general enquiries on this form should be made...

General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,Telephone No. 020 7238 1612E-mail: [email protected]

SID 5 Research Project Final Report

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code IF1030

2. Project title

The potential for increasing the area of spring cropping to enhance biodiversity

3. Contractororganisation(s)

ADAS UK LtdADAS BoxworthBoxworthCambridgeCB23 4NN

54. Total Defra project costs £ 40,000(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................ 01 April 2007

end date................. 30 September 2007

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so...................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They

should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the

intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.It is generally accepted that spring sown arable cropping offers biodiversity advantages over autumn or winter planted crops, however the amount of spring planted arable crops in England and Wales has declined markedly since the 1970’s with this trend continuing in recent years. This study was a desk review of literature to establish which spring arable crops offer the greatest biodiversity benefit and an evaluation of the potential for reversing the trend and increasing the area to enhance biodiversity in arable rotations in England and Wales.

The study focused on four groups of arable crops in arable rotations, cereals, break crops, root crops (including field scale vegetables) and novel/minor crops. It excluded detailed examination of forage crops such as maize and lupins that tend to be grown on livestock farms. Set-aside and bare fallow were not considered as options, however it is acknowledged that they do provide some biodiversity potential as overwintered habitat and food sources that are not disturbed by cultivations and drilling of crops.

The overall objective of the study was to inform future sustainable agriculture and crops policy and research considerations. In detail the study aimed to: Provide scientific evidence for the biodiversity benefits of current and future spring crops grown in

England and Wales. Identify and quantify the potential area and location of biodiversity enhancing spring crops in England

and Wales Identify and quantify the current and future influences on the area of biodiversity enhancing spring

crops. This will include markets, crop economics, and whole farm considerations as will as the potential influences of climate change.

Identify and evaluate policy options for encouraging more biodiversity enhancing spring crops.

In 1960 there were 2.7 million ha of spring cropping in England, 84% of the arable area. The current area is around 1.1million hectares in England and Wales, of which around 20,000ha is in Wales. This makes up 28% of the 4.4 million hectares of arable land or 10% of the total agricultural area. In addition there are over 600,000ha of set-aside and bare fallow, representing 5% of the total agricultural area. The current Environment Stewardship schemes in England and Wales have options to encourage spring cropping, however these have tended to be used by those already growing spring crops.

An evaluation of spring crop biodiversity value through scoring on each of the key components of biodiversity – previous crop, cultivation timing, pesticide use, crop structure and harvest date and time found that:

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

All spring crops have better potential biodiversity profiles than winter wheat Sunflowers have the best potential biodiversity profile In general novel crops have a better potential biodiversity profile than the other crops groups, however

this is due to low pesticide usage which reflects their limited area. Of the cereals, grain maize offers a marginally better potential biodiversity profile. Of the mainstream

crops late sown spring barley and spring oats have the better profiles. Of the break crops, sunflowers are the best with soya beans next. Of the mainstream crops, spring

oilseed rape and linseed have the best profiles, with peas significantly poorer. Root crops such as potatoes and field vegetables have a poor biodiversity profile with the poorest

profiles of all spring crops. Sugar beet has one of the best profiles. Set-aside has the best biodiversity profile.

The high potential biodiversity crops in each group were identified as:Cereals – primary crop spring barley, secondary grain maize; break crops – oilseeds including sunflowers; root crops – sugar beet; novel crops – hemp, crambe and pharmaceuticals.

Key Findings:Arable biodiversity

The decline in biodiversity indicator species coincided with the move from a spring crop rotation to more winter crop rotations predominant from 1970s onwards. The latter was economically driven, aided by policy (CAP price support) and technology (the introduction of pesticides and mechanisation) with an emphasis on efficiency and production.

Biodiversity benefits from spring cropping

The link between spring cropping and biodiversity is largely based on the availability of seeds left after harvest, the amount of weeds growing and associated seeds, and/or the number of invertebrates. Typically around 12% of land is left as stubble in early winter, reducing to less than 7% in late winter.

Barley, rape and linseed are the preferred stubbles for granivorous birds due to their more open nature and availability of seeds. The lower density structure of spring cereals, compared to winter cereals, allows skylarks to continue to breed and forage during June. The open structure of oilseed crops can encourage bird feeding.

Minimal cultivation is generally better for biodiversity with more weeds and maintenance of invertebrates. This is increasingly common on the basis of larger areas farmed and a peak autumn workload associated with winter planting.

Use of herbicides reduces abundance of weed species and changes the spectrum. Mechanical weeding, most common in organic systems is not suitable for all soil types and can be detrimental to nesting birds.

Most spring crops are associated with reduced use of pesticides than winter crops, with the exception of fungicides on potatoes and herbicides on sugar beet. Reduced pesticide use is associated with higher biodiversity.

There is no evidence that spring cropping would change the impacts of diffuse nutrient pollution. Conversely, policies aimed at reducing pollution through encouraging cover cropping may be detrimental to biodiversity.

Ranking of spring crop biodiversity benefits

When calculating the biodiversity score of a crop the lower the score the better it is for biodiversity. These scores are calculated using a grid like matrix with different options, e.g. for cultivation, having a different weighting. All the scores that are calculated in this way are comparative to one another, the score in itself does not actually mean anything, rather it provides a tool to rank the biodiversity benefits of the required crops.

All spring crops have better biodiversity profiles than winter wheat. Sunflowers have the best biodiversity profile with spring oilseed rape and linseed also performing well. Peas have a significantly poorer profile. Novel crops also perform well. Of the cereals, grain maize is the best with late sown spring barley and spring oats having poorer profiles, but performing best out of the main stream crops. Potatoes and field vegetables have a poor result for biodiversity with sugar beet significantly better.

Current and potential spring cropping

There is currently around 1.1 million ha of spring cropping in England and Wales, around 26% of the arable area.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

There are potentially 3.8 million ha of land suitable for spring cropping, giving a potential increase of 2.7 million ha. There are few limitations for cereals and oilseeds and many novel crops. Grain maize and sunflowers are currently limited by varieties and climatic conditions.

Regionally there are fewer opportunities to increase spring cropping in the North West and Wales where spring cropping is already close to potential.

Barriers to increasing spring cropping

Due to market limitations, economic returns and agronomic factors, many of the biodiversity spring crops are unlikely to compete with winter wheat and oilseed rape in rotations, without direct subsidy. The best opportunities lie with newer crops such as grain maize and sunflowers which are becoming more suited to UK systems due to climate change.

There is regional variation in the relative competitiveness of spring sown cereal, with a smaller differential in western areas. This has implications for payment rates in agri-environment schemes.

The peak autumn workload on combinable farms for harvest and autumn planting has been addressed using high capacity equipment or contractors and seasonal labour, with few opting to move planting to spring.

Options

Potential for economic sustainability is key and where this can be demonstrated, local and regional economic development funding can provide support for sector development (e.g. market development), including R&D, access to capital and infrastructure.

There is potentially sufficient financial incentive (depending on market prices) under current ELS/Tir Gofal Environmental Stewardship schemes to encourage change in behaviour, however these benefits are perhaps not well understood or do not fit in with wider farm management.

Where specific biodiversity targets are required, such as increasing over-wintered stubbles, further focused incentives could be offered through the stewardship schemes.

Encouraging biodiversity policies across a wide area can result in ‘minimum action’ where farmers use existing features and management to qualify. In order to increase the biodiversity benefits policy intervention may need to be more targeted either by habitat or species.

There is a real need for policy consistency in this area; policies aimed at reducing diffuse pollution and soil erosion promote winter cropping and cover crops. Government needs to accept that there will be trade-offs between different policy objectives and targeting of interventions.

Recommendations Scope the barriers to the uptake of developing crops such as grain maize and sunflower as these offer

the best opportunity to deliver a substantial growth in spring cropping in England. It will also be important to highlight potential Government intervention to facilitate uptake in terms of research, market development and infrastructure.

Promote the opportunities under environmental stewardship to increase spring cropping with a series of case studies and farm demonstrations, based on the premise that the financial opportunities are not being fully exploited post-decoupling of farm support.

Consider the scope for an ELS Plus scheme which could target biodiversity benefits from spring cropping. This might work by offering a higher level of area payment in return for delivery of additional 'points' and an expanded set of options.

Undertake a review of the trade-offs between Government policy on biodiversity and a range of other policies. It is important to recognise where conflict exists and where synergy can be developed and refine Government programmes accordingly.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with

details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the scientific objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

The potential for increasing the area of spring cropping to enhance biodiversity (IFO130)

This is a summary report. The full report is available separately as Annex 1.

AcknowledgementsThis report was produced by a team of ADAS consultants including Susan Twining, John Elliott, Steven Watson, Sarah Cook, Rachel Everitt, James Clarke and the ADAS GIS Consultants, Chris Procter and David McChesney.

1.0 IntroductionIt is generally accepted that spring arable cropping offers biodiversity advantages over winter planted crops, however the amount of spring planted arable crops in England and Wales has declined markedly since the 1970’s with this trend continuing in recent years. This study is a desk review of literature to establish which spring arable crops offer the greatest biodiversity benefit and an evaluation of the potential for reversing the trend and increasing the area to enhance biodiversity in arable rotations in England and Wales.

The study focused on four groups of arable crops in arable rotations, cereals, break crops, root crops (including field scale vegetables) and novel/minor crops. It excluded detailed examination of forage crops such as maize and lupins that tend to be grown on livestock farms. Set-aside and bare fallow were not considered as options, however it is acknowledged that they do provide potential biodiversity advantages of overwintered habitat and food sources that are not disturbed by cultivations and drilling of crops.

2.0 ObjectivesThe overall objective of the study was to inform future sustainable agriculture and crops policy and research considerations. In detail the study aimed to: Provide scientific evidence for the biodiversity benefits of current and future spring crops grown in England

and Wales. Identify and quantify the potential area and location of biodiversity enhancing spring crops in England and

Wales Identify and quantify the current and future influences on the area of biodiversity enhancing spring crops. This

will include markets, crop economics, and whole farm considerations as will as the potential influences of climate change.

Identify and evaluate policy options for encouraging more biodiversity enhancing spring crops.

