Of0149 536 Fra

Archived at http://orgprints.
org/8088
FINAL REPORT
REVIEW OF THE COMPARATIVE

EFFECTS OF ORGANIC FARMING
ON BIODIVERSITY
MAFF Contract OF0149
Prepared by
Sarah M. Gardner & R.W. Brown

ADAS Wolverhampton and
R & D Associates, Kirbymoorside
July 1998
Archived at http://orgprints.org/8088
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The report reviews the impact of different farming regimes and makes a comparative
study of their influence on the biodiversity of arable farmland.
2. Within this review, the evaluation of impacts on biodiversity focuses on species and
habitats, and includes both the number, abundance and activity of species (section
1.3).
3. Five farming regimes are defined and discussed, namely Conventional Arable,
Conventional Mixed Lowland, Organic and two integrated production regimes -
LEAF (Linking Environment and Farming) and IFS-Experimental regimes The main
differences between the regimes in relation to the use of external inputs and other
agricultural practices are discussed. The review draws on both UK and European
information (section 1.4).
4. The effect of each farming regime on biodiversity is assessed according to the

agricultural practices adopted and to the occurrence and management of uncropped
land present. Agricultural practices are reviewed within the following categories:
cultivation, crop production, crop protection and post-cropping practice (section 2.1).
5. Among the agricultural practices examined, those associated with crop protection and
the artificial inputs associated with crop production were seen as the most adverse for
biodiversity. Several practices were seen to benefit the biodiversity of arable land.
These included set-aside, crop rotations with grass leys, spring sowing, permanent
pasture, green manuring and intercropping (section 2.7).
6. Uncropped areas, such as sown grass strips (beetle banks), grass margins and
conservation headlands, were seen as critical for the maintenance of biodiversity on
arable farmland. Changes in the balance of cropped to uncropped land within some
farming regimes, linked to increase in field size, have had a major impact on the
diversity of flora and fauna associated with those regimes (section 3.4).
7. Based on the evaluation of agricultural practices used, the occurrence of uncropped

land and the extent of the farming regime within England and Wales, it was
concluded that Conventional Arable regimes act effectively to maintain the
impoverished status of biodiversity on arable land. Extreme examples can be found
of intensively managed farms that further deplete biodiversity and sympathetically
managed farms that try to enhance it. Increased adoption of agricultural practices
such as direct drilling, use of farmyard manure, set-aside, use of crop rotations with
leys, or an increase in the incidence and sympathetic management of uncropped areas
may well assist biodiversity on farms within this regime (sections 4.3 & 4.4)
8. Organic regimes were shown to have an overall benefit for biodiversity at the farm
level, both in terms of the agricultural practices adopted and in the occurrence and
management of uncropped areas (sections 4.3 & 4.4).
9. Conventional Mixed Lowland and LEAF regimes were both seen to have the
potential for enhancing biodiversity on arable land. Here, adverse impacts associated
with crop protection and crop production may be mitigated by beneficial effects
associated with post-cropping practices, the occurrence of permanent pasture and
uncropped land. At present, the extent to which enhancement may be achieved, may
well depend on the extent, condition and management of uncropped land present
within these regimes (sections 4.3 & 4.4).
10. IFS-experimental regimes were seen to have a beneficial effect on biodiversity, due
to the stringent procedures used for targeting herbicides and pesticides and for
establishing and managing uncropped areas. At present these regimes occupy a tiny
area of the national resource of arable land and thus their impact on national
biodiversity is likely to be insignificant at the present time (sections 4.3 & 4.4).
11. A number of areas are highlighted for further consideration. These include:
• monitoring of biodiversity on farms pre- and post- conversion to organic farming,
• comparative studies that focus on the effectiveness of different regimes or
agricultural practices in enhancing biodiversity on species-impoverished
intensively managed arable land,
• manipulative experiments to determine the optimal balance of cropped to
uncropped areas for enhancing biodiversity,
• manipulative experiments to examine the separate impacts of rotational regimes
and agricultural inputs on biodiversity,
• an economic assessment of the costs and benefits in both production and
biodiversity terms, of conversion to organic, integrated production or uptake of
available agri-environment schemes.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS............................................................................1

1.1 Background ...............................................................................................................1
1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................1
1.3 Definitions and scope................................................................................................2
1.4 Principles of different farming regimes ....................................................................3
1.5 Approach and report structure ..................................................................................6
2. IMPACT OF DIFFERENT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ON BIODIVERSITY........8
2.1 Agricultural practice in different farming regimes ...................................................8
2.2 Cultivation.................................................................................................................9
2.3 Crop production ......................................................................................................12
2.4 Crop protection .......................................................................................................15
2.5 Post-cropping practices...........................................................................................21
2.6 Grassland management and grazing regimes..........................................................23
2.7 Conclusions on impacts of agricultural practices within different regimes............24
3. MANAGEMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CROPPED AND UNCROPPED AREAS
FOR BIODIVERSITY IN DIFFERENT FARMING REGIMES ..........................................25
3.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................25
3.2 Cropped areas..........................................................................................................25
3.3 Uncropped areas......................................................................................................29
3.4. Impact of the farming landscape on biodiversity....................................................32
3.5 Significance of cropped and uncropped areas for biodiversity...............................34
4. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS OF REGIMES ON BIODIVERSITY.............................36
4.1 Introduction and approach ......................................................................................36
4.2 The status of biodiversity on arable farmland ........................................................36
4.3 Effect of each regime on biodiversity at the whole-farm scale ..............................37
4.4 Impacts on national biodiversity.............................................................................42
4.5 Enhancing biodiversity on farmland.......................................................................44
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................47
5.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................47
5.2 Cropped areas..........................................................................................................47
5.3 Uncropped areas......................................................................................................48
5.4 Impact of different farming regimes .......................................................................48
5.5 Information needs and recommendations ...............................................................49
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................52
Appendix 1: Case study comparisons of Conventional, Organic and IFS regimes at

Stoughton, Leicestershire and Ongar, Essex
Appendix 2: Summary information on agri-environment schemes: biodiversity objectives
Appendix 3: Report and responses to the Workshop held at ADAS Wolverhampton on 12

March 1998
1. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS
1.1 Background
The impact of post-war intensive agriculture on biodiversity and the environment has been a
subject of intense debate over the last 30-35 years. Concern over this impact, was one of the
driving forces behind the development and implementation of the organic farming movement
(H. Browning, 1998: pers. comm.), and the establishment of standards for organic farming
(e.g. UKROFS, 1997). These standards focus on protecting the long-term fertility of soils,
encouraging nitrogen self-sufficiency, controlling pest and diseases through cultivational
rather then chemical practices, minimising the impact of the farming regime on the
environment and the conservation of habitats for wildlife (Lampkin & Measures, 1995).
Since the late 1970s, there has been increasing interest in the design of farming regimes that
reduce the quantity of agrochemical inputs and enhance the management practices for
maintaining uncropped and/or boundary habitats present on farmland. Specific examples
include research and demonstration initiatives in Integrated Farming Systems (IFS), and the
establishment of agri-environment schemes such as Countryside Stewardship, Habitat
Scheme, Nitrate Sensitive Areas (NSAs), Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and most
recently, the Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme (ASPS). It is an objective of each of these
schemes and initiatives to enhance and maintain the farmland environment for wildlife, but
the importance of the biodiversity element in relation to other objectives varies between
schemes.
Numerous studies have focused on the significance of specific elements (e.g. conservation
headlands) within different farming regimes in promoting biodiversity and/or creating
suitable habitat for wildlife. Direct comparisons between farming regimes are, however,
difficult due to the confounding effects of landscape structure, management history and
biogeographical position in the UK. It is evident though, that the benefits for wildlife
diversity differ between regimes, and that they vary in scale, extent and impact on different
species groups. The aims of this review are firstly, to identify those factors which bring about
change in biodiversity in agricultural areas and secondly, to consider the effectiveness of
different farming regimes, (broadly conventional, integrated and organic) in maintaining or
enhancing biodiversity.
1.2 Objectives
The review focuses on a comparative assessment of the effects of five main farming regimes
on biodiversity. These are i) conventional arable, ii) conventional mixed lowland farming,
iii) organic, iv)LEAF (Linking Environment and Agriculture Farms) and v) IFS-
experimental farms. Each of these is defined in section 1.4 below. An additional aim is to
identify the species and/or species groups that are likely to show change when management
systems change, and areas where further information is required. The specific objectives are
listed below.
1. To review existing UK and European published information on the effects of organic

agriculture on micro and macro flora and fauna.
1
2. To review the effects of organic agriculture on field margins, including grass strips,
hedges, ditches, streams and wetlands.
3. To consult with the UK organic movement on the principles of organic farming and
perceived benefits for biodiversity.
4. To identify the potential benefits of other agri-environment schemes and agricultural

management practices for biodiversity.
5. To evaluate the different agricultural management systems in terms of their potential

benefit to biodiversity and to identify the groups of organisms that are particularly
sensitive to management systems change.
6. To identify areas where monitoring information on these ‘sensitive’ groups is

lacking, and to provide recommendations on appropriate studies to address these
information gaps.
1.3 Definitions and scope
Within this study, biodiversity is taken to include both the number of species present
(species richness), species abundance and/or activity. Biodiversity can include variation at the
genetic, species and habitat levels. This study concentrates on the last two levels.
Conservation and restoration of biodiversity can be considered in their own right and in relation
to their significance for ecosystem function. Both issues are considered in this review. The
factors impacting on biodiversity, such as habitat fragmentation and landscape structure, and
their possible causes are also included in the review. Potential positive impacts of management
actions are also considered.
A number of terms used in this report may be interpreted in different ways according to
circumstance or points of view. To avoid confusion, the definitions of terms as they have
been used in this report are included here.
• Uncropped areas: are defined as all the areas and features on a farm that are not subject
to the agricultural practices identified in Table 2.1. Such areas include field margins,
conservation headlands, beetle banks, hedges, woodland, ditches, unimproved pasture and
semi-natural rough grazing. It is recognised that management operations are required to
maintain and enhance the ‘condition’ of these areas as a resource or environment for
wildlife.
• Cropped areas: are defined as all the areas managed for arable or livestock production.
As indicated above, unimproved pasture and semi-natural rough grazing are defined as
uncropped areas (see above) in this review. Two categories are defined: arable areas
which include land cropped for cereals, oilseeds, root crops e.g. potatoes, sugar beet, and
field vegetables, and grass and pasture which include sown grass leys, naturally
regenerating grass, improved permanent pasture and rotational fallow.
2
1.4 Principles of different farming regimes
Conventional farming regimes are normally distinguished from organic regimes by the use of
synthetic chemicals in crop and livestock production (ADAS, 1995), whilst integrated
production regimes are identified by approach to cultivation and targeted inputs (Brown, 1997a).
1.4.1 Organic farming
Organic farming is defined in EU Regulation 2092/91, and each member state has a national
regulation that conforms with this EU regulation. In the UK, the regulatory body is the United
Kingdom Register of Organic Food Standards, which certificates and audits seven certified
bodies with whom farmers must register (one only) in order to legally sell produce as organic.
Key characteristics of organic farming (Lampkin & Measures, 1995), include:
• protection of the long-term fertility of soils through the maintenance of organic matter
content, encouraging soil biological activity and careful mechanical intervention,
• indirect provision of crop nutrients using relatively insoluble nutrient sources,
• weed, disease and pest control based on crop rotations, natural enemies, organic
manuring, resistant varieties and limited (preferably minimal) thermal, biological and
chemical intervention,
• careful management of livestock to take account of behavioural needs, evolutionary

adaptation and animal welfare,
• conservation of wildlife and natural habitats and minimisation of the impact of the
farming regime on the wider environment.
There is considerable variation between different European countries in their description of

organic farming. For example, in Denmark, the Danish Association of Organic Farmers (LO)
was established in 1981 to provide animals with good living conditions, to develop sustainability
and to further the nature and wildlife value of farms (Halberg, 1997). German guidelines quote
preservation of diversity as an aim of organic farming in relation to both plants and animals
(Frieben & Kopke, 1996). In Central Italy, Dalla Ragione et al. (1996) identified organic
farming practices as including no chemical control of pathogens or weeds, little or no use of
chemical fertilisers and frequent use of intercropping. Within the UK, there is variation between
different sector bodies, for example UKROFS (1997) standards contain few requirements in
relation to margin management whereas Soil Association guidelines are specific in this respect
(Soil Association, 1997). Such variation has been highlighted by Halberg (1997), who suggested
that there is a need for multi-dimensional descriptions of European organic (livestock) farming
systems.
1.4.2 Integrated production regimes
These are difficult to place in a single system classification. Within Europe, integrated
production regimes have been defined by the International Organisation for Biological Control
(IOBC, 1993) as “farming systems that produce high quality food and other products by using
3
natural resources and regulating mechanisms to replace polluting inputs and to secure
sustainable farming”. Broad principles for integrated production are also set out in IOBC
(1993). These have been developed as a theoretical prototype for use in the design of integrated
production projects, nine of which have been established across Europe (Vereijken, 1995). The
methods on which the theoretical prototype is based are outlined below (Vereijken, 1992, 1995).
• Multifunctional crop rotation (MCR) to maintain soil fertility and crop vitality whilst
minimising inputs that are polluting and based on fossil energy.
• Integrated nutrient management (INM) or ecological nutrient management (ENM using all
nutrients from recycling of organic waste) to maintain agronomically desirable and
ecologically acceptable nutrient reserves in the soil.
• Minimum soil cultivation (MSC) through the incorporation of crop residues, weed control
and restoration of physical soil fertility.
• Ecological infrastructure management (EIM) to maintain 'natural' areas that provide food
and over-wintering sites for beneficial organisms to enable their recovery and dispersal in
spring, and that confer nature/landscape benefits.
• Integrated crop protection (ICP) and environment exposure-based pesticide selection (EEPS)
designed to selectively control harmful species with minimal exposure of the environment to
pesticides.
• Farm structure optimisation (FSO) designed to determine the minimum amounts of land,
labour and capital goods needed to achieve a net profit and energy efficiency.
In England, there are four main, field-scale research projects focusing on integrated production,
as defined above. These are grouped together as the Integrated Arable Crop Alliance (IACPA) -
an alliance of commercial and farming interests investigating the large scale application of
integrated farming techniques, and in this review, these farms are referred to as IFS-
experimental farms (results from the monitoring of two of these are reported in Appendix 1).
These regimes adopt all of the points highlighted above.
A second integrated production regime considered in the review is the LEAF (Linking
Environment and Farming) regime. This regime includes a series of demonstration farms
selected throughout the UK to illustrate working examples of environmentally responsible
farming (LEAF, 1991). The LEAF regime does not set specific prescriptions but combines
principles and procedures which take account of the specific circumstances of the farm and its
surroundings. The LEAF Environmental Audit is central to the implementation of the LEAF
approach (Drummond, 1995). This demonstration project focuses on a whole farm policy,
based on systems combining crop rotations with targeted use of crop protection chemicals and
fertilisers, cultivation choice, variety selection and improved energy efficiency, together with a
positive management plan for landscape and wildlife features (LEAF, 1991).
There is now a Research Network for European Union and Associated Countries on Integrated
and Ecological Arable Farm Systems (Vereijken, 1995). Integrated production is very much
knowledge-based and science-led. Learning processes, indicators and appropriate techniques
require time, effort and structured training (Brown, 1997c). This more detailed research-led
4
approach is demonstrated on the IFS-experimental farms, and involves more complex husbandry
practices than those generally incorporated into widespread LEAF practices at the moment.
1.4.3 Conventional farming
Within the UK, conventional farming is divided into eight robust types (MAFF, 1997a). These
are: cereals, general cropping, horticulture, pigs and poultry, dairy, cattle and sheep (lowland),
cattle and sheep (Less Favoured Areas) and mixed. For the purposes of this review, we have
identified two farming regimes, conventional arable and conventional mixed. These two
regimes include three of the robust farm types named above. For conventional arable, these
types are cereals and general cropping, and for conventional mixed lowland, this is the mixed
farm type. The two regimes are thus defined as follows (MAFF, 1997a).
• Conventional arable: includes farms on which cereals and other crops generally found in
cereal rotations (e.g. oilseeds, peas and beans harvested dry and land set-aside) account for
more than two thirds of their total Standard Gross Margins (SGM). It also includes farms on
which arable crops (including field scale vegetables) account for more than two thirds of
their total SGM and farms on which arable crops account for more than one third of their
total SGM and no other group accounts for more than one third. This regime does not
include horticulture farms.
• Conventional mixed lowland: includes farms on which crops account for one third, but less
than two thirds of their total SGM, and livestock accounts for one third but less than two
thirds of total SGM.
Modernisation of conventional arable and mixed lowland farms during the 1970s, largely in
response to EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) demands (Potter, 1996), led to increased
mechanisation, field size and use of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers (Brown, 1997b; UNEP,
1995; WCMC, 1992). Such increases have had a significant impact on the agricultural
landscape (occurrence of hedges, woodlands, field margins etc.), wildlife and soil systems
(Samways, 1994; UNEP, 1995; WCMC, 1992). With the introduction of UK government
supported agri-environment schemes (e.g. ESAs, NSAs, Countryside Stewardship), considerable
efforts are being made to restore and conserve the agricultural landscape fabric and to reduce
inputs of synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, whilst still maintaining profitable, high-yielding
crop production.
1.4.4 Summary of the different regimes
In summary the different regimes can be distinguished as follows.
• Organic farming focuses on avoiding the use of synthetic chemicals and managing soil
fertility, crop nutrition and protection through careful crop management practices that
incorporate features such as rotations with leys, use of natural enemies and organic
manuring as common features of farming practice.
• Integrated production (LEAF and IFS-experimental) also focuses on crop rotation to

maintain soil fertility and targets chemical inputs to reduce their impact on wildlife and the
5
environment. Where possible such inputs are replaced by mechanical processes and
management to enhance indigenous natural enemies.
• Conventional farming (conventional arable and mixed lowland) is still dependent on high
levels of inputs - pesticides, fertilisers and energy, although economic and environmental
concerns are requiring farmers to target these more carefully.
All regimes have agricultural landscape conservation and enhancement as part of their practice
now. This is a requirement within organic regimes, is central but not a requirement in integrated
production, and is largely voluntary, except for farms signed up to an agri-environment scheme,
in conventional regimes.
1.5 Approach and report structure
In a study of Agriculture and Natural Areas for English Nature, Tilzey (1996) concluded that the
‘survival’ of biodiversity (taken as meaning maintenance and enhancement) will be dependent
on the continuation of traditional, low intensity or mixed farming practices. Within Tilzey’s
(1996) study, 10 generic agricultural causes of biodiversity loss and decline were identified.
These are quoted below.
• Loss and fragmentation of semi-natural 'infield' habitats through improvement or

arabalisation.
• Abandonment or under-management of extant semi-natural 'infield' habitats (mainly in the

lowlands).
• Overgrazing of semi-natural habitats (mainly uplands).
• Loss or mismanagement of interstitial (fabric) habitats.
• Drainage or drying out of wetland habitats due to over-abstraction of water.
• Pollution or eutrophication of surface and groundwater leading to loss or degradation of

aquatic ecosystems.
• Loss of crop rotations and arable-pasture mosaics leading to severe reduction in

characteristic farmland species.
• Shift from spring-sown to autumn-sown cereals leading to loss of winter stubbles and to loss
of suitable nesting sites for characteristic bird species.
• Universal application of pesticides leading to loss of arable weed species, invertebrates and
thereby food sources for other wildlife groups.
• Universal application of artificial fertiliser leading inter alia to the loss or degradation of
characteristic hedgerow and field margin vegetation.
6
These issues are considered and compared for the five farming regimes within the contexts of
the agricultural practices used (Section 2) and management of the structural elements (e.g. field
margins, hedges) present within the farmland landscape (Section 3).
To undertake an evaluation of the impact of different regimes on biodiversity, comparisons

should, as far as possible, be made between areas with similar topography, enterprise type, farm
size and non-cropped area. However, such information is scarce within the literature and indeed
is difficult to collect from existing, established farms. This means that exact comparisons
between farming regimes have not been possible for this review. Our approach has, therefore
been to identify the different components present in each regime and to examine the impact
of each component, as reported in the literature, on biodiversity. The nature of our approach
is outlined below.
• To identify the occurrence of different agricultural practices within the different farming
regimes and to assess their impact on biodiversity (Section 2).
• To examine the management and significance of different cropped and uncropped

farmland areas for biodiversity (Section 3).
• To assess the role of different agri-environment schemes in influencing biodiversity

(Section 3).
• To evaluate the impacts of each farming regime on biodiversity, taking into account the
approximate scale and geographical extent of each regime (Section 4).
• To evaluate the sensitivity of different species groups to agricultural management change

