Use of agricultural fields by Natterjack toads: Implications for pesticide exposure

Land sharing conservation strategies might not work if wildlife is exposed to plant protection products. Plant protection products are used to protect crops against harmful organisms yet they can also have unwanted side effects on non-target organisms. Amphibians are one group of non-target organisms for which there is evidence that plant protection products can have negative effects on individuals and populations. Despite much research on amphibian ecotoxicology, not much is known about the exposure of amphibians to plant protection products in agricultural landscapes. Here, we study habitat use and movement behaviour of an endangered amphibian, the Natterjack toad Epidalea calamita, in two study areas in Switzerland. We placed arrays of artificial cover boards in agricultural fields and adjacent non-agricultural habitats and used a photographic mark-recapture approach to track individual toads, both adults and juveniles, during and after the reproductive season in the terrestrial habitat. We used multistate and spatial mark-recapture models to analyse the data. Toads used the agricultural fields during spring and summer and set up their home ranges within the fields but there was a great turnover of individuals. Toad densities were higher in agricultural fields than other habitat types, including a nature reserve suitable for the species. Toads preferred open soils and avoided grassy meadows typical of agricultural set-asides, suggesting that the conservation of the species in agricultural landscapes requires new types of biodiversity promotion areas. The results of the study show that toads use agricultural fields during most of the growing season and are thus likely to be exposed to plant protection products

Spatial similarities between European agroforestry systems and ecosystem services at the landscape scale

Agroforestry systems are known to provide ecosystem services which differ in quantity and quality from conventional agricultural practices and could enhance rural landscapes. In this study we compared ecosystem services provision of agroforestry and non-agroforestry landscapes in case study regions from three European biogeographical regions: Mediterranean (montado and dehesa), Continental (orchards and wooded pasture) and Atlantic agroforestry systems (chestnut soutos and hedgerows systems). Seven ecosystem service indicators (two provisioning and five regulating services) were mapped, modelled and assessed. Clear variations in amount and provision of ecosystem services were found between different types of agroforestry systems. Nonetheless regulating ecosystems services were improved in all agroforestry landscapes, with reduced nitrate losses, higher carbon sequestration, reduced soil losses, higher functional biodiversity focussed on pollination and greater habitat diversity reflected in a high proportion of semi-natural habitats. The results for provisioning services were inconsistent. While the annual biomass yield and the groundwater recharge rate tended to be higher in agricultural landscapes without agroforestry systems, the total biomass stock was reduced. These broad relationships were observed within and across the case study regions regardless of the agroforestry type or biogeographical region. Overall our study underlines the positive influence of agroforestry systems on the supply of regulating services and their role to enhance landscape structure

Landscape-scale modelling of agroforestry ecosystems services in Swiss orchards: a methodological approach

Context Agroforestry systems in temperate Europe are known to provide both, provisioning and regulating ecosystem services (ES). Yet, it is poorly understood how these systems affect ES provision at a landscape scale in contrast to agricultural practises. Objectives This study aimed at developing a novel, spatially explicit model to assess and quantify bundles of provisioning and regulating ES provided by landscapes with and without agroforestry systems and to test the hypothesis that agroforestry landscapes provide higher amounts of regulating ES than landscapes dominated by monocropping. Methods Focussing on ES that are relevant for agroforestry and agricultural practices, we selected six provisioning and regulating ES—“biomass production”, “groundwater recharge”, “nutrient retention”, “soil preservation”, “carbon storage”, “habitat and gene pool protection”. Algorithms for quantifying these services were identified, tested, adapted, and applied in a traditional cherry orchard landscape in Switzerland, as a case study. Eight landscape test sites of 1 km × 1 km, four dominated by agroforestry and four dominated by agriculture, were mapped and used as baseline for the model. Results We found that the provisioning ES, namely the annual biomass yield, was higher in landscape test sites with agriculture, while the regulating ES were better represented in landscape test sites with agroforestry. The differences were found to be statistically significant for the indicators annual biomass yield, groundwater recharge rate, nitrate leaching, annual carbon sequestration, flowering resources, and share of semi-natural habitats. Conclusions This approach provides an example for spatially explicit quantification of provisioning and regulating ES and is suitable for comparing different land use scenarii at landscape scale

Spatial similarities between European agroforestry systems and ecosystem services at the landscape scale

