Assessing biodiversity potential of arable farms – A conceptual approach

Figures & data

Table 1. Categorization of the biodiversity potential score

very low biodiversity potential	low biodiversity potential	medium biodiversity potential	high biodiversity potential	very high biodiversity potential
0.0–0.2	0.2–0.4	0.4–0.6	0.6–0.8	0.8–1.0

Table 2. On-crop parameters for biodiversity potential. Parameters with * are weighted twice by the experts

On-crop (indicator for agricultural management) composed of the following parameters	Abbreviation	Literature	Selection options	Points
1. Soil cultivation before sowing	onM1	Honermeier (2006)	no-till not turning (ploughless) turning (with plough)	1.0 0.5 0
2. Chemical and mechanical crop protection (a) Fungicide* (b) Herbicide* (c) Insecticide* (d) Plant growth regulator (e) Hoe for weed control/Harrow or curry comb	onM2 onM3 onM4 onM5 onM6	Yoon et al. (2013) Böcker et al. (2019) Mahmood et al. (2016) Aktar et al. (2009) Machleb et al. (2020); Alba et al. (2020)	number of applications number of applications yes/no yes/no no crossings 1–4 crossings 5 or more crossings	no applications = 1 less than prescribed applications = 0.5 prescribed applications = 0 no = 1 yes = 0 1 0.5 0
3. Chemical seed treatment	onM7	Sekulic and Rempel (2016)	yes/no	no = 1 yes = 0
4. FertilizationChemical-synthetic or organic* Chemical-synthetic or organic*	onM8	Mozumder and Berrens (2007); Török et al. (2021)	only organic organic and chemical-synthetic combined chemical-synthetic	1.0 0.5 0
5. Intercropping*	onM9	Mala et al. (2020)	yes/no	yes =1 no = 0
6. Undersowing	onM10	Boetzl et al. (2022)	yes/no	yes = 1 no = 0
7. Elements of crop rotation*	onM11	Venter et al. (2016)	7 or more 5–6 4 or less	1.0 0.5 0
8. Use of precision farming	onM12	Garske et al. (2021); Zanin et al. (2022); Faupel et al. (2023)	yes/no	yes = 1 no = 0

Table 3. Off-crop parameters for biodiversity potential. Parameters with * are weighted twice by the experts

Off-crop (landscape indicator) composed of the following parameters	Abbreviation	Literature	Selection options	Points
1. Mean field size*	offM1	Landis (2017)	<2 ha between 2 ha and 5 ha >5 ha	1.0 0.5 0
2. Cultures of neighbouring fields	offM2	Tscharntke et al. (2021)	4 or more 2 to 3 less than 2	1.0 0.5 0
3. Longitudinal elements*	offM3	Marja et al. (2018)	>2/3 field and field margins >1/3 to <2/3 field and field margins <1/3 field and field margins	1.0 0.5 0
4. Hedges/flower strips in or at the edge of the field	offM4	von Königslöw et al. (2021); Tschumi, Albrecht, Collatz, et al. (2016)	hedges/flower strips in or around the field hedges/flower strips sporadically in or around the field no hedges/flower strips	1.0 0.5 0
5. Surface watercourse	offM5	Dyson and Yocom (2015)	yes/no	yes = 1 no = 0
6. Isolated trees in the field	offM6	Prevedello et al. (2018)	3 or more trees in the field per ha 1 to 2 trees in the field per ha no trees in the field	1.0 0.5 0
7. Sealed area (street, residential area)	offM7	Tobias et al. (2018)	<1/3 sealing around the field between 1/3 and 2/3 sealing around the field >2/3 sealing around the field	1.0 0.5 0

Figure 1. Logistic growth logic for assessing biodiversity potential.

Notes: Parameters = Cumulative parameter effectiveness weighting for on-crop and off-crop

p = Biodiversity potential score

Table 4. Assessment of the parameters on-crop. Parameters with * are weighted twice by the experts

On-crop agricultural management indicator	Evaluation of the parameter for the award of points	Parameters assessed	Weighted points
1. Soil cultivation before sowing (onM1)	no-till	1	1
2. Chemical and mechanical crop protection
(a)Fungicide (onM2)*	1 application	0.5*	1
(b)Herbicide (onM3)*	3 applications	0*	0
(c)Insecticide (onM4)*	no application	1*	2
(d)Plant growth regulator (onM5)	yes	0	0
(e)Hoe for weed control/Harrow or curry comb (onM6)	no crossings	1	1
3. Chemical seed treatment (onM7)	yes	0	0
4. FertilizationChemical-synthetic or organic (onM8)* Chemical-synthetic or organic (onM8)*	chemical-synthetic	0*	0
5. Intercropping (onM9)*	yes	1*	2
6. Undersowing (onM10)	no	0	0
7. Elements of crop rotation (onM11)*	7	1*	2
8. Use of precision farming (onM12)	yes	1	1
Parameters and points in summary		5.5/12	10/18