(Section 4).
• To draw up conclusions on the impact of each regime on biodiversity, to identify areas

where reliable quantitative information is lacking and to provide recommendations on
appropriate studies to address these information gaps (Section 5).
This review is based on the published literature and on unpublished reports from MAFF and
other government or non-government organisations and case studies (Appendix 1).
Information arising from consultation with the organic movement and other interested
parties, has been incorporated into the evaluation (Section 4) and conclusions (Section 5) and
is included as a separate workshop report in Appendix 3.
7
2. IMPACT OF DIFFERENT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ON BIODIVERSITY
2.1 Agricultural practice in different farming regimes
The principal agricultural practices and inputs used for crop production vary between
farming regimes and are shown in Table 2.1. Agricultural practices are categorised under
the following broad headings.
• Cultivation: includes practices involved in preparing the ground for sowing. Inversion
ploughing, deep tillage, minimal tillage and direct drilling are included in this category.
• Crop production: includes the inputs and practices used to enhance crop growth,
specifically fertiliser use, green manuring, intercropping and irrigation.
• Crop protection: includes the inputs and practices used to reduce the incidence of
weeds, pathogens and pests.
• Post-cropping: includes the options that can be adopted for managing cropped land after
harvest. Crop residue incorporation, stubble retention, set-aside, autumn or spring
sowing, crop rotations with leys and permanent pasture are all included in this category.
Within Table 2.1, each practice or input is assigned a ranking to indicate its approximate
frequency of occurrence within each regime for the UK. The rankings are approximate
rather than quantitative measures of the actual occurrence of each practice within each
regime.
The following sections summarise the results of studies where the effects of individual
practices and inputs on different groups of species have been examined specifically.
Comparative studies of specific practices across the different agricultural regimes are
generally rare and difficult to interpret, due to confounding effects of the surrounding farm
environment, variation in the extent and occurrence of uncropped areas and biogeographical
effects.
8
Table 2.1 Occurrence of different agricultural practices within each farming regime.
CP = Common Practice, occurs on almost every farm within the category; not to be used is
the exception (85%+). WU = Widespread Use, occurs commonly and is used by a large
number of farms within a particular category (45-84%). LU = Local Use, used by some
farms within a category, frequently with a particular geographical or process bias (10-44%).
IU = Infrequent Use, rarely used within the category (< 10%). O = Not Used, not associated
with farms in the category, occurrence is the exception.
AGRICULTURAL CONVENTIONAL MIXED IFS-LEAF IFS ORGANIC
PRACTICE ARABLE EXPERIMENTAL
Cultivation
Inversion ploughing CP CP CP LU CP
Minimal tillage LU LU LU LU LU
Direct drilling IU IU LU LU O
Crop production
Fertiliser use
• synthetic/slurry/ot CP WU WU WU O
her
• FYM/organic IU WU WU LU CP
slurry
Green O LU LU LU CP
manure/intercropping
Irrigation LU LU LU LU LU
Crop Protection
Weed control
• Mechanical LU LU LU LU CP
• Chemical CP WU WU WU O
Pest control
• chemical CP WU WU WU O
(synthetic)
• biological LU LU LU LU LU
• natural products IU IU IU IU LU
Post-cropping
Incorporation CP CP CP CP WU
Set-aside/stubbles WU CP WU WU CP
Autumn sowing CP WU WU LU LU
Spring sowing LU LU LU LU LU
Rotation with grass IU CP WU CP CP
ley
Permanent pasture IU CP WU CP CP
2.2 Cultivation
Approximately 5 million ha (of the 18 million ha of agricultural land) is cultivated annually

in the UK (ADAS/SRI, 1996). Primary cultivation can involve inversion ploughing, deep or
minimal tillage followed by drilling, or crops may be drilled directly. The use of these
operations varies between farming regimes (see Table 2.1). Minimal tillage and direct
drilling are more commonly associated with integrated production, particularly IFS-
experimental regimes, but minimal tillage is becoming more widespread in other regimes in
response to a need to reduce costs. A recent survey of farmland cultivation practice by
ADAS/SRI (1996) indicated that 98% of the 868 respondents used inversion ploughing, 26%
used deep or minimal tillage (non-plough cultivation) and 3% used direct drilling (no
cultivation). Although the survey did not take account of farming regime, these figures
indicate the general frequency of occurrence of each practice within UK agriculture. The
9
choice of primary cultivation is strongly influenced by soil type and rainfall (ADAS/SRI,
1996).
In addition, 92% of respondents undertook secondary cultivation with rolling or pressing

being the most popular operations. Forty-five percent of respondents sowed crops in
combination with soil cultivation passes, and only 6% directly seeded, disc drill and
broadcast being the most common methods used in direct seeding. Eighty-six percent of
respondents cultivated after sowing, mainly by rolling - 83% of respondents, and harrowing -
16% (ADAS/SRI, 1996).
The impacts of the different primary cultivation methods on biodiversity are discussed
below. The impacts of mechanical weeding are discussed in section 2.4.1. Little specific
information is available on the impacts of other secondary cultivation practices on
biodiversity.
Table 2.2 Impacts of Agricultural Practices on Different Organism Groups.
+ positive impact, O no significant impact, - negative impact, ?+/?- possible

positive/negative impact, ? unknown.
AGRICULTURAL SOIL PLANTS INVERTEBRATES BIRDS MAMMALS OVERALL

PRACTICE ORGANISMS IMPACT
A. CultivationA
Inversion ploughing - ? - ? ?+ -1.5
Minimal tillage ?- ? ?+ ?- ?- -1
Direct drilling + ? + ? ?- +1.5
B. Crop
productionB
Fertiliser use
• synthetic/slurry/ot - - ? ? ? -2
her
• FYM/organic + 0 ? ? ? +1
slurry
Green + ? + + ? +3
manure/intercropping
Irrigation ? ? ? ? ? ?
C. Crop protectionC
Weed control
• Mechanical + - ? ?- ? -0.5
• Chemical 0 - ?- ?- ?- -2.5
Pest control
• Chemical ?- 0 - - - -3.5
(synthetic)
• Biological 0 0 - 0 0 -1
• natural products ? ? - ? ? -1
D. Post-cropping D
Incorporation + + ?+ 0 0 +2.5
Set-aside/stubbles + + + + 0 +4
Autumn sowing - ? ? - 0 -2
Spring sowing ?+ ? ?+ + ?+ +2.5
Rotation with grass ? ?+ + ?+ ? +2
ley
Permanent pasture + ? + ?+ ?+ +3
10
Key studies and review papers
A den Boer, 1997; Brown, 1997b; Christensen, 1988; Frieben & Kopke, 1996; Glen,
1997; Holland et al., 1996;
Reddersen, 1994; Stopes, 1997.
B Alteri & Letourneau, 1982; Armstrong & McKinlay, 1990; Brown, 1995b, 1996;
Frieben & Kopke, 1996;
Frylestam, 1986; Fuller, 1997; Madar et al., 1996; Reddersen, 1995a; Tew, 1987;
Theunissen, 1997; Yeates et al., 1997;
Young & Armstrong, 1996.
C. Campbell et al., 1997; Frampton et al., 1992; Frampton & Cigli, 1992; Frieben &
Kopke, 1996; Fuller, 1997; Grieg-Smith
et al., 1992; Holland et al., 1994; Halberg, 1997; Moreby et al., 1994; Tew et al.,
1992.
D. Biederbeck et al., 1980; Christensen et al., 1996; Frampton et al., 1992; Fuller, 1997;
Glen, 1997; Holland et al., 1996; Holland et al., 1994; Hopkins, 1997; Reddersen,
1994; Ward & Aebischer, 1994.
2.2.1 Inversion ploughing and deep tillage
Inversion ploughing involves physically turning the soil over, normally to a depth of 16-25
cm (ADAS/SRI, 1996), and is common practice in conventional and organic regimes. Deep
tillage involves the use of discs, tines or powered rotors to disturb the soil up to a depth of
10-15 cm. Inversion ploughing reduces the abundance of invertebrates (Fuller, 1997; Madar
et al., 1996), particularly deep burrowing earthworms (Edwards & Lofty, 1982). The
creation of cracks, after ploughing, does, however, appear to encourage small mammal
activity especially in bare field situations (see Appendix 1 and Brown, 1997b). The impact
of deep tillage on biodiversity does not appear to have been well-researched. With respect to
soil organisms, the level and depth of soil disturbance would suggest an impact similar to
that for inversion ploughing. Impacts on small mammals may, however, be similar to those
recorded for minimal tillage (see 2.2.2 below). The accumulated impact of very heavy
machinery, used for both primary and secondary cultivation, on the densities of soil
invertebrates should also not be overlooked (Horn reported by MacKenzie, 1998).
2.2.2 Minimal tillage
This involves disturbing the soil surface, often using discs or tines, without physically
turning the soil over. Another version drags a horizontal blade below the surface of the soil,
thus lifting without turning over. Minimal tillage and direct drilling are recommended
practices within IFS-experimental regimes. Minimal tillage can create unfavourable
conditions in a bare-field situation for foraging small mammals, due to the lack of cracks for
shelter, and can cause short-term depletion in populations of some of the shallow-living,
non-burrowing earthworms and superficial-living earthworms (e.g. Allobophora chloritica,
see Appendix 1). Reduced or no tillage leads to increased survival of polyphagous predators
(carabids, staphylinids and linyphiids) but the reported value is circumstantial in terms of
predator control actually on crops (Reddersen, 1994; Glen, 1997). It can also lead to
increased slug numbers initially, but these may be reduced by the build-up of natural
predators over a period of several years (Glen, 1997).
11
2.2.3 Direct drilling
This involves planting seeds directly into shallow slots created by specialised discs so that
the soil surface is not disturbed and weed seeds are not encouraged to germinate. Evidence
from IFS-experimental case studies (see Appendix 1) indicates that earthworm density and
biomass, particularly Lumbricus, builds rapidly after 2-3 years of direct drilling and may
exceed that achieved under long-term unfertilised pastures or grass leys (Appendix 1 and
Brown, 1996) Similar results are indicated by Stopes (1997)). However, repeated practice
of direct drilling and minimal tillage can lead to a build-up of plant species such as black
grass (Alopecurus myosuroides) and sterile brome (Anisantha sterilis). These species can
reduce crop yield and the overall diversity of the weed community by out-competing other
plant species (Clarke & Davies, 1995; Critchley, 1994).
2.2.4 Cultivation and biodiversity impacts in different farming systems
Inversion ploughing is widespread in geographical and agricultural practice terms and is

normal practice on conventional arable and mixed lowland farms which together occupy
around 90% of the arable land in England (MAFF, 1997b). It is common practice on LEAF
and organic farms. Its impact on floral and faunal diversity (both micro, meso and macro) is
substantial e.g. earthworms, collembola and some oribatid mites (Wallwork, 1970). Deep
and minimal tillage are also becoming more common on conventional arable farms
(ADAS/SRI, 1996) and minimal tillage is the preferred practice for IFS-experimental
regimes. Clearly the impact of inversion ploughing is geographically greater than the other
cultivation practices, but mitigation of this impact can be achieved on farms where
population reservoirs for wildlife are provided by uncropped habitats that enable the
recolonisation of cropped areas to occur rapidly (Glen, 1997).
2.3 Crop production
2.3.1 Fertiliser use
Fertiliser use across the five farming regimes varies in nature and extent. The use of
synthetic fertiliser and slurry is common practice within conventional arable regimes and
both are widely used within conventional mixed lowland, LEAF and IFS-experimental
regimes. By contrast, farmyard manure is the most common fertiliser used in organic
regimes.
Fertiliser impacts on biodiversity by altering the level of nutrients available to biological

organisms. Plant and soil organisms are most directly affected but indirect effects impinge
on invertebrate and vertebrate communities as a result, for example, of changes in plant
community composition (e.g. loss of arable weed seed for birds - Fuller, 1997). Indirect
effects of fertiliser use also arise from leaching of nutrients into ground and surface waters,
which has implications for biodiversity at the local and regional scale. These widescale
effects are examined in the ADAS (1995a) report on the Environmental Effects of Organic
Farming. This section focuses on the extent to which different inputs are used within each
12
farming regime (Table 2.1), and their effects on plant, animal and soil organism communities
at the farm level.
The efficiency of nutrient cycling in soil within organic regimes was considered as part of a
general review reporting on the Organic Farming Study Forum (IACR, 1997). A study of whole
farm nutrient budgets undertaken at the Duchy Home Farm, UK, (Goulding et al., 1997)
established that soil nutrient levels in field margins varied greatly according to management
treatment. Considerable seasonal variation and spatial heterogeneity was observed in the
dynamics of nitrogen cycling, both within and between fields at different points in the rotation,
reflecting variation in soil microbial activity and possibly diversity. Rapid cycling and lower
nutrient levels tend to be associated with greater microbial diversity, but not always density.
Goodlass & Johnson (1997) have suggested that a reduction in nitrogen supply, in response to
IFS fertiliser practices, may result in a loss of soil organic matter with a consequent negative
impact on soil structure, invertebrate and microbial activity and density. Under IFS regimes,
some crops may be managed with lower inputs than optimum to reduce disease problems. The
result is a depletion of soil nutrients which may adversely affect subsequent crops unless
sufficient additional nutrients are supplied. Sometimes this application rate will need to be
higher than in a comparable arable system if the soils are not to be depleted for subsequent
crops, and if long-term damage to soil microbial diversity and density avoided (Goodlass &
Johnson, 1997).
i) Impacts on micro-organisms
There are many papers on the effects of soil management practices on soil micro-organisms (see
ADAS, 1995a). Pesticides, cultivation and fertilisers are particularly important. In soils treated
with organic manures including farmyard manure (FYM), soil bacterial and fungal counts and
dehydrogenase levels (a measure of the overall rate of microbial metabolism) were higher than
in soils supplied with inorganic fertilisers (Madar et al., 1996). Untreated plots had lower
microbial populations than those treated with inorganic fertilisers, which in turn had lower
populations than plots treated with organic manures (Madar et al., 1996). Work by Reddersen
(1995a, 1995b) and Macdonald & Smith (1991) suggested that mycorrhizae are suppressed by
application of fertiliser, although many other factors have an influence. Mycorrhizal fungi infect
the root surface of plants and are critical in enabling the uptake of nutrients by plants.
ii) Impacts on soil meso-fauna

Yeates et al. (1997) studied bacterial, fungal and soil fauna relationships on three Welsh soils
under organic and conventional regimes. Tardigrades and Acari (mites) were found to be more
abundant under organic management on some soils, and nematodes were greater on all soils
under organic management. The soils were pasture soils and the authors indicated that
differences between farming regimes were not as marked as in arable cropping regimes. In the
latter, diversity is generally much greater on organic management regimes, but densities of a few
key species are frequently greater on conventionally managed soils (Brown, 1997a). Well-rotted
farmyard manure (FYM) applied at low levels appears to stimulate earthworm and organic
matter dependent groups such as some of the Cryptostigmatid mites and springtails (Brown,
1996). However, no quantitative assessment is available at present. The impact of over-
application on dicotyledenous and grass communities suggests that there may be a negative
knock-on effect on fauna (Simpson & Jefferson, 1996).
13
iii) Impacts on the plant community

The conflict between synthetic fertiliser use for agricultural production and the maintenance of
botanical diversity for nature conservation, is suggested from studies of fertiliser use on flower-
rich hay meadows in the Somerset levels (Tallowin & Smith, 1994). These demonstrated that
three years after cessation of fertiliser input, there was no significant change in soil status and
that there was a persistence of enhanced residues of available nutrients, especially phosphorus.
Variation in cutting dates had little effect on soil nutrient status. Within organic regimes,
Frieben & Kopke (1996) have suggested that the occurrence of lower nitrogen levels is one of
the factors that have a positive effect on plant species diversity
Simpson and Jefferson (1996) reviewed the effect of farmyard manure on semi-natural
(meadow) grassland. FYM is commonly used in organic systems, in some conventional, mixed
lowland regimes and sometimes in integrated production regimes. It is rarely used in
conventional arable, although some slurry products are, but the overall reliance is on synthetic
fertilisers. In their review, Simpson & Jefferson (1996) emphasise the importance of the use of
well rotted FYM, and suggested that applications of 20 t/ha every 3-5 years may be too high to
maintain species rich meadows of high nature conservation value. Rates and frequency of
application which are too high result in the reduction of richness and abundance of
dicotyledonous herbs and an increase in competitive grasses resulting in an overall reduction of
species richness and diversity. Rates greater than 30 t/ha can cause scorching and bare patches
on re-seeded grassland.
2.3.2 Intercropping (green manures)
Because mixed ground cover presents more niches, it is argued that intercropping will encourage
a greater diversity of faunal species, including beneficial arthropods, because it retains some of
the structural and botanical diversity of a weedy crop. From an agricultural viewpoint, this is
important as weedy crops tend to have a lower density of invertebrate pest species than weed
free crops (Younie & Armstrong, 1996). Greater diversity of polyphagous predators has been
recorded by Altieri & Letourneau (1982) in intercropped fields compared to conventional wheat
monocultures. In a study of cabbages under-cropped with clover in Scotland, Armstrong &
McKinlay (1996) found more species of carabid in natural weed cover than in intercropped
plots. Specifically, the carabid species Bembidion tetracolum, Trechus quadristriatus, Amara
apricaria and Notiophilus biguttatus were recorded in larger numbers in mono-cropped
cabbages than intercropped plots. By comparison, Pterostichus melanarius and Loricera
pilicornis were more common in intercropped plots, even when natural weed areas were
available. Such variation in species response may reflect species habitat preference for open or
shady habitats, as has been demonstrated in studies of carabid species distribution in semi-
natural habitats (e.g. den Boer, 1977; Gardner, 1991; Gardner et al., 1997). Biogeographical
variation in species composition will also have an impact on species response in different areas
of the British Isles. Intercropping is common practice in organic regimes (Table 2.1) and also
occurs within conventional mixed lowland, LEAF and IFS-experimental regimes.
2.3.3 Irrigation
There are few specific references on the effects of irrigation on biodiversity, although issues
of raising, manipulating water tables on pasture to encourage particular communities (e.g.
14
Somerset Levels ESA) have been investigated in a practical way (Mountford & Chapman,
1993; Mountford et al., 1997). Irrigation tends to be used mainly on root crops e.g. sugar
beet, potatoes, and occasionally in cereals on light soils in dry conditions. Soil moisture
content has a significant impact on microbial activity and some soil invertebrates e.g.
nematodes. Thus irrigation may be expected to enhance the activity of these groups (Jones
& Johnson, 1994, 1995).
2.3.4 Crop production and biodiversity impacts in different farming regimes
In conventional systems, intensive crop production involving continuous manipulation of the

soil, high (synthetic) input into crops/soils and restricted rotations, often with limited
margin/non-cropped habitat, results in a lowering of biodiversity (Tilzey, 1996), although
densities of some species (e.g. some staphylinids) may be greater. Under organic regimes,
the removal of synthetic inputs, the use of longer rotations with grass leys and sympathetic
margin management generally favour both faunal and floral diversity and soil microbial
activity (Frieben & Kopke, 1996). Integrated production incorporates some of the elements,
intrinsic to the organic system, which favour biodiversity (Glen, 1997) and adopts, where
possible, cultivation practices which are more sympathetic to communities of soil organisms
(see Tables 2.1 and 2.2).
2.4 Crop protection
Agricultural pesticides are designed to impact directly on specific, and sometimes on a

broad-spectrum of, groups of fungi, higher plants and invertebrates. There appears to be
little information available on the overall impact of pesticides (specifically fungicides) on
fungal diversity. Herbicide impact on plant species abundance and diversity is reviewed in
section 2.4.2. There is little doubt that pesticides have a direct impact on invertebrate diversity.
Holland et al. (1996) identified the impacts on arthropods of the following pesticide groups.
• Insecticides - were shown to cause direct mortality and to have indirect effects, for example,
by depriving predators of prey.
• Herbicides - may affect arthropods by reducing the abundance of their host plants or by
altering ground cover and microclimate.
• Fungicides - only those containing pyrazophos, which are no longer used in arable crops,
were found to have any direct toxicity.
• Molluscicides - were not included in the review of Holland et al. (1996), but other work has
suggested that small mammals may be affected by their use (Johnson et al., 1992).
Similarly, Campbell et al. (1997) identified that pesticides may affect birds in various ways.
• Insecticides by reducing the abundance of invertebrates, which are an important food

resource for breeding birds.
15
• Herbicides by reducing the abundance of host plants for invertebrates and hence, reducing
invertebrate abundance.
• Herbicides by reducing the abundance of weeds and seeds, which provide a food source for
birds in winter and for some species during the breeding season.
The use of pesticides on cereal crops in the UK has changed markedly (Campbell et al., 1997).
In particular, the advent of more specific active ingredients and more efficient spray
technologies has led to a drop in actual application rates per unit area, although the geographical
area over which pesticides are applied has increased substantially (Campbell et al., 1997).
Specifically, Campbell et al. (1997), using information from the Pesticides Trust (1996),
indicate that herbicide use in cereals has increased in the 1990s to 200% of the area sprayed in
the 1970s. Insecticide use in cereals in the early 1970s, was low, just a few percent, but
increased to 100% in 1990, dropping back to around 60% in 1992 and 1994 (Campbell et al.,
1997). These changes apply primarily to conventional arable, conventional mixed lowland,
LEAF and to a lesser extent to IFS-experimental regimes.
2.4.1 Weed control - mechanical
This process which involves dragging tines across the soil surface to remove young weeds
(Brown, 1995a) is used in both integrated production and organic regimes (Table 2.1).
Whilst generally effective, it can have a serious negative impact if undertaken at a time when
ground nesting birds are present. Attention to timing of operations is highlighted in the
standards set by some sector bodies (e.g. Soil Association, 1997) but adverse impacts have
been recorded under a small percentage of IFS-experimental operations (Brown, 1995a).
2.4.2 Weed control - chemical
This is common practice in conventional arable and conventional mixed lowland farming
and widespread on LEAF and IFS-experimental regimes (Table 2.1).
i) Effects on arable weed communities

