Characterising current agroecological and regenerative farming research capability and infrastructure, and examining the case for a Living Lab network [Final report]

Agriculture is a major cause of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, biodiversity loss, and pollution. Agroecological and regenerative farming have been advocated as alternative approaches that may have fewer negative (or even net positive) environmental impacts than conventional agriculture at farm- and landscape-scales, leading to considerable interest in these approaches (Newton et al. 2020; Bohan et al. 2022; Prost et al. 2023). This report forms the third part of a Defra-funded project Evaluating the productivity, environmental sustainability and wider impacts of agroecological and regenerative farming systems compared to conventional systems. The first part of this project was a rapid evidence review of agroecological and regenerative farming systems and their impacts (Burgess et al. 2023), and the second reported interview findings to examine farmer and stakeholder perspectives on barriers and enablers in agroecological and regenerative farming (Hurley et al. 2023). This third part of the project characterised the current research capability in agroecology and regenerative farming, and explored the potential role of a new ‘living lab’ trial network. Three objectives are addressed in this report: 1) Characterise the existing agroecological and regenerative farming research capability and infrastructure in the UK. 2) Explore lessons from recent research initiatives and identify key research gaps, to inform a potential UK living labs trials network in agroecology/regenerative farming. 3) Develop recommendations for a new living lab trial or research network in agroecology/regenerative farming. Objective 1 was addressed through an online survey to gather quantitative and qualitative data on current research initiatives and networks in regenerative farming and agroecology. There were 22 respondents from 20 organisations (Section 2.2). Key findings from the survey: • The size and the timescales of research initiatives varied substantially from single sites to networks of 50-100 sites and with agroecological/regenerative practices applied from one to over 20 years. • All the survey respondents applied multiple agroecological/regenerative processes and had multiple target outcomes. • Just under 40% of respondents are not currently collecting data from their network. • Three-quarters of the survey participants not currently collecting data stated they would like to collect data, given more funding, knowledge or support. • Biodiversity was one of the most frequent target outcomes, and data collection most frequently focussed on biodiversity. • Face-to-face and email communication was most frequently used between farms in a network. Around two-thirds of respondents also held farm demonstration days as a means of knowledge exchange. • Most of the research initiatives and networks were funded by charities, NGOs or funded themselves, with a smaller number funded by UK or EU government funding. • Growing to incorporate more farms and researchers and developing knowledge exchange further were prioritised as future aspirations by survey respondents. Incorporating more researchers and applying for funding were also a focus for many research initiatives. • Targeted funding was seen as very important in achieving future aspirations by most respondents, along with improved connections with farmers and landowners and improved skills and information for knowledge exchange. Improved infrastructure and monitoring tools were emphasised less, but still considered important. The online survey results illustrate the wide range of current research initiatives in agroecology and regenerative farming, which vary from small-scale trials on a few farms to robust, repeatable data collection across a large network. To illustrate the range of approaches in more details, five case studies were described (Section 2.3) which included an ongoing living lab network, three research project and a long-term demonstration farm. Key characteristics of eight European living labs were also summarised through a network of EU agroecology living labs (the ALL-Ready project; Section 2.4). Objective 2 was addressed through an online workshop, at which participants responded to questions about research gaps and priorities, infrastructure needs, and the barriers and enablers to data sharing and access (Section 3). Participants views were gathered through online discussion boards and facilitated verbal discussion (Figure 1). Key themes and conclusions from the workshop: • Many of the impacts of agroecology and regenerative practices remain poorly understood, with biodiversity and greenhouse gas emissions highlighted. • Impacts on multiple potential benefits and trade-offs (e.g. yield vs. biodiversity vs. greenhouse gas emissions) need to be understood. The variation in responses (e.g. between soil types or regions) was seen as a priority area for research to improve the understanding of scaling-up. • Research needs to be conducted at adequate temporal and spatial scales given the timescales needed for impacts of these practices to become apparent. • There may be a bias in farmer participation in agroecological and regenerative agriculture research (those who can afford the time and money). • Understanding transitions to agroecology and regenerative farming across different types of farm business was raised as a research gap along with investigating the role of knowledge in these types of practice. This was reflected in the discussion of infrastructure and skills, with support (better guidance, input from advisors) and upskilling/improvements in education seen as priorities to support transitions. • The role of economic drivers, including subsidies and supply chain structures, is a research priority to understand why and how farmers may transition to these farming practices. • Standardised assessments and monitoring tools (including farmer apps) were highlighted to support future research, in particular standardised soil carbon assessments. Hubs to loan monitoring equipment to farmers were also suggested. • The time commitment needed was seen as an impediment to data collection by farmers, with comments that research initiatives worked better with someone external collecting data. • Data quality and formats were raised as barriers to data sharing in agroecology/regenerative farming. Formats that can be easily read across a range of software were suggested as a solution, along with more standardised approaches in data collection. • Integration and sharing of data across platforms were another solution, in particular for regulatory data (e.g. pesticide usage). • A potential tension was raised between standardising monitoring approaches and data collection, and constraining innovation by farmers. • Our understanding of how widespread agroecological and regenerative farming practices are, and which are being used / in what combinations, is constrained by lack of uptake data. Practices are being implemented with or without subsidies, and in varying combinations with more conventional approaches. Without these uptake data, larger scale research and modelling may be constrained. The online survey findings, case studies and lessons learnt from the workshop participants informed the development of recommendations for a future living labs network in the UK (Objective 3, Section 4). Four options were proposed: i) Develop a standardised methodology or protocol for each of the 12 attributes listed for assessment within the Global Farm Metric, to support consistency of farm measurements. ii) New research projects funded to collect standardised data on impacts and trade-offs across existing networks of farms applying agroecological / regenerative practices. This would maximise research synergies with existing networks. iii) New research network set up to apply agroecological / regenerative practices on commercial farms, co-designed between farmers and researchers. Standardised data collection on impacts and trade-offs. iv) Long-term living lab UK network set up, within which facilitation roles and research projects funded. These options could be applied in combination (e.g. a standardised methodology (i) developed within (iv) a long-term living lab network ). Which options are taken forward will depend on funding and factors such as the structure of available funding and timescales. Indicative costs were provided for field surveys of greenhouse gases and biodiversity, two of the impacts identified as research priorities in the workshop