3.0 Background

3.1 Biodiversity in the UKBiodiversity is the term used to describe the variety of living things in the environment. The UK Government signed the Biodiversity Convention in 1992 and under this agreement developed the UK action plan on biodiversity which is implemented through Biodiversity Action Plans for priority species and habitats. The Government is committed to significantly reduce the current rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. Natural England is the Government Agency responsible for the delivery of Government policy, while the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) is the Government advisor.3.2 Biodiversity IndicatorsThe JNCC have established 18 biodiversity indicators grouped under 6 headings. These indicators will be used to measure progress towards the 2010 objectives. Agricultural land use and practices have an important influence on biodiversity with around 71% of the land area of England and Wales under agricultural management. Around 36% of the agricultural area is under arable and horticulture production, farmed on 54,000 holdings (of which 11,500 are very small units). Key indicators related to agriculture are the trend in population of farmland birds, area of agri-environment land, threats to biodiversity such as nitrate pollution and habitat connectivity.3.3 Farmland biodiversity and the role of spring croppingFarmland biodiversity is supported by a range of different habitats such as moorland, improved grassland and arable. The arable habitat can contribute to biodiversity offering food sources, and shelter to insects and birds, and a diversity of habitat. It is generally accepted that spring cropping brings advantages for the environment, particularly biodiversity, with particular benefit from over-wintered stubbles which provide food sources from chaff, grains and weed seed for insects and birds. Spring crops have different biodiversity benefits depending on their crop characteristics and management.3.4 Past, current and future spring croppingThere are currently around 1.1million ha of spring cropping in England and Wales, accounting for 28% of the 4.4million ha of arable land. In addition there are over 600,000ha of set-aside and bare fallow. Spring barley is the most widely grown spring crop with 27% of the total spring crop area, followed by sugar beet at 14% and potatoes at 10%. Regionally, the Eastern and East Midlands regions have the highest rate of spring cropping with

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

around 44% of the total area. Wales and the North West have a higher proportion of their arable crops in spring cropping, 37% and 42% respectively, while the South East and North East have the lowest proportion at 21% and 15% respectively.In 1960 there were 2.7 million ha of spring planted crops in England, or 84% of the total arable area. There has been an increase in the arable area at the expense of grassland, with an increase in the area of wheat from around 800,000ha in 1960 to 1.9 million in 2000. Oilseed rape production was introduced in the late 1970’s and was up to almost 300,000ha in 2000 and now over 500,000ha, most of which is winter drilled. Oat production has also changed from 390,000ha of predominantly spring planted varieties to 80,000ha of mainly winter planted. There have been some gains for spring cropping with the introduction of linseed in 1989, and forage maize with current cropping around 120,000ha. The introduction of voluntary set-aside in 1988 and compulsory in 1992 increased the area of non-cropped land to current levels of over 600,000ha (although around 20% is planted with industrial crops).Future spring cropping will be constrained by the availability of suitable land and climatic conditions, the market opportunities and crop economics.

3.5 Current legislative driversThere are a number of initiatives under taken to comply with EU and national legislation. Some of these involve designation of land under defined management agreements such as National Nature Reserves, Sites of Special Scientific Interest and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Other schemes have been developed for farmers and include the cross compliance requirements under the Single Payment Scheme where farmers must keep their land in Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition and demonstrate compliance with certain legal obligations, Statutory Management Requirements. Some of the cross compliance requirements may influence biodiversity including the protection of hedgerows and water courses with a 2m protection zone where fertiliser and pesticides are not applied, and the maintenance of hedgerows and restrictions on cutting. In addition farmers can enter into specific environmental schemes such as Environmental Stewardship Entry Level Scheme and Higher Level Scheme, which include options for improved environmental management including buffer strips and encouragement of certain crop types including spring cropping.

4.0 Scientific evidence of biodiversity from different spring crops and management practices

4.1 BackgroundThe reduction in UK farmland biodiversity has been attributed to the post-war intensification of farming (Robinson & Sutherland, 2002). Intensification has been linked to a 65% decline in farm numbers, a 77% decline in farm labour and a four fold increase in yield. Autumn sowing has become predominant and pesticide use has increased, along with the loss of non-cropped habitats. As a result of this agricultural intensification, the abundance and diversity of plants, invertebrates, mammals and birds have declined (Robinson & Sutherland, 2002). Many authors have identified one of the key reasons for this decline as the move from spring to autumn cropping (Robinson and Sutherland, 2002; Chamberlain et al, 2000; O’Connor & Shrubb 1986; Fuller 2000).

4.2 Field-scale practices

RotationsRotations that involve a greater proportion of spring crops can change the balance of weed species as shown in the TALISMAN experiment (Young et al., 2001) to include a greater proportion of spring germinating species. Incorporation of spring crops into the rotation increased diversity and size of the weed seedbank, with a tendency for spring germinating species to occur in a higher frequency e.g. black bindweed (Fallopia convolvulus) and knotgrass (Polygonum aviculare) (Squire et al., 2000).

Results from the Colworth project (Unilever, 2005) showed that the mosaic created by inclusion of peas in the rotation helped to create breeding and foraging options for birds, especially grey partridge, skylarks and yellow wagtails (Unilever, 2005). Henderson et al., (2005) reported increased breeding of lapwings when peas or sugar beet were included in a rotation and were preferred over spring cereals.

Over-wintered stubble and crop remainsA survey of farmland birds in eastern England during 1999-2001 (Vickery et al.,2005) found that only 12% of the potential crop stubble and remains were present by early winter and this reduced to 7% in late winter. The quality of the stubble depended on the abundance and accessibility of food within it – namely crop and seeds on the surface – crop seed numbers were highest after oilseed rape and lowest after winter wheat and numbers declined over the winter period due to predation, germination or rotting. Birds showed preference for barley, oilseed rape and linseed stubbles, however bird numbers on stubbles could be low, with most stubbles supporting no birds at all. Where birds were present, up to 80% of the variation was explained by the density of weeds, which was

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

related to the number of chemicals used on the preceding crop. This study supported earlier work by Moorcroft et al., (2002), in which they also found that undersown stubbles discouraged the use by birds due to the greater ground cover and more open stubbles were favoured. Light cultivations can improve the quality of stubbles by increasing food availability (Whittingham et al., 2006). Vickery et al., (2005) found that stubble weed levels were lowest following maize (although this was prior to the withdrawal of approval of atrazine), were higher following crops with reduced amount of herbicide but were highest following spring barley even with conventional inputs. The use of pre-harvest glyphosate has been shown to have lower levels of weeds (Baig et al., 1999). Beet tops and crowns can provide significant food sources for birds such as Pink-footed geese (Anser brachyrhyrhynchus). They will graze on harvested sugar beet fields for up to 30 days after harvest (Gill et al, 1996).

Cultivation methodCunningham et al., (2004) reviewed the impact of inversion tillage (ploughing) compared to non-inversion tillage (discing) and found that inversion tillage resulted in fewer weeds, fewer weed seeds near the surface, lower populations of beetles, spiders and earthworms, however it also reduced the amount of herbicide required in the growing crop. In contrast non-inversion tillage left more weeds and seeds on the surface, and did not deplete beetle, spider and earthworm populations, but did increase herbicide use in following crops.

Cultivation timingCultivations are now carried out earlier than in previous decades (Potts, 2003) with most cultivations, particularly on heavy land, now finished by the end of October. This can increase mineralisation of nitrogen (Cuttle et al., 2007) which is likely to leach if no crop is planted. Leaving land undisturbed over winter reduces nitrate leaching by about 10kg/ha. Timing of ploughing also impacts on earthworms, which are generally inactive during winter and late summer so autumn and winter ploughing has less impact than spring ploughing.

Sowing/planting datesThere is little work on the effect of sowing date on biodiversity, however the date of planting does influence the weed species that germinate (Milburg et al., 2001).

Agronomy – weed controlPlants are the key part of terrestrial ecosystems and provide the primary production upon which food chains are built (Marshall et al., 2003). In their study Marshall et al., (2003) found that many common spring weeds can support over 30 insect species and some insects are dependent on particular weeds, however some of the weed species also host insect pests. In the same study weeds were classified as to their importance in farmland bird diets with key species such as knot-grass (Polygonum aviculare) and common chickweed (Stellaria media) and fat-hen (Chenopodium album) being particularly important. The use of herbicides has altered the arable plant communities depending on the herbicide used and the frequency (Aebischer, 1991; Edwald and Aebischer, 1999). Generally changes in weed species have been clearly associated with the change from spring to winter cropping which favours autumn germinating species (Chancellor, 1985, Hald, 1999). The soil seedbank of buried weeds provide a point from which weeds can germinate when conditions are appropriate. Robinson and Sutherland (2002) found a decline in the seedbank of arable soils from 1900 and this has been associated with the decline in spring cropping and an increase in herbicide use. In the TALISMAN experiment inclusion of a spring crop into the rotation increase the size and diversity of the soil seedbank (Squire et al., 2000) and this was also seen in an integrated farming system (Jones and Maulden, 1999). The level of weeds in spring crops depends on the competitive nature of the crop and suite of herbicides available for use. Weed populations are lower in maize and sugar beet and higher in spring rape and linseed (Heard et al., 2003a) (pre withdrawal of approval of atrazine in maize). Defra funded work (AR0408, 2005) demonstrated that is was difficult to encourage spring germinating weeds to emerge in autumn sown cereals. Similarly, modelling work in the Weed Management Support System indicated that spring crops were need if fat-hen (Chenopodium album) and knot-grass (Polygonum aviculare) were to flourish (AR0407, 2005). Work with knot-grass (Polygonum aviculare) showed that seed production from this weed was 8 times greater from plants in the spring crop (AR0409,2005).

Agronomy – disease controlFungicides have few recorded effects on visible biodiversity (birds, invertebrates and weeds), but the have been shown to significantly decrease soil microflora, although no specific links have been found between spring cropping and soil microflora. Carbendazim, propiconazole and triademenol have been shown to be toxic to springtails (Frampton, 1988; Frampton and Wratten, 2000).

Agronomy – pest controlGood pest control is important in crop production in order to maintain the yield and quality. Use of insecticides and molluscicides will have a direct impact on biodiversity. Most farmers use economic thresholds where low numbers of pests are tolerated, however in some cases, such as horticultural crops, the threshold can be zero. The TALISMAN work evaluated the effects of insecticide and molluscides on non-target invertebrates. Of the widely used products for slug control and aphid control in cereals, adverse effects on carabids was occasionally seen, however the effects were short term (Young et al., 2000). In the SCARAB project it was shown that

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

repeated use of organophosphates led to a long-term decline of arthropods (Young et al., 2001), however some of these products have now been withdrawn from the marketplace.