The short and longer-term impacts of herbicide use on arable weed communities have been
comprehensively reviewed in Campbell et al., (1997). Whilst weed populations have been
shown to be more abundant on cereal rotations receiving lower inputs of herbicides (e.g. El
Titi, 1991; MAFF, 1998), the actual effects of herbicides on plant community composition
are frequently difficult to disentangle from effects such as nitrogen use, crop type, seed-bank
productivity and germination period (Froud-Williams & Chancellor, 1982; Green et al.,
1995; Greig-Smith, 1992; Wilson, 1994). Comparisons of weed communities within organic
and conventional cereals (equivalent to the conventional arable defined in this review), have
indicated a significantly greater abundance and diversity of weeds within organic systems
(Brookes et al., 1995; Halberg, 1997; Moreby et al., 1994). Similarly, comparisons of
sprayed and unsprayed field headlands have indicated that weed biomass, density and
species richness are reduced on sprayed headlands (Chiverton & Sotherton, 1991; Sotherton
et al., 1985). Both of these comparisons, organic v. conventional cereals and sprayed v.
unsprayed headlands, suggest a negative impact of herbicide spraying on arable weed
communities.
16
Long-term declines in the abundance of several arable weed species have been reported (e.g.
Smith, 1989; Stewart et al., 1994; Wilson, 1994), but the role of herbicide usage in effecting
these declines has proved difficult to establish. This is because past management strongly
influences the diversity and abundance of weed communities each year. That herbicides
have had some impact is likely, given the evidence from short-term studies, the question is
how large this impact is.
ii) Effects on animal communities

As indicated above, herbicides may impact on vertebrates and invertebrates indirectly, by
influencing both food and breeding sources (Campbell et al., 1997). The strongest support
for such an impact emerges from work on the grey partridge, where experimental reduction
in the spraying of pesticides - particularly broad-leaved weed herbicides resulted in
increased brood size and chick survival (Rands, 1985, 1986; Sotherton et al., 1993).
Herbicide use is also implicated in the population decline of at least two other farmland bird
species, corn bunting and linnet (reported in Campbell et al., 1997). For the linnet, the loss
of preferred weed seeds appears to have been compensated, at least in one study area, by a
switch to oil-seed rape (Campbell et al., 1997). The increased incidence of weeds and higher
densities of birds reported for organic regimes (BTO/IACR, 1995) lends some support to the
argument that herbicides can have a negative indirect impact on farmland birds. Indirect
effects of herbicides and the impact of fungicides on fungivores, were also issues identified
by Reddersen (1994) in relation to Lauxanidae (Diptera) and other species which depend on
fungal material at some stage in their life cycle.
2.4.3 Pest control - chemical
The use of synthetic chemical is only permitted in conventional and IFS regimes. Within
organic regimes, pest control is achieved using cultivars, rotation, natural products e.g.
pyrethrum, or by biological or cultural means. There is a significant amount of literature on
the impacts of synthetic pesticides on species occurrence and biodiversity and only recent
reviews, based on studies undertaken primarily on arable farmland, are given here.
i) Effects on arthropod diversity

Two long-term projects have been funded by MAFF to examine the environmental impacts of
contrasting pesticide regimes (Greig-Smith et al., 1992; Green et al., 1995). The first of these,
the Boxworth project, compared three pesticide treatments, namely full insurance, supervised
and integrated (Greig-Smith et al., 1992), over a period of five years. Results from the project
indicated that some invertebrate species were susceptible to intensive pesticide use in winter
wheat, whereas others appeared to benefit. For example, on the full insurance treatment species
such as lucerne fleas disappeared immediately and spiders became less frequent; specifically,
deltametharin used for aphid control had a negative effect on spiders (Frampton et al., 1992).
Similarly, the ground beetle Bembidion obtusum was virtually eliminated by deltametharin and
chlorpyrifos, whilst another species, Trechus quadristriatus (Carabidae) disappeared initially,
but re-established after several months and increased in abundance. Soil invertebrates were
affected to different degrees. Collembola were taken as an indicator group, as these species are
not very mobile and are directly influenced by environmental change. Both Arthopleona and
Symphypleona sub-orders of Collembola were depleted by spraying, especially Entomobrya
multifasciata, Isotoma viridis, Sminthurides signatus and Sminthurus viridis. Folsomia
17
quadrioculata was reduced in the full insurance treatment, but other Entomobryids were
favoured perhaps through lack of competition.
Some of the variation in species response, outlined above, can be attributed to differences in
species’ ecology. Species that left the crop in late summer to over-winter in neighbouring
habitats, species that were active on the ground or lower crop canopy or species that over-
wintered underground, were less susceptible to the treatments than species that remained above-
ground in the crop or field throughout the year (Greig-Smith et al., 1992). Species dispersal
ability appeared to have an important effect on their persistence within the treatments. Thus
some species, although significantly reduced in numbers on the full insurance treatment,
managed to persist on the treatment throughout the five-year study due to their ability to
recolonise from neighbouring areas. Bembidion obtusum, a ground beetle with poor dispersal
ability was not able to recolonise rapidly and Frampton & Cigli (1992) suggested that it was
therefore a useful species to use in assessing the impact of insecticides.
A second project SCARAB (Seeking Confirmation About Results After Boxworth), was
established in 1990. The overall objective of this project was to establish the ecological
consequences of applying two different pesticide regimes to six-course arable rotations (Cooper,
1990). Two pesticide management practices were explored.
• Current Farm Practice (CFP), designed to represent general pesticide usage in comparable
farming situations;
• Reduced Input Approach (RIA), based on minimum usage of fungicides and herbicides
necessary to avoid more than 10% loss in yield/crop value. Insecticides were only used in
this regime in an emergency, in response to a crop threatening situation (MAFF, 1998).
Preliminary results are reported in Green et al., (1995) and summarised in MAFF (1998). These
indicated the following.
• Polyphagous predators showed no irreversible and adverse long-term effects under the CFP
treatments, although winter use of chlorpyrifos did cause major reductions in several groups
that persisted for several months (Cigli & Frampton, 1994).
• Detrimental effects of pesticides were recorded for Collembola, the effect being most
pronounced where organophosphorus insecticides were applied in consecutive seasons
(MAFF, 1998).
• Synthetic pyrethroid insecticides resulted in a short-term reduction in spider abundance

(MAFF, 1998).
• Soil microbial biomass fluctuated more widely within the CFP regime than within the RIA
one (Green et al., 1995). Fungicides had a short-term negative effect on soil microbial
activity and biomass, and multiple applications of fungicide were often seen as inhibitory to
microbial activity (MAFF, 1998).
• Earthworm biomass and abundance differed significantly between sites, but no consistent
differences were detected between treatments (Green et al., 1995).
18
By comparison, a long term study by Heydermann & Meyer (1983) showed a 95% decrease in
activity-biomass of ground beetles over three decades in Switzerland in response to agricultural
intensification, especially increased use of pesticides ( Lys et al., 1994). Similarly Moreby et al.
(1994) demonstrated a reduction in polyphagous and other arthropod groups on farms where
summer insecticides had been used on conventionally managed arable land compared to farms
without summer insecticides.
In a series of studies on the effects of conventional and organic management on arthropods in

Danish cereal fields, Reddersen (1995a) demonstrated that three common species of Lauxaniid
flies were negatively influenced by normal pesticides, as well as fungicides alone and
combinations of herbicides and fungicides. He had already suggested these as a possible
indicator group for pesticide response (Reddersen, 1994). The same author (Reddersen, 1993,
1995b) identified uniformly lower densities of predatory arthropods in conventionally sprayed
plots, especially those with a high fungal element in their diet.
In Germany, Basedow (1995) carried out a study on an ecological (organic) wheat farming area
where there was high abundance and diversity of arthropod faunas following the discontinuance
of insecticide and herbicide input. Here the management regime encouraged the diversification
of the fauna, but the results could not be achieved on all soil types. Consequently Basedow
(1995) concluded that while much modern farming is seeking to reduce external inputs,
especially synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, total elimination would appear to be unlikely as an
achievable goal.
ii) Impacts on birds

In a major review of the indirect effects of pesticides on farmland birds Campbell et al. (1997)
highlighted the significant decline in 59% of species breeding on farmland over the last 30
years. This was thought to be linked partly to pesticide use, although for some species,
populations within woodlands also show a parallel decline to their farmland counterparts.
Excluding rare species, the most severe declines were recorded for tree sparrow, grey partridge,
turtle dove, bullfinch, song thrush and spotted flycatcher (over 70% decline in the last 20-30
years). Lapwing, skylark, linnet and reed bunting also showed a 50% decline. In most cases,
the populations of these species had been increasing in the period up to 1974.
Although the majority of birds feed on a wide range of foods, there are indications that
Lepidoptera, Coleoptera and Orthoptera are especially important in the diets of the declining
species (Campbell et al., 1997). Various studies of the food of farmland birds have indicated a
decline in invertebrate sources, but the information on plant foods is less clear cut. There is
clear evidence that pesticides result in short term reductions in the abundance of target and
non-target invertebrate species which could impact on birds (Campbell & Cooke, 1997).
Campbell et al. (1997) recognised that there were many factors involved in bird species decline
and that there was an absence of clear cut relationships between pesticides and bird food.
Temporal associations were established between the increasing trend in pesticide use and the
period of rapid decline of eleven bird species, which suggested that pesticides could not be ruled
out as a major factor in the decline of these species. It was acknowledged that the occurrence of
rotational set-aside had reduced the impact of some of the problems of crop management
change, by providing stubble and winter food for some seed-eating species. Campbell & Cooke
19
(1997) summarise some of the changes that they consider might help to reverse the decline in
farmland bird populations. These include the following.
• Increased use of Integrated Crop Management (ICM), narrow-spectrum pesticides and

similar techniques, to minimise the use and impact of pesticides.
• Widescale introduction of an integrated package of prescriptions in an agri-environment

scheme. These might involve reasoned and targeted reductions in pesticide use and non-
chemical changes aimed at promoting species diversity and richness.
• The introduction of a successor to set-aside designed to encourage farmland birds.
• A switch to organic farming.
• A reversion to farming techniques used several decades ago.
Campbell & Cooke (1997) recognised that the latter reversion is not realistic on a large-scale,
and that none of the proposed options alone would allow farmland birds to return to their former
abundance. A combination of measures would, therefore, be necessary. The Pilot Arable
Stewardship Scheme may go some way towards dealing with some of these issues.
Detailed studies of the impacts of pesticides on bird diversity were also included in the
Boxworth experimental project (Greig-Smith et al., 1992) and the BTO/IACR (1995) survey of
organic farms. The latter demonstrated higher density and reproductive success on organically
managed areas, but because these were whole farm studies the identification of the specific role
of pesticides on bird populations was not possible.
Results from the Boxworth project indicated that starlings were affected by food loss, e.g. of
cranefly larvae on the full insurance treatment (Greig-Smith et al., 1992). There was, however,
no evidence of direct impact of pesticides on any bird species and no overall impact on small
mammals, although the death of adult bank voles and wood mice as a result of the use of slug
pellets containing methiocarb was recorded. Population recovery was rapid and it was not clear
if the deaths were a result of direct poisoning or eating contaminated food. The buffering effect
of woods and thick hedges was again seen as a key factor. Shrews may also have suffered as a
result of food loss (Johnson et al., 1992).
2.4.4 Pest control - biological
Enhancement of natural enemies for controlling animal pests has been explored quite widely
within UK and European agricultural systems (IOBC, 1993). It is a major element of
organic regimes and a key principle for integrated production (IOBC, 1993) and can involve
habitat manipulation to create favourable conditions (e.g. planted strips for over-wintering
beetles) for natural enemies. Biological methods may be incidentally important within
conventional mixed lowland regimes. Biological control may involve the selective breeding
or genetic engineering of the plant or animal at risk from a pest or disease, or the
introduction of a natural enemy or control agent. It is important to note that the use of
genetically engineered organisms is not permitted in organic regimes.
20
Recently, concerns have been raised about the use of introduced species or organisms, and
the potential risk to non-target organisms, as these have been adversely affected in some
cases. Many countries in Europe, North America and Australasia are considering legislation
in relation to biological control initiatives. The nature of the problem in Europe was
highlighted by Isart et al. (1996) in relation to using pheromone traps against Zenzera
pyrina (Leopard moth) in hazelnut systems being managed on an organic regime in
Tararagon. Although the technique had been used successfully in Mediterranean regions of
southern Spain since 1995, in different fruit tree crops, it also attracted other non-target moth
species, resulting in their destruction and a consequent reduction in biodiversity.
Work is currently underway to encourage larger beetle populations through manipulation of

breeding in relation to apparent food availability. This may stimulate biodiversity by
providing increased food sources to mammals such as shrews, woodmice, badgers and birds
such as little owl. There is clearly potential in such manipulative approaches of utilising
existing resources in terms of resident species, but introductions and supplementation of
natural enemy populations must be managed with caution at national and international level
(Isart & Llerena, 1996).
2.4.5 Crop protection and biodiversity impacts in different farming systems
Pesticides used in conventional and integrated production regimes can have a direct impact
in reducing both plant and invertebrate abundance. Such reductions may be short-lived if
suitable non-cropped reservoir areas are available. Longer-term indirect effects, particularly
on farmland birds, are also evident (Campbell et al., 1997), although the specific effects due
to pesticides are frequently difficult to pinpoint. Natural pesticides, used in organic regimes,
can be a problem if, for example, they enter wetland or aquatic systems. Mechanical weed
control used in IFS-experimental regimes can affect soil fauna and ground nesting birds,
although the extent of the effect has yet to be fully evaluated.
2.5 Post-cropping practices
2.5.1 Crop residue (straw) management.
Although straw burning is no longer permitted in the UK, apart from linseed which occupies
a very small area of arable land, this is not the case in some other countries.
The implications of straw burning for soil biodiversity have been differently interpreted.
Biederbeck et al. (1980) established that bacterial populations in the top 2.5 cm of burned sites
were permanently reduced by 50% (Saskatchewan, Canada). In Greece, Kaliburtji (1996) found
only slight decreases in fungal populations on burnt sites, whilst bacteria appeared to increase.
The long term effects of burning may lead to reduced water infiltration, greater soil compaction,
greater susceptibility to water erosion, lower available nitrogen and to lower microbial activity,
which, in turn, will lead to the gradual loss of soil organic matter.
A survey of crop residue management practices on 868 farms indicated that 88% of farmers
baled and carted residue (mean area 65.6 ha/farm), whilst 62% chopped and incorporated
residue on site (mean area 69.5 ha/farm). Less than 4% of farmers burned linseed (mean
21
area 15.7 ha/farm). Although chopping and incorporating can cause short-term disturbance
to the soil fauna, the direct injection of organic matter is likely to have a beneficial impact on
groups such as the earthworms and microbes. Residue removal may, however, help to
maintain species diversity by limiting the build up of density or biomass in any one group of
organisms. The return of residues also helps to minimise nutrient off-take and reduces the
need for fertiliser replacement. The practice is widely used in all five regimes (see Table
2.1). Farmers frequently use more than one technique, and the choice of technique will be
determined, to some extent, by soil conditions and crop type.
2.5.2 Set-aside and stubble retention vs cropping
The value of stubbles for birds has been well-established (Wilson et al., 1996). In this
respect, the introduction of set-aside has been of particular benefit to biodiversity on
farmland partly through stimulating the regeneration of the previous (normally cereal) crop
which provides additional food (Moreby & Aebischer, 1992; Wilson & Fuller, 1992; Wilson
et al., 1996). The area of rotational set-aside fluctuates annually but is typically between 5-
15% of UK arable land (Clarke, 1992; ADAS/SRI, 1996; Clarke, 1998: pers. comm.). The
timing of sowing is important in that spring cultivation and sowing after a period of autumn
or winter stubbles impact positively on biodiversity. Cosser et al. (1997) demonstrated that
the timing of cereal sowing also had an impact on the composition of the weed community,
including the rarer species. In particular they suggested that spring sowing of wheat
significantly increased weed germination and performance.
Stubbles and set-aside occur widely in all regimes. Autumn sowing is commonly practised
in conventional arable, conventional mixed lowland and LEAF regimes. IFS-experimental
and organic regimes tend to maintain a better balance between spring and autumn sowing,
where soil type permits.
2.5.3 Crop rotation
Agricultural intensification has tended to polarise crops geographically rather than maintaining a
mixed system. In organic regimes, crop rotations that include grass leys, are a key element
except on permanent pasture farms. Organic regimes also tend to support a wider variety of
crops (which is also a characteristic of IFS-experimental regimes) which provide greater
structural diversity and habitat diversity for flora and fauna. Two- or three- year leys are
particularly important for many elements of biodiversity ( see grass and pasture section in 3.3)
Holland et al. (1994) assessed the effect of crop type and introduction of IFS on predator
populations. Crop type exerted the greatest influence, although differences between
conventional and integrated systems were not marked. The effect of crop rotation on
invertebrates was investigated as was crop preference. Nineteen taxa of Carabidae, 13 taxa of
Staphylinidae and 8 taxa of Araneae were used to provide an indication of diversity. Winter
oilseed rape contained the greatest number of predatory species, followed by winter wheat (2nd
crop), which had three times more activity than winter wheat (1st crop) and fourteen times more
activity than spring barley. This conflicts with findings elsewhere in relation to the barley
(Frampton et al., 1992). Bembidion obtusum and Trechus quadristriatus were more common in
peas but absent from cereal crops. Potatoes had a negative effect in the rotation as a result of
22
intensive cultivation, poor ground cover in spring and high pesticide input. The importance of
matching crop types (in relation to plant families) to the plant community composition of the
margins to maximise predator performance was stressed.
Holland et al. (1996) reported on a study of the impact of wheat production on carabids in the
LINK Integrated Farming Systems project. They looked at insecticides, crop types and rotations
on several sites. Carabid activity differed the most between research sites and individual fields
rather than treatments. Often a few species dominated the carabid community e.g. Nebria
brevicollis and Pterostichus melanarius. Seed potato crops reduced carabid activity, and this
effect persisted in following crops for at least two years. No significant differences in carabid
activity between conventional and integrated production regimes were detected. In the same
study, the assumption was made that the less mobile species were most susceptible to disruptive
or disturbance practices. Spring breeders overwintering as adults were found to be sensitive to
autumn ploughing, and the occurrence of bare soil over winter may have further reduced
numbers resulting in a decline in numbers in spring crops unless stubble is left. Reddersen
(1994) reported carabid activity as being lowest in pea and root crops and highest in winter
wheat. No evidence of spring barley being less favourable to carabid activity was reported in
this paper, although this was not the case elsewhere (see Frampton et al., 1992).
A study of significance of crop type to Araneae indicated that oilseed rape holds greater
numbers of individuals than beans or wheat (Frank & Nentwig, 1995). Holland et al. (1994)
identified that rotational set-aside may be valuable to predatory arthropods and, by implication,
general invertebrate biodiversity.
2.5.4 Post-cropping practices and biodiversity impacts in different farming regimes
Key elements influencing biodiversity are the timing of sowing, the retention of stubble and
occurrence of set-aside. Spring sowing of crops encourages biodiversity, whereas autumn
sowing, most commonly used in conventional arable and mixed lowland regimes, tends to
reduce biodiversity. Organic, LEAF and IFS-experimental regimes tend to adopt a wider
range of post-cropping practices that are beneficial to biodiversity.
2.6 Grassland management and grazing regimes
Permanent grassland, whether extensively managed as in organic regimes, or intensively

managed for high production silage in conventional systems, is an important element in the
farmed landscape and can be significant in biodiversity terms.
Grassland is generally seeded with a grass mixture dominated by Lolium perenne and may
include legumes, if it is not being used for silage. Organic regimes have an initially low input
whereas conventional mixed lowland regimes are intensively fertilised. The main difference
between organic and conventional mixed lowland grassland management is the use of artificial
fertilisers and pesticides that are not allowed under organic management. It is to be expected
that organic pastures might be more diverse with an increased range of unsown grasses and
diversity in species and ground cover of broad-leaved species. However, Younie & Armstrong
(1996) showed that the abundance of unseeded broad-leaved species was low in both systems,
but there were differences in species composition. Frequency and timing of cutting have a
23
significant impact, with single late cuts positively influencing both floral and faunal diversity.
The invertebrate diversity of grassland systems is influenced by fertiliser and agrochemical
inputs. In Younie and Armstrong’s (1996) study, species richness was similar in both systems,
although the number of individuals was greater in conventional systems reflecting higher
herbage production. Earthworm activity was similar in both systems, although more evidence of
breeding was found under organic grassland. Although there was an increase in herbage
legumes compared to grass species in grasslands converting to organic management, this did not
increase species richness in the short- or apparently long-term (Section 3) since soil fertility
status and cutting or grazing regimes were maintained at levels optimal for production.
The key elements influencing the biodiversity of grassland are fertiliser use, cutting and grazing.
Where the farming regime focuses on low consistent herbage production, biodiversity will be
enhanced (Frieben & Kopke, 1996). On the other hand, high-output intensive silage systems,
supporting heavy stock activity, frequently show reduced floral and faunal diversity.
2.7 Conclusions on impacts of agricultural practices within different regimes
This section has identified the principal agricultural practices adopted within five farming
regimes, conventional arable, conventional mixed lowland, LEAF, IFS-experimental and
organic, and has reviewed the published and reported literature on the effects of these
practices on biodiversity. Much of the literature on individual practices focuses on their
impacts on particular species groups, rather than biodiversity as a whole. We have therefore
based our assessment of impact on those groups where information is available.
Our assessment of impact of different agricultural practices is summarised in Table 2.2. The
assessment is based on actual or possible impacts reported in the literature for five broad
organism groups, namely soil organisms, higher plants, invertebrates, birds and mammals.
Key studies and review papers on which the assessment is based are listed at the end of
Table 2.2. These and other studies are discussed in the preceding sections and listed in the
bibliography. Actual impacts on individual groups are recorded as neutral (0), positive (+),
or negative (-) in Table 2.2, and are assigned scores of 0, +1 or -1 respectively. Possible
impacts, indicated as ?+ or ?-, are given a score of +0.5 or -0.5 respectively. Unknown
impacts indicated as (?) are assigned a zero score. The overall impact awarded for each
agricultural practice, is the sum of the scores for the actual and possible impacts for each
species group.
The most well-researched practices are those relating to crop protection. Unsurprisingly, the
use of synthetic chemicals for weed and pest control is most widely reported as having a
negative impact on biodiversity. Other practices that are reported as having a particularly
negative impact are the use of artificial fertilisers or slurry, winter planting of crops and
inversion ploughing. All of these are commonly associated with conventional arable
farming.
Several practices are reported as having a positive impact on biodiversity. These include the
occurrence of grass leys and permanent pasture, green manures or intercropping, spring
sowing. All of these practices are associated with organic regimes and several occur in
conventional mixed lowland, LEAF and IFS-experimental regimes An overall evaluation of
the impact of the practices associated with each farming regime is given in section 4.3.
24
3. MANAGEMENT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF CROPPED AND UNCROPPED

