Multifunctional land use is an option to increase economic and environmental sustainability and to make a region more attractive for local inhabitants and visitors. Between 2002 and 2004 we studied 76 grasslands on different farms. This paper presents results on production, flora and fauna (butterflies and grasshoppers) and nitrate concentration in upper groundwater from six different grassland types. We conclude that a combination of agronomic, ecological and environmental goals is possible and that it is possible to combine a high biodiversity with a rather high production level. In most cases this multifunctionality is not profitable for the individual farmer. However, for the region as a whole it provides good opportunities to create extra income. The most important potential for extra income is an increase in recreation and tourism

Geerts, R.H.E.M.

Korevaar, H.

Wageningen Yield 

What Farmers Can Deliver 
 
 64
Productivity, Biodiversity and Nitrate in Groundwater of 
Multifunctional Grasslands 
H. KOREVAAR and R.H.E.M. GEERTS 
Plant Research International, P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands 
 
ABSTRACT 
Multifunctional land use is an option to increase economic and environmental 
sustainability and to make a region more attractive for local inhabitants and visitors. 
Between 2002 and 2004 we studied 76 grasslands on different farms. This paper presents 
results on production, flora and fauna (butterflies and grasshoppers) and nitrate 
concentration in upper groundwater from six different grassland types. We conclude that 
a combination of agronomic, ecological and environmental goals is possible and that it is 
possible to combine a high biodiversity with a rather high production level. In most cases 
this multifunctionality is not profitable for the individual farmer. However, for the region 
as a whole it provides good opportunities to create extra income. The most important 
potential for extra income is an increase in recreation and tourism. 
 
INTRODUCTION 
Grasslands are complex ecosystems and play an important role in our daily life: 
• Grassland is a continuous crop; management and utilisation have an impact on 
the growth rate of the grass and its regrowth potential. 
• Grassland is a part of the soil-sward-animal cycle. Grass production and quality 
influences animal production. Dung, urine and poaching have an impact on soil 
fertility and sward quality. 
• Species composition of grasslands is dependent on many factors, such as climate, 
soil structure, moisture, fertility and management conditions. Grass species can 
grow under varied conditions and many insects (e.g. butterflies), mammals, (e.g. 
hare) and ground nesting birds (like lapwing) are dependent on grassland. 
• Grassland is not only a part of our dairy and sheep farms, it is a major component 
of our urban environment (and is indispensable for soccer fields and golf courses 
and for the lawns in our gardens and public areas).  
• Grassland is even more an important component of our countryside. Green 
grasslands dominated many highly valued landscapes. 
However, the countryside in many countries is changing rapidly. The number of 
employees working in agriculture has decreased strongly after the Second World War. In 
a country like the Netherlands nowadays only 2.5% of the labour force is involved in 
food production. Services on the other hand create much more jobs. The countryside is 
not so important anymore for employment; it is becoming more and more important for 
residence and recreation. These new functions demand maintenance of landscape 
structures, nature conservation, water management and protection of the environment. 
Multifunctional land use is an option to integrate these changing requirements to make 
the countryside more attractive for local inhabitants and tourism and to enlarge the socio- 
economic viability of rural areas. In this paper we integrate these different agronomic, 
ecological and environmental aspects.  
 
Korevaar, H. & R.H.E.M. Geerts. 2007. Flora, fauna and nitrate in groundwater of 
multifunctional grasslands. In: High Value Grassland. Providing biodiversity, a clean 
environment and premium products. Occasional Symposium 38 British Grassland 
Society, Cirencester, UK: 64169. 
Productivity, Biodiversity and Nitrate in Multifunctional Grasslands 
 