Evaluating the productivity, environmental sustainability and wider impacts of agroecological compared to conventional farming systems [Evidence project final report]

•Context, aim and objectives: Existing agriculture systems in the UK are effective at producing safe and relatively cheap food, but they are a cause of greenhouse gas emissions, biodiversity loss, and soil degradation. It has been proposed that greater use of agroecological and regenerative farming would lead to more positive effects. The aim of this project was to evaluate the productivity, environmental sustainability and wider impacts of agroecological compared to conventional farming, by addressing three objectives: 1. to undertake an evidence review of regenerative/agroecological farming systems, 2. to assess the risks, barriers and opportunities, and identifying gaps in the knowledge, and 3. to characterise agroecological farming research capability in the UK, explore gaps and priorities, and explore the potential role of a new “living lab” trial network. •The research has been presented in three separate reports (Burgess et al. 2023, Hurley et al. 2023, and Staley et al. 2023), which are attached as appendices. The main results are summarised here. •Method: Objective 1 was addressed using a desk-based rapid evidence review, and the level of confidence in the analysis was determined using the IPBES four-box model (IPBES 2017, 2018). Objective 2 was addressed by in-depth semi-structured interviews with 23 respondents including farmers in late 2022. The interviews were used to explore definitions of agroecological and regenerative farming, barriers to the adoption, and views towards the concept of ‘living labs’. Objective 3 was addressed through an online survey with 22 respondents from 20 organisations in January and February 2023, an online workshop with 34 participants in January 2023, and informed by the findings of work to address Objectives 1 and 2. •Results and discussion: 1.1 Defining and characterising agroecological farming systems. A review of definitions highlighted, in brief, that organic farming places strong restrictions on inputs, agroecological analyses often focus on principles, and regenerative farming typically emphasises the enhancement of soil health and biodiversity at a farm scale. The stakeholder interviews demonstrated that the terms regenerative agriculture and agroecology are employed interchangeably by some, sequentially by others (with regenerative practices seen as steps towards a bigger whole-farm agroecological system), and viewed by some as discrete (who recognise the social justice, economic and political aspects of agroecology). Within these different interpretations, regenerative practices are often assumed to be those that minimise tillage and bare soil, foster plant diversity, and reduce the use of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. We noted that the impact of organic, agroecological or regenerative systems on greenhouse gas emissions was implicit rather than explicit. We identified 16 agroecological practices that could be used in the UK: crop rotations, conservation agriculture, cover crops, organic crop production, integrated pest management, the integration of livestock to crop systems, the integration of crops to livestock systems, field margin practices, pasture-fed livestock, multi-paddock grazing, organic livestock systems, tree crops, tree-intercropping, multistrata agroforestry and permaculture, silvopasture, and rewilding. 1.2. Impact of agroecological practices at farm-scale Our detailed review (see Burgess et al. 2023) highlighted that the 16 agroecological practices tended to increase soil and biomass carbon and biodiversity at a field- or farm scale relative to a stated baseline. The soil carbon benefits were due to increased crop cover, the introduction of grass into arable systems, reduced cultivation, and/or the addition of soil amendments. The biodiversity benefits were derived from an increased diversity of crops and habitats, introducing plants that attract pollinators, reduced grazing pressure, and/or reduced use of pesticides and herbicides. Gaps in knowledge were highlighted particularly in terms of greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity. The analysed effect on yields, product values, and input costs varied according to the practice and the baseline comparison. Hence in most cases, a farmer will need to balance trade-offs, perhaps guided by tools such as financial, economic, or life cycle analyses. In some cases, such as organic farming, a reduction in profitability due to a reduction in yield and certification costs may be compensated by an increase in product price. 1.3 Modelling agroecological systems in a UK context Our review highlighted existing modelling frameworks such as ASSET, ERAMMP IMP, EVAST and NEVO that could be repurposed to model agroecological systems across the UK. However we identified three barriers to their successful use. Firstly, modellers need to quantify the links between agroecological scenarios, spatial contexts and selected parameters within the underlying models. Secondly, the lack of readily available experimental data on the effect of agroecological practices and their change over time means that parameterising models remains challenging, and the alternative use of expert-based scoring or benefits transfer approaches can result in very large levels of uncertainty. Thirdly, a validated assessment of the aggregated impact of agroecological practices at a national scale will require effective national monitoring approaches that can assess the level of implementation of agroecological practices. 