AREAS FOR BIODIVERSITY IN DIFFERENT FARMING REGIMES
3.1 Introduction
This section reviews the importance of different elements of cropped and uncropped areas
for maintaining or enhancing biodiversity under the five different farming regimes. As
indicated in Section 1.3, cropped areas are defined in this review as all the areas managed for
arable or livestock production, whereas uncropped areas are defined as the areas and features
not subject to the agricultural practices listed in Table 2.1. Each element of cropped and
uncropped area is discussed in relation to its value as a habitat or resource for plants, soil
organisms, invertebrates, birds and mammals. Distinguishing between the effects of cropped
and uncropped elements is important as many studies have focused on the significance of
uncropped areas for the biodiversity of agricultural land. The impact of farming landscapes
on biodiversity, particularly the balance between cropped and uncropped areas is considered
and the role of agri-environment schemes in contributing to biodiversity is discussed.
3.2 Cropped areas
3.2.1 Introduction
Cropped areas vary greatly in their importance for farmland biodiversity. This is related to
the wide variety of crops present (ranging from arable to permanent grassland) and their
interaction with particular management practices. Crop rotations that include grass leys and
set-aside areas add considerably to the diversity and activity of some groups within cropped
areas. The value of cropped areas for biodiversity is also strongly influenced by the type,
proximity and quality of adjacent uncropped habitats.
Cropped areas are the dominant elements in terms of area in conventional arable and LEAF
regimes. Organic farms also carry extensive cropped areas, although, as with some IFS-
experimental regimes, there may be significant areas of uncropped land. Mixed lowland
farms include a significant proportion of grassland, and the occurrence of permanent pasture,
particularly if it is unimproved, is important in providing less-disturbed areas that benefit
biodiversity. The following sections review the potential of arable, grass and pasture areas
for supporting and enhancing biodiversity on farmland.
3.2.2 Arable
The value of arable land for particular species or groups has been examined in many studies.
This section draws out the principal conclusions and readers are referred to the original
publication for full details.
i) Plants
Moreby (1996) examined the flora and arthropod fauna of conventionally and organically
grown winter wheat and demonstrated a greater percentage weed cover in organic fields than
on conventional. This is corroborated by several other studies (e.g. Brown, 1995b; IACR,
1997). As indicated in section 2.5.2, the timing of cereal sowing has a significant impact on
25
the diversity and vigour of the weed community (Cosser, et al., 1997), and is used as a
management tool to control black grass in both agricultural crops and arable weed
communities (Moss & Clarke, 1994).
ii) Soil organisms

A long term study of soil microbial and faunal activity was reported by Madar et al. (1996)
as part of a larger programme looking at biodynamic, organic and conventional farming
regimes near Basle. Crop rotations were the same in all systems and included a two-year
ley. Microbial functional diversity was lowest in soils treated with mineral fertiliser and
earthworm biomass, density and species diversity were significantly higher in biodynamic
and organic regimes. Such results would be expected from the build up of organic matter
associated with biodynamic and organic management and the relatively limited inversion
ploughing depths (less than 20 cm) applied in this particular study.
The importance of a varied earthworm fauna as bio-indicators, and in influencing soil

structure is well-recognised (Christensen, 1998; Edwards & Lofty, 1982). Vanvliet et al.
(1995) demonstrated that, despite low densities, enchytraeid worms have a major role to play
in the structure of arable and pasture soils especially in less intensive systems. The
occurrence of grass leys within a rotation, a common feature of organic regimes and present
in conventional mixed lowland and some IFS-experimental regimes, is important for
enhancing the biomass and activity of the soil fauna (see Appendix 1).
iii) Invertebrates
Moreby (1996) carried out one of the few above ground studies on Hemiptera-Heteroptera
examining the densities in winter wheat under conventional and organic management. This
study was important as Heteroptera are normally neither pest nor beneficial in agricultural
terms, but are important as food sources for birds (e.g. lapwing, grey partridge, tree sparrow,
linnet, corn bunting and skylark) and are significant prey items for predatory invertebrates.
Their presence contributes directly to biodiversity and is important in maintaining the
persistence of other species groups. Greater heteropteran activity was recorded in organic
fields, probably associated with the greater abundance of weeds, although the differences
were not statistically significant. In an earlier study (Moreby et al., 1994), found
significantly greater densities of aphid-specific predators, parasitic Hymenoptera and some
Coleoptera in conventional fields, whilst weevils, spiders, springtails and plant hoppers were
more prevalent in organic fields. These results were clearly linked to the relative availability
of food items within the two systems.
Madar et al. (1996) confirmed higher levels and greater diversity of epigaeic arthropods on
biodynamic and organic areas, (18-24 species in biodynamic areas, 13-16 species in
conventional) together with a more diverse carabid community. Carabids are important
indicators of invertebrate diversity as the group is widely distributed among different
habitats and feeds on a wide variety of prey (Armstrong & McKinlay, 1996). The
relationships between carabid diversity and the occurrence of field margins and wildlife
strips have been well researched, but the relationship between diversity and cropping pattern
is less clear. Helenius (1990) established that some species were less active in the dense
crop cover associated with conventional barley management and that species, such as
Carabus granulatus and Bembidion obtusum were slow to recolonise after disturbance
caused by cultivation ( Frampton & Cigli, 1992). Current studies indicate that there are
more complex patterns within crops and that variability within a field under the same crop
26
may be greater than the variability between fields under different management systems
(Green et al., 1995; Long Ashton, 1998: pers comm.).
Variation in overall arthropod populations in mid-field situations was examined by

Reddersen (1997). Density, species diversity, total biomass and bird food species were
consistently and often significantly greater in organic than in conventional fields. However,
density, species diversity and biomass decreased with increasing distance from margins,
emphasising the importance of uncropped areas in maintaining in-field invertebrate
populations (Lys et al., 1994). Differences in arthropod populations between organic and
conventional regimes were most marked mid-field and decreases from the margin were most
obvious in conventionally managed fields. In all cases, the edge effect from the margin
disappeared after 9 m. This principle applies to all systems and those which employ wide
margins, seeded strips and good edge management, such as the organic, IFS-experimental
and LEAF regimes, will favour arthropod biodiversity on a farm-wide scale.
iv) Birds
Arable areas are important as food sources and nest sites for some species provided the
management is appropriate. Organic fields have been identified as more beneficial to birds
because of their greater seed and invertebrate food availability (Christensen et al., 1996;
Fuller, 1997; Brown, 1997b; Redersen, 1997). The reasons suggested include exclusion of
synthetic pesticides, crop rotation with leys, weed control by crop management or
mechanical means and sympathetic management of uncropped areas. Ironically, some of the
crops that are beneficial to birds (e.g. oil-seed rape which provides food for linnets and
nesting sites for reed buntings) are not grown under organic regimes due to the current lack
of a market. A study of the decline of the corn bunting, a species of rotational grassland and
spring barley on mixed farms, highlighted intensification of cropping, as opposed to
pesticide application, as a key factor (Ward & Aebischer, 1994). This study highlights the
importance of variety in cropping and diversification of the landscape structure for
maintaining diversity in vertebrate communities. It is this loss in variety of habitats in
relation to intensive crop production which has had a major impact on many bird species and
which has arisen primarily as a result of modern conventional post-war agriculture.
v) Mammals
Almost all mammals, except the larger free ranging ones such as deer, are dependent on
cropped and uncropped areas, with only field vole and some shrews spending most, if not all,
of their lives in the open field (usually grassland) situation. Brown (1997c) found no overall
differences in small mammal populations between organic and conventional systems, but
other studies have indicated that woodmice are encouraged by the more weedy fields and
margins associated with organic management (Tew, 1987). Harvest mouse and yellow-
necked mouse are encouraged by planted strips and banks, which are integral to organic and
IFS-experimental regimes. Cultivation practices employed under the five different regimes
and their effects on small mammal activity have been discussed in section 2.2. Frylestam
(1986) identified the importance of arable weeds in the diet of brown hares and pointed to
the effects of herbicides on food plants in influencing the health of animals. This study
provides another example of the effects of intensification of crop production and
simplification of the landscape fabric on the population dynamics of a key farmland
vertebrate species.
27
In summary, many studies have concluded that biodiversity in the cropped areas of
conventional arable farms, has been reduced as a result of changing agricultural practice and
simplification of the landscape fabric. The evidence presented indicates the value of
cultivating arable land at a lower external input level and enrichment of the landscape by the
development of field margins, hedges and features such as uncropped wildlife strips,
conservation headlands and sown grass strips, to enhance biodiversity. Such elements are
present in conventional mixed lowland regimes, and are present and widely encouraged
within organic and integrated regimes such as LEAF and IFS-experimental. They are also
being encouraged within conventional arable regimes via agri-environment schemes such as
the Arable Stewardship Pilot scheme, Countryside Stewardship and ESAs.
3.2.3 Grass and pasture
This section examines the value of grass and pasture areas for biodiversity within the
managed farm landscape.
i) Plants
In botanical terms, short term leys and permanent swards associated with conventional high
input regimes are intended for a high level of herbage output and livestock production, and
are therefore less diverse. Permanent sward managed for nature conservation purposes
(nutrient poor and low output) shows the greatest diversity of both flora and fauna (Younie
& Baars, 1997 ). Lolium perenne and Trifolium repens dominate in intensively managed
pastures and Trifolium is generally inversely correlated with plant diversity. Within such
intensively managed pasture, botanical and faunal diversity are maintained largely by careful
management of grass margins and boundaries, in the same way as arable fields. In their
review, Younie & Baars (1997) focus on organic grassland as a resource for biodiversity.
Organic permanent pastures contain more typical grassland species at greater densities than
conventional pastures (Frieben & Kopke, 1996). Variation in grazing pressure is also a key
factor and a moderate level of grazing is important in maintaining the diversity of many
temperate grasslands (Montalvo et al., 1993). In this context, grazers, by selectively
removing some species, can promote diversification within the sward (Cosser et al., 1997).
Several authors (Younie & Armstrong, 1996; Frieben & Kopke, 1996; Tallowin & Smith,
1994; Younie, 1992) have indicated that it takes a long time for previously intensively
managed grassland to diversify. Younie & Armstrong, (1996) demonstrated that, after nine
years, there was low species invasion in both conventional and organic grasslands in
Scotland. Tallowin & Smith (1994) demonstrated that even sowing rare species into gaps
created in formally improved sward did little to increase biodiversity after five years.
Younie's (1992) study indicated that established organic pastures produced more early
flowering species that are important for bumble bees, hoverflies, ladybirds and early
butterflies. These pastures can produce later flowers also if not too heavily grazed, but
conventional pastures do not show the same level of diversity.
ii) Soil organisms

Although responses to different organic management regimes are small compared to those
reported in arable cropping systems, a study of Welsh soils by Yeates et al. (1997) suggested
that fungal feeding nematodes in grassland soils could be sensitive indicators of change
associated with conversion from conventional to organic pastures. It has been suggested that
ammonium fertilisers may be detrimental to earthworms. Work by Younie and Armstrong
28
(1996) identified high nitrogen levels under both conventional and organic grasslands, the
later being attributed to the effects of Trifolium. Earthworm diversity was similar under both
systems, but the greater abundance of immature specimens present in the organic soils
suggested that these pastures provided more reliable breeding conditions. Younie and Baars
(1997) attributed the greater activity of earthworms under organic grassland to the larger
volume of organic matter arising from FYM.
iii) Invertebrates
A nine-year study by Younie & Armstrong (1996) established that the carabid communities
in organic and conventional grassland showed similar species richness, but greater numbers
were recorded in conventional grassland due to greater herbage production. Seed-eaters
were more prominent in organic systems, possibly due to greater weed production. Felton &
Woodhead (1995) suggested that Arrenatherum meadows, characteristic of mixed and
organic systems, were particularly good for invertebrates. Younie (1992) identified the
following plant species in organic pastures as important as food or breeding resources for
invertebrates. The species included: Taraxacum officinale, Ranunculus repens, Cardamine
pratensis, Trifolium repens, Cerastium holosteoides, Bellis perennis, Stellaria media and
Veronica arvensis.
iv) Birds and mammals

Very locally improved grassland can be important for winter feeding waterfowl, including
internationally important populations of species such as Greenland white-fronted goose
(Anser albifrons flavirostris), barnacle goose (Branta leucopsis) and widgeon (Anas
penelope) (UK Biodiversity Steering Group, 1995). Where machine use is infrequent and
stocking densities low, such grassland may also retain ground-nesting birds such as lapwing
(Vanellus vanellus) and skylark (Alauda arvensis). Work by Evans et al. (1995) reported
higher densities of skylarks and higher growth rates and productivity on an organic farm
compared to its conventional pair. It has been suggested that this may be related to a greater
abundance of prey items being present in the organic fields (Brooks et al., 1995). Grasslands
are important for providing food resources for birds and mammals and the loss and/or
intensification in management of these has been implicated as a cause of decline in some
species e.g. cirl bunting (Emberisa cirlus) and corncrake (Crex crex) (Campbell et al., 1997).
In summary, grasslands are important in terms of their potential to provide more stable, less
disturbed environments for biodiversity. Their value is, however, determined largely by
management practices, particularly grazing, cutting and the level of external inputs. Such
factors tend to override the effects of the farming regime to which they belong.
3.3 Uncropped areas
3.3.1 Introduction
Many workers have commented on the value of marginal and non-agricultural habitats for
biodiversity on farmland. In Germany, Frieben and Kopke (1996) identified such areas as
important in providing the following attributes.
• Refuges for endangered plant species, especially arable weeds.
29
• Overwintering sites for invertebrates and vertebrates.
• Areas of floristic diversity.
• Refuges for species after harvest.
• Areas with network links to other habitats.
In this section, various uncropped habitats are reviewed. These include sown grass strips,
grass margins, conservation headlands, uncropped wildlife and flower strips, hedges, ditch
and bank habitats. Uncropped areas vary in extent in conventional arable regimes but are
generally not prominent. By comparison, they are more common in conventional mixed
lowland regimes, integral in LEAF and IFS-experimental regimes - although the extent is
variable, and intrinsic in organic regimes where their management is central to the regime.
3.3.2 Sown grass strips ( beetle banks )
Strips are seen as important refugia for biodiversity, for stabilising unstable agricultural
monocultural systems and for reducing the use of pesticides. Nentwig (1989) established the
value of planted strips for many arthropods and as reservoirs for some rarer weed species.
Significantly denser overwintering populations of carabids, staphylinids and Araneae have
been recorded in assessments of weed strips in cereal fields (Lys & Nentwig, 1994;
Lethmeyer et al., 1997). Fields with strips 1.5m wide and 24m apart showed 12 times the
level of arthropod activity compared to fields with no strips. High biomass creating grasses
such as Dactylis glomerata, Holcus lanatus, Achillea millefolium and Arctium minus have
been shown to be valuable in grass strips. Thomas et al. (1991) and Nentwig (1996)
demonstrated that strips showed a marked increase in arthropod diversity over a two-year
period. They also favour a large number of beneficial groups such as syrphids (Hausamann,
1996) and are important for some small mammals. Strips were generated as a means of
increasing the abundance of beneficial arthropods within arable systems and have been
adopted into LEAF, IFS-experimental and organic regimes in the UK.
3.3.3 Grass margins
Various workers have established that the creation of diverse, perennial plant communities
on arable field margins can offer low cost weed control and increase biodiversity of both
flora and fauna (Smith & McDonald, 1989; Boatman, 1994). Generally, seeded margins
show greater diversity than those allowed to regenerate spontaneously from field edge
fallow. If natural regeneration is to be successful, neighbouring floras need to be rich.
Generally, annual species give way to perennials as margins become established but these
need not always be undesirables in agricultural terms. Hopkins (1997) concluded that field
margins especially, although not exclusively, those under organic management are effective
in enhancing floral and faunal diversity on farmland.
The value of margins for conserving rarer agricultural weeds has been highlighted by several
authors (e.g. Grub et al., 1996; Marshall, 1987; Wilson, 1994) who have found that many
rare, including Red Data book species, can occur within 6 m of the field edge. Extended
30
margins are important for butterfly populations as sown plots contain many food species
(Feber et al., 1996; Hopkins, 1997). Cutting and sowing regimes can have an important
impact on species occurrence. Feber et al. (1997) suggest that the impact of organic
management on butterfly populations is related to the pattern of cropping rather than crop
management. Hopkins and Feber (1997) confirmed that most butterfly species are associated
with margins rather than cropped areas as they provide both adult and larval food as well as
shelter. Organic practices are seen as important in maintaining grass margins, as also are
those used within IFS-experimental regimes, and to a lesser extent the traditional structure of
mixed lowland farm landscapes. The role of margins as buffer zones against spraying for
both plant and invertebrate life has been reviewed in detail (e.g. Davis, 1992; Davis et al.,
1994, Davis, 1995; Longley & Sotherton, 1997 a & b; Longley et al., 1997).
3.3.4 . Conservation Headlands
These have been developed and promoted by the Game Conservancy Trust, specifically to
benefit gamebird chicks which depend on invertebrates in field margins for food. Sotherton
(1992), studying the benefits of conservation headlands, concluded that reduced spraying
resulted in a 10-fold increase in broadleaved weed diversity and increased invertebrate
activity. Similarly Dover (1997) studying the activity and behaviour of Lepidoptera
(butterflies) in sprayed and unsprayed headlands, demonstrated that while flying activity was
recorded for both headland types, foraging activity was confined to unsprayed headlands.
Conservation headlands are important in conventional arable regimes in countering the effect
of autumn drilling and extensive areas of winter cereals, which are detrimental to rare arable
weed conservation (Wilson, 1994).
3.3.5 Uncropped wildlife strips and flower strips
Work from the Breckland ESA has highlighted the value of uncropped wildlife strips for
conserving floral diversity including rare arable weeds (Critchley, 1994). Factors such as
soil pH, overhanging trees, broadleaved shelter belts and previous cropping were shown to
be important in influencing community composition. Sites with infrequent cultivation led to
a build-up of perennial grasses and annual species remained at a low cover (Critchley, 1996).
Extension of the cultivation period and a reduction (to two years) in the interval between
cultivations, appeared to be effective in promoting plant species diversity in this situation.
Results from this work have been incorporated into the new Farmers Guidelines for the ESA.
Planted strips of Phacelia tanacetiflia have shown to have a positive impact on invertebrates
such as syrphids, polyphagous predators, parasitoids and food species for gamebird chicks
on a LINK IFS site (Holland & Thomas, 1996). Species diversity was low, but densities
high. Work at ADAS High Mowthorpe indicates, however, that Phacelia is unable to
maintain itself over several seasons, plants being lost from the sward towards the end of the
third year (Griffin, 1998: pers. comm.). The possibility of planting native flower species in
strips and their consequent impact on biodiversity requires further consideration.
31
3.3.6. Hedges
Hedges and their basal vegetation are important landscape and wildlife elements in mixed
and pastoral farming systems in the UK. Intact hedges are important areas for flora and
fauna that would otherwise be absent or poorly represented on farms (Lewis, 1969; Bunce et
al., 1994). The loss of hedges removes nest and feeding sites for birds (Parish et al., 1994),
reduces small mammal populations (Tew, 1994), removes overwintering sites for beneficial
invertebrates and results in simplified floras both as a result of direct loss and the loss of
buffering effects on herbicide drift. Hedge removal was prevalent in the 1960s and 1980s
with rates of loss two to three times greater on arable as opposed to pasture sites. Hedges are
retained as a matter of course in organic systems and are an integral part of IFS.
Management operations to enhance the biodiversity of hedges has recently been reviewed by
Barr et al., (1995).
Stopes et al., (1996) reported on hedges which were managed on a specific regime under an
organic conversion programme (the same principles could be applied within any
management system). They suggested that hedges should be maintained at 3 m wide and 4
m high, flowering and fruiting allowed with cutting on a 2- to 3-year cycle and coppicing on
a 10- to 20-year cycle if possible. Other studies have demonstrated that most birds nest
between 50 and 150 cm above the ground and indicate cutting should not be on less than a
15- to 20-year cycle (Frieben & Kopke, 1996). The role of hedges in stockless organic
systems could be positive or negative depending on field size and hedge condition (Stopes et
al., 1996).
3.3.7. Ditch and bank habitats.
Greater vegetational diversity has been recorded on ditch bank habitats under organic
regimes (Helenius, 1990). However, little has been published on the effects of different
farming systems on bank-side habitats. Organic farming methods are generally expected to
cause less erosion and thereby reduce sediment and nutrient pollution into water-courses.
Wet margins, marshes and bogs are important for biodiversity and those remaining
fragments and specifically created areas are of great value, irrespective of system. In reality,
the impact of wetlands is less well researched in farmland areas than it should be in relation
to biodiversity.
3.4. Impact of the farming landscape on biodiversity
3.4.1. Introduction
It has already been established that uncropped areas tend to be the major reservoirs for both
floral and faunal diversity and therefore the nature and extent of these habitats are key in
determining the overall biodiversity of agricultural areas. Kretschmer et al. (1992)
demonstrated a continuous increase in biodiversity when the uncropped area increased and
this trend has been corroborated by studies comparing conventional and organic regimes in
the UK (Gaunt, 1997).
32
In assessing the impact of the farming landscape on biodiversity, it is important to consider

