The effectiveness of integrated farm management, organic farming and agri-environment schemes for conserving biodiversity in temperate Europe - A systematic map

Environmental Evidence

Katy L James¹  Nicola P Randall¹ 

[1]Harper Adams University College, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB, UK

关键词: Evidence-based policy;    Integrated farm management;    Organic farming;    Agri-environment;    Systematic review;    Systematic map;    Conservation;    Farmland biodiversity;   

Others  :  803078
DOI  :  10.1186/2047-2382-1-4

 received in 2012-01-14, accepted in 2012-02-14,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Agriculture is the dominant land use throughout much of Europe. Changes to farming practices have led to concerns about negative impacts on biodiversity, and current agricultural policy has an emphasis towards conservation. The objective of this study was to investigate and describe the nature and coverage of research pertaining to the effectiveness of integrated farm management, organic farming and agri-environment schemes as interventions for conserving biodiversity in temperate Europe.

Systematic mapping methodology was adapted from social sciences, and used to create a searchable database of relevant research.

Methods

Searches were made of 10 electronic databases containing peer reviewed journals, PhD theses, conference proceedings and organisational reports. Web searches for relevant research were also made. The title and abstracts of results were examined for relevance. Studies were included when published in English, when an intervention was applied to increase biodiversity or species diversity on farmland, and where there was a measured effect on study organism(s). Correlative and manipulative studies from temperate Europe were included. The research was incorporated into a searchable database (systematic map) and key wording used to describe, categorise and code studies.

Results

The searches identified 83,590 records. Following removal of duplicates and the application of inclusion criteria, 743 references were coded for the final systematic map database. Most of the studies reported were from Western Europe, particularly from the UK. Invertebrates were the most commonly studied organism followed by plants and birds, and field margins were the most commonly studied biotope.