2. Opportunities from and barriers to a transition to agroecological systems: The uptake of agroecological practices by farm businesses depends on the balance between the opportunities offered and the barriers to implementation. As indicated in 1.2, the opportunities include increased biomass carbon, increased soil carbon in surface layers, and increased on-farm biodiversity. Supermarkets could support environmentally-positive practices, but there is also a strong drive for low food prices. The barriers to some agroecological practices will be geographical or incompatibility with management objectives at the farm-level. However, where these are not constraints, the major barriers are often related to uncertainty in the effect of the practices on yields and costs, and the need to finance the initial investment and certification costs. Enablers to overcome those barriers include knowledge exchange (particularly as the promotion of agroecological practices is not driven by organisations wanting to sell a product) and financial incentives (with a focus on market mechanisms that differentiate between desired and undesired societal outcomes). Evidence from other countries, particularly France, show that agroecological transitions can succeed where the right combination of policy instruments (e.g. grants, support for advice and collaboration, cultural support) are sustained by long-term political will. 3.1 Existing agroecological farming research capability and infrastructure in the UK: The online survey results indicate that most agroecological farming research initiatives and networks were funded by charities, NGOs, or funded by themselves, with some receiving UK or EU government funding. The initiatives ranged from single sites to networks of 50-100 sites, and with agroecological practices applied from one to over 20 years. Farmer participation in such research may be biased to those who can afford the time and money. Five case studies are examined in the main report (Staley et al. 2023) including an ongoing living lab network, three research projects, and a long-term demonstration farm. Only about 60% of respondents were collecting data from their network, often focused on biodiversity. About three-quarters of those not collecting data, would collect data given more funding, knowledge, or support. Face-to-face and email communication was most frequently used between farms in a network. Around two-thirds of respondents held farm demonstration days as a means of knowledge exchange, and further knowledge exchange was a common future aspiration. 3.2 Research gaps and priorities: The survey and workshop supported the observation from 1.2 that many of the impacts of agroecology practices, especially in relation to greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity, remain poorly understood. Although 1.2 focused on farm-level effects, the consequential effects of, for example, reduced yields with agroecological practices remains a pertinent area for research. The variation in responses between soil types or regions would also be useful to improve the understanding of scaling-up opportunities. The need to support research over a sustained time period was also highlighted as several years are often needed for effects to become apparent. The transition to agroecological farming across different types of business requires the need for farmer support and changes in agricultural education. The role of economic drivers and supply chain structures in supporting agroecological practices also requires more research. Standardisation of data quality and formats, in particular for regulatory data, could help reduce some barriers, but it could also constrain innovation. National assessments of agroecological practices are also constrained by a lack of uptake data. 3.3 Informing a potential UK living labs trial network Living labs have been defined as “user-centred, open innovation ecosystems based on a systematic user co-creation approach, integrating research and innovation processes in real life communities and settings” (Malmberg et al. 2017). Important roles for a living labs network include providing robust locally-relevant evidence of the productivity and financial viability of agroecological farming, improving data standardisation, and encouraging collaboration between farmers, organisations, and researchers for data collection, sharing, and use. The role of Defra in a living labs network should be negotiated carefully with existing stakeholders involved in agroecological/regenerative transitions. Such a network should be sufficiently resourced in order to fund research and knowledge exchange and in order to build capacity among farmers and organisational stakeholders. Building on the response of the survey, case studies, and workshops, the benefits and disadvantages of four options were examined: 1) Develop a standardised methodology or protocol to support consistency of farm measurements. Soil carbon and farm carbon accounting were particularly highlighted. 2) To maximise synergies within existing agroecological farm networks with standardised data collection. 3) A new research network set up to apply agroecological practices on commercial farms, co-designed between farmers and researchers, with standardised data collection on impacts and trade-offs. 4) A long-term living lab UK network set up, with funded facilitation roles and research projects. Some of the above options could be applied in combination. The optimal option will depend on the ambition of Defra and the available funding and timescales