the effects of scale. Soil fauna groups are clearly affected by local within field conditions
and can show considerable heterogeneity within a single field (e.g. Goulding et al, 1997).
Small mammals and birds are less dependent on local within-field variation, but are
influenced by variation at the field level, e.g. crop type and the occurrence of uncropped
areas within or surrounding the field. Larger species e.g. barn owls, hawks, brown hare are
influenced by the extent, variation and balance of habitats across the whole farm.
This section looks at the balance between elements in different systems and briefly reviews
the role of existing agri-environment schemes in promoting biodiversity, particularly through
the manipulation of the uncropped areas. The broad objectives of the different schemes are
given in Appendix 2.
3.4.2. Balance of elements within different farming systems.
Within conventional arable regimes, the proportion of uncropped areas varies but unless
there is a game rearing interest, margins tend to be of limited extent and, on intensive arable
farms, hedges are few and field sizes are generally large. In organic regimes, field margins,
sown strips (beetle banks) and hedges are all encouraged. Within integrated production
regimes, sown margins and strips are encouraged as part of the crop management programme
but the field areas are of medium to large size, unlike organic systems where fields are
generally smaller, and the impact of the uncropped areas on biodiversity as a whole is more
limited. Conventional mixed lowland farms tend by definition to have moderate levels of
uncropped area including hedges, although sown strips are not a feature. Often these farms
contribute in a major way to the inter-joining uncropped fabric of the agricultural landscape.
In all systems the presence of broadleaved, mixed or scrubby woodland on or adjacent to the
farm has a major impact on biodiversity as do ponds and streams. It is also important not to
overlook the role of farm buildings. The older more traditional buildings often associated
with conventional mixed, organic and some smaller integrated production units are valuable
as resting or breeding habitats for bats and barn owls for instance. The existence of much
uncropped land and low intensity grassland close by provides suitable conditions for these
groups. Traditional buildings that have survived in intensively managed areas but have no
uncropped habitats nearby, are of limited value. In some European countries, it is part of the
national approach to incorporate more uncropped habitat into the agricultural landscape to
increase biodiversity e.g. Switzerland (Van Bol & Peeters, 1996) and the Netherlands
(Halberg, 1997).
3.4.3. The role of agri-environment schemes
Countryside Stewardship, ESAs and Tir Cymen are currently the principal agri-environment
schemes within England and Wales focusing on the maintenance and enhancement of
habitats for wildlife (Countryside Council for Wales, 1992; MAFF, 1994a, 1997c; see
Appendix 2). Within these schemes, specific prescriptions for enhancing habitats on arable
farmland are included, for example, the creation of uncropped wildlife strips in the
Breckland ESA, conservation headlands in the Breckland, Clun and South Downs ESAs and
extended field margins in the Somerset Levels and Moors and West Penwith ESAs.
33
However, ESAs in general, are targeted on more extensively managed farmland, for example
the Lake District, North Peak, South-West Peak and Exmoor ESAs. Countryside
Stewardship is more widely available to farmers on intensively managed land and the
introduction of the Arable Stewardship Pilot scheme is aimed at encouraging the increased
adoption of measures that benefit biodiversity on this land.
To date, habitat targets arising from the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK Biodiversity
Steering Group, 1995), have not been formally incorporated into the environmental
objectives of these agri-environment schemes. They have, however, been fed into proposals
to modify ESAs at their five-yearly review. Ecological monitoring of Countryside
Stewardship is in progress, and the evaluation of it effectiveness for biodiversity will be
obtained on completion in the year 2000. ESAs have been regularly monitored since their
instigation in 1987 (e.g. ADAS, 1997a,b & c). Where they have been monitored, for
example in the Breckland ESA, the prescriptions that focus on arable land, specifically field
margins, appear to be effective in promoting biodiversity, at least within plant communities
(Critchley, 1994, 1996).
The Habitat Scheme includes, as one of its options, former five year set-aside (MAFF,
1994b). The latter has been shown to be effective in enhancing biodiversity and providing
additional food resources for birds (Clarke, 1992; Wilson et al., 1996). The retention of this
land within the scheme may thus be seen as beneficial to biodiversity. The recently launched
Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme (MAFF, 1997d) specifically targets intensively managed
farmland and focuses on several groups and species in decline e.g. farmland breeding birds
(Campbell et al., 1997; UK Biodiversity Steering Group, 1995). Monitoring of this scheme
will commence in 1998.
An overall evaluation of these schemes, in biodiversity terms, has not been undertaken in
relation to other agricultural management options. Until recently, the area on which they
have been focused has tended to be pastoral rather than intensively managed land, and the
opportunities for uptake by farmers in the latter areas have therefore been limited.
3.5 Significance of cropped and uncropped areas for biodiversity
The principal conclusion from Section 3 must be the high value of uncropped areas for
maintaining and enhancing biodiversity on farmland. Such areas act as ‘reservoirs’ for species
populations and help to mitigate the negative impacts of cropping, by enabling rapid
recolonisation of cropped or disturbed areas by flora and fauna. The value of cropped areas for
biodiversity should not, however, be dismissed, as many of the practices associated with these
areas can have a positive benefit on biodiversity (see Table 2.2).
With respect to biodiversity, the key factor is the balance of cropped to uncropped land present
on the farm. Within the existing literature, there is little quantitative information on the extent to
which this balance varies between farming regimes. Based on the practices adopted and/or
standards established for each regime, it is, however, clear that the proportion of uncropped area
is higher on organic, integrated production and mixed farms than on conventional arable, with
consequent benefits to biodiversity.
34
Agri-environment schemes potentially have an important role to play here. At present, most of
these appear to have focused on semi-natural habitats and pastoral systems rather than on
intensively managed arable land, and the uptake of schemes on the latter has been low. The new
Arable Stewardship Pilot scheme may help to redress this balance.
35
4. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS OF REGIMES ON BIODIVERSITY
4.1 Introduction and approach
Much of the literature pertaining to the biodiversity of farmland has focused on the impacts
of agricultural operational or habitat management practices on specific groups of organisms
e.g. higher plants, insect families or orders and birds. Such a reductionist approach is
inevitable when the focus of study is either the determination of factors underlying cause and
effect in terms of change in biodiversity, or the identification of management practices that
are effective in enhancing the persistence of particular organism groups. For the purposes of
comparing the biodiversity of different farming regimes, this reductionist approach is less
satisfactory, since it tends to overlook the effects of both the scale (the fact that organisms
vary in the area and number of environmental components that they utilise) and interaction
of different components on the farm. However, since little reliable information is available
to enable a comparison of farming regimes at the whole-farm level, the approach adopted for
the evaluation has focused on the following five steps.
Step 1: An assessment of the impact of the agricultural practices most commonly practised/
widely used within each regime, on the diversity of different organism groups.
Step 2: An assessment of the significance of the structural elements (cropped and uncropped
land) present within the landscape of each regime, in maintaining and enhancing the
biodiversity of arable land.
Step 3: An assessment of the overall impact of each regime, based on steps 1 and 2, in
enhancing biodiversity at the whole-farm level.
Step 4: An examination of the extent of each regime within England and Wales.
Step 5: A final evaluation of the overall impact of each regime, based on steps 3 and 4
above, in enhancing national biodiversity.
To achieve an overall assessment of the impact of the five different regimes on biodiversity,
each regime is evaluated according to its potential to enhance the status of biodiversity on
arable farmland. The current status of biodiversity on arable farmland, which is used as the
baseline for the final evaluation, is discussed in 4.2 below.
4.2 The status of biodiversity on arable farmland
Arable farmland is a managed landscape largely derived, in the case of lowland England and
Wales, from deciduous woodland (Rackham, 1986). Over the centuries, this land has passed
through multiple management changes, for example from strip farming to small hedgerow
enclosed fields to large-scale intensive cropping (Rackham, 1986). Such changes have
resulted in a significant re-distribution of wildlife species (UNEP, 1995), and the
replacement of a flora and fauna dominated by woodland species by those associated with
woodland edge habitats, grass and open land (Rackham, 1986; Samways, 1994). Since
1945, simplification of the landscape and the development of a high-input, high-yield
intensive agriculture have led to a significant decline in species diversity within both the
36
cropped and marginal areas of arable land (e.g. UK Biodiversity Steering Group, 1995;
Campbell et al., 1997) with relatively few species showing population enhancement
(Campbell et al., 1997). Intensification of agricultural crop production has been documented
as one of the prime causes of species loss and biodiversity decline (e.g. WCMC, 1992;
UNEP, 1995; Tilzey, 1996).
Given this historical framework, it is evident that the biodiversity on farmland previously or
currently subjected to intensive arable production, is considerably impoverished, in
comparison to the semi-natural habitats from which it derived (WCMC, 1992).
Consequently, we have taken as the baseline for our comparative evaluation of farming
regimes, the position that arable farmland represents an impoverished environment for
biodiversity. Using this baseline, our final evaluation for each regime is based on its
potential to enhance the impoverished biodiversity of arable land. The approach used in
reaching this evaluation is outlined in section 4.1 above.
4.3 Effect of each regime on biodiversity at the whole-farm scale
4.3.1 Step 1: Effects of agricultural practices, used within each regime, on biodiversity
This section brings together information on the agricultural practices used within each
farming regime (see Table 2.1), and the impact of each practice on the diversity of different
organism groups (see Table 2.2), to determine the impact on biodiversity of the agricultural
practices most commonly practised or most widely used within each of the five farming
regimes. This information is summarised in Table 4.1 below.
The scores shown in Table 4.1 represent the overall impact of the named agricultural
practice on the diversity of the five organism groups listed in Table 2.2. The scores allocated
are based on the effects of each practice on the biodiversity of arable land, as these have
been reported in the scientific literature. A summary of papers on which this assessment is
based, is appended to Table 2.2. It is important to note that within this assessment, no
attempt has been made to distinguish between the long-term and short-term effects of the
different practices on biodiversity. Such information is scarce and varies considerably in
quality and quantity between the different practices. Several of the practices indicated below
(e.g. inversion ploughing, mechanical weeding, stubbles) have short-term impacts on
biodiversity, which nevertheless are important in determining the long-term recovery and
enhancement of biodiversity (Wilson et al., 1996). A further point to note in the
interpretation of Table 4.1 is that the maximum and minimum score possible for each
practice is +5/-5. The number of practices commonly or widely used varies between
regimes, which limits the maximum and minimum scores achievable by each regime. The
latter are indicated in the final line of the table.
37
Table 4.1 Effect of the agricultural practices most commonly practised/widely used (CP &
WU in Table 2.1) within different farming regimes, on biodiversity at the farm-scale.
Biodiversity impact: + positive, - negative, 0 neutral, ?unknown, ---- practice not widely adopted within the
farming regime. The scores given represent the overall impact of each practice on the five different organism
groups listed in Table 2.2.
Common/widely Conventional Conventional LEAF IFS - Organic

used practice arable lowland experimental
mixed
Cultivation
Inversion ploughing -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 ------- -1.5
Minimal tillage --------- ----------- ------- ------- --------
Direct drilling ---------- ----------- -------- ------- --------
Cultivation impact -1.5 -1.5 -1.5 ------ -1.5
Crop production
Synth. fert./slurry -2 -2 -2 -2 --------
Farmyard manure ----------- +1 +1 +1 +1
GM/Intercropping ------------ ----------- ------ -------- +3
Production impact -2 -1 -1 -1 +4
Crop protection
Mechanical --------- ---------- --------- -0.5
weeding
Herbicide -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 -2.5 --------
Chemical pesticide -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 -3.5 ---------
Protection impact -6 -6 -6 -6 -0.5
Post-cropping
Incorporation +2.5 +2.5 +2.5 +2.5 +2.5
Set-aside/stubbles +4 +4 +4 +4 +4
Autumn sowing -2 -2 -2 ------- -------
Rotation with leys --------- +2 +2 +2 +2
Permanent pasture -------- +3 +3 +3 +3
Post-cropping +4.5 +9.5 +9.5 +11.5 +11.5
OVERALL -5 +1 +1 +4.5 +13.5

IMPACT
Possible score -35 ....+35 -50......+50 -50... -40.....+40 -40...
range for each +50 +40
regime
From the scores given in Table 4.1, the following conclusions can be drawn with regard to
the agricultural practices most commonly used within each regime.
a) Conventional arable: the majority of practices commonly used within this regime have
a negative impact on the diversity of at least one group of organisms. Some of the
effects will be short-term, for example, the immediate impact of inversion ploughing is to
cause a reduction in populations of soil organisms, but these may recover to former
38
levels later in the year (see section 2.2.4). The overall effect in this example on soil
organisms, would thus be to maintain the existing level of the population in arable soils
rather than enable any enhancement of the population, either in terms of abundance or
diversity. Some positive short-term benefits are associated with the occurrence of set-
aside and crop residue incorporation. Overall the agricultural practices adopted within
this regime are seen to be unfavourable to biodiversity. Some mitigation of these
impacts may be expected from the occurrence of uncropped areas surrounding the crop,
and enhancement of these could go some way to reducing the overall effect of the
agricultural practices.
b) Conventional mixed lowland: overall the practices adopted within this regime appear
to have the potential to enhance biodiversity on arable land. The practices include a
mixture of those that disadvantage biodiversity, for example the practices commonly
used for cultivation, crop production and protection, and those that enhance it, primarily
post-cropping practices, such as rotations with grass leys. The actual benefits conferred
will depend on the combination of practices adopted on individual farms.
c) LEAF: as in b) above, the practices adopted on LEAF farms have the potential to
enhance biodiversity on arable land. Again this enhancement rises primarily from the
adoption of post-cropping practices, which help to lessen the impact of practices that
disadvantage biodiversity.
d) IFS-experimental: these regimes include several practices that benefit biodiversity and
the overall effect is positive. Within this regime, the targeted use of products such as
chemical pesticides (not explicitly accounted for in Table 4.1) and the replacement of
herbicides by mechanical weeding, where practical, increase the value of these regimes
for enhancing biodiversity.
e) Organic: these regimes include many practices that have a positive impact on
biodiversity. Inversion ploughing is the prime practice that is seen as having a negative
impact on biodiversity, but as indicated under conventional arable, this is probably short-
term. Overall, the practices adopted on this regime clearly have the potential to enhance
the biodiversity of arable farmland.
Table 4.1 provides a broad overview of the effects on biodiversity of the practices most
commonly adopted within the five farming regimes. In reality, there is considerable
variation in the range of practices available and the actual benefits conferred will depend on
the balance of practices used on individual farms.
4.3.2 Step 2: Impacts on biodiversity of structural elements associated with each farming
regime.
The literature review undertaken for section 3 highlights the importance of uncropped
elements such as sown grass strips, hedges and conservation headlands, in providing
‘refuges’ for biodiversity on farmland. In view of the variation, in terms of biodiversity
impact, in agricultural practices used on the cropped areas within each regime, it is evident
that the uncropped areas have an important role in terms of the mitigation of effects of
agricultural practices and the enhancement of biodiversity on arable land. To determine the
39
importance of uncropped elements in enhancing biodiversity within each farming regime, the
following factors need to be considered.
• The occurrence and proportionate balance of cropped to uncropped land present within
each regime.
• The variety of uncropped elements present.
• The variety of crops present.
The impact of the variety of crops present on biodiversity is considered in section 2.5.3, and
included in Table 4.1 as rotations with grass leys. Therefore no further consideration will be
given to this topic here. Little quantitative information is available for the other two factors
and, therefore, our assessment has relied on information on the occurrence of uncropped
elements within each farming regime, and on the nature and adoption of standards for
managing uncropped elements within each regime. The information used in this assessment
of uncropped elements is based on the following surveys and information sources and is
summarised in Table 4.2.
• Data from a survey of 480 farms (Brown, 1998: unpublished) in which the occurrence
(but not area) of uncropped elements was recorded.
• Data from a survey of Farmland Cultivation Techniques (ADAS/SRI, 1996), in which the
balance of different crop types, grassland and set-aside is recorded.
• Guidelines set out for LEAF farms and standards set by different organic sector bodies
(e.g. Soil Association) on management and maintenance of uncropped elements.
• Information from the consultation exercise undertaken in March 1998 (see Appendix 3).
From the survey of 480 farms (Brown, 1998: unpublished, see Table 4.2) it is evident that
the occurrence of uncropped elements on conventional arable farms is lower than on the
other four regimes. This observation is also supported by the results of the ADAS /SRI
(1996) report which indicated that only 17% of respondents had conservation headlands on
their farms, and less than 5% of respondents had headlands wider than 4 m. This suggests
that the enhancement of biodiversity on conventional arable farms via uncropped elements
will be less than for the other four regimes. Conventional arable farms that are part of an
agri-environment scheme e.g. Countryside Stewardship, may well incorporate a larger
proportion of uncropped area which will be sympathetically managed for biodiversity.
Similarly farms that maintain an active game interest (e.g. for pheasants or partridges) will
maintain a higher proportion of uncropped area for game cover.
For the remaining four regimes, it appears that uncropped areas contribute significantly to
the farm landscape. The reasons for this relate to farming practice, the use of land for
livestock feed and shelter, and/or the implementation of standards to promote
‘environmentally friendly’ farming practice. Both factors ensure that the occurrence of
uncropped land becomes enshrined within the farm management. Conventional arable farms
that neither require uncropped land for production nor have required standards (noting the
exception of the Hedgerow regulations) for the maintenance of such land, have rather less
incentive (economic or otherwise) to retain such land within the regime. Conventional arable
farmers who retain significant areas of uncropped land may do so voluntarily or as part of an
agri-environment scheme.
40
Table 4.2 Significance of uncropped areas within each farming regime
Regime Percentage of Standards applying to Adoption of standards

farms with each regime
> 5% of
uncropped
land*
Conventional 45% various prescriptions for Required if farm is part of
arable ESAs & CSS, agri-environment scheme,
Hedgerow Regulations required for hedgerow
(1997) regulations.
Conventional 80%** various prescriptions for Required if farm is part of
mixed lowland ESAs & CSS, agri-environment scheme,
Hedgerow Regulations required for hedgerow
(1997) regulations.
LEAF 80%** LEAF standards Required to join regime
IFS- 80% Agreed standards for Required to join
experimental each experimental farm experimental regime
Organic 95% Sector body standards Required to join regime
(e.g. UKROFS & Soil
Association)
* Based on survey by Brown 1998: unpublished.
** no specific assessments were made of these two regimes, but occurrence is likely to be similar to IFS-
experimental regimes
4.3.3 Step 3: Effect of each regime on biodiversity at the whole farm-level
To achieve an overall assessment of the potential of each regime for enhancing biodiversity
at the farm level, information on the agricultural practices and structural elements present
within each regime has been combined. Within the overall assessment, the benefits derived
from the occurrence of uncropped land within a regime are regarded as mitigating some of
the negative impacts of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Thus, the impacts of inversion
ploughing or pest control may be lessened where habitat is present that acts as a refuge or
population reservoir to enable rapid recolonisation of cropped land. Such an effect may be
significant for insects, birds and mammals but may be of more limited importance for plants.
As noted in 4.3.2, conventional mixed lowland, organic, LEAF and IFS-experimental farms
where the occurrence of uncropped areas is frequent, will show the greatest potential for
mitigating negative impacts of agricultural practices. The overall effect of each regime on
biodiversity at the farm level is assessed as follows.
a) Conventional arable: the agricultural practices used within this regime have an overall
negative impact on biodiversity. Some of these impacts may be short-term (e.g.
inversion ploughing) and will be offset partly by the areas of uncropped land retained on
the farm. However, the occurrence of uncropped land on conventional arable farms
appears to be significantly less than for the other four regimes, although definitive
information on the balance of cropped to uncropped land is lacking for all regimes. This
hampers the overall evaluation of each regime in terms of assessing its ability to mitigate
the effects of agricultural practices on biodiversity. This mitigation would, however,
41
appear to be least available within conventional arable regimes. Overall this regime
effectively acts to maintain the impoverished status of biodiversity on arable land and
may, in areas of particularly intensive management, act to further its decline. The
potential for enhancement does exist where individual farmers adopt sympathetic
management of uncultivated land or are part of an agri-environment scheme. Moreover
there is considerable scope for improvement via the adoption of agricultural practices
that benefit biodiversity e.g. direct drilling, use of farmyard manure, mechanical weeding
and the inclusion of set-aside or stubbles, or by increasing the incidence and sympathetic
management of uncropped areas.
b) Conventional mixed lowland: here the negative impacts of cultivation, crop production
and crop protection are largely offset by post-cropping practices, for example the
occurrence of crop rotations with grass leys, permanent pasture and by the occurrence of
uncropped land. The occurrence and extent of these mitigating features provide the
potential for this regime to enhance the biodiversity of arable land. This potential will
strongly depend on the extent to which the management of these features, particularly the
uncropped land, are sympathetic to the requirements of different organism groups.
c) LEAF: the balance of impacts from the agricultural practices adopted on LEAF farms
appears similar to that on conventional mixed lowland farms. Again the negative
impacts of cultivation, crop production and crop protection are largely offset by post-
cropping practices and sympathetic management of uncropped land. The overall effect is
a regime that has potential for enhancing the biodiversity of arable land.
d) IFS-experimental: this regime is essentially similar to the LEAF farms but adopts more
stringent procedures for targeting the use of herbicides and pesticides and for managing
or establishing structural elements that encourage beneficials and enhance the farm
environment. The adoption of direct drilling lessens the impact of cultivation practice on
biodiversity. In summary, this regime is assessed as one that can both maintain and
enhance the biodiversity of arable land.
e) Organic: Both in terms of their agricultural practices and of the extent and management
of uncropped land, organic regimes are seen to exert a positive effect on the biodiversity
of arable land. The effect derives from the lack of synthetic inputs, the occurrence of
post-cropping planting practices that benefit several organism groups (Table 2.2) and the
widespread occurrence and sympathetic management of uncropped elements present
within the regime. This combination of agricultural and structural elements is clearly
one that can act to enhance the biodiversity of arable land.
4.4 Impacts on national biodiversity
4.4.1 Step 4: The extent of each regime within England
Up to 5 million hectares of agricultural land is cultivated annually (ADAS/SRI, 1996). The