Table 5. Assessment of the parameters off-crop. Parameters with * are weighted twice by the experts

Off-crop landscape indicator	Evaluation of the parameter for the award of points	Parameters assessed	Weighted points
1. Mean field size (offM1)*	1.5 ha	1*	2
2. Cultures of neighbouring fields (offM2)	less than 2	0	0
3. Longitudinal elements (offM3)*	>1/3 and < 2/3 field and field margins	0.5*	1
4. Hedges/flower strips in or at the edge of the field (offM4)	no hedges/flower strips	0	0
5. Surface watercourse (offM5)	yes	1	1
6. Isolated trees in the field (offM6)	no	0	0
7. Sealed area (street, residential area) (offM7)	<1/3 sealing around the field	1	1
Parameters and points in summary		3.5/7	5/9

Figure 2. Results of the biodiversity application example for on-crop and off-crop.

Table 6. Result overview of the practical example

	Number of possible points = highest score for biodiversity potential	Actual points achieved	y-axis logistic growth function value
On-crop	18	10
Off-crop	9	5
Total	27	15	0.65

Table

1 point	0.5 point	0 points
very biodiversity promoting	moderately biodiversity promoting	not biodiversity promoting

Table

no-till	not turning (ploughless)	turning (with plough)
1 point	0.5 point	0 points

Table

	1 point allocation	0.5 Point allocation	0 point allocation
a) Fungicides	no application	1 application	2 or more applications
b) Herbicides	no application	1–4 applications	5 or more applications
a) Insecticides	no application		1 or more applications

Table

plant growth regulator no	plant growth regulator yes
1 point	0 points

Table

no crossings	1–4 crossings	5 or more crossings
1 point	0.5 point	0 points

Table

chemical seed treatment no	chemical seed treatment yes
1 point	0 point

Table

only organic	organic and chemical-synthetic combined	chemical-synthetic
1 point	0.5 point	0 points

Table

intercropping yes	intercropping no
1 point	0 points

Table

undersowing yes	undersowing no
1 point	0 points

Table

7 or more	5–6	4 or less
1 point	0.5 point	0 points

Table

use of precision farming yes	use of precision farming no
1 point	0 points

Table

<2 ha	between 2 ha and 5 ha	>5 ha
1 point	0.5 point	0 points

Table

4 or more	2 to 3	less than 2
1 point	0.5 point	0 points

Table

>2/3 field and field margins	>1/3 to <2/3 field and field margins	<1/3 field and field margins
1 point	0.5 point	0 points

Table

hedges/flower strips in or around the field	hedges/flower strips sporadically in or around the field	no hedges/flower strips
1 point	0.5 point	0 points

Table

surface watercourse at the edge of the field	no surface watercourse at the edge of the field
1 point	0 points

Table

3 or more trees in the field per ha	1 to 2 trees in the field per ha	no trees in the field
1 point	0.5 point	0 points

Table

<1/3 sealing around the field	between 1/3 and 2/3 sealing around the field	>2/3 sealing around the field
1 point	0.5 point	0 points

Honermeier, B. (2006). Diversity in crop production systems. In G. Benckiser & S. Schnell (Eds.), Biodiversity in agricultural production systems (pp. 1–19). Taylor & Francis Group.

 Google Scholar

Yoon, M. Y., Cha, B., & Kim, J. C. (2013). Recent trends in studies on botanical fungicides in agriculture. Plant Pathology Journal, 29(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5423/PPJ.RW.05.2012.0072

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Böcker, T., Möhring, N., & Finger, R. (2019). Herbicide free agriculture? A bio-economic modelling application to Swiss wheat production. Agricultural Systems, 173, 378–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mahmood, I., Imadi, S. R., Shazadi, K., Gul, A., & Hakeem, K. R. (2016). Effects of pesticides on environment. In K. R. Hakeem, M. S. Akhtar, & S. N. A. Abdullah (Eds.), Plant, soil and microbes (pp. 253–269). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27455-3_13