Meta-analysis reveals that pollinator functional diversity and abundance enhance crop pollination and yield

How insects promote crop pollination remains poorly understood in terms of the contribution of functional trait differences between species. We used meta-analyses to test for correlations between community abundance, species richness and functional trait metrics with oilseed rape yield, a globally important crop. While overall abundance is consistently important in predicting yield, functional divergence between species traits also showed a positive correlation. This result supports the complementarity hypothesis that pollination function is maintained by non-overlapping trait distributions. In artificially constructed communities (mesocosms), species richness is positively correlated with yield, although this effect is not seen under field conditions. As traits of the dominant species do not predict yield above that attributed to the effect of abundance alone, we find no evidence in support of the mass ratio hypothesis. Management practices increasing not just pollinator abundance, but also functional divergence, could benefit oilseed rape agriculture.This study was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) under research programme NE/N018125/1 ASSIST–Achieving Sustainable Agricultural Systems www.assist.ceh.ac.uk. ASSIST is an initiative jointly supported by NERC and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC). Additional funding for field studies was from the Wessex Biodiversity Ecosystem Services Sustainability (NE/J014680/1) project within the NERC BESS programme. Other data sets were generated from research funded by: (a) the Insect Pollinators Initiative programme funded by BBSRC, Defra, NERC, the Scottish Government and the Wellcome Trust, under the Living with Environmental Change Partnership; (b) Defra project BD5005: Provision of Ecosystem services in the ES scheme; and (c) Irish Government under the National Development Plan 2007–2013 administered by the Irish EPA