extent of each farming regime and the cultivation practices associated with it, may thus have
a substantial impact on biodiversity at the national scale. To indicate the potential size of
this impact, the biodiversity evaluation associated with each regime in 4.4.3 above, is
reviewed in relation to the area of each regime within England.
42
Using figures from the Agricultural Census data (MAFF, 1997), the area occupied by
conventional arable farms within England is estimated at 3.8 million ha. Much of this is
concentrated within the eastern half of England where cereal farming is dominant.
Conventional mixed lowland farms occupy just under 729,000 ha and are concentrated in the
south and west of England. By comparison LEAF farms occupy around 142,000 ha (based
on 1997 LEAF audit figures from the National Agricultural Centre at Stoneleigh), whilst
IFS-experimental regimes account for less than 3,000 ha. The total area under organic
farming is currently around 55,000 ha for the UK as a whole (UKROFS Committee 1998:
pers. comm.). Around 28,300 ha, of organically farmed land are present in England, about
half of which is in the uplands, leaving around 0.3% of arable land under organic regimes in
the lowlands
4.4.2 Step 5: The impact of each regime on national biodiversity
Based on the figures given above, the overall potential of each regime for enhancing
biodiversity on arable land is evaluated at both the farm and national scale, and indicated in
Table 4.3 below.
In terms of impact at the national scale, it is evident that:
a) Conventional arable: occupying some 80% of arable land within England, is a key
factor in influencing the current level of biodiversity present on arable land. As
indicated in section 4.2, this level is one of an impoverished habitat in biodiversity terms.
At present, the predominant agricultural and land management practices used within
conventional arable act to maintain this baseline. Extreme examples can be found on
either side of this maintenance line, for example, intensively managed farms that may
further deplete biodiversity and sympathetically managed farms that try to enhance it.
Insufficient quantitative information is available to enable an objective estimate to be
made of the number of farms that fall within these categories.
b) Conventional mixed lowland: this regime has the potential for enhancing biodiversity
on the 15% of arable land in England which it currently occupies. The extent to which
enhancement may be achieved, will depend on the extent, condition and management of
uncropped areas present on these farms.
c) LEAF farms, occupying 3% of arable land, have a high potential to enhance biodiversity
over a small area. The overall impact on national biodiversity, at the present time, is
likely to be small but positive.
d) IFS-experimental farms are likely to exhibit positive enhancement of biodiversity at the

farm scale, but the total area occupied by this regime is so small that the national impact
is likely to be insignificant.
e) Organic farms are also likely to effect positive enhancement of biodiversity at the local
farm level, but their occupancy of just 0.3% of the arable land in England suggests that
the overall impact on national biodiversity is currently very small.
43
Table 4.3 Potential impact of each farming regime for enhancing the biodiversity of arable
land at the local (farm) and national levels
Regime Potential impact on % of arable land Potential impact on

biodiversity at the occupied within the biodiversity of
farm level England* arable land at the
national scale
Conventional arable Maintaining existing 80% Large area maintained
baseline at existing, species-
impoverished baseline
Conventional mixed Potential to enhance 15% Reasonable area with
lowland biodiversity potential for
enhancing biodiversity
LEAF Potential to enhance 3% Small area with
biodiversity potential for
enhancing biodiversity
IFS-experimental Enhancing <0.01% Little impact as area is
biodiversity insignificant
Organic Positive 0.3% Very small area with
enhancement of positive enhancement
biodiversity of biodiversity
*Based on figures from Agricultural Census data in MAFF (1997b), IFS-LEAF 1997 farm audit (National
Agricultural Centre, Stoneleigh), UKROFS (1998, pers. comm.)
4.5 Enhancing biodiversity on farmland
4.5.1 Identifying an appropriate approach
It is evident that organic farming regimes can provide significant benefits to biodiversity at
the farm-scale, but their overall impact in enhancing the biodiversity of arable land at the
national scale is currently small. Whilst it is important that this contribution is recognised
and encouraged, it is clear that in biodiversity terms, efforts need to be focused on the 80%
of arable land where biodiversity is still impoverished. Enhancement of biodiversity on
these areas could be achieved by encouraging greater uptake of organic farming and/or the
adoption of agricultural practices and elements that are known to benefit specific species
groups. A number of alternative approaches have been discussed by Macdonald & Smith
(1991). The success of any approach will, however, be determined by the readiness of
conventional arable farmers to adopt it.
From a biodiversity viewpoint, the most successful approach is likely to be one that targets
the requirements of specific species groups, and provides an effective mechanism for
enhancing species population size and/or persistence. One of the conclusions from the
Consultation Workshop (Appendix 3) highlighted that an approach that focuses on specific
agricultural practices or landscape elements, rather than on the adoption of a particular
farming regime, may prove more effective for enhancing biodiversity. Not all attendees
were in agreement with this approach, and it is important to remember that several species
require a combination of different elements to ensure their survival, such that concentration
on single elements may not prove effective. Indeed it was suggested that the benefits of an
44
organic regime arise from the interaction of a range of management practices that are greater
than the sum of the benefits from each individual management practice.
Within organic regimes, much emphasis is placed on the adoption of a whole farm holistic
approach. However, it is unclear what the specific benefits are to biodiversity of such an
approach (i.e. what are the causal mechanisms that enhance biodiversity) and what benefits
might be achieved when these are applied to land already impoverished in biodiversity
terms. An assessment of such benefits might be most strikingly tested on farmland in East
Anglia, which includes some of the most intensively managed arable land. Furthermore it
remains unclear whether the adoption of the agricultural practices and/or the structural
elements associated with organic regimes, into other farming regimes would deliver similar
benefits in terms of enhancing biodiversity. Results from this review and from comparative
studies of conventional arable and IFS-experimental regimes suggest that this could be
possible, but replication of existing studies at a large (whole farm) scale is needed before
such an approach could be advocated commercially.
4.5.2 Species response to management change
The response of different species groups to agricultural practices and structural elements on
the farm has been fully discussed in sections 2 and 3 respectively. The sensitivity of species
such as grey partridge, brown hare, and rare arable weeds, e.g. pheasant’s eye (Adonis
annua) and cornflower (Centaurea cyanus), to management change has been highlighted in
the UK Costed Habitat Action Plan for Cereal Field Margins (UK Biodiversity Steering
Group, 1995), and by studies such as that of Campbell et al. (1997) on pesticide use and
farmland birds.
Species groups vary in their sensitivity to different agricultural and habitat management
practices and respond at different scales. Thus bird diversity may be influenced by the
availability of nesting sites, food resources for chicks, or predator cover, and as a group,
birds will tend to respond to the balance of elements across the whole farm. The
introduction of a single additional element may therefore, have little overall impact on bird
biodiversity, but by comparison, may have a significant impact in terms of invertebrates.
The scale and juxtaposition of structural elements within the farm landscape is therefore
important in determining the overall effect of a farming regime on biodiversity
It is important to remember that change in species composition does not always herald a loss
in biodiversity. It may simply reflect species preference for one habitat type over another.
For example, ploughing will encourage carabid species such as Pterostichus madidus and P.
melanarius that prefer open land. As the crop grows, these species may diminish in
abundance and be replaced by species that prefer taller, shady vegetation. After harvest the
species of open ground may dominate again. Shifts in community composition are common
in semi-natural systems (e.g. Gardner, 1991; Gardner et al., 1997) and reflect change in the
structure of the vegetation. The overall impact on biodiversity is limited so long as there are
reservoir habitats present that enable recolonisation.
A further aspect that requires consideration in terms of species response is the impact of
management change on the interactions between species (J.D. Wilson 1998: pers. comm. see
Appendix 3). Most studies have focused on single species/species group responses and the
45
knock-on effects for other species groups have not often been examined. A common reason
for this is that studies often focus on a single management practice to determine its
effectiveness in enhancing biodiversity. The need for information on interactive effects
between species groups re-emphasises the requirement for studies to be conducted at the
whole-farm level.
46
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This section summarises the impacts of conventional arable, conventional mixed lowland,
organic, LEAF and IFS-experimental regimes on biodiversity, including the key factors that
influence biodiversity within each regime. The information gaps identified by the review are
also highlighted and recommendations provided on additional research and monitoring
studies to address these gaps.
5.2 Cropped areas
Cropped areas of arable farmland are seen largely as impoverished in terms of biodiversity
(Tilzey, 1996). This impoverishment normally reflects past management history (Samways,
1994; WCMC, 1992) and is maintained largely by repeated disturbance due to cropping
(Tilzey, 1996). Compared to the other four regimes included in this review, cropped areas
within conventional arable regimes generally show greater fluctuation in the
abundance/activity of soil organisms (e.g. section 2.3.1), the least diverse weed communities
(e.g. section 2.3.1), the lowest diversity of invertebrates (although densities of individual
species may be high e.g. section 3.2) and smaller populations of farmland birds (e.g. section
2.4.3). This situation appears to arise from the adoption of agricultural practices or inputs
that either directly reduce populations of individual species, or that limit the availability of
components (such as food items) that are essential to their persistence. Certain practices
within conventional arable agriculture do have a positive benefit for biodiversity. For
example, the widespread occurrence of set-aside has helped to enhance the food resources
available to over-wintering species (Firbank et al., 1992; Wilson, et al., 1996). However, the
relative paucity of practices that benefit biodiversity within conventional arable, compared to
the other four regimes, or that mitigate the impact of unfavourable practices, is a key factor
behind the impoverishment of biodiversity on cropped areas within this regime.
Within organic farms, the absence of chemical inputs such as artificial fertilisers, pesticides
and herbicides, coupled with the adoption of several practices that benefit biodiversity,
enable these regimes to contribute positively to the enhancement of biodiversity on arable
farmland. Practices that have a negative impact on biodiversity do occur within organic
regimes, primarily associated with cultivation and weed control (see Table 4.1). However,
mitigation of these would seem to be assisted by the infrastructure of organic farms, where
uncropped areas occur frequently and are managed sympathetically for biodiversity.
Within conventional mixed lowland, LEAF and IFS-experimental regimes, the impact of
unfavourable practices and inputs appears to be countered by the adoption of practices that
have a positive benefit on biodiversity, and by the frequent occurrence of uncropped areas
(see Tables 4.1 and 4.2). These counter-balancing elements provide the potential for these
regimes to enhance the biodiversity of the arable land under their occupancy.
47
5.3 Uncropped areas
In all regimes, the uncropped areas are responsible for the bulk of all floral and faunal
diversity within the agricultural landscape. These areas act as habitats in their own right and
as species reservoirs for adjacent cropped or pasture land. They are also important buffer
zones in limiting the effects of synthetic herbicides and insecticides in conventional arable
regimes, and to some extent in LEAF and IFS-experimental regimes. The conservation and
proper management of marginal features are therefore critical in all regimes for maintaining
biodiversity.
The significance of uncropped areas for biodiversity is demonstrated by the impact of

within-field planted strips or predator strips, which act as reservoirs and ‘safe havens’. They
are an integral part of the organic approach and have been adopted into IFS-experimental
regimes where they are now a central principle of pest control management. Interestingly,
they are being increasingly imported into conventional arable regimes (for example as an
option within the Arable Stewardship Pilot scheme), where they, may have a positive impact
on biodiversity.
5.4 Impact of different farming regimes
Evaluation of the five farming regimes, in terms of their ability to enhance biodiversity on
arable land, indicates that organic regimes have the greatest benefit for biodiversity at the
farm level. In terms of national biodiversity, however, the effect is small, since the total area
of arable land under organic production in England, is less than one percent. Conventional
arable regimes act primarily, at present, to maintain the impoverished status of biodiversity
on arable land, although there are likely to be farms at either end of the scale; that is
conventional arable farms that damage biodiversity and those that enhance it. The remaining
farming regimes all have the potential to enhance biodiversity, although at the national scale,
this potential is probably greatest for the conventional mixed lowland regime which is larger
in extent than either LEAF or IFS-experimental regimes.
Many of the studies reported here have demonstrated that whilst organic farming enshrines
principles that are beneficial to agricultural biodiversity, the specific farming practices that
encourage this biodiversity can be adopted by both integrated production and conventional
regimes. The range and balance of practices present within LEAF and IFS-experimental
regimes are interesting and raise two questions. The first is the extent to which existing crop
husbandry practices can be effective in reducing the impact of artificial inputs on
biodiversity, whilst maintaining a viable commercial level of crop production. The second is
the level to which artificial inputs need to be reduced, to achieve agricultural regimes that are
sustainable in terms of both biodiversity and economic crop production. Such questions also
identify the need to define the level of biodiversity that can be reasonably expected to co-
exist alongside economically viable crop production and the economic benefits of enhancing
this biodiversity.
In conclusion, all five regimes currently have the potential to maintain biodiversity, provided
there is good management of uncropped areas, and enhancement of biodiversity is clearly
possible under organic and integrated production regimes. Existing agri-environment
schemes go some way to supporting biodiversity initiatives, but there is a need for an
48
evaluation of management practices at the whole farm scale, to determine their impact on
both individual species groups and on the interactions between species groups, and hence
their overall effect on biodiversity.
5.5 Information needs and recommendations
5.5.1 Information gaps
A number of information gaps have been identified within this review which are outlined
here, together with a suggested approach for tackling these gaps and recommendations for
future work. With respect to information gaps, the following have been highlighted.
• A lack of quantitative information on the utilisation of and variation in different

agricultural practices within the different farming regimes, and the extent and nature of
uncropped areas associated with each regime.
• Information on the interaction of effects of agricultural practices and of structural

elements at the whole-farm scale.
• Information on the proportion of cropped to uncropped land required to enhance

biodiversity on arable land.
• Information on the effectiveness of different rotation cycles adopted under the different
farming regimes in enhancing biodiversity on impoverished arable land.
• The identification of agricultural practices or approaches that are effective in enhancing

biodiversity on species impoverished land.
• Information on the extent to which variation in artificial inputs influences biodiversity.
• Information on the economic implications of adopting measures to enhance biodiversity

within the different regimes.
• An assessment of the overall effectiveness of current agri-environment schemes in

enhancing biodiversity and in contributing to the UK Biodiversity Action Plan.
5.5.2 Suggested approach
In addressing these gaps, it is clear that there is a need for:
1. Whole farm or large-scale studies: to enable assessments to be undertaken at scales

appropriate to the behaviour of different species groups and to enable the determination of
interactive effects between different groups.
2. Clear comparative studies: to enable the determination of cause and effect in assessing
the impact of different farming regimes on biodiversity. Consideration should also be
given to monitoring farms under conversion (compared to those remaining under
49
conventional arable production), to assess the rate of recovery of biodiversity on land

previously impoverished in species.
3. Studies that focus on the enhancement of land impoverished in biodiversity terms: this is
allied to point 2 above. Most of the comparative studies undertaken in the literature have
focused on comparison of established farming regimes. Such studies are useful in
informing us of whether one regime is better than another in biodiversity terms, but rarely
provide clear information on why a regime is better. This is because established farms
may have started from a different baseline in biodiversity terms, have experienced
different management practices, both existing and in the past, and may differ in the
balance of structural elements present on the farm. As a result, it is difficult to pinpoint
from these studies, the actual causal mechanisms that enhance biodiversity. Identification
of these mechanisms is important, if we are to have confidence in advocating
management practices to farmers. By undertaking comparative studies on land that is: i)
already impoverished in biodiversity terms, ii) located within the same geographical
region, iii) matched at the outset in terms of farm infrastructure, a clearer picture may be
derived of the impact of different farming regimes in enhancing biodiversity. The
individual effect of agricultural practices or structural elements on biodiversity would still
need to be isolated, and this is discussed in 4 below.
4. Studies that distinguish between the impacts of different management practices on

biodiversity: as indicated in 4.5.1, organic regimes have been identified as beneficial for
biodiversity, but whether this is due to the adoption of the organic regime or the adoption
of specific management practices remains unclear. Separating out the effect of different
management practices is a difficult task and may only be done by manipulative
experiments. Based on the scenario outlined in 3 above (points i-iii), we suggest that an
exploration of the following could be informative:
• experimental studies to assess the biodiversity benefits of areas with different
proportions of cropped to uncropped land,
• comparative study of the impact of different rotational systems (keeping inputs
and structural elements constant) on biodiversity,
• comparisons of cropping regimes that differ only in terms of agricultural inputs
(i.e. are otherwise identical in terms of rotation and the balance of cropped to
uncropped land). This would need to build on the work undertaken within
SCARAB and TALISMAN which examined the effect of pesticide within
different crop rotations.
Such experiments would help us tease out the relative merits/de-merits of uncropped land,
crop management system and crop production practices in enhancing the biodiversity of
arable farmland.
1. Economic assessment an economic evaluation of the costs and benefits to agricultural

production (including the wider implications for consumers), and to biodiversity, of
increasing the adoption of particular farming regimes. Whilst the costs and benefits of
each regime, particularly in biodiversity terms, are not yet fully characterised, such an
exercise may be possible based on best-case and worst-case scenarios. Economic
assessments could also be linked to demonstration farms undergoing conversion from
conventional arable to organic or integrated production. On such farms, monitoring of
both biodiversity and production would have the advantage of providing quantitative
information on change in these two parameters. The farms would also act as a focus for
50
technology transfer and dissemination of information to the wider agricultural and

consumer community.
5.5.3 Recommendations
In conclusion, we would recommend the following issues for consideration.
• Monitoring of biodiversity on farms pre- and post- conversion to organic farming.
• Comparative studies that focus on the effectiveness of different farming regimes or

agricultural practices, in enhancing biodiversity on species-impoverished intensively
managed arable land.
• Manipulative experiments to determine the optimal balance of cropped to uncropped

areas for enhancing biodiversity.
• Manipulative experiments to examine the separate impacts of rotational regimes and

agricultural inputs on biodiversity.
• An economic assessment of the costs and benefits of conversion to organic, integrated

production or uptake of available agri-environment schemes, in both production and
biodiversity terms.
Distinguishing whether the benefits accrued for biodiversity are optimised by the adoption of
a specific farming regime or from the incorporation of specific elements within a regime is
critical for enabling cost-effective policy decisions. The task is not simple and is only likely
to be achieved by manipulative experimentation at a large, if possible whole farm, scale.
The suggested solutions must also be readily adopted by conventional arable farmers,
responsible for managing 80% of the arable land in England, in order for the desired
biodiversity benefits to be realised.
51
BIBLIOGRAPHY
ADAS (1995). The Effect of Organic Farming Systems on Aspects of the Environment. A
review prepared for Agricultural Resources Policy Division of the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. pp. 114.
ADAS (1997a). Biological Monitoring of Moorland in the North Peak ESA 1988-1996.
Unpublished report prepared for MAFF Conservation Management Division.
ADAS (1997b). Environmental Monitoring in the South West Peak ESA 1993-1996.
Unpublished report prepared for MAFF Conservation Management Division.
ADAS (1997c). Environmental Monitoring in the Exmoor ESA 1993-1996. Unpublished

report prepared for MAFF Conservation Management Division.
ADAS/SRI (1996). Farmland Cultivation Practices: Survey Report. Unpublished report

prepared for MAFF Environmental Protection Division
Altieri, M.A. & Letourneau, K. K. (1982). Vegetation management and biological control in
agroecosystems. Crop Protection 1, 405-430.
Altieri, M.A. (1991). Increasing biodiversity to improve insect pest management in

ecosystems. In: The Biodiversity of Microorganisms and Invertebrates: its role in
Sustainable Agriculture (edited by D.L. Hawksworth). pp. 165-182. CAB
International.*
Ammer, Von U., Utschick, H. & Woll, T. (1994). The impact of surrounding meadows and
woods on arable weed communities and their phenology under
conventionally/biological organic farming systems. Forstw.Chl. 113. 325-344.*
Ammer, U., Utschick, H. & Anton, H. (1988). Die Auswirkungen von biologischen und
konventionellen Landbau auf Flora und Fauna. Forstw. Cbl. 107, 274-291.*
Anon (1997). Organic Farming - Science into Practice. Elm Farm/MAFF/Henry

Doubleday/Soil Association/Duchy of Cornwall at the National Agricultural Centre,
Stonleigh 4/11/1997.
Armstrong, G. (1995). Carabid beetle diversity and abundance in organic potatoes and
conventionally grown seed potatoes in the north of Scotland. Pedobiologia, 39, 231-
237.*
Armstrong, G. & McKinlay, R. G. (1996). The effect of intercropping cabbages with clover
on pitfall catches of carabid beetles: a study in invertebrate diversity. In:
Biodiversity and Land Use: The Role of Organic Farming (edited by J. Isart & J.J.
Llerena). Proceedings of the First ENOF (The European Network for Scientific
Research Co-ordination in Organic Farming) Workshop, Bonn.
52
Armstrong, G. & Younie, D. (1993). Comparison of carabid beetle and linyphiid spider
assemblages in organic and non-organic grassland. In: Arable Ecosystems for the
21st Century. 13th Long Ashton International Symposium.*
Atkinson, D. & Watson, C. A. (1996). The environmental impact of intensive systems of

animal production in the lowlands. Animal Science 63, 353-361.*
Baines, M., Johnson, P. J., Smith, E. H., Hambler, C. & MacDonald, D. W. (1998). The
effects of field margin management on the abundance and species richness of
invertebrates. 1. Araneae. Ecography (in press).
Barr, C.J., Britt, C.P. & Sparks, T.H. (1995). Hedgerow Management and Wildlife. A
review of research on the effects of hedgerow management and adjacent land on
biodiversity. Unpublished report for MAFF Conservation Management Division by
ADAS & the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology. 125 pp.
Basedow, T. (1995). Insect pests, their antagonists and diversity of the arthropod fauna in
fields of farms managed at different intensities over a long term - a comparative
survey. Entomologie 10 (1-6), 565-572.
Biederbeck, V. O.,Campbell, C. A., Bowren, K. E., Schnitzer, M. & Melver, R. N. (1980).

