solutions for biodiversity in organic agriculture?

1

Department of Landscape ANorwegian University of Life Sciences

Term PaperLAØ370; Landscape Ecology, 2008 Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Agricultural Intensification and Landscape Homogeneity: Solutions for B

Modern agricultural intensification constitutes one of biodiversity

threats. Increased agricultural in

homogeneity and fragmentation on

temperate regions experienced their greatest rate of land use change by the industrial

agricultural revolution prior to the

decline of appurtenant species populations. Sustainable agricultural systems, namely

organic farming, are looked upon by many as

agriculture’s continued impoverishment

elucidating whether organic agriculture demonstrate

paper evaluates a pool of comparative scientific studies which have addressed the

potential biodiversity divergences

The results are discussed in

as the conclusions of three other meta

Key words: Agriculture, Biodiversity

Introduction Agriculture has since the start of industrialization

adapted to methods and techniques which contribute to polarizing agricultural landscapes either into nonproductive fallow or homogonous mono(Hendrickx et al. 2007; Reidsma et al. 2006; Stoate et al. 2001). Increased agricultural intensity has come at the cost of heightened landscape homogeneity and on a range of spatial scales (Hendrickx et al. 2007; Reidsma et al. 2006; Stoate et al. 2001)countries in temperate regions experienced their greatest rate of land use change by the industrial agricultural revolution prior to the 1950’s, temporally coitheir strongest decline of appurtenant species populations (WWF 2006). With declines continuing, the aeffects of agricultural intensification on biodiversity has become an area of growing concern (e.g. Belfrage et al. 2005; Clough et al. 2005; Hendrickx et al. 2007; Krebs et

Term Paper in

Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Term Paper LAØ370; Landscape Ecology, 2008Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Agricultural Intensification and Landscape omogeneity: Solutions for Biodiversity in

Agriculture? Nils Harley Boisen

Modern agricultural intensification constitutes one of biodiversity’s

threats. Increased agricultural intensity comes at the cost of heightened landscape

homogeneity and fragmentation on a range of spatial scales. Developed countries in


agricultural revolution prior to the 1950’s, temporally coinciding with their strongest


organic farming, are looked upon by many as a potential solution

agriculture’s continued impoverishment of landscape complexity. For the purpose of

elucidating whether organic agriculture demonstrates benefits for biodiversity, this


ivergences between arable organic and conventional agriculture.

The results are discussed in light of certain essential facets of landscape ecology as well

as the conclusions of three other meta-analyses on the same topic.

Biodiversity, Heterogeneity, Organic, Landscape ecology

Agriculture has since the start of industrialization pted to methods and techniques which contribute to

either into non-or homogonous monocultures

(Hendrickx et al. 2007; Reidsma et al. 2006; Stoate et al. has come at the cost

homogeneity and fragmentation (Hendrickx et al. 2007;

Reidsma et al. 2006; Stoate et al. 2001). Developed countries in temperate regions experienced their greatest rate of land use change by the industrial agricultural

, temporally coinciding with their strongest decline of appurtenant species populations

With declines continuing, the adverse ation on biodiversity has

(e.g. Belfrage et al. 2005; Clough et al. 2005; Hendrickx et al. 2007; Krebs et

al. 1999; Reidsma et al. 2006; Vandermeer & Perfecto 2007). Given that the global demand for agricultural products is expected to increase by 50% within 2030 (IUCN 2006a), there will be a challenging necessity for agriculture to reconcile with constructive ecological knowledge concerning how it can to the greatest possible degree sustainably conserve biodiversity

Sustainable agriculture can be defined as technology and methodology attempting to maximize production and human health while minimizing environmental encroachment and degradation form of agriculture utilizes natural assets and must be locally adapted as it is intrinsicallyecological conditions. With clearly defined recommended and restricted practices, organic agriculture (OA) seeks to conserve the health of the environment and increase food security (Scialabba & Williamson 2004)which are a combination of refined old school wisdom and

in Landscape Ecology, 2008

Nils Harley Boisen

LAØ370; Landscape Ecology, 2008 Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning, Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Agricultural Intensification and Landscape y in Organic

’s greatest current

tensity comes at the cost of heightened landscape

eveloped countries in


1950’s, temporally coinciding with their strongest


potential solution to conventional

of landscape complexity. For the purpose of

benefits for biodiversity, this


rable organic and conventional agriculture.

certain essential facets of landscape ecology as well

al. 1999; Reidsma et al. 2006; Vandermeer & Perfecto global demand for agricultural

products is expected to increase by 50% within 2030 re will be a challenging necessity for

agriculture to reconcile with constructive ecological knowledge concerning how it can to the greatest possible

conserve biodiversity. ustainable agriculture can be defined as technology

ology attempting to maximize production and human health while minimizing environmental encroachment and degradation (Pretty & Hine 2001). This form of agriculture utilizes natural assets and must be locally adapted as it is intrinsically dependant on local ecological conditions. With clearly defined recommended and restricted practices, organic agriculture (OA) seeks to conserve the health of the environment and increase food

(Scialabba & Williamson 2004) through practices which are a combination of refined old school wisdom and

2 Term Paper in Landscape Ecology, 2008 Nils Harley Boisen


contemporary ecological innovation. These practices are based on an ideology that are underpinned by principals of health, ecology, fairness, and care (IFOAM 2007). Because of these distinctive characteristics OA is as close as modern agricultural management systems come to sustainable agriculture.