This is a post-peer-review, pre-copyedit version of an article published in Agroforestry Systems. The final authenticated version is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0132-3Agroforestry systems are known to provide ecosystem services which differ in quantity and quality from conventional agricultural practices and could enhance rural landscapes. In this study we compared ecosystem services provision of agroforestry and non-agroforestry landscapes in case study regions from three European biogeographical regions: Mediterranean (montado and dehesa), Continental (orchards and wooded pasture) and Atlantic agroforestry systems (chestnut soutos and hedgerows systems). Seven ecosystem service indicators (two provisioning and five regulating services) were mapped, modelled and assessed. Clear variations in amount and provision of ecosystem services were found between different types of agroforestry systems. Nonetheless regulating ecosystems services were improved in all agroforestry landscapes, with reduced nitrate losses, higher carbon sequestration, reduced soil losses, higher functional biodiversity focussed on pollination and greater habitat diversity reflected in a high proportion of semi-natural habitats. The results for provisioning services were inconsistent. While the annual biomass yield and the groundwater recharge rate tended to be higher in agricultural landscapes without agroforestry systems, the total biomass stock was reduced. These broad relationships were observed within and across the case study regions regardless of the agroforestry type or biogeographical region. Overall our study underlines the positive influence of agroforestry systems on the supply of regulating services and their role to enhance landscape structureWe acknowledge funding through Grant 613520 from the European Commission (Project AGFORWARD, 7th Framework Program), the Xunta de Galicia, Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria (“Programa de axudas á etapa posdoutoral DOG no. 122, 29/06/2016 p.27443, exp: ED481B 2016/071-0”), the Forest Research Center strategic project (PEst OE/AGR/UI0239/2014) and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology through the contract SFRH/BD/52691/2014S

Agroforestry is paying off – Economic evaluation of ecosystem services in European landscapes with and without agroforestry systems

The study assessed the economic performance of marketable ecosystem services (ES) (biomass production) and non-marketable ecosystem services and dis-services (groundwater, nutrient loss, soil loss, carbon sequestration, pollination deficit) in 11 contrasting European landscapes dominated by agroforestry land use compared to business as usual agricultural practice. The productivity and profitability of the farming activities and the associated ES were quantified using environmental modelling and economic valuation. After accounting for labour and machinery costs the financial value of the outputs of Mediterranean agroforestry systems tended to be greater than the corresponding agricultural system; but in Atlantic and Continental regions the agricultural system tended to be more profitable. However, when economic values for the associated ES were included, the relative profitability of agroforestry increased. Agroforestry landscapes: (i) were associated to reduced externalities of pollution from nutrient and soil losses, and (ii) generated additional benefits from carbon capture and storage and thus generated an overall higher economic gain. Our findings underline how a market system that includes the values of broader ES would result in land use change favouring multifunctional agroforestry. Imposing penalties for dis-services or payments for services would reflect their real world prices and would make agroforestry a more financially profitable system

Agroforestry creates carbon sinks whilst enhancing the environment in agricultural landscapes in Europe

Agroforestry, relative to conventional agriculture, contributes significantly to carbon sequestration, increases a range of regulating ecosystem services, and enhances biodiversity. Using a transdisciplinary approach, we combined scientific and technical knowledge to evaluate nine environmental pressures in terms of ecosystem services in European farmland and assessed the carbon storage potential of suitable agroforestry systems, proposed by regional experts. First, regions with potential environmental pressures were identified with respect to soil health (soil erosion by water and wind, low soil organic carbon), water quality (water pollution by nitrates, salinization by irrigation), areas affected by climate change (rising temperature), and by underprovision in biodiversity (pollination and pest control pressures, loss of soil biodiversity). The maps were overlaid to identify areas where several pressures accumulate. In total, 94.4% of farmlands suffer from at least one environmental pressure, pastures being less affected than arable lands. Regional hotspots were located in north-western France, Denmark, Central Spain, north and south-western Italy, Greece, and eastern Romania. The 10% of the area with the highest number of accumulated pressures were defined as Priority Areas, where the implementation of agroforestry could be particularly effective. In a second step, European agroforestry experts were asked to propose agroforestry practices suitable for the Priority Areas they were familiar with, and identified 64 different systems covering a wide range of practices. These ranged from hedgerows on field boundaries to fast growing coppices or scattered single tree systems. Third, for each proposed system, the carbon storage potential was assessed based on data from the literature and the results were scaled-up to the Priority Areas. As expected, given the wide range of agroforestry practices identified, the carbon sequestration potentials ranged between 0.09 and 7.29 t C ha−1 a−1. Implementing agroforestry on the Priority Areas could lead to a sequestration of 2.1 to 63.9 million t C a−1 (7.78 and 234.85

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

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

Swiss Tree Lines – a GIS-Based Approximation

Mountain timber lines are relevant in the context of land abandonment and climate change. For Switzerland, GIS-compliant delimitations of the tree line and the forest line are still lacking. Recent high-resolution landcover information offers new possibilities for GIS-based approaches. In a Swiss-wide study, an analysis based on slope zones was combined with a moving-window analysis to assess tree and forest line altitude, using topographic data. The tree and the forest lines were delimited at the upper altitude reached by a tree or closed forest respectively. The model delivered a fine-scaled delimitation sensitive to local conditions. The results indicate that earlier studies underestimated the tree line altitudes for the fringes of the Alps. Also the variability inside climatic and bio-geographical regions is larger than it was estimated up to now