Pesticide use in spring cropsPesticide use is less in spring cereals and oilseeds compared to winter alternatives (Garthwaite et al., 2006). Pesticide use is lowest in spring linseed and spring barley, and highest in potatoes and sugar beet. Sugar beet in particular has high applications of herbicides. Fewer available pesticides often result in more weeds and insects which can improve diversity.

Agronomy – crop nutritionThe negative impact of surplus nitrogen and phosphate on ecosystems has become a significant concern over the last 50 years (Dalton and Brand-Hardy, 2003). Nitrogen applications can have a significant effect on biodiversity. The Park Grass experiment set up at Rothamstead in 1856 shows that in plots that have not had any manure there are around 50-60 plant species but in the heavily fertilised plots there are less than 10 (Silvertown et al., 1994). Nutrient surpluses can cause undesirable changes to semi-natural eco-systems previously unaffected by modern agriculture (Matson et al., 1997). Recommended fertiliser rates, such as RB209, are aimed at maximising the economic return from the fertiliser. Rates used on spring crops are generally lower than winter crops. The exception is potatoes where rates are very high.

Harvest date and methodSpring combinable crops tend to be harvested slightly later than their winter planted equivalents, often up to 4 weeks for spring barley and 5 weeks for spring oilseed rape. Linseed has one of the latest combinable crop harvest dates, often going into October. Potatoes can be different with early varieties being harvested in July, with sequential harvesting from then until the maincrop for storage in September and October. Sugar beet harvest usually starts at the end of September when the factories open, with the majority harvested between October and December. The later harvest dates can mean that late-breeding birds are able to raise their young successfully.

The use of swathing, where the crop is cut and allowed to dry before combining, common in oilseed rape and hemp, is detrimental to nesting birds, while desiccation with glyphosate or similar has no effect on nesting (Niall et al., 1999). The use of glyphosate does however reduce the weed population in the following stubble.

Crop density and structureTaller and denser habitat structure has been shown to increase visual obstruction for foraging birds (Butler and Gillings, 2004). Winter crops tend to be taller and more dense than spring equivalents making them less suitable for ground-nesting birds such as lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) (Hudson et al., 1994; Donald et al., 2001b). In the Colworth project skylarks continued to breed and forage during June and July in spring cereals which were less dense and allowed crop access. Newly sown spring crops are often attractive to rooks, pigeons, crows and pheasants. Sunflowers have provided a food source at drilling and crops have been lost (Rawlinson and Dover, 1986). Sunflowers have supported flocks of up to 500 greenfinch during ripening (Cook et al, 1998).

FlowersFlowers are an important attraction for insects that feed on nectar and pollen. Flowering crops such as oilseed rape, linseed and sunflowers offer additional feed sources and can support a wider range of insects. Sunflowers are particularly important as they have a relatively long flowering period and attract a wide range of insect species (Cook et al., 1998).

4.3 Farm and landscape influences

Farming methodConventional farming aims to make the highest return from the available resources and will maximise the area of the most profitable crops that are suitable for the land and the markets. Inputs will be applied according to economic optimums. Conventional farming follows similar principles to Integrated Farm Management (IFM) although the IFM puts additional emphasis on the use of rotations and minimum reliance on crop protection products. Organic farming relies on natural systems for weed, pest and disease control with few permitted manufactured inputs. Spring cropping, rotations and the use of stale seedbeds are key tools in organic arable production. The majority of arable land is farmed under conventional farming principles.

Soil typesThe soil type has an impact on the suitability of the ground for spring cropping. The majority of spring cropping is found on light and medium soils, which allow easier winter cultivations and seedbed preparations. The majority of spring cropping is therefore on light and medium soils. The exception is spring field beans, which can be planted on heavier soils. The lighter and medium soils are prone to drought which can impact on yields of spring crops.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

Rotations and surrounding cropsAn increase in the size of holdings, and the decrease in the number of holdings, increased specialisation and increased field sizes, has resulted in fewer mixed farms, simpler rotations and a degree of uniformity and a less diverse landscape (Robinson and Sutherland, 2002; Stoate et al., 2001). The Colworth project (Unilever, 2005) showed that peas and weedy fallows were important in rotations in providing food and breeding sites for birds over that of winter wheat, although winter oilseed rape was also beneficial. The project showed that it was important to maintain structural variation with hedges and field margins combined with a wide range of crops and non-cropped areas. In the project the amount of winter cereals was reduced from 81% to 47% and there was an increase in the number of UK indicator species by 31% and Biodiversity Action Plan species by 45%.

Field marginsUncultivated field boundaries provide valuable wildlife habitat, particularly when a mixture of grasses, legumes and wildflowers are sown. The Buzz project (Carvell et al., 2007) compared six field margin options at six sites and found that bumblebee numbers increased by 200%, butterflies by 230% and spiders by 120% between year 1 and year 2 and was maintained throughout the life of the project. No single habitat type was preferred.

4.4 Specific benefits of different spring cropsIn order to identify which spring crops offer the greatest biodiversity benefits, a simple biodiversity scoring system was developed for individual crops (Table 1). Each crop was reviewed for biodiversity benefits from crop management and crop structure and given a score for each biodiversity component. Scores were derived from the weighting of the biodiversity component and the proportion of the crop in good, medium or poor biodiversity benefits. The total scores give a relative level of biodiversity benefit between the crops. Low scores show crops with a better biodiversity profile. Table 1 Crop biodiversity scoring

Component Biodiversity benefit weighting S

core

No effect Good biodiversity benefits

Medium biodiversity benefits

Poor biodiversity benefits

0 1 2 3

Crop Management:Previous crop/rotation

High 3 S.Beet, grass Cereals, OSR Potatoes, maize

Cultivation method

Low 1 None Shallow Plough, deep tillage

Cultivation timing

High 3 April/May Jan-March Pre-Jan

Sowing date Low 1 April/May April Feb/MarchWithin crop cultivations

High 3 None Any

Herbicide use*

High 3 None Poor weed control (except of aggressive

species such as blackgrass)

Good weed control

Fungicide use*

Low 1 Low effect Low effect Low effect

Insecticide timing*

High 2 None Non-flowering Around flowering

Insecticide use*

High 3 None 1 2 2+

Pre-harvest treatment*

Medium 2 None None Desiccation Swathing

Harvest date High 3 Not harvested Long, late harvest

Medium Short, early harvest

Value of stubble

2 Lots of feeding Poor feeding

Crop Structure:Crop density High 3 Thin/open Thick/closedFlowers High 3 Big colourful

flowersSmall dull

flowers*Information from Garthwaite (2004) where available

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

Figure 1 summarises the biodiversity benefits of the different crops and gives winter wheat as a comparison.

All spring crops have a better biodiversity profile than winter wheat.

Sunflowers have the best biodiversity profile.

In general the novel crops have a better biodiversity profile than the other crops groups, however this is due to low pesticide usage which reflects their limited area.

Of the cereals, grain maize offers a marginally better biodiversity profile. Of the mainstream crops late sown spring barley and spring oats have the best profiles.

Of the break crops sunflowers is the best with soya beans next. Of the mainstream crops, spring oilseed rape and linseed have the best profiles, with peas significantly poorer.

Root crops such as potatoes and field vegetables have the poorest biodiversity profiles of all spring crops. Sugar beet however, has one of the best profiles of all spring crops.

Set aside has the best biodiversity profile.

Figure 1 Summary of biodiversity scores from different spring crops in each of the groups(low score is better for biodiversity)

Crop Management Impact on Biodiversity

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Rela

tive

valu

e

5.0 Quantifying the potential for increasing biodiversity enhancing spring crops

5.1 Identification and quantification of current area of spring cropsThe current area of spring crops was quantified using the 1km2 England 2004 agricultural census and 1km2 Wales 2000 agricultural census datasets. The spring crops were identified and areas calculated for each Government Office region. Where data did not identify the spring planted component of a crop e.g.field beans or oats, the area of spring crop were calculated form expert knowledge. Though more recent data from the 2005 and 2006 agricultural censuses exist, the data is only available at a coarser spatial resolution and crop classification. The data uses different aggregate crop data and is not easily comparable.

The current arable spring crops fall into four groups – cereals, break crops, root crops and novel crops. Cereals make up around 34% of the current spring crops with spring barley the most dominant, break crops 22%, root crops 31% and novel crops only 2%. There is a fifth category of spring planted forage crops that are not considered in this report but make up around 11% of the current spring cropping area. Novel crops are not identified separately on census returns and the area is estimated as a proportion of the ‘other crops’ category.

Almost 30% of the spring crop area is in the Eastern region, with a further 16% in the East Midlands, 15% in the South West and 11% in the South East. This is a reflection of the size of the region and the type of farming.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

The proportion of arable spring crops in each region varies. The North West, Wales and Eastern regions have a higher than average amount with 34%, 28% and 27% respectively, while the North East has the lowest proportion of arable in spring cropping with only 15%. Other regions have between 20% and 25% of the arable cropping in spring planted crops. Spring root crops being dominant in Eastern, East Midland and Yorkshire and Humber regions, while cereals and forage crops are dominant in the South West, Wales and the North West.

5.2 Identification and quantification of land suitable for spring cropsThe levels of maximum potential area of individual spring crops were calculated from a series of spatialised environmental datasets such as maximum, minimum and mean monthly temperatures, precipitation levels, soil type and slope. These were combined with crop growth parameters based on specialist knowledge, the potential spatial extents of each crop were determined and presented as regional statistics and maps. The parameters used do not take into account proximity to markets or crop economics.

There are potentially around 3.8 million ha of land suitable for some sort of spring cropping, representing 85% of the total current arable area. There are regional differences with higher amounts of suitable land in Yorkshire and Humber, East Midlands, Eastern region and South East. Given the current areas of spring cropping there is the potential to increase spring cropping by 2.7 million ha. Regionally the potential for the greatest increase is in the Eastern and East Midland regions, while there is limited potential to expand current spring cropping in the North West and Wales.

There are few technical limitations on the area of cereals, break crops and novel crops, with at least one of the crops in the group being suitable for growing over a range of conditions. This is not the case for root crops which are more severely restricted in suitable soils and climate, limiting them to 1.4 million ha. This still represents a potentially high increase in the area possible, although in practice other factors such as irrigation, accessibility and previous cropping history will further limit the potential. In terms of biodiversity, grain maize offers some advantages over other spring cereals, however the potential area is limited due to current climatic conditions and available varieties. As a result the cereal crop with the most potential for biodiversity is likely to be spring barley. There is a similar picture with break crops. Sunflowers and soya beans offer the best biodiversity benefits, however due to climatic limitations, other oilseeds, such as spring oilseed rape and linseed, are likely to offer more immediate benefits. Neither of these have severe geographic limitations. Within the root crop group sugar beet has the best biodiversity profile, better than many of the main stream cereals and break crops. Due to its limited market and specialised growing requirements there are fewer opportunities for increase despite the availability of suitable land. Most of the novel crops have a good biodiversity profile, although this is partly due to their limited acreage and limited pesticide availability. Of the novel crops reviewed borage and poppies had the best biodiversity profile and both have some degree of expansion opportunity based on land availability. Hemp and camelia have a wider range of growing conditions and larger potential area available. Land availability is unlikely to be the limiting factor for spring crop production. Size of market, location of primary processors, agronomy and requirements for specialist management or equipment will have a larger influence.

6.0 Factors influencing uptake of biodiversity enhancing spring crops This section focuses on the shortlist of crops that have been identified as having the most potential in terms of biodiversity benefits and geographical spread (Table 2). It considers the drivers which will affect the scale of uptake of these crops going forward including; markets, crop economics and agronomy, whole farm considerations, technological developments and climate change.Table 2 Crops for detail reviewCrop Group Main crop Secondary cropCereals Spring barley Grain maizeBreak crops Oilseeds (S.OSR, linseed) SunflowersRoot crops Sugar beetNovel crops Hemp, borage, poppies

6.1 MarketsSpring barley and grain maizeThe primary markets for barley (winter and spring) are animal feed (65%) and malting (35%). Around 40% of the UK spring barley area is grown for malting. Malting is an important market for barley growers offering a premium of £12.80/t (average of last 6 years) over feed barley. Barley production exceeds home utilisation and the UK is a net exporter. In the malting sector most malt is primarily used in the UK with a small, and declining, market for malt exports. Increasing production of spring barley would depend on substitution for the winter crop or expanding the export market of grain and reversing the decline in exports of malt. Grain maize is grown widely in continental Europe but little is grown in the UK. Estimates suggest around 2,500ha in 2007. The UK currently imports 1.3million tonnes of maize for use mainly in human and industrial uses, so there would appear to be an opportunity for import displacement if the climatic and agronomic issues can be resolved.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

OilseedsIn England and Wales, winter oilseed rape dominates the oilseed area and is the most widely grown break crop. The oilseed market is a global market consisting of 4 main oils – soya, rapeseed, sunflower and palm oil. The oilseed market price in the UK tends to follow the market price for soya. The prices of the 4 oils are starting to converge indicating that they may become almost interchangeable. World oilseed production is dominated by soya beans (57% of production) which are mainly grown in America. Oilseed rape, which is the key oilseed in UK and Europe, accounts for 12% of the oilseed area and sunflowers 8%. Of the 390 million tonnes world production around 54% goes into animal feed as oilmeals and the remaining 36% as oils for industrial, food and fuel use. The oilseed market can be volatile, and although strengthening now, is impacted on by global supply of the 4 key oils, the political incentives behind biofuels and related to this, the price of crude oil which affects the economics of biofuel production. In the UK oilseed production from rape is around 1.7 million tonnes. In order to meet the UK Road Fuel Transport Obligation for inclusion of fuel from renewable sources, there is a requirement for an additional 2.5 million tonnes, or 750,000ha, more than doubling current area.Linseed prices are governed by European import prices from Canada. There is potential to displace some of the Canadian imports, however most UK linseed would still need to be exported to mainland Europe.Sunflowers are one of the 4 key oils. UK has very limited production due to some agronomic factors and limited crushing capacity. The UK imported 1.4million tonnes of edible oils in 2006, of which 14% or 200,000 tonnes was sunflower oil. There is therefore some potential to replace imports of sunflower oils, however this will be dependent on suitable crushing capacity in the UK.

Root CropsSugar beet has a good biodiversity profile compared to other root crops, but in common with potatoes and vegetable crops their markets have limited potential for expansion and are dominated by specialist growers who have made appropriate investment in machinery, storage and packing facilities.

Novel CropsNovel crops include many crops, both old and new, which are being developed commercially for novel markets such as fibre (hemp), industrial chemicals (high oleic, low linoleic rape, HOLL), pharmaceuticals (poppies), personal care and dietary supplements (borage for gamma linoleic acid).

Many of these crops are grown on contract to the primary processor and often by specialist growers. These crops can make a contribution to biodiversity but the size of the markets mean that the area of land required is limited.

The current estimate for these crops is around 20,000ha with HOLL oilseed rape and borage the most widely grown.

Fibre Hemp: There is currently around 3,000ha of hemp grown in the UK mainly in the Eastern and South East regions close to the processing plant in Essex. An expanding market in the house building industry has encouraged investment in new processing facilities based in Suffolk. This is likely to lead to an increase in the area of hemp of up to 30,000ha.

Industrial There are spring varieties of HOLL: High oleic, low linoleic (HOLL) rape. This is used for specialist industrial oil markets. There are restrictions on growing it with other oilseed rape types and its market is likely to be limited.

Crambe: Crambe is an annual herb that is grown for its erucic acid for industrial use. It is not a brassica so does not have the rotational restrictions with oilseed rape that HOLL has. Around 2,500ha per year have been grown since 2002, however recent changes in processing facilities have limited its expansion. From an end-user point of view there is potential to increase the crop area, however logistics and matching production with demand have been issues.

Pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and dietary supplementsBorage: There is currently in excess of 10,000ha of borage in the UK grown for the pharmaceutical/dietary supplement market as its oil is high in gamma linoleic acid. It is also popular with bee growers for honey production. It is grown predominantly south of York. There is some potential to increase the area grown.

Poppies: Poppies are being grown in the UK for pharmaceutical uses such as production of morphine. The area is still relatively small, around 2,000ha, with the potential to increase.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

Others novel crops with small areas include evening primrose, yarrow, thyme, bog myrtle and oats, all of which have niche markets with growth potential but these are unlikely to make significant impact on mainstream crop areas due to competition from imports of the raw material or final products.

6.2 Economics and agronomy

Spring barley and grain maizeAlthough the variable costs of growing spring barley are up to £40/ha lower than winter wheat or £28/ha lower than winter barley, the lower yields mean that the gross margins are lower. Spring feed barley has a gross margin £187/ha lower than winter wheat and £70/ha lower than winter barley. Growing for malting can make spring barley competitive with winter feed barley but compared to winter malting barley it is still £75/ha lower. Regional differences in yields mean that in some regions where winter and spring barley yields are closer the differential is lower, however in other regions such as the North East, the gross margins for the winter crop are over £160/ha higher. Costs of field operations tend to be lower for spring crops (fewer operations), however the saving of around £35/ha is insufficient to make up the difference.

Grain maize gross margins can be around £420/ha before drying cost which can be up to £80/ha, but even after these costs the crop is competitive with a winter wheat gross margin of £356/ha.

OilseedsThe gross margin for winter oilseed rape is around £295/ha which is more than double the typical £115/ha gross margin for spring oilseed rape and £148/ha gross margin for linseed. The difference in gross margin performance is almost entirely down to yields which are significantly lower, and more variable in the spring crops. Sunflowers perform better with a gross margin of £218/ha but this is still 26% lower than the potential from winter oilseed rape. With these differences spring oilseed rape and linseed will remain very poor alternatives.

Root crops and field scale vegetablesPotatoes, sugar beet and vegetable crops are specialist crops with limited markets. They do tend to have high gross margins, typically potatoes £4,600/ha, carrots £5600/ha and sugar beet £1,000/ha, but also carry higher machinery and storage costs and higher risk.

Novel cropsNovel crops are not linked to large volume commodity markets and as such there are risks in terms of accessing markets. Crop output from novel crops is not guaranteed with often very variable yields, particularly from the pharmaceutical crops. Most novel crops take the position of a break crop within the rotation and will therefore need to compete with winter oilseed rape, field beans and peas. The gross margin for hemp and crambe is around £250/ha (although better performance can be expected from experienced growers) which is still some way short of winter oilseed rape at £295/ha. The hemp gross margins are heavily dependent on the haulage costs to the processor and this will limit the area grown to a radius around the factory. Some of the higher value pharmaceutical crops such as borage and poppies have more attractive gross margins of around £625/ha but can be highly variable.

6.3 Whole farm considerationsA review of the economics of cereal production in 2004 (University of Cambridge 2006) highlighted the fact that while spring barley had the lowest costs of production at £596 per ha, lower yields (5.3 tonnes per ha) meant that the cost per tonne was significantly higher at £113 than winter wheat or winter barley (£88 and £96 respectively). There is in principle a case for growing spring crops where they can utilise slack resources (labour and equipment) at low opportunity cost. However, the peak autumn workload on combinable farms with harvest and autumn planting, has generally been addressed using high capacity equipment or contractors and seasonal labour, with few opting to change planting timing to the spring. Oilseed rape has also helped spread the planting and harvesting workload in autumn with planting in August and harvesting in July.

On a wider note, research has shown that economic drivers are not necessarily paramount for all farmers (University of Reading 2006). From wider research it is clear that other important objectives include ‘Have up to date machinery’ and ‘Have best livestock/crop’ (McGregor et al 1996); these are consistent with high input; high output autumn cropping systems.

6.4 Technological developments

Plant BreedingWheat yields have improved dramatically over the last 60 years, from around 2.0t/ha to 8.0t/ha, with the introduction of fertilisers, pesticides and advances in plant breeding. Some predictions suggest that winter wheat

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

yields could reach 13t/ha by 2050. The increase in spring crop area is already hampered by the current yield differentials between winter and spring crops so investment will be required to improve their competitiveness.

Genetic ModificationGenetic modification could have a significant effect on the farming industry. The technology offers potential to reduce pesticide inputs, improve quality for specific markets and improve yields. This in itself has the potential to increase biodiversity as a result of fewer pesticide applications being required. The introduction of the technology into Europe will be accepted only under strict environmental requirements and crop management requirements to ensure traceability of the products and farmer and consumer choices.