 Google Scholar

Aktar, W. M., Sengupta, D., & Chowdhury, A. (2009). Impact of pesticides use in agriculture: Their benefits and hazards. Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 2(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10102-009-0001-7

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Machleb, J., Peteinatos, G. G., Kollenda, B. L., Andújar, D., & Gerhards, R. (2020). Sensor-based mechanical weed control: Present state and prospects. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 176, 105638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2020.105638

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Alba, O. S., Syrovy, L. D., Duddu, H. S. N., & Shirtliffe, S. J. (2020). Increased seeding rate and multiple methods of mechanical weed control reduce weed biomass in a poorly competitive organic crop. Field Crops Research, 245, 107648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107648

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sekulic, G., & Rempel, C. B. (2016). Evaluating the role of seed treatments in canola/oilseed rape production: Integrated pest management, pollinator health, and biodiversity. Plants, 5(3), 32. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants5030032

 Google Scholar

Mozumder, P., & Berrens, R. P. (2007). Inorganic fertilizer use and biodiversity risk: An empirical investigation. Ecological Economics, 62(3–4), 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.07.016

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Török, E., Zieger, S., Rosenthal, J., Földesi, R., Gallé, R., Tscharntke, T., & Batáry, P. (2021). Organic farming supports lower pest infestation, but fewer natural enemies than flower strips. Journal of Applied Ecology, 58(10), 2277–2286. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13946

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mala, M., Mollah, M. M., & Baishnab, M. (2020). Importance of intercropping for biodiversity conservation. Journal of Science, Technology and Environment Informatics, 10(2), 709–716. https://doi.org/10.18801/jstei.100220.71

 Google Scholar

Boetzl, F. A., Douhan Sundahl, A., Friberg, H., Viketoft, M., Bergkvist, G., & Lundin, O. (2022). Undersowing oats with clovers supports pollinators and suppresses arable weeds without reducing yields. Journal of Applied Ecology, 60(4), 614–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14361

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Venter, Z. S., Jacobs, K., & Hawkins, H.-J. (2016). The impact of crop rotation on soil microbial diversity: A meta-analysis. Pedobiologia, 59(4), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedobi.2016.04.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Garske, B., Bau, A., & Ekardt, F. (2021). Digitalization and AI in European agriculture: A strategy for achieving climate and biodiversity targets? Sustainability, 13(9), 4652. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13094652

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zanin, A. R. A., Neves, D. C., Teodoro, L. P. R., da Silva Júnior, C. A., da Silva, S. P., Teodoro, P. E., & Baio, F. H. R. (2022). Reduction of pesticide application via real-time precision spraying. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 5638. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09607-w

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Faupel, M., von Blanckenhagen, F., Lückmann, J., Ruf, D., Wiedemann, G., & Ludwigs, J. D. (2023). Precision farming and environmental pesticide regulation in the EU—How does it fit together? Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 19(1), 17–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4626

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Landis, D. A. (2017). Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic and Applied Ecology, 18, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2016.07.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tscharntke, T., Grass, I., Wanger, T. C., Westphal, C., & Batáry, P. (2021). Beyond organic farming–harnessing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 36(10), 919–930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.06.010

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Marja, R., Viik, E., Mänd, M., Phillips, J., Klein, A.-M., Batáry, P., & Garibaldi, L. (2018). Crop rotation and agri-environment schemes determine bumblebee communities via flower resources. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(4), 1714–1724. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13119

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

von Königslöw, V., Fornoff, F., & Klein, A.-M. (2021). Pollinator enhancement in agriculture: Comparing sown flower strips, hedges and sown hedge herb layers in apple orchard. Biodiversity and Conservation, 31(2), 433–451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-021-02338-w

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tschumi, M., Albrecht, M., Collatz, J., Dubsky, V., Entling, M. H., Najar‐Rodriguez, A. J., Jacot, K., & Kleijn, D. (2016). Tailored flower strips promote natural enemy biodiversity and pest control in potato crops. Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(4), 1169–1176. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12653

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dyson, K., & Yocom, K. (2015). Ecological design for urban waterfronts. Urban Ecosystems, 18(1), 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-014-0385-9

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prevedello, J. A., Almeida-Gomes, M., Lindenmayer, D. B., & Magrach, A. (2018). The importance of scattered trees for biodiversity conservation: A global meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(1), 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12943

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tobias, S., Conen, F., Duss, A., Wenzel, L. M., Buser, C., & Alewell, C. (2018). Soil sealing and unsealing: State of the art and examples. Land Degradation & Development, 29(6), 2015–2024. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2919

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar