Research on agroforestry systems and biodiversity conservation: what can we conclude so far and what should we improve?

Through a meta-analysis, Mupepele et al. (BMC Ecol Evol 21:1-193, 2021) assessed the effects of European agroforestry systems on biodiversity, estimated by species richness or species diversity. They showed that the effects of silvoarable and silvopastoral systems depend on the systems they are compared to and the taxa studied. Further, they found that only silvoarable systems increased species richness or diversity, compared to cropland. The authors conclude that agroforestry systems have weak effects on biodiversity and that landscape context or land-use history are probably more important than the practice of agroforestry in itself. However, we draw attention to important shortcomings in this meta-analysis, which downplay the potential of agroforestry for biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. We hope that the meta-analysis by Mupepele et al. (BMC Ecol Evol 21:1-193, 2021), and our comments, will contribute to improving the quality of research on agroforestry systems and biodiversity conservation.

Data from extensive comparative measurements of conventional, conservation and organic agricultures in southwestern France.

This article present observational and experimental data describing a range of biotic and abiotic parameters that can be related to ecosystem services under contrasted types of crop management: conventional, conservation and organic agricultures. Ninety fields, either cultivated with winter wheat or fava bean, located in Southwestern France, near Toulouse, were monitored for two growing seasons (2014-2016). The dataset encompass data about crop pests (aphids, grain borer, bean beetles, slugs), crop pest natural enemies (hoverflies, parasitoids, predators), soil sensitivity to erosion, crop productivity, pathogenic fungal infection and root colonization by mycorrhiza. This article present detailed protocols applied for each measurement and data collected to describe the context of each field: soil structure, landscape and crop management indicators. The data presented here can be found in Portail Data INRA repository (DOI: 10.15454/KEW1GK) and were exhaustively used and discussed in the research article Conservation agriculture as a promising trade-off between conventional and organic agriculture in bundling ecosystem services [1].

A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland.

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.

La intensificación agrícola y la consecuente pérdida de hábitats de alta calidad son desencadenantes clave del declive de los insectos polinizadores. Con el objetivo de disminuir el impacto ambiental de la agricultura, la Política Agrícola Común (PAC) de la UE de 2014 definió un conjunto de medidas para hábitats y paisajes (Áreas de Enfoque Ecológico: EFA por sus siglas en inglés) que los agricultores podían seleccionar como requisito para recibir pagos agrícolas básicos. Para informar la reforma de la PAC a partir a 2020, realizamos una evaluación a escala europea para determinar cómo las diferentes opciones de EFA varían en su potencial para asistir a los insectos polinizadores bajo un manejo estándar y amigable con los polinizadores, así como su aceptación por parte de los agricultores.El proceso estructurado de elicitación Delphi para evaluar las opciones de EFA involucró a 22 expertos de 18 países europeos. Se consideraron los requisitos de los diferentes taxones de polinizadores (es decir, abejorros, abejas solitarias y sírfidos) evaluando cada opción por su potencial para proporcionar forraje, sitios de nidificación y recursos para las larvas.Las opciones de EFA variaron sustancialmente en la cantidad de recursos que se percibía que proporcionan y su efectividad vario geográfica y temporalmente. Por ejemplo, los márgenes de cultivos proporcionan un forraje relativamente bueno durante toda la temporada en el sur y el este de Europa, pero carecen de forraje a principios de temporada en el norte y oeste de Europa. Bajo el manejo estándar, ninguna opción de EFA logró puntuaciones altas en todas las categorías de recursos y en general se percibió una escasez de forraje al final de la temporada.Los expertos identificaron oportunidades sustanciales para mejorar la calidad del hábitat mediante la adopción de un manejo amigable con los polinizadores. Sin embargo, mejorar la gestión por sí solo es poco probable que garantice que se cumplan todos los requisitos necesarios para los polinizadores. Nuestro análisis sugiere que una combinación de manejo inadecuado, diferencias de calidad inherentes a los distintos hábitat y el sesgo de aceptación hacia cultivos de cobertura y cultivos que fijan nitrógeno limitan severamente el potencial de los EFA para apoyar a los polinizadores en los paisajes agrícolas europeos. Implicaciones políticas. Para conservar a los polinizadores y ayudar a proteger los servicios de polinización, nuestro estudio destaca la necesidad de crear una variedad de hábitats interconectados y bien administrados que se complementen entre sí en los recursos que ofrecen. Para lograr esto, la PAC post­2020 debe integrar los diferentes vehículos de implementación destinados a proteger la biodiversidad (por ejemplo, condicionalidad mejorada, esquemas ecológicos y medidas agroambientales y climáticas). Para mejorar la calidad del hábitat, recomendamos un marco de monitoreo efectivo con indicadores orientados a objetivos y incentivar la colaboración entre los administradores de las tierras.