Farm Scale Evaluations of GM herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops were funded by Defra to compare arable biodiversity impacts (Squire et al 2005). GMHT cropping had large suppressive effects (20-50%) on weeds and knock on effects to trophic groups, except in maize where it had positive effects compared to the conventional. The relation between weed resource and herbivore consumers appeared to be consistent for all spring crops and varieties, but the GMHT treatments in winter oilseed rape supported fewer invertebrates per unit weed mass. The research suggested that management of GMHT crops (rather than the technology itself) does affect the seedbank-based food web in the main break crops to the overall detriment of farmland wildlife. The research did not consider secondary biodiversity impacts from reduced use of herbicides.

This represents a potentially serious conflict between an increase in spring sown GM crops and increasing biodiversity which needs to be overcome before the technology can be seen as an opportunity to increase biodiversity.

Machinery DevelopmentThere has been a huge change in the way farming is undertaken in the last 60 years and over recent years there have been significant advances in machinery. There are now machines that are capable of steering themselves so avoiding deviations in the machinery operations. This reduces overlaps and means inputs can be used more effectively. There already exists a prototype John Deere crop sprayer for use in orchards that is driverless. The route through the orchard is driven once and the route recorded onto computer using satellite GPS and then the computer repeats the exercise for the unmanned sprayer. Combines have been fitted with driver aids that allow the driver to take a full cut of the crop every time the machine is driven through the field. This reduces the fuel requirements and is a great aid to the driver in reducing tiredness. Machines will continue to develop, but the weather always has the potential to cause problems to the best of machines.

The advances in machinery are working against the encouragement of spring cropping as they allow so much more work to be done in a shorter timescale and mean that a lot more autumn crops can be sown before the weather breaks.

Agronomic ChangesWork is ongoing into a range of agronomic issues that will improve how the crops are grown and ultimately are aiming to improve the efficiency of the enterprises. Some of these may prove advantageous for spring cropping, however the focus tends to be on winter crops such as wheat and oilseed rape.

As part of the implementation of EU Directive 91/414/EEC there has been a review of all pesticides approved under Annex 1 of the directive. This has resulted in the some key pesticides no longer being available. In particular, some of the herbicides used in spring break crops such simazine, trifluralin and cyanazine. The lack of support for these products may reduce the viability of growing some of these crops without further investment. The introduction and the potential expansion of Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ) may make spring cropping a more popular option. Limits on applications of manures and fertiliser requirements may make the lower nitrogen spring crops more attractive.

Some agronomic changes may favour spring cropping, while others make them less attractive. Ultimately, the decisions about cropping will be driven by a balance of economic and agronomic factors.

6.5 Climate changeIt is generally accepted that we are currently going through a period of climatic change with a trend towards wetter winters and hotter summers. These changes in weather patterns could see changes in the crops we can produce within the UK. One potential new crop is grain maize; a small area is already grown in the very southern parts of the UK. However, in the long term (10-20 years), grain maize could become a major crop, like wheat. Forage maize is already established across large areas of southern England.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

Drier summers and wetter autumns would actually encourage growers to maximise the area of autumn sown crops to ensure good establishment. Autumn sown crops have a chance to get a root system established over winter and could survive the drought better than a shallow rooted spring crop.

The other impact of climate change is on policy development. Attempts to reduce reliance on oil have led to a focus on renewable energies. The current development of biodiesel and bioethanol production is likely to increase domestic demand for oilseed rape and wheat and make spring sown crops relatively less attractive. A commissioned study (Turley et al 2003) suggests that to meet the 2010 targets for biofuel substitution (5.75% of all road transport fuels), up to 1.06 million hectares (Table 32) of land in the UK (about 20%) would need to be directed to biofuel production to meet the 2010 targets.

Even if the economics of domestic biofuel production are not sufficient to compete with the food/feed market, imported biofuel will impact on world grain prices and encourage high input; high output systems associated with autumn planting. The issue needs to be seen in a global context; the policy conundrum is summarised in a recent FAO report (2007) which states ‘Rising demand for bioenergy has already caused a surge in the use of grain and other food crops for energy and some crop commodities prices have risen. Bioenergy also poses environmental challenges, for instance increasing mono-cropping practices and greater fertiliser and pesticide use may jeopardise water and soil quality. Perhaps of highest concern is land use change and the risk that large areas of natural forests and grasslands be converted to energy crop production, which not only would threaten biodiversity preservation and other ecosystem services, but also result in additional greenhouse gas emissions.’

Second generation liquid biofuels are attractive from a sustainability standpoint for a number of reasons. By using cellulosic biomass, fossil fuel use is displaced by feedstock that is not directly competing with its use for food production. The timescale for this is longer term and the impacts on arable cropping would be modest as less productive land is likely to be used and there will be an increase reliance on co-products from forestry etc. Indeed, the use of perennial species such as trees for bioenergy may create more favourable habitats for biodiversity compared to conventional crop production.

7.0 Options for increasing biodiversity enhancing spring croppingMuch has changed in recent years; the decoupling of farm support from individual crops has made non-supported crops more competitive. The Single Payment Scheme (SPS) is not intended to be used as a subsidy for crops which are unprofitable and as such, this should increase the emphasis on new crops and new markets. In practice, most farmers have made little change to date but over time, as the value of the SPS reduces, there may be more innovation.

If spring crops are to be encouraged on the basis of biodiversity benefits, then growers need to see clear economic and agronomic benefits from doing so. For most of the biodiversity-enhancing spring crops considered in this study, there is a shortfall in margin from established, winter-sown commodity crops, notably winter wheat and oilseed rape. To encourage behavioural change Government may need to intervene, where this can be justified.

While it is not the role of Government to support markets directly it can have a role in developing markets; in terms of research and development, funding for infrastructure and technology transfer for growers, where this can be justified on environmental or socio-economic grounds.

There are three key intervention options:

(i) Research and development funding for new crops or crop uses where commercial exploitation is limited by lack of knowledge or technology. This might also include sector support for new crops or crop uses where commercial exploitation is limited by lack of marketing or processing infrastructure

(ii) Direct payments/environmental payments for established commodity crops which have demonstrated good levels of biodiversity but which cannot compete in terms of margins due to agronomic constraints

(iii) Promoting the broader benefits of spring crops in a rotation in terms of agronomic and management benefits and their contribution to meeting cross-compliance and other statutory requirements placed on farmers

These are considered further in the context of new and developing markets and agri-environment schemes.

7.1 Research into new crops or crop usesMost commercial development of new crops or crop uses is led by plant breeders or companies with a stake in the crop use. However, historic support for conventional arable commodities under the CAP has meant that it is

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

difficult to encourage new crops and markets. Under the current Single Payment scheme, this is no longer the case, although innovation is still hampered by market support for commodities, lack of infrastructure and general inertia in the sector.

Opportunities exist for an expansion of crops which have potential to compete agronomically and in economic terms, but which have limited markets at present. These would include crops with industrial uses e.g. hemp for fibre, where, with Government support through marketing and product development, investment in a new processing facility with a capability 10 times the existing factory is occurring. Similar Government intervention might include a wider package of investment in infrastructure and market development.

For other crops such as sunflowers and grain maize, plant breeding developments together with an awareness/knowledge transfer programme (and expected climate change impacts) may be sufficient to deliver growth in area sown.

For established crops such as malting barley it may be that growers of winter sown varieties can be persuaded to switch to spring sowing with improved plant breeding, but this would need to deliver a yield improvement of at least 1.0t/ha to compete with the winter crop. The market for the grain influences the variety that is grown and in the case of barley for malting there are far more spring sown varieties (8) that meet the maltster’s requirements than winter varieties (4). An increase in spring area may be at the expense of the winter crop, or could be additional, in which case the development of export markets will be required.

In all cases, any intervention should be based on the longer-term sustainability of the crop as a viable option for growers with a reliable market demand. Because many of these developments represent opportunities for the wider supply chain as well as growers and may deliver economic development (jobs and investment associated with supply chains and processing plant) in addition to environmental benefits, the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) would be a key partner.

7.2 Direct payments/environmental paymentsIn many circumstances, economic considerations will encourage farmers to continue to maximise their winter cropping and limit spring sown crops to rotational constraints (e.g. after roots and vegetables) and niche markets. Where spring crops are unlikely to be competitive in economic terms but deliver significant biodiversity benefits, they need to be supported through the Government’s agri-environment schemes (funded under RDPE Axis II). This may be either by cash payments targeted in particular areas e.g. Priority Habitats under Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) or changes in the points scoring system under Entry Level Stewardship (ELS) to encourage uptake.

Focusing on the options within all of the schemes that encourage spring cropping, it is important to consider the incentive they provide to farmers to change practice (Table 3).

Table 3 Environment Stewardship Incentives

Scheme Option Payment RateELS/OELS Over-wintered stubbles (EF6/OF6) 120 points per ha*ELS/OELS

Cereals for whole crop silage followed by over-wintered stubbles (EG4/OG4)

230 points per ha*

ELS/OELS

Brassica fodder crops followed by over-wintered stubbles (EG4/OG4)

90 points per ha*

ELS/OELS Under sown spring cereals (EG1/OG1) 200 points*HLS Reduced herbicide, cereal crop management

preceding over-wintered stubble and a spring crop (HF15)

£195 per ha

HLS Reduced herbicide, cereal crop management preceding enhanced set-aside (rotational) (HF18)

£140 per ha

HLS Low input spring cereal to retain or re-create an arable mosaic (HG7)

£250 per ha

Tir Cynnal Establishment of unsprayed root crops Flat rate per ha+

Tir Gofal Unsprayed Cereal, Rape and Linseed Crops £130 per haTir Gofal Winter Stubbles with limited winter grazing £85 per haTir Gofal Spring cereals or oilseed rape undersown with

grasses and legumes£85 per ha

Tir Gofal Unsprayed root crops followed by winter grazing £240 per ha* Each ELS point has a nominal value of £1 + Payments varies with farm size

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

These options fall into three categories that have different biodiversity benefits. They are: Leaving over-wintered stubbles Under-sown spring crops Low input (nitrogen and/or herbicide) crops

Spring barleyThe options either promote spring cropping directly (payment to grow and manage a certain spring crop) or indirectly (payment for leaving an over-wintered stubble that must be followed by a spring crop). Spring barley can be the ‘spring crop’ following over-wintered stubble as well as the crop that leads into over-wintered stubble. This could potentially add between £85-£120 per hectare to the value of the crop.

There are several options in the current agri-environment schemes that are targeted towards increasing the area of spring cereals specifically. These are under sown spring cereals (both ELS and Tir Gofal), and low input spring cereal to retain or re-create an arable mosaic (HLS). Choosing one of these options could potentially add between £85-£250 per hectare (depending on option choice or scheme) on top of the gross margin of spring barley.

Although not specifically for spring cereals, a ‘reduced herbicide, cereal crop management’ option (available in both HLS and Tir Gofal) can be used with spring barley. This could add an additional £130-195 per hectare. As this option can be used with both spring and winter cereals it is likely that the farmer will carry on using the same varieties.

To increase the area of spring barley grown, its gross margin will need to at least match that of winter cereals. The difference between the gross margin of winter wheat and spring barley is £187 per hectare (calculated from figures in previous sections) and between winter barley and spring barley is £70 per hectare. Within current schemes there is an incentive to switch from winter barley to spring barley on suitable soil types but the position for winter wheat is more marginal.

Oilseed crops (spring oilseed rape, linseed, sunflowers) Other than counting towards the ‘spring crop’ element of over-wintered stubbles, spring oilseed rape and linseed are only specifically targeted in the Tir Gofal scheme. Farmers in Wales can add between £85-130 per hectare by undersowing or reducing input in the crop. Currently, as the schemes stand in England, there is no additional incentive to grow these oilseeds. Sunflowers do not appear in any of the current agri-environment schemes.

Spring oilseed rape, linseed and sunflowers are all oil rich break crops with gross margins much lower than their winter alternatives. To make growing the spring versions comparable, the gross margins need to be increased by an additional £180 per hectare for spring oilseed rape, £148 per hectare for linseed, and £77 per hectare for sunflowers.

Up until harvest 2007, farmers had to leave a certain percentage of their land as ‘set-aside’ to reduce production. However, crops for non-food purposes could still be grown on set-aside. All crops grown received a set-aside payment as well as the gross margin for the crop. All of the three spring oilseed crops could be grown on set-aside, as well as winter oilseed rape. As the payment was available for both winter and spring varieties there was no financial incentive to choose the spring varieties, which had a lower gross margin. If the decision were made to grow a spring crop on set-aside land then the land would not be eligible for over-wintered stubble option/payment under any agri-environment scheme, as the two schemes were not compatible. Hemp and pharmaceutical crops Apart from over-wintered stubble options, there are no specific options in the agri-environment schemes to encourage hemp or pharmaceutical crops to be grown. They can be grown on set-aside, but as before the same area of land cannot be set-aside and claimed for over-wintered stubble.

The gross margin for hemp is £250 per hectare, a shortfall of £106 per hectare on winter wheat. If hemp were grown after financially supported over-wintered stubble, the maximum additional payment would be £120 per hectare. This suggests that this crop (and other pharmaceutical crops) can be competitive, where demand exists.

The scale of the incentives under ELS and HLS may not be sufficient to instigate change. An evaluation of the pilot ELS (CSL, 2004) found that the most frequently selected options were management of existing boundary features (hedges, stone walls) rather than new features such as uncropped cultivated margins, beetle banks, conservation headlands, and options to encourage diversity of crop type. This suggests a degree of minimum action, where growers opt to maintain established features which they would probably do in any case.

As with all agri-environment schemes, it can be difficult to deliver outcomes at a wide spatial level in biodiversity terms from individual farmer schemes. There are issues of scale and consistency of uptake and it would be

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

important to target groups of farms in spatial terms e.g. in Priority Habitats. However, past evidence is mixed. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) scheme, which ran from 1987 to 2007, was deemed to be largely successful but there were key issues of deadweight, where uptake of management prescriptions was the focus rather than delivery of environmental outputs. An evaluation of the scheme (University of Cambridge and CJC Consulting, 2002) questioned whether an apparently fixed pattern of spatial targeting is appropriate to the long-term objectives of agri-environment policy.

The second issue relates to the economic incentives necessary to deliver scheme uptake in the right areas and on a sufficient scale. Given the concentration of arable cropping in the east and the higher differential between winter and spring sown crops in these areas, different regional rates may be necessary.

Another option is to alter the points threshold that is needed to get into the scheme. This might need to be in the form of an ‘ELS Plus’ scheme, where more is asked of growers and payments are increased. This is a real possibility in view of the potential loss of set aside in rotations and concern over associated biodiversity loss. Defra is currently monitoring the effect of the European Commission decision of 0% set-aside for 2008.

7.3 Policy coherence and messagesA key area of importance in terms of Government intervention is policy coherence. Expanding spring cropping may be at odds with other policy initiatives such as development of renewable energy crops under the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO). The RTFO requires transport fuel suppliers to ensure a set percentage of their sales are from a renewable source. Together with expansion of renewable energy crops abroad, this policy-driven demand will further increase the wheat area at the expense of the other cereals particularly winter barley and potentially winter oats. Spring barley will be less affected by the increased demand for wheat, as the crop is largely grown for rotational requirements due to the previous cropping.

In looking at the cropping potential of the crops and how they might affect biodiversity there are going to be a number of issues to consider. What might be good for biodiversity might not be good for diffuse pollution. There is a potential issue with grain maize for example, with its relatively late harvest compared to wheat there will be potentially an issue of bare soil over winter resulting in water and soil erosion. Maize is not a good competitor against weeds in its early growth and needs to be kept clean. There is also the potential cost involved in drying the crop and the CO2 emissions as a result of its later harvest.

Policy interventions which address water quality are likely to be inconsistent with promoting spring cropping due to the ambition to avoid bare soil over winter. For example the recently published cross compliance rules under the Nitrates Directive proposed Action Plan suggest that cover crops should be grown on land which would otherwise be left bare over winter as it can be very effective in reducing nitrate leaching (ADAS, 2007). Defra-funded research under the Observatory programme (CSL and CCRU, 2006) reported that cover crops are likely to be effective on freely draining sandy soils, but cereal volunteers and/or the regeneration of weeds may be sufficient to reduce excessive nitrate leaching in poorer draining soils. Much of the spring cropping practised is on lighter soils.

Organic farming demonstrates a high prevalence of spring cropping but cover crops are widely advocated and used in organic systems, supported by agri-environment funding, in order to minimise loss of nutrients in the rotation. As such some of the biodiversity benefits may be lost.

The opportunity is to consider the opportunity for delivering biodiversity through spring cropping holistically across England and Wales, in terms of a range of policies and programmes. Where spring cropping is an important tool in promoting biodiversity, fit with other programmes needs to be considered and a clear message sent out to the farming community to promote it. This might be through case studies and demonstration days in target areas.

8.0 ConclusionsArable biodiversity

The decline in biodiversity indicator species coincided with the move from a spring crop rotation to more winter crop rotations predominant from 1970s onwards. The latter was economically driven, aided by policy (CAP price support) and technology (the introduction of pesticides and mechanisation) with an emphasis on efficiency and production.

Biodiversity benefits from spring cropping

The link between spring cropping and biodiversity is largely based on the availability of seeds left after harvest, the amount of weeds growing and associated seeds, and/or the number of invertebrates. Typically around 12% of land is left as stubble in early winter, reducing to less than 7% in late winter.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

Barley, rape and linseed are the preferred stubbles for granivorous birds due to their more open nature and availability of seeds. The lower density structure of spring cereals, compared to winter cereals, allows skylarks to continue to breed and forage during June. The open structure of oilseed crops can encourage bird feeding.

Minimal cultivation is generally better for biodiversity with more weeds and maintenance of invertebrates. This is increasingly common on the basis of larger areas farmed and a peak autumn workload associated with winter planting.

Use of herbicides reduces abundance of weed species and changes the spectrum. Mechanical weeding, most common in organic systems is not suitable for all soil types and can be detrimental to nesting birds.

Most spring crops are associated with reduced use of pesticides than winter crops, with the exception of fungicides on potatoes and herbicides on sugar beet. Reduced pesticide use is associated with higher biodiversity.

There is no evidence that spring cropping would change the impacts of diffuse nutrient pollution. Conversely, policies aimed at reducing pollution through encouraging cover cropping may be detrimental to biodiversity.

Ranking of spring crop biodiversity benefits

All spring crops have better biodiversity profiles than winter wheat. Sunflowers have the best biodiversity profile with spring oilseed rape and linseed also performing well. Peas have a significantly poorer profile. Novel crops also perform well. Of the cereals, grain maize has the best biodiversity profile with late sown spring barley and spring oats worst. Potatoes and field vegetables have a poor result for biodiversity with sugar beet significantly better.

Current and potential spring cropping

There is currently around 1.1 million ha of spring cropping in England and Wales, around 26% of the arable area.

There are potentially 3.8 million ha of land suitable for spring cropping, giving a potential increase of 2.7 million ha. There are few limitations for cereals and oilseeds and many novel crops. Grain maize and sunflowers are currently limited by varieties and climatic conditions.

Regionally there are fewer opportunities to increase spring cropping in the North West and Wales where spring cropping is already close to potential.

Barriers to increasing spring cropping

Due to market limitations, economic returns and agronomic factors, many of the biodiversity spring crops are unlikely to compete with winter wheat and oilseed rape in rotations, without direct subsidy. The best opportunities lie with newer crops such as grain maize and sunflowers which are becoming more suited to UK systems due to climate change.

There is regional variation in the relative competitiveness of spring sown cereal, with a smaller differential in western areas. This has implications for payments rates in agri-environment schemes.

The peak autumn workload on combinable farms for harvest and autumn planting has been addressed using high capacity equipment or contractors and seasonal labour, with few opting to move planting to spring.

Options

Potential for economic sustainability is key and where this can be demonstrated, local and regional economic development funding can provide support for sector development (e.g. market development), including R&D, access to capital and infrastructure.

There is potentially sufficient financial incentive (depending on market prices) under current ELS/Tir Gofal Environmental Stewardship schemes to encourage change in behaviour, however these benefits are perhaps not well understood or do not fit in with wider farm management.

Where specific biodiversity targets are required, such as increasing over-wintered stubbles, further focused incentives could be offered through the stewardship schemes.