Exclusive electroproduction of K+ Lambda and K+ Sigma^0 final states at Q^2 = 0.030-0.055 (GeV/c)^2

Cross section measurements of the exclusive p(e,e'K+)Lambda,Sigma^0 electroproduction reactions have been performed at the Mainz Microtron MAMI in the A1 spectrometer facility using for the first time the Kaos spectrometer for kaon detection. These processes were studied in a kinematical region not covered by any previous experiment. The nucleon was probed in its third resonance region with virtual photons of low four-momenta, Q^2= 0.030-0.055 (GeV/c)^2. The MAMI data indicate a smooth transition in Q^2 from photoproduction to electroproduction cross sections. Comparison with predictions of effective Lagrangian models based on the isobar approach reveal that strong longitudinal couplings of the virtual photon to the N* resonances can be excluded from these models.Comment: 16 pages, 7 figure

The environmental effectiveness of the Higher Level Stewardship scheme; resurveying the baseline agreement monitoring sample to quantify change between 2009 and 2016. Full technical final report

Agri-environment schemes (AES) are one of the most significant mechanism for delivering environmental policy within England, both in terms of expenditure and coverage of land. AES are multi-objective, primarily addressing conservation of wildlife, landscapes and the historic environment and providing public access as well as addressing broader environmental issues such as climate change and flood management. This project contributes to evaluation of the Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) AES, which was designed to achieve the highest standards of environmental management and target features of the greatest conservation value, including Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). Monitoring is a key element of scheme delivery in order to assess the efficacy of AES, and determine which factors contribute to successful AES outcomes. Here, we resurveyed a sample of HLS agreements (surveyed 6-7 years previously), to assess environmental outcomes and in particular change in plant communities over time in relation to AES management. The assessment of change over time allowed the effects of AES management to be quantified against defined objectives, as opposed to drawing conclusions from a single assessment where the conservation value of land entered into an AES can be confounded with AES management effects

Designing a survey to monitor multi-scale impacts of agri-environment schemes on mobile taxa

Agri-environment schemes (AES) are key mechanisms to deliver conservation policy, and include management to provide resources for target taxa. Mobile species may move to areas where resources are increased, without this necessarily having an effect across the wider countryside or on populations over time. Most assessments of AES efficacy have been at small spatial scales, over short timescales, and shown varying results. We developed a survey design based on orthogonal gradients of AES management at local and landscape scales, which will enable the response of several taxa to be monitored. An evidence review of management effects on butterflies, birds and pollinating insects provided data to score AES options. Predicted gradients were calculated using AES uptake, weighted by the evidence scores. Predicted AES gradients for each taxon correlated strongly, and with the average gradient across taxa, supporting the co-location of surveys across different taxa. Nine 1 × 1 km survey squares were selected in each of four regional blocks with broadly homogenous background habitat characteristics. Squares in each block covered orthogonal contrasts across the range of AES gradients at local and landscape scales. This allows the effects of AES on species at each scale, and the interaction between scales, to be tested. AES options and broad habitats were mapped in field surveys, to verify predicted gradients which were based on AES option uptake data. The verified AES gradient had a strong positive relationship with the predicted gradient. AES gradients were broadly independent of background habitat within each block, likely allowing AES effects to be distinguished from potential effects of other habitat variables. Surveys of several mobile taxa are ongoing. This design will allow mobile taxa responses to AES to be tested in the surrounding countryside, as well as on land under AES management, and potentially in terms of population change over time. The design developed here provides a novel, pseudo-experimental approach for assessing the response of mobile species to gradients of management at two spatial scales. A similar design process could be applied in other regions that require a standardized approach to monitoring the impacts of management interventions on target taxa at landscape scales, if equivalent spatial data are available

Differential cross section and recoil polarization measurements for the gamma p to K+ Lambda reaction using CLAS at Jefferson Lab