 65
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
Between 2002 and 2004 we studied a group of 14 farms in the Winterswijk region of the 
Netherlands (eastern part of province Gelderland, next to the German border), a small 
scaled landscape of sandy soils with high natural values and a variety of grasslands, 
arable fields, hedgerows and woodlots. The study sites consisted of 5 dairy farms, 2 beef, 
1 young stock rearing, 1 pig, 2 arable and 1 mixed farm and 2 small estates. Four of these 
farms were organic farms. The farms also differed in their level of function combinations 
(Korevaar et al., 2006). We studied the impact of multifunctional land use at field level, 
farm level and rural community level. The region is 20,000 ha in size and was recently 
designated as a national landscape. With 30,000 inhabitants, its population density is 
about half the average density of the Netherlands. 
On these farms grasslands and arable fields were selected and monitored. In this paper 
we present only data obtained from grasslands: dry matter production, grass quality, 
composition of the vegetation, butterflies and grasshoppers, nitrate concentration in upper 
groundwater and amenity of the landscape (scenic beauty). 76 sets of data were collected, 
but not all parameters were available for each field and every year. We measured grass 
production and grass quality by cutting the grass under four grass cages per field every 
time a field was grazed or cut for hay or silage. 
Each farmer recorded data at farm level, on fertilization, grazing management, 
harvesting and labour and machinery costs. Margin over feed and fertilizers was 
calculated yearly for all fields based on production and quality of the grass minus the 
costs of fertilizers and machinery. Two to three times a year all the farmers met, to be 
informed about progress and results of the project and to exchange their experiences and 
to discuss further adaptations. They also visited each others farms.  
At local community level we interviewed local inhabitants and tourists about their 
opinion on the value of a multifunctional landscape; what did they appreciate and what 
they did not. We also studied the economic perspective of a possible further increase of 
multifunctional land use for income of individual farmers and for the whole region. 
 
RESULTS 
Most of our research was focussed on field level, but we will also present some data 
drawn from farm and local community level. 
 
Field level 
The fields were grouped into six grassland types: ranging from fertilized ryegrass and 
grass-clover swards, to unfertilized species-rich grasslands (Table 1). N-fertilization 
(inorganic fertiliser N and directly available component (Nmin) of N in slurry) on grass-
clover swards was less than half the amount of fertilized ryegrass swards (which were 
regarded as a kind of control for the ordinary farming system in that region), but the 
average dry matter production, number of plant species, N-uptake and nitrate 
concentration on grass-clover swards were similar. Although the fertilization level on the 
fertilized grass mixtures (of native grasses) and species-rich grasslands (grassland with 
wild flowers) was low, the DM production on these low fertilized types was fairly high 
and species numbers were similar to the unfertilized types.  
The relationship between N-gift, including N fixation by legumes, and DM production 
showed a broad range (Figure 1A), and some low fertilised grass mixtures and species-
rich grassland produced more than 10 T DM/ha/year. The contribution of N fixation by 
What Farmers Can Deliver 
 
 66
legumes is based on an estimated contribution of legumes of 50 kg N per T DM from 
legumes (Van der Meer and Baan Hofman, 1989). 
Also the number of plant species varied between the fields, with lowest numbers in 
fertilized ryegrass and clover swards and higher numbers in species-rich grasslands, but 
even in the so-called species-rich grasslands the number varied between 15 and 35 per 
100 m2 (Figure 1B). The N-concentration under most ryegrass and grass-clover swards 
exceeded the EU-limit of 50 mg NO3/l and under almost all grass mixtures and species-
rich grasslands the nitrate concentration was far below that limit (Figure 1C). 
 
Table 1  Agronomic, economic, ecological and environmental data for different grassland 
types; average data for the years 2002 till 2004 (Korevaar et al., 2006) 
 
Grass mixtures Species-rich Grassland type Ryegrass 
fertilized 
Grass-
clover 
fertilized fertilized unfertilized fertilized unfertilized 
Number of fields 
 
11 10 8 8 16 23 
N-fertilization 
Kg/ha 
179 107 59 0 50 0 
N-uptake by the 
grass kg/ha 
349 336 244 143 181 90 
DM production 
T/ha 
11.5 11.3 9.2 7.5 8.8 5.5 
Net energy  
MJ/kg DM 
6.3 6.5 5.9 5.6 5.4 5.1 
Plant species on 
100 m2 
11 8 17 16 29 24 
Plant species  
on 0.5 ha 
21 19 29 37 44 39 
Margin 
€/ha 
528 710 518 263 125 -16 
Butterfly index1) 0.4 0.1 0.6 2.4 
Grasshopper index2) 2.6 2.0 3.7 4.9 
Amenity index3) 
 
54 30 245 313 536 533 
NO3 in ground-water 
mg/l 
92 91 18 18 25 4 
 % of  fields with 
NO3 < 50 mg/l 
33 43 80 100 75 100 
1) Butterfly index: number of butterflies per ha x number of species divided by number of visits x 100.  
2) Grasshopper index: the logarithm of the number of grasshoppers per ha x number of species divided 
by number of visits. 
3) Amenity index: attractiveness (flowers, color) of plant species x their proportion in the vegetation. 
NOTE: The Butterfly and Grasshopper indices provided for Grass mixtures and Species-rich grasslands are 
the mean of both fertilized and unfertilized situations 
 
Plant species composition is influenced by changing management, but also some insect 
groups respond quickly to changing management. Butterflies and grasshoppers were 
recorded in 2003 on a limited number of grasslands. Butterflies react in particular to 
changes in the abundance of flowering species, grasshopper to changes in the structure of 
the vegetation. The numbers of butterflies and grasshoppers varied also with grassland 
utilisation and management; just after grazing or cutting the recorded numbers were low.  
Productivity, Biodiversity and Nitrate in Multifunctional Grasslands 
 
 67
Figure 1. Relations between: A. N-fertilization and N-fixation by legumes (kg/ha; see 
text) and DM production (T/ha); B. DM production (T/ha) and number of plant 
species per 100 m2; C. N-fertilization, including N-fixation (kg/ha) and nitrate 
concentration in upper groundwater (mg NO3/l); ■ Ryegrass, □ Grass-clover, 
 ▲ Grass mixtures fertilized, ∆ Grass mixtures unfertilized, ♦ Species-rich 
fertilized, ◊ Species-rich unfertilized. 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Relations between: A. Butterfly index and number of plant species per 100 m2; 
B. Grasshopper index and number of plant species per 100 m2. For legend see 
Figure 1.  
 
 
 
One of the problems in restoration ecology of grasslands is the lack of seeds of 
grassland plants in the seed bank and in the neighbourhood, especially after a long period 
of intensive grassland utilisation. Grasslands with good conditions to develop species-rich 
grasslands (low soil fertility and extensive management) often stay relatively low in 
species numbers due to a lack of seeds. To overcome this lack we re-introduced seeds 
collected from existing species-rich grasslands with the same habitat as our fields. The 
basis for the seed mixtures were eight grass species. In these mixtures we restricted the 
Figure 2A
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 10 20 30 40
Plant species
Bu
tt
er
fly
 
in
de
x
Figure 2B
0
2
4
6
8
10
0 10 20 30 40
Plant species
G
ra
ss
ho
pp
er
 
in
de
x
Figure 1A
0
5
10
15
20
0 100 200 300 400
N-gift incl. N-fixation
D
M
Figure 1B
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 5 10 15 20
DM
Pl
a
n
t s
pe
c
ie
s
Figure 1C
0
50
100
150
200
0 100 200 300 400
N-gift incl. N-fixation
N
itr
at
e
What Farmers Can Deliver 
 
 68
amount of perennial ryegrass seed to 5-10 kg/ha to prevent too much competition from 
this species. We added also some legumes to the seed mixture to improve production and 
feeding value of the grass. The averaged number of plant species after re-introduction 
was higher on both fertilized and unfertilized fields when compared to situations without 
reintroduction (Table 2). These results are in accordance to earlier experimental work on 
reintroduction of grassland species (Korevaar et al., 2004). The percentage of legumes in 
the biomass was higher after reintroduction and also the DM production. A limited N-
fertilization of 50 kg /ha seems, at least in the first years, to not harm species richness and 
also results in a slightly higher percentage of legumes in the sward.  
 
Table 2. Average number of plant species on 100 m2, proportion of legumes in total grass 
production and DM production with and without re-introduction of grass 
species. Averaged species numbers in years 2-4 after re-introduction. 
 