Encouraging biodiversity policies across a wide area can result in ‘minimum action’ where farmers use existing features and management to qualify. In order to increase the biodiversity benefits policy intervention may need to be more targeted either by habitat or species,

There is a real need for policy consistency in this area; policies aimed at reducing diffuse pollution and soil erosion promote winter cropping and cover crops. Government needs to accept that there will be trade-offs between different policy objectives and targeting of interventions.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

9.0 Recommendations

1 Scope the barriers to the uptake of developing crops such as grain maize and sunflower as these offer the best opportunity to deliver a substantial growth in spring cropping in England. It will also be important to highlight potential Government intervention to facilitate uptake in terms of research, market development and infrastructure.

2 Promote the opportunities under the environmental stewardship to increase spring cropping with a series of case studies and farm demonstrations, based on the premise that the financial opportunities are not being fully exploited post-decoupling of farm support.

3 Consider the scope for an ELS Plus scheme which could target biodiversity benefits from spring cropping. This might work by offering a higher level of area payment in return for delivery of additional 'points' and an expanded set of options

4 Undertake a review of the trade-offs between Government policy on biodiversity and a range of other policies. It is important to recognise where conflict exists and where synergy can be developed and refine Government programmes accordingly.

ReferencesADAS (2007) Impact of proposed NVZ Action Programme measure. Report to Defra-supporting paper D5 for the consultation on implementation of the Nitrates Directive in EnglandAnderson, A. (1999) Plant protection in spring cereal production with reduced tillage. II. Pests and beneficial insects. Crop Protection 22, 147-152.

Anon (2000) Fertiliser recommendations for agricultural and horticultural crops (RB209), Defra, London. http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/environment/land-manage/nutrient/fert/rb209/index.htm (21 August 2007)

AR0407 (2005) Modelling weed crop dynamics and competition to improve long-term weed management. http://www2.defra.gov.uk/research/project_data/More.asp?I=AR0407&M=PSA&V=AF%3A010 (10 August 2007)

AR0408 (2005) Sustainable weed management: Development of techniques to balance biodiversity benefits with retention of yield. http://www2.defra.gov.uk/research/project_data/More.asp?I=AR0408&M=PSA&V=AF%3A010 (10 August 2007)

AR0409 (2005) Parameterising the biology and population dynamics of weeds in arable crops to support more targeted weed management

http://www2.defra.gov.uk/research/project_data/More.asp?I=AR0409&M=PSA&V=AF%3A010 (10 August 2007)

AR0412 (2004) Modifying weed management in a broad row crop (maize) for environmental benefit, final project report http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/AR0412/AR0412_2071_FRP.doc (10 August 2007)

Avery, M. I. and Moorcroft, D. (2003) What biodiversity should we expect from farmland. BCPC international congress 2003. 211-218.

Baig, M.N., Darwent, A.L., Harker, K.N. and O’Donnovan, J.T. (1999). Preharvest applications of glyphosate for yellow toadflax (Linaria vulgaris) control. WeedTechnology, 13, 777-782.

Barker, A. M., N. Brown, J. and Reynolds, C. J. M. (1999) Do host-plant requirements and mortality from soil cultivation determine the distribution of graminivorous sawflies on farmland? Journal of Applied Ecology 36 (2), 271–282.

Blackshaw, R.E., Semach, G., Li, X., O’Donnovan, J.T. and Harker, K.N. (2000). Tillage, fertiliser and glyphosate timing effects on foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum) management in wheat. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 80, 655-660.

Bond, W. and Turner, R.J. (2005) A review of mechanical weed control. http://www.organicweeds.org.uk (10 August 2007).

Brooks, D. R., Clark, S. J., Perry, J. N., Bohan, D. A., Champion, G. T., Firbank, L. G., Haughton, A. J., Hawes, C, Heard, M. S., Woiwod, I. P. (2005) Invertebrate biodiversity in maize following withdrawal of triazine herbicides. Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 1497-1502.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

http://www.organicweeds.org.uk/

http://www.defra.gov.uk/science/project_data/DocumentLibrary/AR0412/AR0412_2071_FRP.doc

http://www2.defra.gov.uk/research/project_data/More.asp?I=AR0409&M=PSA&V=AF%3A010



http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/environment/land-manage/nutrient/fert/rb209/index.htm%20

Buckingham, D. L., Evans, A. D., and Morris, A. J.. 1999. Use of set-aside in winter by declining farmland bird species in the UK. Bird Study 46:157-169.

Burton, N.H.K., Watts, P.N., Crick, H.Q.P. and Edwards, P.J. (1999) The effects of preharvesting operations on Reed Buntings Emberiza schoeniclus nesting in Oilseed Rape Brassica napus. Bird Study 46, 369-372.

Butler S J. and Gillings S (2004) Quantifying the effects of habitat structure on prey detectability and accessibility to farmland birds Ibis 146 (s2), 123–130.

Cannell, R. Q. (1985) Reduced tillage in NorthwestEurope – a review. Soil tillage Res. 5, 129-177.

Cardina, J., Regnier, E. and Harrison, K. (1991) Long-term tillage effects on seed banks in three Ohio soils. - Weed Sci, 39: 186-194.

Chamberlain, D. E., Fuller, R. J., Bunce, R. G. H., Duckworth, J. C. and Shrubb, M. Changes in the Abundance of Farmland Birds in Relation to the Timing of Agricultural Intensification in England and Wales. Journal of Applied Ecology, 37, 771-788.

Chancellor, R.J. (1985) Changes in the weed flora of an arable field cultivated for 20 years. Journal of applied ecology, 22, 491-501.

Chancellor, R.J. and Froud Williams R. J. (1984) A second survey of cereal weeds in central England. Weed Research 24. 29-36.

CSL and CCRU (2006) OBS 03: Quantitative approaches to assessment of farm level changes and implications for the environment Final report, October 2006Cook S K, McCartney H A, Fletcher B, Hutley-Bull P D, Barrie I, Harris D. (1998) The role and position of sunflower in UK agriculture. Report on MAFF review (project code ST01130), ADAS Boxworth

Cunningham H M; Chaney K; Bradbury R B; Wilcox A (2004) Non-inversion tillage and farmland birds: a review with special reference to the UK and Europe. Ibis 146 (s2), 192–202.

Cunningham, H. M., Bradbury, R. B., Chaney, K. and Wilcox, A. (2005) Effect of non-inversion tillage on field usage by UK farmland birds in winter. Bird Study, 52, 173-179.

Cuttle, S.P. Macleod, C.J.A., Chadwick, D.R., Scholefield, D., Haygarth, P. M. Newell-Price, P., Harris. D., Shepherd M.A., Chambers B.J. and Humphrey R. (2007) An Inventory of Methods to Control Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture (DWPA) USER MANUAL Prepared as part of Defra Project ES0203, Defra. London.

Dalton, H. and Brand-Hardy, R. (2003) Nitrogen: the essential public enemy. Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 771-781.

Darwent, A.L., Kirkland, K.J., Townleysmith, L., Harker, K.N., Cessna, AA.J., Lukow, O.M. and Lefkovitch, L.P. (1994). Effect of pre-harvest applications of glyphosate on the drying, yield and quality of wheat. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 74, 221-230.

Defra (2007a) Environmental stewardship. http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/regulat/forms/erdp/es/index.htm

Defra (2007b) Countryside stewardship scheme. http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/css/default.htm (21August 2007)

Defra (2007c) Change in the area and distribution of set-aside in England and its environmental impact. http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/observatory/research/pdf/observatory08.pdf (10 August 2007).

Defra (2007d) June census, http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/statnot/june_eng.pdf (10 August 2007).

Donald, P.F., Evans, A.D., Buckingham, D.L., Muirhead, L.B. and Wilson, J.D. (2001b) Factors affecting territory distribution of Skylarks Alauda arvensis breeding on lowland farmland. Bird Study 48, 271-278.

Edwald, J. A. And Aebischer, N.J. (1999) Pesticide use, Avian food resources and bird densities in Sussex. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK.

Edwards, C. A. (1977) Investigations into the influence of agricultural practice on soil invertebrates. Annals of Applied Biology 87, 515-520.

Evans, A.D., Vickery, J.A. and Shrubb, M. (2004) Importance of overwintered stubble for farmland bird recovery: a reply to Potts. Bird Study 51, 94-96.

Evans, J., McNeill, A. M., Unkovich, M. J., Fettell, N. A. and HeenanNet, D. P.(2001) Nitrogen balances for cool-season grain legume crops and contributions to wheat nitrogen uptake: a review. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture. 41:347-359.

FAO (2007) A Review of the Current State of Bioenergy Development in G8 +5 Countries

Fisons (1973) Broad-leaved weed infestations in cereals. Fisons agricultural technical information, 31-41.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/observatory/research/pdf/observatory08.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/regulat/forms/erdp/es/index.htm

Frampton, G.K. and Wratten, S.D (2000) Effects of Benzimidazole and Triazole Fungicide Use on Epigeic Species of Collembola in Wheat. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 46, 64-72.

Frampton, G. K. (1988) The effects of some commonly-used foliar fungicides on Collembola in winter barley: laboratory and field studies. Annals of Applied Biology 133, 1-14

Fuller, R.J. (2000) Relationships between recent changes in lowland British agriculture and farmland bird populations: an overview. In: Aebischer, N.J., Evans, A.D., Grice, P.V. & Vickery, J.A. (Eds) Ecology and Conservation of Lowland Farmland Birds, 5-16. British Ornithologists’ Union, Tring.

Garthwaite, D.G., Thomas, M.R., Dawson, A., Stoddart, H. and Anderson, H. (2005) Pesticide usage survey report 195 – Outdoor vegetable crops crops in Great Britain 2003, Defra, London.

Garthwaite, D.G., Thomas, M.R., Anderson, H. and Stoddart, H. (2006) Pesticide usage survey report 202 - Arable crops in Great Britain 2004, Defra, London.

Gebhardt , M. R., Daniel, T.C., Schweizer, E.E. and Allmaras, R.R (1985) Conservation tillage. Science 230, 625-629.

Gill, J. A., Watkinson A. R. and Sutherland, W. J (1996) The impact of sugar beet farming practice on wintering pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus populations. Biological conservation 76, 95-100.

Greig-Smith, P., Frampton, G. and Hardy, T. (1992) Pesticides, cereal farming and the environment. The Boxwrth Project. London: HMSO.