L'intensification agricole et la perte associée d'habitats semi­naturels sont les principaux moteurs du déclin des insectes pollinisateurs. Dans l'intention de réduire l'impact environnemental de l'agriculture, la politique agricole commune (PAC) de l'UE de 2014 a défini un ensemble d'habitats et d'éléments paysagers (surfaces d'intérêt écologique: SIE) dans la mise en place ou le respect desquels les agriculteurs pouvaient s'engager comme condition pour bénéficier d'aides économiques européennes (droit au paiement de base). Pour éclairer la PAC post­2020, nous avons évalué à l'échelle européenne et à dire d'expert, d'une part les potentialités des diverses SIE à favoriser les insectes pollinisateurs, via une gestion standard et via une gestion optimisée, et d'autre part l'étendue de l'adoption de ces mesures par les agriculteurs.Un processus structuré d'élaboration et d'agrégation des opinions (méthode Delphi) a fait appel à 22 experts de 18 pays européens pour évaluer les potentialités des diverses SIE. Considérant les traits bioécologiques des principaux taxons pollinisateurs (i.e. bourdons, abeilles solitaires et syrphes), chaque SIE a été évaluée pour son potentiel à fournir des ressources trophiques et des sites de reproduction (sites de nidification pour les bourdons et abeilles, sites de ponte et développement larvaire pour les syrphes).Les SIE différaient considérablement les unes des autres sur les ressources qu'elles étaient censées offrir et leur efficacité variait géographiquement et temporellement. Par exemple, les bords de champ peuvent fournir des ressources trophiques tout au long de l'année en Europe du Sud et de l'Est mais pas en début de saison en Europe du Nord et de l'Ouest. En cas de gestion standard, aucun type de SIE n'atteint de score élevé pour aucun type de ressource, et une période de disette alimentaire survient en fin de saison.Les experts ont mis en évidence de possibles et substantielles améliorations des SIE par le biais de leur gestion optimisée. Cependant, cette seule amélioration ne garantit pas la fourniture de ressources suffisantes aux pollinisateurs des paysages agricoles européens. Pour cela, des habitats spécifiques doivent être favorisés, dont la mise en place ne doit pas être entravée par un choix massif de SIE à base de cultures intermédiaires pièges à nitrates ou fixatrices d'azote. Implications politiques. Pour préserver les pollinisateurs et le service de pollinisation des plantes entomophiles, notre étude souligne la nécessité de créer une diversité d'habitats interconnectés, gérés de façon optimale, qui se complètent mutuellement dans les ressources qu'ils offrent. Pour atteindre cet objectif, la PAC post­2020 doit adopter une vision holistique de la mise en œuvre des différents leviers de protection de la biodiversité (e.g. éco­conditionnalité renforcée, programmes verts ou 'eco­schemes', mesures agro­environnementales et climatiques). Pour réellement améliorer la qualité des habitats, nous recommandons des suivis efficaces de la biodiversité à l'aide d'indicateurs pertinents. Enfin, pour optimiser la disposition spatiale des SIE et leur connectivité, la collaboration entre les différents gestionnaires des espaces agricoles doit être encouragée.

A intensificação agrícola e a perda associada de habitats de elevada qualidade são os principais factores que impulsionam o declínio dos insetos polinizadores. A fim de mitigar o impacto ambiental da agricultura, a Política Agrícola Comum (PAC) da UE, de 2014, definiu um conjunto de atributos ou estruturas do habitat e da paisagem, designadas de Áreas Foco Ecológico (AFEs) que devem ser mantidas pelos agricultores como requisito para obter as ajudas económicas previstas nas medidas agroambientais. No presente trabalho realizamos uma avaliação à escala europeia das diferentes opções destas estruturas, a fim de munir a PAC pós­2020, com informação sobre a importância das AFEs. Estas variam muito quanto ao seu potencial no apoio às populações de polinizadores, de acordo com a extensão da sua aceitação pelos agricultores e das práticas adoptadas por estes na sua gestão, que podem consistir em práticas padrão ou práticas mais amigáveis para os polinizadores.Um processo estruturado, com base na técnica de elicitação de Delphi foi desenvolvido, envolvendo 22 especialistas de 18 países europeus, com o objectivo de avaliar as opções de AFEs previstas na PAC. Esta avaliação levou em consideração os requisitos do ciclo de vida dos taxa dos principais polinizadores, ou seja, as abelhas, as abelhas solitárias e os sirfídeos ou moscas­das­flores. Cada AFE foi avaliada quanto ao seu potencial para fornecer alimento, locais de nidificação, e recursos para as larvas dos sirfídeos.A percepção quanto à eficácia das AFEs como fonte de recursos (alimento) para os polinizadores variou substancialmente, do ponto de vista quer geográfico, quer temporal (época do ano). Por exemplo, a AFE, faixas verdes nas margens do campo são consideradas uma boa fonte de alimento, no sul e leste da Europa, durante todo ano, mas ineficazes, no norte e oeste da Europa, no início do ano. Nenhuma EFA alcançou pontuações elevadas na categoria de recursos (fonte de alimento), quando submetida ao maneio padrão, sendo consideradas ineficientes, na segunda metade do ano.Os especialistas envolvidos identificaram oportunidades de melhoria substancial na qualidade do habitat, através da adopção de práticas de maneio das EFAs mais "amigáveis" para com os polinizadores. No entanto, a melhoria das práticas de maneio das EFAs por si só, dificilmente garantirá todos os requisitos necessários para a manutenção das populações de polinizadores. A nossa avaliação sugere que a combinação de práticas de má gestão (maneio), diferenças inerentes à qualidade do habitat dos polinizadores e o aumento do bias que resulta da utilização de espécies de crescimento rápido ou fixadoras de azoto limitam severamente o papel e potencial destas estruturas na manutenção das populações de polinizadores nas paisagens agrícolas europeias. Implicações políticas. A conservação dos polinizadores ajuda a proteger os serviços de polinização providenciados por estes. O nosso estudo destaca a necessidade de criar uma variedade de habitats interconectados e geridos de forma que se complementem na oferta de recursos (alimento, locais de nidificação e recursos para as larvas) aos polinizadores. Para atingir este objectivo, a PAC pós­2020 deve adoptar uma visão holística na implementação das EFAs, que integre os diferentes programas destinados a protecção da biodiversidade (por exemplo, maior condicionalidade, esquemas ecológicos, e medidas agroambientais e de adaptação climática). Para melhorar a qualidade do habitat, recomendamos uma estrutura de monitorização eficaz suportada por indicadores quantitativos e qualitativos orientados para metas, que permitam facilitar a tomada de decisões direcionadas especificamente para as EFAs, e que a colaboração entre os gestores da terra (agricultores) seja incentivada.

Characterization factors for land use impacts on biodiversity in life cycle assessment based on direct measures of plant species richness in European farmland in the 'Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forest' biome.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a widely used tool to assess environmental sustainability of products. The LCA should optimally cover the most important environmental impact categories such as climate change, eutrophication and biodiversity. However, impacts on biodiversity are seldom included in LCAs due to methodological limitations and lack of appropriate characterization factors. When assessing organic agricultural products the omission of biodiversity in LCA is problematic, because organic systems are characterized by higher species richness at field level compared to the conventional systems. Thus, there is a need for characterization factors to estimate land use impacts on biodiversity in life cycle assessment that are able to distinguish between organic and conventional agricultural land use that can be used to supplement and validate the few currently suggested characterization factors. Based on a unique dataset derived from field recording of plant species diversity in farmland across six European countries, the present study provides new midpoint occupation Characterization Factors (CF) expressing the Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF) to estimate land use impacts on biodiversity in the 'Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forest' biome in Europe. The method is based on calculation of plant species on randomly selected test sites in the biome and enables the calculation of characterization factors that are sensitive to particular types of management. While species richness differs between countries, the calculated CFs are able to distinguish between different land use types (pastures (monocotyledons or mixed), arable land and hedges) and management practices (organic or conventional production systems) across countries. The new occupation CFs can be used to supplement or validate the few current CF's and can be applied in LCAs of agricultural products to assess land use impacts on species richness in the 'Temperate Broadleaf and Mixed Forest' biome.

Farmland biodiversity and agricultural management on 237 farms in 13 European and two African regions.