Effects of burning cereal straw on soil properties and grain yields in Saskatchewn.
Journal of the Soil Science Society of America 44, 103-111.
Boatman, N. (1994). Field Margins: Integrating Agriculture and Conservation BCPC

Monograph No. 58. British Crop Protection Council, Farnham .
den Boer, P. J. (1977) Carabids in a cultivated countryside. Miscellaneous Papers of the

LandbouwHogeschool, Wageningen, 14, 1-190.
Brooks, D., Bater, J., Jones, H. & Shah, P. (1995). The effect of organic farming regimes in
breeding and winter bird populations. Part IV. Invertebrate and weed seed food-
sources for birds in organic and conventional farming systems. BTO Research
Report No 154. BTO Thetford.
Brown, R.W. (1995a). Earthworm Survey, Integrated Crop trials, CWS Agriculture,
Stoughton, Leicester. Unpublished interim report.
Brown, R.W. (1995b). Boarded Barns Farm Annual Report. Rhone Poulenc.
Brown, R.W. (1996). Boarded Barns Farm Annual Report. Rhone Poulenc.
Brown, R.W. (1997a). Boarded Barns Farm Annual Report. Rhone Poulenc.
Brown, R.W. (1997b). A Review of the Rhone-Poulenc Farm Management Study. Rhone
Poulenc Agriculture. pp. 50.
Brown, R.W. (1997c). CWS Agriculture Field Margin Beneficial Invertebrate Study. Year 1
(1996-97). Unpublished report, Bishop Burton College. 168pp.
53
BTO/IACR (1995) The effect of organic farming regimes on breeding and winter bird
populations. Parts I-IV. BTO Research Report No. 154. BTO Thetford.
Bunce, R. G. H., Howard, D. C., Barr, C. J., Cunningham, R. C. and French, D. (1994).
Botanical Diversity in British Hedgerows.
Campbell, L.H. &Cooke, A. eds. (1997). The indirect effects of pesticides on birds. 18pp.
JNCC, Peterborough.
Campbell, L. H., Avery, M. I., Donald, P., Evans, A. D., Green, R. E. and Wilson, J. D.
(1997). A review of the indirect effects of pesticides on birds. JNCC Report No. 227.
Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Chamberlain, D., Evans, J., Fuller, R. & Langston, R. (1995). Where there's muck there's
birds. The BTO's Organic Farm Project. BTO News Sept-Oct 1995.*
Chapman, P. A. (1993). The effect of grazing and cutting regimes on the invertebrate fauna
of organic grassland. In: Arable Ecosystems in the 21st Century. 13th Long Ashton
International Symposium.*
Chiverton, P.A. & Sotherton, N.W. (1991). The effects on beneficial arthropods of the
exclusion of herbicides from cereal crops. Journal of Applied Ecology 28, 1027-
1039.
Christensen, K. D., Jacobsen, E. M. & Nohr, H. (1996). A comparative study of bird faunas
in conventionally and organically farmed areas. Dansk Ornitologisk Forenings
Tidsskrift 90, 21-28.
Christensen, O. (1988). Lumbricid earthworms as bio-indicators relative to soil factors in

different agro-ecosystems. In: Advances in management and conservation of soil
fauna. (Edited by G. K. Veeresi, D. Rajogopal and C. A. Viraktamath). pp 839-849.
Oxford and IBH Publishing, New Delhi.
Cigli, T. & Frampton, G.K. (1994). Arthropod populations under current and reduced-input
pesticide regimes: results from the first four treatment years of the MAFF, SCARAB
project. BCPC - Pests and Diseases, 6B-4, 653-660.
Clarke, J.H. (1992). Set-aside. BCPC Monograph No. 50. British Crop Protection Council,
Farnham.
Clarke, J.H. & Davies, D.B. (1995). Balanced farming: conflict or compromise? In: Soil
Management in Sustainable Agriculture (edited by H.F. Cook & H.C. Lee). pp. 86-
94. Wye College Press, Ashford.
Clegg, L. M. (1995). An Investigation into the Effects of Conventional, Organic and

Integrated Farming Systems on Ground Invertebrates. Unpublished undergraduate
study on the CWS Agriculture Focus on Farming Practice study at Stoughton,
Leicester. Myerscough College.
54
Cooper, D.A. (1990) Development of an experimental programme to pursue the results of

the Boxworth Project. BCPC - Pests and Diseases 1, 153-162.
Cosser, N. D., Goding, M. J., Froud-Williams, R. J. & Davies, W. P. (1997). Husbandry

effects on weed seedbanks in an organic system. In: Integrated Crop Production -
Arable crops. SCI Symposium March 1997.
Countryside Council for Wales (1992). Tir Cymen. CCW, Bangor.
Critchley, C.N.R. (1994). relationships between vegetation and site factors in uncropped
wildlife strips in Breckland Environmentally Sensitive Area. In: Field Margins:
Integrating Agriculture and Conservation (edited by N. Boatman). BCPC
Monograph No. 58, 283-288.
Critchley, C.N.R. (1996). Monitoring as a feedback mechanism for the conservation

management of arable plant communities. In: Vegetation management in forestry,
amenity and conservation areas: managing for multiple objectives. Aspects of
Applied Biology, 44, 239-244.
Curry, J. P (1976). Some effects of animal manures on earthworms in grassland.

Pedobiologia 16, 425-438.*
Dalla Ragione, I. Papa, R. & Zanol, R. (1996). Biodiversity and organic farming in Central
Italy. In: Biodiversity and Land Use: The Role of Organic Farming (edited by J.
Isart, J. & J.J. Llerena), pp. 73-80. Proceedings of the First ENOF (The European
Network for Scientific Research Co-ordination in Organic Farming) Workshop,
Bonn.
Davis, B. N. K. (1992). Environmental Impact of Pesticide Drift. English Nature Research

Report 11. English Nature, Peterborough.
Davis, B. N. K., Frost, A. J., Pinder, L. C. V., Marrs, R. H & Cook, A. S. (1994).
Environmental Impact of Pesticide Drift, Aerial Spraying. English Nature Research
Report 112. English Nature, Peterborough.
Davis, B. N. K. (1995). Environmental impact of pesticide drift: aerial spraying. English

Nature Research Report No. 45. English Nature, Peterborough.
Dennis, P. (1991). The temporal and spatial distribution of arthropod predators of the aphids
Rhopalsiphum padi, W. & Sitobion avenae (F.) in cereal next to field-margin
habitats. Norwegian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 5, 79-88.*
Dover, J.W. (1994). Arable field margins: factors affecting butterfly distribution and
abundance. In: Field Margins: Integrating Agriculture and Conservation (edited by
N Boatman). BCPC Monograph No. 58. British Crop Protection Council, Farnham .
Dover, J. W. (1996). Factors affecting the distribution of satyrid butterflies on arable

farmland. Journal of Applied Ecology 33 (4), 723-734.*
55
Dover, J. W. (1997). Conservation headlands: effects on butterfly distribution and

behaviour. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 63 (1), 31-49.
Dritschilo, W. & Erwin, T. L. (1982). Responses in abundance and diversity of cornfield

carabid communities to differences in farm practices. Ecology 63, 900-904*
Drummond, C. (1995). Landscape management - central to the whole-farm policy. In:

Integrated crop protection: towards sustainability? BCPC Symposium, 63, 275-284.
Dudley, N. (1992). Biodiversity and Organic Agriculture. Elm Farm Research Centre
Bulletin 2, July 1992, 3*
Edwards, C.A. & Lofty, J.R. (1982) The effect of direct drilling and minimal cultication on
earthworm populations. Journal of Applied Ecology, 19, 723-734.
El Titi, A. (1991). The Lautenbach Project 1978-89: integrated wheat production on a

commercial arable farm, south west Germany. In: The Ecologyof Temperate Cereal
Fields (edited by L.G. Firbank, N.Carter, J.F. Darbyshire & G.R. Potts). pp. 399-
412. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.
El-Titi, A. (1992). Integrated farming: an ecological farming approach in European

Agriculture. Outlook on Agriculture 21 (1), 33-39.
English Nature. Wildlife Enhancement Scheme. English Nature, Peterborough.
Evans, J., Wilson, J.D. & Browns, S.J. (1995). Habitat selection and breeding success of
skylarks Alauda arvensis on organic and conventional farmland. In: The Effect of
Organic Farming Regimes on Breeding and Winter Bird Populations. Parts I-IV.
BTO Research Report, No. 154. BTO, Thetford.
Feber, R. E., Smith, H & MacDonald, D. W. (1996). The effects on butterfly abundance of
the management of uncropped edges of arable fields. Journal of Applied Ecology 33,
1191-1205.
Feber, R. E., Firbank, L. G., Johnson, P. J. & MacDonald, D. W. (1997). The effects of
organic farming on pest and non-pest butterfly abundance. Agriculture, Ecosystems
and Environment 64 (2), 133-139.
Felton Woodhead, P. (199?) The invertebrate fauna of the Jemerton Estate, Worcestershire.
Journal of RASE
Firbank, L. G., Arnold, H. R., Eversham, B. C., Mountford, J. O., Radford, G. L., Telfer,
M.G., Treweek, J. R., Webb, N. C. R., & Wells, T. C. E. (1992). The potential use of
set-aside land to benefit wildlife. Unpublished report to the Ministry of Agriculture,
Fisheries and Food. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Abbots Ripton.
56
Frampton, G. K. & Cilgi, T. (1992). Long-term effects of pesticides on arthropods in UK

arable crops : preliminary results from the SCARAB project. Aspects of Applied
Biology 31, 69-76.
Frampton, G. K., Cilgi, T. and Wratten, S. D. (1992). The MAFF 'SCARAB' Project: long
term consequences for farmland arthropods of pesticide use in the UK. In:
Pesticides, cereal farming and the environment (edited by P. W. Greig-Smith, G. K.
Frampton and A. R. Hardy). HMSO, London.
Frank, T. & Nentwig, W. (1995). Ground dwelling spiders (Araneae) in sown weed strips
and adjacent fields. Acta Oecologica 16 (2), 179-193.
Fraser, D. G (1988). Soil microbial populations and activities under conventional and
organic management. Journal of Environmental Quality 17, 7-9.*
Frieben, B. & Kopke, U. (1996). Effects of farming systems on biodiversity. In: Biodiversity
and Land Use: The Role of Organic Farming (edited by J. Isart, J. & J.J. Llerena), pp
11-21. Proceedings of the First ENOF (The European Network for Scientific
Research Co-ordination in Organic Farming) Workshop, Bonn.
Froud-Williams, R.J. & Chancellor, R.J. (1982) A survey of grass weeds in cereals in
southern England. Weed Research 22, 163-171.
Frylestam, B. (1986). Agricultural land use effects on the winter diet of brown hare (Lepus
europaeus Pallas) in southern Sweden. Mammalian Review 16, 157-161.
Fuller, R. J. (1997). Responses of Birds to Organic Arable Farming : Mechanisms and

Evidence. In: Weeds, pp 897-906. Brighton Crop Protection Conference
Gardner, S. M. (1991). Ground beetle (Coleoptera, Carabidae) communities on upland heath

and their association with heathland flora. Journal of Biogeography, 18, 281-289.
Gardner, S. M., Hartley, S. E., Davies, A. & Palmer, S. C. F. (1997). Carabid communities
on heather moorlands in northeast Scotland: the consequences of grazing pressure for
community diversity. Biological Conservation, 81, 275-286.
Gaunt, G. (1997). The Ecological Importance of Marginal Habitats in relation to Boarded

Barns Farm, Ongar, Essex. Unpublished undergraduate dissertation, University of
Lincoln and Humberside.
Glen, D. (1997). Implications of Integrated Crop Production for Invertebrate Pests and
Natural Energies. In: Integrated Crop Production - Arable crops. SCI Symposium
March 1997.
Glen, D. M., Greaves, M. P. & Anderson, H. M. (1995). Ecology and Integrated farming
systems. In: Arable Ecosystems for 21st Century. Proceedings of the 13th Long
Ashton International Symposium Bristol.*
57
Godfroid, S. (1996). La biodiversite des voies de communication, un arguement de poids

pour la prise en compte de ces elements lineaires dans les politiques d'amenagement
du territoire. Actes du colloque "Le reseau ecologiques" Cercles des Naturalistes de
Belgique.*
Goodlass, G. & Johnson, P. A. (1997). Integrated Crop Production - A Soil Scientist

Viewpiont. In: Integrated Crop Production - Arable crops. SCI Symposium March
1997.
Goulding, K., Jarvis, S. & Stockdale, L. (1997). Soils and Nutrient Flows. In: Organic
Farming Study Review Paper. Organic Farming Study Forum. Joint Research
Councils Project. IACR, Rothamsted.
Green, M.R., Ogilvy, S.E., Frampton, G.K., Cigli, T., Jones, S., Tarrant, K. & Jones, A.
(1995). SCARAB: the environmental implications of reducing pesticide inputs. In:
Integrated Crop Protection: Towards Sustainability. BCPC Symposium Proceedings
No. 63, 321-330.
Green, R. (1979). The ecology of Apodemus sylvaticus on arable farmland. Journal of

Zoology, 188, 357-377.*
Greig-Smith, P. W., Frampton, G. K. & Hardy, A. R.(1992). Pesticides, cereal farming and
the environment. HMSO, London.
Grub, A., Perritaz, J. & Contat, F. (1996). Promotion of the segetal flora by field margins on
productive arable soil. Journal of Applied Botany, 70 (3-4), 101-112.
Halberg, N. (1997). Farm level evaluation of resource use and environmental impact.
Proccedings of the 3rd ENOF workshop, Ancona, Italy.
Hausamman, A. (1996). The effects of weed strip-management on pests and beneficial

arthropods in winter wheat fields. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection 103 (1),
70-81.
Helenius, J. (1990). Conventional and organic cropping systems at Suitia. VI. Insect
populations in barley. Journal of Agricultural Science of Finland 62 (4), 349-355.
Helenius, J. (1996). State and Significance of Biodiversity in Organic Farming. In:

Biodiversity and Land Use: The Role of Organic Farming (edited by J. Isart, J. & J.J.
Llerena). pp. 59-64. Proceedings of the First ENOF (The European Network for
Scientific Research Co-ordination in Organic Farming) Workshop, Bonn.*
Holland, J. M. & Thomas, S. R. (1996). Phacelia tanacetifolia flower strips : their effect on
beneficial invertebrates and gamechick bird food in an integrated farming system. In:
'Arthropod Natural Enemies in Arable Land II. Survival, Reproduction and
Enhancement'. (Edited by Kees Booij and Loes den Nijs). Acta Jutlandica LXXI:2.
pp. 171-182.
58
Holland, J. M., Hewitt, M. V. & Drysdale, A. D. (1994). Predator populations and the
influence of crop type and preliminary impact of integrated farming systems. Aspects
of Applied Biology 40, 217-224.
Holland, J. W., Drysdale, A., Hewith, M. V. & Turley, D. (1996). The LINK IFS Project -
the effect of crop rotations and cropping systems on Carabidae. Aspects of Applied
Biology 47, 119-26.
Hopkins, A. (1997). Effects of Farming Systems on Vegetation on Field Margins. In:

Organic Farming Study Review Paper. Organic Farming Study Forum. Joint
Research Councils Project. IACR, Rothamsted.
Hopkins, A. & Feber, R. E. (1997). Management for plant and butterfly species diversity on
organically farmed grassland field margins. In: Management for Grassland
Biodiversity, Proceedings of International Occasional Symposium of European
Grassland Federation, Poland. pp. 69-73.
Hooper, S. (1996). The Wildlife Enhancement Scheme in the uplands. English Nature
Research Report 199. English Nature, Peterborough.
IACR-Long Ashton Research Station (1993). Ecology and integrated farming systems. In:
Arable Ecosystems for the 21st century. Proceedings of the 13th Long Ashton
International Symposium.*
IACR (1997) Organic Farming Study Review Paper. Organic Farming Study Forum. Joint
Research Councils Project. IACR, Rothamsted.
IOBC (1993). Integrated production: principles and technical guidelines. IOBC/WPRS

Bulletin, 16 (1), 3-91.
Isart, J. & Llerena, J. J. (1996). Biodiversity and Land Use: The Role of Organic Farming.
Proceedings of the First ENOF (The European Network for Scientific Research Co-
ordination in Organic Farming) Workshop, Bonn.
Isart, J., Fontanellas, A., Llerena, J. J., Mateu, F., Rodriguez, E., Rueda, A. & Valle, M. A.
N. (1996). Crop Protection in Organic Farming: Mass Trapping with Pheromones
and Biodiversity. In: Biodiversity and Land Use: The Role of Organic Farming
(edited by J. Isart, J. & J.J. Llerena), pp 87-98. Proceedings of the First ENOF (The
European Network for Scientific Research Co-ordination in Organic Farming)
Workshop, Bonn.
Johnson, J. P., Flowerdew, J. R. & Hare, R. (1992), Populations and diet of small rodents
and shrews in relation to pesticide usage. In: Pesticides, cereal farming and the
environment (edited by P.W. Greig-Smith, G.K. Frampton and A.R. Hardy), pp. 144-
57. HMSO, London.*
Jones, S.E. & Johnson, D.B. (1994). The SCARAB project: pesticide application regimes
and changes in soil microbial biomass. Proceedings of the 5th International
59
Workshop: Environmental Behaviour of Pesticides and Regulatory Aspects, pp. 403-

433.
Jones, S.E. & Johnson, D.B. (1995). The effects of pesticides on soil microbiota in
agroecosystem: the SCARAB project. SETAC Conference - Unifying Themes in
Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology, Plymouth.
Jordan, V.W.L (1997). Adaption of Arable Production Systems to meet Political, Economic
and Environmental Requirements. In: Integrated Crop Production - Arable Crops.
SCI Symposium March 1997.
Kalburtji, K. L. (1996). Arresting straw burning for environmental protection in Greece. In:
Biodiversity and Land Use: The Role of Organic Farming (edited by J. Isart & J.J.
Llerena), pp. 81-86. Proceedings of the First ENOF (The European Network for
Scientific Research Co-ordination in Organic Farming) Workshop, Bonn.
Klejin, D. & vandeVoort, L. A. C. (1997). Conservation headlands for rare arable weeds: the
effects of fertilizer application and light penetration on plant growth. Biological
Conservation 81 (1-2), 57-67.*
Kretschmer et. al. (1992). Probleme und Losungansate zum Spannungsfeld Naturschutz und
Landwirschaft in der neuen Bunderslanden am Beispiel Brandenburgs. ZALF.
Munchenberg.
Kromp, B. (1989). Carabid beetle communities (Carabidae, Coleoptera) in biologically and

conventionally farmed agroecosystems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment
27 (1-4), 241-251.*
Kuiper, J. (1997). Organic mixed farms in the landscape of a brook valley. How can a co-
operative of organic mixed farms contribute to ecological and aesthetic qualities of a
landscape? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 63 (2-3), 121-132.*
Lampkin, N. & Measures, M. (1995). Organic Farm Management Handbook 1995/96.