Hald AB (1999) The impact of changing the season in which cereals are sown on the diversity of the weed flora in rotational fields in Denmark. Journal of Applied Ecology 36 (1), 24–32.

Heard, M. S., Hawes, C., Champion, G. T., Clark, S. J., Firbank, L. G., Haughton, A. J., Parish, A. M., Perry, J. N., Rothery, P., Scott, R. J., Skellern, M. P., Squire, G. R., Hill, M. O. (2003a) Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. I. Effects on abundance and diversity. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 358, 1819-1832.

Heard, M. S., Hawes, C., Champion, G. T., Clark, S. J., Firbank, L. G., Haughton, A. J., Parish, A. M., Perry, J. N., Rothery, P., Roy, D. B., Scott, R. J., Skellern, M. P., Squire, G. R., Hill, M. O. (2003b) Weeds in fields with contrasting conventional and genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops. II. Effects on individual species. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 358, 1833-1846.

Henderson, I. G., and A. D. Evans. 1999. Responses of farmland birds to set-aside and its management in N. J. Aebischer, A. D. Evans, P. V. Grice, and J. A. Vickery, editors. Ecology and conservation of lowland farmland birds. British Ornithologists Union, Tring.

Henderson, I., Clark, N., Bodey, T., Holloway, S.J. and Armitage, M. ( 2005) Abstract from BTO Research Report No 358: The use of pea crops by farmland birds: evidence for an extended breeding and enhanced feeding opportunities in crop mosaics. Thetford, BTO

Hodge. I. Reader, M., Revoredo, C., Crabtree, R., Tucker, G. and King, T. (2006) Project to assess future options for set-aside. Rural business Unit, University of Cambridge.

http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/evaluation/futuresetaside/Fullreport.pdf (21 August 2007)

Holland, J. M. and Rynolds, C.J.M. (2003) The impacts of soil cultivation on arthropod (Coleoptera and Araneae) emergence on arable land. Pedobiologia 47, 181-191.

Hudson, R.W., Tucker, G.M. and Fuller, R.J. (1994) Lapwing Vanellus vanellus populations in relation to agricultural change: a review. In: Tucker, G.M., Davies, S.M. & Fuller, R.J. The ecology and conservation of lapwings Vanellus vanellus, 1-33. UK Nature Conservation No.9. JNCC, Peterborough.

Ivany, J.A. and Doohan, D.J. (1997). Control of quackgrass (Elytigia repens) and field mint (Mentha arvensis) with glyphosate applied pre-harvest. Weed Technology 11, 744- 747.

Jones, N.E. and Maulden, K.A.. 1999. Soil seed bank diversity under integrated and conventional farming systems. Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference-Weeds, Brighton, UK, pp. 261-266.

Kirkegaard, J., Christen, O., Krupinsky, J.M., Layzell, D. 2004. Break crop benefits in temperate wheat production. 16 pp. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, Queensland, Australia. http://www.cropscience.org.au/icsc2004/symposia/2/1/191 kirkegaardja.htm

Lutman, P.J., Boatman, N., Brown, V.K. and Marshall, E.P.J. (2003) Weeds: their impact and value in arable ecosystemsThe BCPC international congress – Crop science and technology 219-226.

McGregor, M., Willock, J., Dent, B., Deary, I., Sutherland, A., Gibson, G., Morgan, O. and Grieve, B (1996). Links between psychological factors and farmer decision-making. Farm Management 9: 228-239.Marshall, E.J.P., Brown, V., Boatman, N., Lutman, P.J.W. and Squire, G. (2003) The rolw of weeds in supporting biological diversity within crop fields. Weed Research. 43, 77-89.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/evaluation/futuresetaside/Fullreport.pdf%20(21

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/es;jsessionid=24p2ojereshuo.victoria

Marshall, E.J.P.and Brain, P. (1999) The horizontal movement of seed in arable soil by different cultivation methods. J. Appl. Ecol. 36, 443-454.

Mason, C. F. and Macdonald, S. M. (2000) Influence of landscape and land-use on the distribution of breeding birds in farmland in eastern England Journal of Zoology, 251: 339-348.

May, M J. (2003) Economic consequences for UK farmers of growing GM herbicide tolerant sugar beet. Annals of Applied Biology 142 (1), 41–48.

Moorcroft, D. M., Whittingham, J., Bradbury, R. B. and Wilson, J. D. (2002) The selection of stubble fields by wintering granivorous birds reflects vegetation cover and food abundance. Journal of Applied Ecology 39 (3), 535–547.

Naylor, R.E.L. (2002) Weed management handbook. Blackwell publishing, Oxford.

Nutcheon, J.A., Iles, D.R. and Kendall, D.S. (2001) Earthworm populations in conventional and integrated farming systems in the LIFE project (SW England) in 1990-2000. Annals of Applied biology. 139, 361-372.

O’Connor, R.J. & Shrubb, M. (1986) Farming and birds. CUP, Cambridge.

Peach, W.J., Lovett, L.J., Wooton, S.R. and Jeffs, C. (2001). Countryside Stewardship delivers Cirl Buntings (Emberiza cirlus) in Devon, UK. Biol. Conserv. 101: 361–374.

PGRO (2007) Processors and Growers Research Station Pulse Agronomy guide 2007, PGRO, Peterborough.

Potts D. (2003) The myth of the overwintered stubble. Bird Study, 50, 91-93.

Robinson R. A. and Sutherland W. J. (2002) Post-War Changes in Arable Farming and Biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of Applied Ecology, 39, 157-176.

Robinson, R. A. and Sutherland, W.J. (1999) The winter distribution of seed eating birds: habitat structure, seed density and seasonal depletion. Ecography 22, 447-454.

Schweizer, E. E. and Dexter, A. G. (1987) Weed control in sugar beets (Beta vulgaris) in North America - Reviews of Weed Science, 3, 113-133.

Scott, R. K., Wilcockson, S. J., Moisey, F. R. (1979) The effects of time of weed removal on growth and yield of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge, 93: 693-709.

Shrubb, M. (2003) Birds, scythes and combines. CUP, Cambridge.

Silvertown, J., Dodd, M, E., McConway, K., Potts, J., Crawley, M. (1994) Rainfall, Biomass Variation, and Community Composition in the Park Grass Experiment Ecology, Vol. 75, No. 8 (Dec., 1994), pp. 2430-2437.

Squire, G.R., Hawes, C., Bohan, D.A., Brooks, D.R., Champion, G.T., Firbank, L.G., Haughton, A.J., Heard, M.S., May, M.J., Perry, J.N., Young, M.W. 2005. Biodiversity effects of the management associated with GM cropping systems in the UK. Defra, London.

Squire, R., Rodger, S., Wright, G. (2000) Community-scale seedbank response to less intense rotation and reduced herbicide input at three sites. Annals of Applied Biology 136, 47–57.

Stoate, C (1996) The changing face of lowland farming and wildlife. Part 2: 1945–1995. British Wildlife, 7 162-172.

Stoate, C (1995) The changing face of lowland farming and wildlife. Part 1, 1845–1945. British Wildlife, 6, 341-350.

Stoate, C. Boatman N.D. Borralho R.J Carvalho C.R; Snoo G.R; Eden P.(2001) Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe Journal of Environmental Management, 63, 337-365(29).

Stoate, C. (1996) The changing face of lowland farming and wildlife. II. 1945-95. British Wildlife, 7. 162-172.

Stolton, S. (2002 The relationship between biodiversity and organic agriculture. IFOAM, germany http://www.equilibriumresearch.com/upload/document/relationshipbetweenbiodiversityandorganicagriculture.pdf

Stolton, S, Geier, B., McNeely, J.A. (eds) (2000) The relationship between nature conservation, biodiversity and organic agriculture. Conference Proceedings. The World Conservation Union. Vignola

Sunderland, K.D. (1992) Effects of pesticides on the population ecology of phytophagous predators. Aspects of Applied biology 31, 19-27.

Unilever (2005) The Colworth farm project, putting sustainable agriculture to the test. Unilever, Sharnbook.

University of Cambridge and CJC Consulting (2002) Economic Evaluation of AGri-Environment Schemes. Final Report to the Department of Environment, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of Cambridge (2006) Special Study into the Economics of Cereal Production 2004. Special Studies in Agricultural Economics Report No. 64

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

http://www.equilibriumresearch.com/upload/document/relationshipbetweenbiodiversityandorganicagriculture.pdf

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/ev

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=40893#%23

University of Reading (2006) Research to Understand and Model the Behaviour and Motivations of Farmers in Responding to Policy Changes (England). Research project EPES 0405/17

Van Egmond, K., Bresser, T., Bouwman, L., (2002) The European nitrogen case. Ambio 31, 72-78.

Vickery, J.A., Atkinson, P.W., Marshall, J.H., West, T., Norris, K., Robinson, L.J., Gillings, S., Wilson, A. & Kirby, W. (May 2005) The effects of different crop stubbles and straw disposal methods on wintering birds and arable plants. BTO, Thetford, 84pp

Ward, L.K. (1988) The validity and interpretation of insect foodplant records. British Journal of Entomolgy and Natural History, 1, 153-162.

Ward, L.K. and Spalding, D.F. (1993) Phytophagous British insects and mites and their food-plant families – total numbers and polyphagy. Biological journal of the Linnean Society, 49, 257-276.

Whitehead, P. and Wright, H. C. (1989) The incidence of weeds in winter cereals ain Great Britain. Proceedings 1989 Brighton Crop Protection Conference – Weeds, Brighton, UK 107-112

Whittingham, M. J., Devereux, C. L., Evans, A. D., Bradbury, R. B. (2006) Altering perceived predation risk and food availability: management prescriptions to benefit farmland birds on stubble fields. Journal of Applied Ecology 43 (4), 640–650.

Whittingham, M. J., Evans, K. L. (2004) The effects of habitat structure on predation risk of birds in agricultural landscapes Ibis 146 (s2), 210–220.

Wilson,, J. D., Taylor, R., and Muirhead, L. B. (1996) Field use by farmland birds in winter: an analysis of field type preferences using resampling methods. Bird Study 43:320-332.

Young, J. E. B., Griffin, M. J., Alford, D. V., Ogilvy S. E. [eds] (2001) Reducing agrochemical use on the arable farm: The TALISMAN and SCARAB Projects. London: Defra.

References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) of 28

general enquiries on this form should be made...

Documents