  Number of 
plant species 
Legumes in 
biomass (%) 
DM 
(T/ha) 
without re-introduction 26 6 8.3 Species-rich & 
fertilized: after re-introduction 30 14 9.1 
without re-introduction 21 4 5.1 Species-rich & 
unfertilized: after re-introduction 28 10 6.3 
 
Farm level 
The margin over feed and fertilizers was calculated based on grass production and the 
feeding value of the grass minus the costs of fertilizers and machinery costs to care and 
harvest the grass. The profitability of grass-clover swards is higher than the profitability 
of fertilized ryegrass (Table 1 and Figure 3) and fertilized grass mixtures. Species-rich 
grasslands have the lowest profitability due to lower production and grass quality in 
combination with high costs for harvesting the grass for silage or hay.  
 
Figure 3. Margin over feed and fertilizers (€/ha) related to DM production (T/ha). For 
legend see Figure 1. 
-500
0
500
1000
1500
0 5 10 15 20
DM
M
ar
gi
n
 
Local community level 
To study the economic potential of a further increase of multifunctional land use for 
farmers and for the region, we carried out an economical analysis (Bos, 2006) in which 
we assumed that in 2020 50% of the farms would apply some kind of multifunctional 
land use activities on 50% of there acreage (so 25% of the whole area became 
Productivity, Biodiversity and Nitrate in Multifunctional Grasslands 
 
 69
multifunctional grassland and crops). For farmers the profit of most types of 
multifunctional grassland (except grass-clover) was predicted to be lower than for 
conventional grassland (= fertilized ryegrass) (Figure 3). However for the whole region it 
was predicted to be profitable. The most important potential for extra income is the 
increase in recreation and tourism. The increase in spending by visitors was predicted to 
be about 75 M € for the period 2006-2020. The income by farmers is in the same period 
reduced due to the adaptations in land use by 4 M € (Bos, 2006). So there must be ample 
space to make agreements between the farmer community and the tourist sector to get a 
more balanced division of costs and revenues. 
 
DISCUSSION  
Multifunctional grassland is considered as an option to enlarge economic and 
environmental sustainability and to make the area more attractive for local people and 
visitors. Therefore an integration of agronomic, economic, ecological and environmental 
goals is necessary, but how to weigh the importance of different parameters? The impact 
depends on the relative weight given by stakeholders (whether individual or collective). 
For a farmer for instance DM production and farm economics are important, for a nature 
organization the number of plant species and for water authorities the nitrate 
concentration in groundwater. Next to this, policy goals and subsidies may influence the 
original weight of the parameters. 
From this study we can conclude that combination of agronomic, ecological and 
environmental goals is possible. But in most cases this multifunctionality is not profitable 
for the farmer. For the region as a whole it offers good opportunities to create extra 
income. We need a mechanism to reallocate this extra income, therefore a system of 
“green-blue services” (Anonymous, 2006) is under construction in the Netherlands and 
negotiations are going on with Brussels to ensure that this system meets the requirements 
for integrated EU regulations.  
 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
Financial support from Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Province 
Gelderland, Farmers organisation LTO Noord, Rabobank and EU. 
 
REFERENCES 
ANON (2006) Nederlandse Catalogus Groenblauwe diensten 2007 [Dutch catalogue green-blue 
services 2007] Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, The Hague. 
BOS E.J. (2006) Economisch perspectief van meervoudig duurzaam landgebruik rond Winterswijk 
[Economic potential of sustainable land use in the Winterswijk region] Report in press. 
Agricultural Economics Research Institute, The Hague. 
KOREVAAR H., GEERTS R.H.E.M. and DE VISSER. W. (2004) Reintroduction of grassland 
species. Grassland Science in Europe, 9, 246-248. 
KOREVAAR H., GEERTS R.H.E.M., DE VISSER W. and KOLDEWEY E. (2006) Vier jaar 
multifunctionele gras- en bouwlanden in Winterswijk: gevolgen voor economie en ecologie op de 
bedrijven [Four year of multifunctional grasslands and arable crops in Winterswijk: implications 
for economics and biodiversity on farms]. Report 115. Plant Research International, Wageningen.  
VAN DER MEER H.G. and BAAN HOFMAN T. (1989) Contribution of legumes to yield and 
nitrogen economy of leys on a biodynamic farm. In: Plancquaert, P. and Haggar, R. (Eds.) 
Legumes in farming systems, 25-36. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 


Productivity, biodiversity and nitrate in groundwater of multifunctional grassland

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Wageningen Yield

Name not available

NARCIS