover crops on five ecosystem services (food production, climate regulation, soil and water regulation, and weed control) in arable farmland in California and the Mediterranean, based on 326 experiments reported in 57 publications. In plots with cover crops, there as 13% less water, 9% more organic matter and 41% more microbial biomass in the soil, 27% fewer weeds, and 15% higher carbon dioxide emissions (but also more carbon stored in soil organic matter), compared to control plots with bare soils or winter fallows. Cash crop yields were 16% higher in plots that had legumes as cover crops (compared to controls) but 7% lower in plots that had non-legumes as cover crops. Soil nitrogen content was 41% lower, and nitrate leaching was 53% lower, in plots that had non-legume cover crops (compared to controls) but not significantly different in plots that had legumes. We did not find enough data to quantify the effects of cover crops on biodiversity conservation, pollination, or pest regulation. These gaps in the evidence need to be closed if cover crops continue to be widely promoted. We suggest that this novel combination of multiple meta-analyses for multiple ecosystem services could be used to support multi-criteria decision making about agri-environmental policy.

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted. ; This is the final published version. It first appeared from Wiley ...

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted. ; peerReviewed

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.

Mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society is recognised by international policy as critical to achieving positive conservation outcomes. With 'participatory governance' increasingly being applied to achieve collective action in conservation, there are growing calls to critically review such processes to capture their complexity and manage for emergent outcomes. This paper critically reviews a case study, aiming to give a broad range of stakeholders a voice in setting biodiversity priorities for New Zealand's agricultural landscape, in relation to four principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability: context-based, pluralistic, goal-orientated and interactive. Aiming to facilitate an inclusive but rapid participation process, while not overburdening those willing to participate, three pathways for engagement were offered. Stakeholder participants were recruited from public, private and civic sectors involved in managing New Zealand's farmland biodiversity. An initial scoping exercise helped elevate biodiversity groups and management actions distinct to New Zealand's social and environmental context. Online surveys then gave stakeholders, from a diverse range of roles and sectors, a nationwide voice to express their own biodiversity interests and needs; these were reviewed by an advisor panel to reach consensus on final priorities that reflected the biodiversity outcomes that matter most to stakeholders involved in managing New Zealand's agricultural landscape and the management practices they considered most relevant to achieving those outcomes. This knowledge co-production process delivered multiple gains that would not have been achieved had a more traditional science-based process been applied, such as wide stakeholder engagement, identification of a tangible starting point, mitigation of bias or conflict risks, enhanced researcher and practitioner capabilities and a shared understanding of the opportunities and challenges for future development. Institutes addressing conservation challenges within local contexts need to: be 'boundary-spanning' to manage cross-scale influences and enable desired conservation behaviours; plan explicitly for the substantial effort required to overcome existing power hierarchies and facilitate transparent and structured decision processes that deliver social justice; better capture the relational values of nature to more successfully leverage peoples' connection to nature in conservation policies and practices; and incorporate wider environmental (e.g. biosecurity), social, economic and political considerations. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

In 2013, an opportunity arose in England to develop an agri-environment package for wild pollinators, as part of the new Countryside Stewardship scheme launched in 2015. It can be understood as a 'policy window', a rare and time-limited opportunity to change policy, supported by a narrative about pollinator decline and widely supported mitigating actions. An agri-environment package is a bundle of management options that together supply sufficient resources to support a target group of species. This paper documents information that was available at the time to develop such a package for wild pollinators. Four questions needed answering: (1) Which pollinator species should be targeted? (2) Which resources limit these species in farmland? (3) Which management options provide these resources? (4) What area of each option is needed to support populations of the target species? Focussing on wild bees, we provide tentative answers that were used to inform development of the package. There is strong evidence that floral resources can limit wild bee populations, and several sources of evidence identify a set of agri-environment options that provide flowers and other resources for pollinators. The final question could only be answered for floral resources, with a wide range of uncertainty. We show that the areas of some floral resource options in the basic Wild Pollinator and Farmland Wildlife Package (2% flower-rich habitat and 1 km flowering hedgerow), are sufficient to supply a set of six common pollinator species with enough pollen to feed their larvae at lowest estimates, using minimum values for estimated parameters where a range was available. We identify key sources of uncertainty, and stress the importance of keeping the Package flexible, so it can be revised as new evidence emerges about how to achieve the policy aim of supporting pollinators on farmland. ; LVD was funded by NERC (NE/K015419/1), CC by Defra and Natural England (flower density data); MB and CC by BBSRC Defra, NERC, the Scottish Government and the Wellcome Trust under the Insect Pollinators Initiative (BB/I000925/1 and Agriland - BB/H014934/1). ; This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Wiley via http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/een.12226