Conclusions

The systematic map describes the scope of research on the topic. It can be used to inform future primary research, or research synthesis and evaluation methods such as systematic review. Areas for which there appear to be evidence gaps, and so may have potential for further primary research, are highlighted. They include the effectiveness of agri-environment options under different farming systems and in providing for amphibians and reptiles. Implications for the development of future systematic maps are discussed, including the question of how to incorporate study quality appraisal. The development of a Collaboration for Environmental Evidence systematic mapping methods group will address some of these issues.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Randall and James; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Robinson RA, Sutherland WJ: Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology 2002, 39:157-176.
• [2]The reform of the CAP towards 2020: Consultation Document for Impact Assessment. Brussells: European Commission; 2010.
• [3]Donald PF, Green RF, Heath MF: Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proceedings Royal Society London Ser. B 2001, 268:25-29.
• [4]Fuller RJ, Gregory RD, Gibbons DW, Marchant JH, Wilson JD, Baillie SR, Carter N: Population declines and range contractions among lowland farmland birds in Britain. Conservation Biology 1995, 9:1425-1441.
• [5]Sotherton NW, Self MJ: Changes in plant and arthropod diversity on lowland farmland: an overview. In The Ecology and Conservation of Lowland Farmland Birds. Edited by Aebischer NJ, Evans AD, Grice PV, Vickery JA. Southampton: British Ornithologists’ Union; 2000:26-35. 27-28 March 1999
• [6]Flowerdew JR: Mammal biodiversity in agricultural habitats. In Biodiversity and Conservation in Agriculture. Edited by Kirkwood RC. UK: British Crop Protection Council; 1997:25-40.
• [7]Boatman ND, Parry HR, Bishop JD, Cuthbertson AGS: Impacts of Agricultural Change on Farmland Biodiversity in the UK. In Issues in Environmental Science and Technology. No.25. Biodiversity under Threat. Edited by Hester RE, Harrison RM. Cambridge UK: Royal Society of Chemistry; 2007:1-32.
• [8]Boatman ND: How do farming practices influence biodiversity? In Farming, Forestry and the Natural Heritage: Towards a More Integrated Future. Edited by Davidson R, Galbraith C. Edinburgh: Scottish Natural Heritage; 2006:39-57.
• [9]Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD: Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology and Evolution 2003, 18:182-188.
• [10]Pretty J, Sutherland WJ, Ashby J, Auburn J, Baulcombe D, Bell M, Bentley J, Bickersteth S, Brown K, Burke J, Campbell H, Chen K, Crowley E, Crute I, Dobbelaere D, Edwards-Jones G, Funes-Monzote F, Godfray HCJ, Griffon M, Gypmantisiri P, Haddad L, Halavatau S, Herren H, Holderness M, Izac A-M, Jones M, Koohafkan P, Lal R, Lang T, McNeely J, et al.: The top 100 questions of importance to the future of global agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 2010, 8(4):219-236.
• [11]Commission of the European Communities: Perspectives for the Common Agricultural Policy. Brussels: COM, 85; 1985:333.
• [12]Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ: How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology 2003, 40:947-969.
• [13]European Court of Auditors: Is Agri-environment support well designed and managed? Special report no.7//2011. Luxembourg: European Court of Auditors; 2011.
• [14]Kleijn D, Baquero RA, Clough Y, Diaz M, Esteban J, Fernadez F, Gabriel D, Herzog F, Holzshuh A, Johl R, Knop E, Kruess A, Marshall EJP, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J, West TM, Yela JL: Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. Ecology Letters 2006, 9(3):243-254.
• [15]Wittingham MJ: Will agri-environment schemes deliver substantial biodiversity gain, and if not why not? Journal of Applied Ecology 2007, 44(1):1-5.
• [16]Marshall EPJ, West TM, Kleijn D: Impacts of agri-environment field margin prescriptions on the flora and fauna of arable farmland in different landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2005, 113:36-44.
• [17]Berry P, Ogilvy S, Gardner S: Integrated Farming and Biodiversity – English Nature Research Reports no. 634. Adas: English Nature; 2005.
• [18]Wickramasinghe LP, Harris S, Jones G, Vaughan N: Bat activity and species richness on organic and conventional farms: impact of agricultural intensification. Journal of Applied Ecology 2003, 40(6):984-993.
• [19]Chapple DG, Wade DR, Laverick RM, Eldridge PJ: Whole farm integrated management and farmland birds. Aspect of Applied Biology 2002, 67:129-134.
• [20]Feber RE, Smith H, Macdonald DW: The effects on butterfly abundance of the management of uncropped edges of arable fields. Journal of Applied Ecology 1996, 33(5):1191-1205.
• [21]Hole DG, Perkins AJ, Wilson JD, Alexander IH, Grice PV, Evan AD: Does organic farming benefit biodiversity? Biological Conservation 2005, 122:113-130.
• [22]Bengtsson J, Ahnstrom J, Weibull AC: The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology 2005, 42(2):261-269.
• [23]Fuller RJ, Norton LR, Feber RE, Johnston PJ, Chamberlain DE, Joys AC, Mathews F, Stuart R, Townsend MC, Manley WJ, Wolfe MS, MacDonald DW, Firbank LG: Benefits of organic farming to biodiversity vary among taxa. Biology Letters 2005, 1(4):431-434.
• [24]Gabriel D, Sait SM, Hodgson JA, Schmutz U, Kunin WE, Benton TG: Scale matters: the impact of organic farming on biodiversity at different spatial scales. Ecology Letters 2010, 13(7):858-869.
• [25]Coren E, Fisher M: The conduct of systematic research reviews for SCIE knowledge reviews. UK: Social Care Institute for Excellence; 2006. http://www.scie.org.uk webcite
• [26]Grant MJ, Booth A: A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal 2009, 26:91-108.
• [27]Clapton J, Rutter D, Sharif N: SCIE Systematic mapping guidance. April 2009. UK: Social Care Institute for Excellence; 2009. http://www.scie.org.uk/publications/researchresources/rr03.pdf webcite
• [28]Bates S, Clapton J, Coren E: Systematic maps to support the evidence base in social care. Evidence and Policy 2007, 3(4):539-551.
• [29]Sutherland WJ, Armstrong-Brown S, Armsworth PR, Brereton T, Brickland J, Campbell CD, Chamberlain DE, Cooke AI, Dulvy NK, Dusic NR, Fitton M, Freckleton RP, Godfrey CJ, Grout N, Harvey HJ, Heldley C, Hopkins JJ, Kift NB, Kirby J, Kunin WE, MacDonald DW, Marker B, Naura M, Neale AR, Oliver T, Osborn D, Pullin AS, Shardlow MEA, Showler DA, Smith PL, et al.: The identification of 100 ecological questions of high policy relevance in the UK. Journal of Applied Ecology 2006, 43:617-627.
• [30]Bradbury RB, Browne SJ, Stevens DK, Aebischer NJ: Five-year evaluation of the impact of the Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme on birds. Ibis 2004, 146(2):171-180.
• [31]Collaboration for Environmental Evidence: Guidelines for Systematic Review in Environmental Management. Version 4.0. Environmental Evidence 2010. http://www.environmental evidence.org/Authors.htm/Guidelines.pdf webcite
• [32]Karla N, Newman M, Karla N, Newman M: A systematic map of the research on the relationship between Obeisity and Sedentary Behaviour in young people. Technical report. In Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London; 2009.
• [33]Sharif N, Brown W, Rutter D: Systematic Map Report 03. The extent and impact of depression on BME older people and the acceptability, accessibility and effectiveness of social care provision. University of London: Social Care Institute for Excellence. Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education; 2008.
• [34]Feber RE, Johnson PJ, Firbank LG, Hopkins A, Macdonald DW: A comparison of butterfly populations on organically and conventionally managed farmland. Journal of Zoology 2007, 273(1):30-39.
• [35]Irmler U: Changes in earthworm populations during conversion from conventional to organic farming. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2010, 135(3):194-198.
• [36]Feber RE, Hopkins A: Diversity of plant and butterfly species on organic farmland field margins in relation to management. In British Grassland Society Fifth Research Conference: 8-10 September 1997. UK: University of Plymouth; 1997:63-64.
• [37]Pfiffner L, Niggli U: Effects of bio-dynamic, organic and conventional farming on ground beetles (Col Carabidae) and other epigaeic arthropods in winter wheat. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 1996, 12(4):353-364.
• [38]Hutcheon JA, Iles DR, Kendall DA: Earthworm populations in conventional and integrated farming systems in the LIFE Project (SW England) in 1990-2000. Annals of Applied Biology 2001, 139(3):361-372.
• [39]Pywell RF, Meek WM, Carvell C, Hulmes L: The SAFFIE project: enhancing the value of arable field margins for pollinating insects. Association of Applied Biologists 2007, 81:239-245.
• [40]Alvarez T, Frampton GK, Goulson D: Epigeic Collembola in winter wheat under organic, integrated and conventional farm management regimes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2001, 83(1/2):95-110.
• [41]Department for Food and Rural Affairs: UK Biodiversity Indicators in your Pocket 2010. Measuring progress towards halting biodiversity loss PB13400. UK: Defra; 2010.
• [42]ADAS: Hedgerow Management and Wildlife Review: further update, edit and publication. Final Report for UK Department of Food and Rural Affairs (BD2108). UK: Defra; 2004.