Welsh Institute for Rural Studies, University of Aberystwyth and Elm Farm Research
Centre, Newbury.
LEAF (1991) Linking Environment and Farming: an Integrated Crop Management Project.
LEAF publications, Stoneleigh, UK.
Lethmayer, C., Nentwig, W., & Frank, Th (1997). Effects of weed strips on the occurence
of noxious coleopteran species (Nitidulidae, Chrysomelidae, Curculionidae). Journal
of Plant Diseases and Protection 104 (1), 75-95.
Lewis, T. (1969). The diversity of the insect fauna in hedgerow and neighbouring fields.
Journal of Applied Ecology 6, 453-458.
Longley, M., Cilgi, T., Jepson, J. C. & Sotherton, N. W. (1997). Measurements of pesticide
spray drift deposition into field boundaries and hedgerows. 1. Summer applications.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16 (2), 165-172.
60
Longley, M. & Sotherton, N. W. (1997a). Factors determining the effects of pesticides upon
butterflies inhabiting arable farmland. Agriculture, Ecosytems and Environment 61
(1), 1-12.
Longley, M. & Sotherton, N. W. (1997b). Measurements of pesticide spray drift deposition

into field boundaries and hedgerows. 2. Autumn applications. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry 16 (2), 173-178.
Lys, J. A., & Nentwig, W. (1994). Improvement of the overwintering sites for Caribidae,
Staphylinidae and Araneae by strip-management in a cereal field. Pedobiologia 38,
328-242.
Lys, J. A., Zimmerman, M. & Nentwig, W. (1994). Increase in activity density and species
number of a carabid beetles in cereals as a result of strip-management. Entomologia
Experimentalis et Applicata 73, 1-9.
MacDonald, D. W. & Smith, H. (1991). New Perspectives on Agro-Ecology : Between

theory and practice in the Agricultural Ecosystem. In: The Ecology of Temperate
Cereal Fields (edited by Firbank, L.G, Carter, N, Darbyshire, J.F and Potts, G. R.)
32nd Symposium of the British Ecological Society, pp. 413-448. Blackwell
Scientific Publications, Oxford.
MacKay, J. M. (1990). Organic Production Systems. A means of reducing chemical inouts.

Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 53, 112-113.*
MacKenzie, D. (1998). Driven to destruction. New Scientist, 2140, p24.
MacNaeidhe, F. S. & Lynch, M. (1996). Investigations in the Development of Ecological

Farming Systems in Ireland. In: Biodiversity and Land Use: The Role of Organic
Farming (edited by J. Isart & J.J. Llerena), pp. 65-71. Proceedings of the First ENOF
(The European Network for Scientific Research Co-ordination in Organic Farming)
Workshop, Bonn.*
Madar, P., Pfiffiner, L., FlieBbad, A. & Niggli, U. (1996). Biodiversity of soil biota in
biodynamic, organic and conventional farming systems. In: Biodiversity and Land
Use: The Role of Organic Farming (edited by J. Isart & J.J. Llerena), pp. 45-57.
Proceedings of the First ENOF (The European Network for Scientific Research Co-
ordination in Organic Farming) Workshop, Bonn.
MAFF (1994a). Environmental objectives and performance indicators for ESAs in England.
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.
MAFF (1994b). The Habitat Scheme. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.
MAFF (1995). The Moorland Scheme. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food,
London.
MAFF, (1997a) Farm Incomes in the UK, 1996/97. HMSO, London.
61
MAFF, (1997b) Agriculture in the UK. HMSO, London.
MAFF. (1997c). Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and

Food, London.
MAFF (1997d). Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme: Consultation Document. Ministry of

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.
MAFF (1997e). Organic Aid Scheme. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London.
MAFF (1998). Reducing Agrochemical Use on the Arable Farm. MAFF, London.
Marshall, E. J. P. & Smith, B. D. (1987). Field Margin Flora and Fauna: Interaction with
Agriculture. In: Field Margins (edited by J. M. & P. W. Greig-Smith). BCPC
Monograph No 35. BCPC, Farnham.*
Marshall, E. J. P. (1992). Patterns of distribution of plants in the fields and their boundaries.
In: The Boxworth Project, Volume 8, pp. 62-82. HMSO.*
Marshall, E.J.P. & Moonen, A.J. (1998) A review of field margin conservation strips in
Europe: field boundary habitats for wildlife, crop and environmental protection.
IACR-Long Ashton Research Station, Bristol.*
Montalvo, J., Casado, M. A., Levassor, C. & Pineda, F. U. (1993). Species diversity patterns
in Meditteranean grasslands. Journal of Vegetation Science 4, 213-222.
Moreby, S. J. (1996). The effects of organic and conventional farming methods on plant bug
diversities (Hemiptera : Heteroptera) within winter wheat fields. Annals of Applied
Biology 128 (3), 415-421.
Moreby, S.G. & Aebischer, N. J. (1992). Invertebrate abundance on cereal fields and set-
aside land: implications for wild game-bird chicks. In: Set-aside (edited by J.H.
Clarke). BCPC Monograph No, 50, 181-186. British Crop Protection Council,
Farnham.
Moreby, S. J., Aebischer, N. J., Southway, S. E. & Sotherton, N. W. (1994). A comparison

of the flora and arthropod fauna of organicically and conventionally grown winter
wheat in southern England. Annals of Applied Biology 125, 13-27.
Moss, S.R. & Clarke, J.H. (1994). Guidelines for the prevention and control of herbicide
resistant black-grass (Alopecurus myosuroides Huds.). Crop Protection 13, 230-234.
Mountford, J. O. & Chapman, J. M. (1993) Water regime requirements of British wetland

vegetation: using the moisture classification of Ellenberg and Londo. Journal of
Environmental Management, 38, 275-288.
Mountford, J. O., Tallowin, J. R. B., Sparks, T. H., Gowing, D. J. G., Manchester, S.J., Rose,
S. C., Treweek, J. R., Gilbert, J. C. & Armstrong, A. C. (1997) Experimental and
62
monitoring studies of the use of raised water-levels for grassland rehabilitation in

lowland ESAs. In: Grassland Management in Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(edited by R. D. Sheldrick). Occasional Symposium, 32, 67-72. British Grassland
Society.
Neale, S. (1996). Modelling Earthworm Communities. Elm Farm Research Centre Bulletin
26, 9-10.*
Nentwig, W. (1989). Augmentation of beneficial arthropods by strip-management, II.

Successional strips in a winter wheat field. Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection
96 (1), 89-99.
Nentwig, W (1996). Sown seed strips - an excellent type of ecological compensation area in
our agricultural landscape. In: Biodiversity and Land Use: The Role of Organic
Farming (edited by J. Isart & J.J. Llerena), pp. 1-10. Proceedings of the First ENOF
(The European Network for Scientific Research Co-ordination in Organic Farming)
Workshop, Bonn.*
Ogilvy, S. E, Green, M. R., Groves, S. J & Jones, A. E. (1993). SCARAB - the impact of less
intensive herbicide use on the diversity and distribution of weed species in three
arable rotations. ADAS High Mowthorpe.
Ojeda, F., Arroyo, J. & Maranon, T. (1995). Biodiversity components and conservation of
Mediterranean heathlands in Southern Spain. Biological Conservation 72 (1), 61-72.
Parrish, T., Sparks, T.H. & Lakhani, K.H. (1994) Models relating bird species diversity and
abundance to filed boundary characteristics. In: Hedgerow Management and Nature
Conservation (edited by T.A. Watt & G.P. Buckley). pp 58-79. Wye College Press,
Ashford.
Pesticides Trust (1996). Thirty years of pesticide usage. An overview of the changes in
pesticide usage in the UK during the period 1965-1995, including a summary of the
different chemicals used and the principal factors governing pesticide use.
Unpublished report to RSPB.
Petersen, B. S. (1994). Interactions between birds and agriculture in Denmark: from simple
counts to detailed studies of breeding success and foraging behaviour. In: Bird
numbers 1992: distribution, monitoring and ecological aspects. (Edited by E. J. M.
Hagemeijer and T. J. Vershael). Statistics Netherlands. pp. 49-56. Voorburg/Heerlen
& SOOVON, Beek-Ubbergen.*
Pfiffner, L. & Niggli, U (1996). Effects of Bio-dynamic, Organic and Conventional Farming
on Ground Beetles (Col. Carabidae) and other Epigaeic Arthropods in Winter Wheat.
Biological Agriculture and Horticulture 12, 353-364.*
Potter, C (1996). Decoupling by degrees? Agricultural liberalisation and its implications for
nature conservation in Britain. English Nature Research Report 196. English Nature,
Peterborough.
63
Potts, G. R. & Vickerman, G. P. (1974). Studies on cereal ecosystems. Advances in

Ecological Research 8, 107 - 197.*
Racey, D. (1991). Earthworms from organic and intensive grassland at Craibstone. Aberdeen
Letters in Ecology 5, 18-19.*
Rackham, O. (1986). The History of the Countryside. J.M. Dent, London.
Rands, M.R.W. (1985). Pesticide use on cereals and the survival of grey partridge chicks: a
field experiment. Journal of Applied Ecology, 22, 49-54.
Rands, M.R.W. (1986). The survival of gamebird chicks in relation to pesticide use on
cereals. Ibis, 128, 57-64.
Reddersen, J. (1993). Effects of fungicides on non-pathogenic cereal leaf fungi and

consequences for the insect fauna. Danske Plantevaernskonference 1993.
Reddersen, J. (1995a). Feeding biology of fungivorous insects from Danish Cereal Fields.
Pedobiologia 39, 370-384.
Reddersen, J. (1994). Distribution and abundance of Lauxaniid Flies in danish cereal fields
in relation to pesticides, crop and field boundaries. Ent. Meddr 62 (4), 117-128.
Reddersen, J. (1995b). Effects on the arthropod fauna of the pesticide use in Danish cereal
fields. Danske Plantevaernskonference 1995.
Reddersen, J. (1997). The Arthropod Fauna of Organic versus Conventional Cereal Fields in
Denmark. Entomological Research in Organic Agriculture 15, 61-71.
Samways, M.J. (1994). Insect Conservation Biology. Chapman & Hall.
Simpson, N. A. & Jefferson, R.G (1996). Use of farmyard manure on semi-natural

(meadow) grassland. English Nature Research Report 150. English Nature,
Peterborough.
Smith, A. (1989). Summary of BSBI arable weed survey 1986-87. NCC Research Report
No. 48. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough.
Smith, H. & MacDonald, D. W. (1989). Secondary Succession on Extended Arable Field

Margins: Its manipulation for wildlife benefit and weed control. Brighton Crop
Protection Conference. 'Weeds'. BCPC, Farnham.
Smith, H., Feber, R. E., Johnson, P. J., McCullum, K., Plessner Jensen, S., Younes, M. &
MacDonald, D. W. (1993). The conservation management of arable field margins.
English Nature Science No. 18. English Nature Science Directorate Publications. 55
pp.*
SOAFD. (1998). Countryside Premium Scheme. The Scottish Office Agriculture,

Environment and Fisheries Department, Environment.
64
Soil Association (1997). Standards for Organic Food and Farming. Soil Association
Organic Marketing Company Ltd., Bristol.
Sotherton, N. (1992). The Environmental Benefits of Conservation Headlands in Cereal

Fields. Outlook on Agriculture 21 (3), 219-224.
Sotherton, N.W., Rands, M.R.W. & Moreby, S.J. (1985). Comparison of herbicide treated
and untreated headlands for the survival of game and wildlife. BCPC. Weeds 1985,
991-998. BCPC, Farnham.
Sotherton, N.W., Robertson, P.A. & Dowell, S.D. (1993). Manipulating pesticide use to
increase the production of wild game birds in Britain. In: Quail III: National Quail
Symposium (edited by K.E. Church & K.V. Dailey). Jefferson City, Missouri
Department of Conservation.
Stewart, A., Pearman, D.A. & Preston, C.D. (1994) Scarce Plants in Britain. JNCC,
Peterborough.
Stopes, C. (1997). Elm Farm Research Report. Unpublished.
Stopes, C., Measures, M., Smith, C. & Foster, L. (1996). Hedgerow Management in organic
farming - impact on biodiversity. In: Biodiversity and Land Use: The Role of
Organic Farming (edited by J. Isart, J. & J.J. Llerena). pp 121-125. Proceedings of
the First ENOF (The European Network for Scientific Research Co-ordination in
Organic Farming) Workshop, Bonn.
Tallowin, J. R. B. & Smith, R. E. N. (1994). The effects of inorganic fertilisers in flower

rich hay meadows on the Somerset Levels. English Nature Research Report 87.
English Nature, Peterborough.
Tapper, S. C. (1979). The effect of fluctuatin vole numbers (Microtus agrestis) on a

population of weasels (Mustela nivalis) on farmland. Journal of Applied Ecology 23,
39-52.*
Tew, (1987). The effect of conservation headlands on small mammals. Annual Review
Game Conservancy 18, 109-111.
Tew, T.E. (1994) Farmland hedgerows: habitat, corridors or irrelevant? a small mammals
perspective. In: Hedgerow Management and Nature Conservation (edited by T.A.
Watt & G.P.Buckley). pp. 80-94. Wye College Press, Ashford.
Tew, T. E., MacDonald, D. W. and Rands, M. R.W. (1992). Herbicide application affects
microhabitat use by arable Field Mice (Apodemus sylvaticus). Journal of Applied
Ecology 29, 532-539.
Tew, T. E., Todd, J. A. and McDonald, D. W. (1994). Field Margins and Small Mammals.
In: Field Margins (edited by N. Boatman). BCPC Monograph, no. 58.
65
Theunissen, J. (1997). Intercropping in field vegetables as an approach to sustainable

horticulture. Outlook on Agriculture 26 (2), 95-99.*
Thomas, M. B., Wratten, S. D. & Sotherton, N. W. (1991). Creation of 'Island' Habitats in

Farmland to Manipulate Populations of Beneficial Arthropods: Predator Densities
and Emigration. Journal of Applied Ecology 28, 906-917.
Tilzey, M. (1996). Agriculture and Natural Areas. English Nature Research Report No. 247.
English Nature, Peterborough.
UK Biodiversity Steering Group (1995). Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report,

Volume 2: Action Plans. HMSO, London.
UKROFS (1997) UKROFS standards for organic food production. UKROFS Reference
OB4.
UNEP (1995). Global Biodiversity Assessment. Cambridge University Press.
Van Bol, V. & Peeters, A. (1996). Nature Conservation in the framework of an Ecological
Farming System. In: Biodiversity and Land Use: The Role of Organic Farming
(edited by J. Isart & J.J. Llerena), pp. 127-135. Proceedings of the First ENOF (The
European Network for Scientific Research Co-ordination in Organic Farming)
Workshop, Bonn.*
Vanvliet, P. C. J., Beare, M. H. & Coleman, D. C. (1995). Population dynamics and

functional roles of Enchytraeidae (Oligochaeta) in hardwood forest and agricultural
ecosystems. Plant and Soil 170 (1), 199-207.
Vandermeer, J (1989). The Ecology of Intercropping. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.*
Vereijken, P. (1992). a methodic way to more sustainable farming systems. Netherlands

Journal of Agricultural Science, 40, 209-223.
Vereijken, P. (1995). Designing and testing prototypes. Progress report 2, Research

Network for EU and associated countries on Integrated and Ecological Arable
Farming Systems, (Concerted Action AIR 3-CT920755). Wageningen AB-DLO, 90
pp.
Vereijken, J. F. H. M., and Baars, T. (1996). Methodological example of landscape

development on organic farms, the Goetheanistic approach.. In: Biodiversity and
Land Use: The Role of Organic Farming (edited by J. Isart, & J.J. Llerena), pp. 99-
119. Proceedings of the First ENOF (The European Network for Scientific Research
Co-ordination in Organic Farming) Workshop, Bonn.
Vickerman, G. P. (1992). The effects of different pesticide regimes on the invertebrate fauna
of winter wheat. In: 'Pesticides, Cereal Farming and the Environment (edited by
P. W. Greig-Smith, G. K. Frampton and A. R. Hardy). HMSO, London.*
66
Wallwork, A. (1970). The Ecology of Soils. Longmans, London.
Ward, R. S. & Aebischer, N. J. (1994). Changes in corn bunting distribution on the South
Downs in relationship to agricultural land use and cereal invertebrates. English
Nature Research Report. English Nature, Peterborough.
Watson, C. A., Ritx, K., Younie, D. & Franklin, M. (1996). Nitrogen and soil biomass
dynamics in two crop rotations. Aspects of Applied Biology 47, 43-50.*
Ways, J. M. & Greig-Smith, P. W.eds. (1986). Field Margins. London.*
WCMC (1992) Global Biodiversity: Status of the Earth’s Living Resources. Chapman &
Hall, London.
Wilson, J. (1994). The BTO Birds and Organic Farming Project one year on. BTO News.
Wilson, J.D. & Fuller, R. (1992). Set-aside: potential and management for wildlife
conservation. Ecos, 13, 24-29.
Wilson, J.D., Taylor, R. & Muirhead, L.B. (1996). Field use by farmland birds in winter: an
analysis of filed type preferences using resampling methods. Bird Study, 43, 320-
332.
Wilson, P.J. (1994). Botanical diversity in arable field margins. In: Field margins -
Integrating Agriculture and Conservation (edited by N.D. Boatman). BCPC
Monograph 58, 53-58. BCPC, Farnham.
Wratten, S. D. (1988). The role of field margins as reservoirs of beneficial insects. In:
Environmental Management in Agriculture (edited by J. R. Park) pp. 144-150.
Bellhaven Press, London.*
Yeates, G. W., Bardgett, R. D., Cook, R., Hobbs, P. J., Bowling, P. J. & Potter, J. F. (1997).
Faunal and Microbial diversity in three Welsh grassland soils under conventional and
organic management regimes. Journal of Applied Ecology 34 (2), 453-470.
Younie, D. (1992). Vegetation Studies in Organic and Intensively fertilized grassland.

Vegetation Dynamics 1. Proceedings of Scottish Weeds Group R & D Working Party
No. 1.
Younie, D. and Armstrong, G. (1996). Botanical and invertebrate diversity in organic and
intensively fertilised grassland. In Biodiversity and Land Use - The Role of Organic
Farming. Proccedings, first ENOF Workshop, Bonn, December 1995, 35-44.
Younie, D. and Baars, T. (1997). Resource Use in Organic Grassland. The Central Bank and
the Art Gallery of Organic Farming. In: Proccedings of the 3rd ENOF workshop,
Ancona, Italy, July 1997.
67
Zanggar, A, Lys, J. A. & Nentwig, W. (1994). Increasing the availability of food and
reproduction of Poecilus cupreus in cereal field by strip management. Entomologia
experimentalis et applicata 71, 111-120.
Zanoli, R. (1996). Evaluation of Externalities due to biodiversity preservation in organic

farming : methodological aspects.. In: Biodiversity and Land Use: The Role of
Organic Farming (edited by J. Isart, & J.J. Llerena), pp. 147-155. Proceedings of the
First ENOF (The European Network for Scientific Research Co-ordination in
Organic Farming) Workshop, Bonn.
* Note reference not cited in the text but provides useful additional information in support
of this review.
68

Of0149 536 Fra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Of0149 536 Fra

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Of0149 536 Fra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Archived at http://orgprints.

REVIEW OF THE COMPARATIVE

MAFF Contract OF0149

Sarah M. Gardner & R.W. Brown

4. The effect of each farming regime on biodiversity is assessed according to the

7. Based on the evaluation of agricultural practices used, the occurrence of uncropped

1. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS............................................................................1

Appendix 1: Case study comparisons of Conventional, Organic and IFS regimes at

Appendix 2: Summary information on agri-environment schemes: biodiversity objectives

Appendix 3: Report and responses to the Workshop held at ADAS Wolverhampton on 12

1. INTRODUCTION AND DEFINITIONS

1. To review existing UK and European published information on the effects of organic

4. To identify the potential benefits of other agri-environment schemes and agricultural

5. To evaluate the different agricultural management systems in terms of their potential

6. To identify areas where monitoring information on these ‘sensitive’ groups is

1.3 Definitions and scope

1.4 Principles of different farming regimes

1.4.1 Organic farming

• indirect provision of crop nutrients using relatively insoluble nutrient sources,

• careful management of livestock to take account of behavioural needs, evolutionary

There is considerable variation between different European countries in their description of

1.4.2 Integrated production regimes

1.4.3 Conventional farming

1.4.4 Summary of the different regimes

In summary the different regimes can be distinguished as follows.

• Integrated production (LEAF and IFS-experimental) also focuses on crop rotation to

1.5 Approach and report structure

• Loss and fragmentation of semi-natural 'infield' habitats through improvement or

• Abandonment or under-management of extant semi-natural 'infield' habitats (mainly in the

• Overgrazing of semi-natural habitats (mainly uplands).

• Loss or mismanagement of interstitial (fabric) habitats.

• Drainage or drying out of wetland habitats due to over-abstraction of water.

• Pollution or eutrophication of surface and groundwater leading to loss or degradation of

• Loss of crop rotations and arable-pasture mosaics leading to severe reduction in

To undertake an evaluation of the impact of different regimes on biodiversity, comparisons

• To examine the management and significance of different cropped and uncropped

• To assess the role of different agri-environment schemes in influencing biodiversity

• To evaluate the sensitivity of different species groups to agricultural management change

• To draw up conclusions on the impact of each regime on biodiversity, to identify areas

2. IMPACT OF DIFFERENT AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES ON BIODIVERSITY

2.1 Agricultural practice in different farming regimes

Approximately 5 million ha (of the 18 million ha of agricultural land) is cultivated annually

In addition, 92% of respondents undertook secondary cultivation with rolling or pressing

Table 2.2 Impacts of Agricultural Practices on Different Organism Groups.

+ positive impact, O no significant impact, - negative impact, ?+/?- possible

AGRICULTURAL SOIL PLANTS INVERTEBRATES BIRDS MAMMALS OVERALL

Key studies and review papers

2.2.1 Inversion ploughing and deep tillage

2.2.2 Minimal tillage

2.2.3 Direct drilling

2.2.4 Cultivation and biodiversity impacts in different farming systems

Inversion ploughing is widespread in geographical and agricultural practice terms and is

2.3 Crop production

2.3.1 Fertiliser use

Fertiliser impacts on biodiversity by altering the level of nutrients available to biological

ii) Impacts on soil meso-fauna

iii) Impacts on the plant community

2.3.2 Intercropping (green manures)

2.3.4 Crop production and biodiversity impacts in different farming regimes