Farmland is a major land cover type in Europe and Africa and provides habitat for numerous species. The severe decline in farmland biodiversity of the last decades has been attributed to changes in farming practices, and organic and low-input farming are assumed to mitigate detrimental effects of agricultural intensification on biodiversity. Since the farm enterprise is the primary unit of agricultural decision making, management-related effects at the field scale need to be assessed at the farm level. Therefore, in this study, data were collected on habitat characteristics, vascular plant, earthworm, spider, and bee communities and on the corresponding agricultural management in 237 farms in 13 European and two African regions. In 15 environmental and agricultural homogeneous regions, 6-20 farms with the same farm type (e.g., arable crops, grassland, or specific permanent crops) were selected. If available, an equal number of organic and non-organic farms were randomly selected. Alternatively, farms were sampled along a gradient of management intensity. For all selected farms, the entire farmed area was mapped, which resulted in total in the mapping of 11 338 units attributed to 194 standardized habitat types, provided together with additional descriptors. On each farm, one site per available habitat type was randomly selected for species diversity investigations. Species were sampled on 2115 sites and identified to the species level by expert taxonomists. Species lists and abundance estimates are provided for each site and sampling date (one date for plants and earthworms, three dates for spiders and bees). In addition, farmers provided information about their management practices in face-to-face interviews following a standardized questionnaire. Farm management indicators for each farm are available (e.g., nitrogen input, pesticide applications, or energy input). Analyses revealed a positive effect of unproductive areas and a negative effect of intensive management on biodiversity. Communities of the four taxonomic groups strongly differed in their response to habitat characteristics, agricultural management, and regional circumstances. The data has potential for further insights into interactions of farmland biodiversity and agricultural management at site, farm, and regional scale.

Practical improvements in soil redox potential (Eh) measurement for characterisation of soil properties. Application for comparison of conventional and conservation agriculture cropping systems.

The soil redox potential (Eh) can provide essential information to characterise soil conditions. In practice, however, numerous problems may arise regarding: (i) Eh determination in soils, especially aerobic soils, e.g. variations in the instrumentation and methodology for Eh measurement, high spatial and temporal Eh variability in soils, irreversibility of the redox reaction at the surface electrode, chemical disequilibrium; and (ii) measurement interpretation. This study aimed at developing a standardised method for redox potential measurement in soils, in order to use Eh as a soil quality indicator. This paper presents practical improvements in soil Eh measurement, especially regarding the control of electromagnetic perturbations, electrode choice and preparation, soil sample preparation (drying procedure) and soil:water extraction rate. The repeatability and reproducibility of the measurement method developed are highlighted. The use of Eh corrected at pH7, pe+pH or rH2, which are equivalent notions, is proposed to facilitate interpretation of the results. The application of this Eh measurement method allows characterisation of soil conditions with sufficient repeatability, reproducibility and accuracy to demonstrate that conservation agriculture systems positively alter the protonic and electronic balance of soil as compared to conventional systems.

Gains to species diversity in organically farmed fields are not propagated at the farm level.

Organic farming is promoted to reduce environmental impacts of agriculture, but surprisingly little is known about its effects at the farm level, the primary unit of decision making. Here we report the effects of organic farming on species diversity at the field, farm and regional levels by sampling plants, earthworms, spiders and bees in 1470 fields of 205 randomly selected organic and nonorganic farms in twelve European and African regions. Species richness is, on average, 10.5% higher in organic than nonorganic production fields, with highest gains in intensive arable fields (around +45%). Gains to species richness are partly caused by higher organism abundance and are common in plants and bees but intermittent in earthworms and spiders. Average gains are marginal +4.6% at the farm and +3.1% at the regional level, even in intensive arable regions. Additional, targeted measures are therefore needed to fulfil the commitment of organic farming to benefit farmland biodiversity.

Lack of genetic differentiation between contrasted overwintering strategies of a major pest predator Episyrphus balteatus (Diptera: Syrphidae): implications for biocontrol.

Winter ecology of natural enemies has a great influence on the level and efficiency of biological control at spring. The hoverfly Episyrphus balteatus (DeGeer) (Diptera: Syrphidae) is one of the most important natural predators of crop aphids in Europe. Three different overwintering strategies coexist in this species which makes it a good model in order to study ecologically-based speciation processes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether E. balteatus populations with alternative overwintering strategies are genetically differentiated. To that aim, we developed 12 specific microsatellite markers and evaluated the level of neutral genetic differentiation between E. balteatus field populations that overwinter in the three different ways described in this species (i.e. migration, local overwintering at a pre-imaginal stage, and local overwintering at adult stage). Results showed a lack of neutral genetic differentiation between individuals with different overwintering strategies although there are strong ecological differences between them. All pair-wise FST values are below 0.025 and non-significant, and Bayesian clustering showed K=1 was the most likely number of genetic clusters throughout our sample. The three overwintering strategies form one unique panmictic population. This suggests that all the individuals may have genetic material for the expression of different overwintering phenotypes, and that their commitment in one particular overwintering strategy may depend on environmental and individual factors. Consequently, the prevalence of the different overwintering strategies would be potentially modified by landscape engineering and habitat management which could have major implications for biological control.