We present measurements of the differential cross section and Lambda recoil polarization for the gamma p to K+ Lambda reaction made using the CLAS detector at Jefferson Lab. These measurements cover the center-of-mass energy range from 1.62 to 2.84 GeV and a wide range of center-of-mass K+ production angles. Independent analyses were performed using the K+ p pi- and K+ p (missing pi -) final-state topologies; results from these analyses were found to exhibit good agreement. These differential cross section measurements show excellent agreement with previous CLAS and LEPS results and offer increased precision and a 300 MeV increase in energy coverage. The recoil polarization data agree well with previous results and offer a large increase in precision and a 500 MeV extension in energy range. The increased center-of-mass energy range that these data represent will allow for independent study of non-resonant K+ Lambda photoproduction mechanisms at all production angles.Comment: 22 pages, 16 figure

Measurement of the Nucleon Structure Function F2 in the Nuclear Medium and Evaluation of its Moments

We report on the measurement of inclusive electron scattering off a carbon target performed with CLAS at Jefferson Laboratory. A combination of three different beam energies 1.161, 2.261 and 4.461 GeV allowed us to reach an invariant mass of the final-state hadronic system W~2.4 GeV with four-momentum transfers Q2 ranging from 0.2 to 5 GeV2. These data, together with previous measurements of the inclusive electron scattering off proton and deuteron, which cover a similar continuous two-dimensional region of Q2 and Bjorken variable x, permit the study of nuclear modifications of the nucleon structure. By using these, as well as other world data, we evaluated the F2 structure function and its moments. Using an OPE-based twist expansion, we studied the Q2-evolution of the moments, obtaining a separation of the leading-twist and the total higher-twist terms. The carbon-to-deuteron ratio of the leading-twist contributions to the F2 moments exhibits the well known EMC effect, compatible with that discovered previously in x-space. The total higher-twist term in the carbon nucleus appears, although with large systematic uncertainites, to be smaller with respect to the deuteron case for n<7, suggesting partial parton deconfinement in nuclear matter. We speculate that the spatial extension of the nucleon is changed when it is immersed in the nuclear medium.Comment: 37 pages, 15 figure

P-wave excited baryons from pion- and photo-induced hyperon production

We report evidence for $N(1710)P_{11}$, $N(1875)P_{11}$, $N(1900)P_{13}$, $\Delta(1600)P_{33}$, $\Delta(1910)P_{31}$, and $\Delta(1920)P_{33}$, and find indications that $N(1900)P_{13}$ might have a companion state at 1970\,MeV. The controversial $\Delta(1750)P_{31}$ is not seen. The evidence is derived from a study of data on pion- and photo-induced hyperon production, but other data are included as well. Most of the resonances reported here were found in the Karlsruhe-Helsinki (KH84) and the Carnegie-Mellon (CM) analyses but were challenged recently by the Data Analysis Center at GWU. Our analysis is constrained by the energy independent $\pi N$ scattering amplitudes from either KH84 or GWU. The two $\pi N$ amplitudes from KH84 or GWU, respectively, lead to slightly different $\pi N$ branching ratios of contributing resonances but the debated resonances are required in both series of fits.Comment: 22 pages, 28 figures. Some additional sets of data are adde

First measurement of direct f0(980)f_0(980) photoproduction on the proton

We report on the results of the first measurement of exclusive $f_0(980)$ meson photoproduction on protons for $E_\gamma=3.0 - 3.8$ GeV and $-t = 0.4-1.0$ GeV$^2$. Data were collected with the CLAS detector at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility. The resonance was detected via its decay in the $\pi^+ \pi^-$ channel by performing a partial wave analysis of the reaction $\gamma p \to p \pi^+ \pi^-$. Clear evidence of the $f_0(980)$ meson was found in the interference between $P$ and $S$ waves at $M_{\pi^+ \pi^-}\sim 1$ GeV. The $S$-wave differential cross section integrated in the mass range of the $f_0(980)$ was found to be a factor of 50 smaller than the cross section for the $\rho$ meson. This is the first time the $f_0(980)$ meson has been measured in a photoproduction experiment