Ecological intensification aims to increase crop productivity by enhancing biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, while minimizing the use of synthetic inputs and cropland expansion. Policies to promote ecological intensification have emerged in different countries, but they are still scarce and vary widely across regions. Here we propose ten policy targets that governments can follow for ecological intensification.

Nature-based solutions (NbS) have the potential to build climate resilience and tackle key societal challenges while also providing multiple co-benefits to biodiversity and human well-being. The demand for nature-based innovation is strongly felt in Malta – a small island state, with the highest population density in the European Union. Against this background, the Horizon 2020 project ReNature (Promoting research excellence in nature-based solutions for innovation, economic growth and human well-being in Malta) has the goal to enhance research excellence of the Malta College of Arts, Science and Technology (MCAST), as well as the national research, policy, business and stakeholder community. The six strategically designed training activities fostering capacity-building and research excellence, delivered during the first half of the project, resulted in useful learning outputs. These are twelve presentations, available as attachments to this article, which cover a large scope of topics related to the implementation of NbS. At a later stage, ReNature will publish another round of learning outputs, resulting from the rest of the training activities planned within the scope of the project.

Nature-based solutions (NBS) is a term often used to refer to adequate green infrastructure that provides multiple benefits to society whilst addressing societal challenges. They are defined as actions to protect, sustainably manage and restore natural or modified ecosystems that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, simultaneously providing human well-being and biodiversity benefits. Malta, the smallest member state of the EU, has been characterised by rapid economic growth and urbanisation and Maltese citizens had the highest rate of exposure to pollution, grime or other environmental problems, in the EU. The project ReNature aims to establish and implement a nature-based solutions research strategy for Malta with a vision to promote research and innovation and develop sustainable solutions whilst improving human well-being and tackling environmental challenges. Here, we introduce the opening of ReNature collection of research articles in the Open Access Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO) journal to publish unconventional research outputs and training materials. It will host key outputs relating to the sustainable use of biodiversity, biodiversity – ecosystem functioning, green infrastructure and ecosystem service assessments across rural-urban gradients, equitable access to the benefits derived from nature in cities and socio-environmental justice, payments for ecosystem services, and designing nature-based solutions.

Conservation practitioners, policy-makers and researchers work within shared spaces with many shared goals. Improving the flow of information between conservation researchers, practitioners and policy-makers could lead to dramatic gains in the effectiveness of conservation practice. However, several barriers can hinder this transfer including lack of time, inaccessibility of evidence, the real or perceived irrelevance of scientific research to practical questions, and the politically motivated spread of disinformation. Conservation Evidence works to overcome these barriers by providing a freely-available database of summarized scientific evidence for the effects of conservation interventions on biodiversity. The methods used to build this database – a combination of discipline-wide literature searching and subject-wide evidence synthesis – have been developed over the last 15 years to address the challenges of synthesizing large volumes of evidence of varying quality and measured outcomes. Here, we describe the methods to enhance understanding of the database and how it should be used. We discuss how the database can help to expand multi-directional information transfers between research, practice and policy, which should improve the implementation of evidence-based conservation and, ultimately, achieve better outcomes for biodiversity.