The maintenance of non-crop vegetation among and adjacent to crops, the integration of natural habitat as buffers and/or corridors, and the lack of synthetic agrochemicals including pesticides and fertilizers are all aspects of organic management that are recognized by many world organisations, including IUCN (2006b) and FAO (2007), as having value in biodiversity conservation. These aspects, ever disappearing under the regime of intensive industrial agriculture, are necessary for maintaining spatial heterogeneity at different scales, a pillar of species richness and diversity (Benton et al. 2003).

This paper investigates if the published literature from species diversity studies on OA vs. conventional agriculture (CA) indicates that landscape under OA management better facilitates different aspects of species diversity than conventional agriculture.

To attempt to explain the distribution of results and their explanations from studies of this character, one is disposed to view them from a landscape ecological angle. Landscape ecology is well defined by Risser et al (1984) as the study of the development, management, and ecological consequences of spatial heterogeneity, asking with particular relevance to this topic how landscape heterogeneity interacts with fluxes of organisms, material, and energy. According to Wu and Hobbs (2007) this is typical of the early North American school of thought in landscape ecology, notably influenced by the theory of island biogeography (MacArthur & Wilson 1967) and patch dynamics (Levin & Paine 1974). Thus this study further investigates if the results of these species diversity studies on OA vs. CA farms are explained by landscape ecological aspects which appear to be common for OA.

Methods This meta-analysis has gathered results from 26

research publications comparing different biodiversity parameters (i.e. aspects of species diversity (e.g. abundance, density, activity, richness, comosition) with ecological explanations) in arable OA vs. CA from Europe (and one study from Canada). The authors of these studies have conducted their work on the premise that differences in biodiversity parameters should be conspicuous in a scientific context based on the clear differences in farm management with logical implications for biodiversity. Research results were divided into categories of result type, ecological explanation, and species group. Result categories were; I: significant, i.e. biodiversity parameter significantly associated with ecological explanations specifically attributed to OA sites by the particular study /

II: mixed, i.e. biodiversity parameter significantly associated with ecological explanations attributed with either OA and CA sites by the particular study / III: insignificant, i.e. biodiversity parameter significantly associated with ecological explanations not specifically attributed to either OA or CA sites by the particular study/ IV: negative, i.e. biodiversity parameter significantly associated with ecological explanations specifically attributed to CA site by the particular study. It is important to keep the definitions of the result categories clearly in mind, e.g. one may easily forget how this study describes insignificant results with regard to biodiversity associations with farm management as significantly explained by factors not specifically attributed to OA or CA sites. Categories of ecological explanation of result parameters were: I: vegetative structural heterogeneity, i.e. degree of structural complexity rendered from vegetation in a given plot/ II: lack of pesticide/herbicide use / III: habitat patch

diversity, i.e. the abundance and composition of different non crop habitats on the given farm/ IV: degree of

surrounding landscape heterogeneity, i.e. complexity of landscape surrounding the given farm. Categorization of species groups was chiefly dependant on which species the studies focused on, which generally speaking was a combination of taxa and niche; I: predatory epigeal

arthropods / II: insect pollinators / III: other insect groups / IV: plants / V: birds / VI: bats (Microchiroptera spp..). Being that a specific biodiversity parameter could have more than one ecological explanation (e.g. activity explained by both vegetative structural heterogeneity and habitat patch diversity), the total number of parameter results used in this meta-analysis originate from the 26 research publications is 123. These have been plugged into data tables in Microsoft office Excel 2007 to produce numerical- and percent wise visual depictions of the data’s distribution. In addition, three other meta-analyses on the same topic are discussed in light of this study’s findings.

Results The number of research publications which address

each species group is displayed in figure 1. In total (ca. 68 %, figure 2.1), and separated by ecological explanation, the greatest majority of parameter results were significant, while mixed and insignificant results tended to tie in second place, with negative results nearly nonexistent (figure2). Habitat patch diversity explained the largest amount of significant parameter results (figure 2.D) followed by degree of surrounding landscape heterogeneity (figure 2.E), followed by lack of pesticide/herbicide use (figure 2.C), and finally vegetative structural heterogeneity (figure 2.B). The few negative parameter results were explained by lack of pesticide/herbicide use (figure 2.C), habitat patch diversity (figure 2.D), and degree of surrounding landscape heterogeneity (figure 2.E). With the exception of predatory epigeal arthropods (figure 3.A) and

3

Department of Landscape AN

other insect groups (figure 3.C), all species groups displayed a large majority of significant parameter resultsPlants and insect pollinators were respectively the two species groups with the largest amount of significantparameter results (figure 3B & 3.D).

Term Paper


ll species groups displayed a large majority of significant parameter results. Plants and insect pollinators were respectively the two

largest amount of significant

Predatory Epigeal ArthropodsPredatory epigeal arthropods displayed the most

even distribution of result type, with significaninsignificant equally explanations for significant results with predatepigeal arthropods heterogeneity and habitat patch diversity respectively, while the two best explanations for insignificant results were the degree heterogeneity and habitat patch diversityThe only negative result for predatory epigeal arthropods was explained bysurrounding landscape heterogeneity (

In Cloughs et.al (Clough et al. 2007a)

alpha (arthropods and plants in wheat fields, was larger in conventional fields than in organic fields, and was attributed paspecies composition of spiders varies more strongly with landscape composition than in organic fields. The species composition of only one group, rove beetles (staphylinidae

be affected by local habitat factorwhen habitat characteristics were analysed habitat variability betw��

fields, thus in this study it seemed to Clough et al. limiting factorbeetles was habitat to overwinter in

outside arable fields due to tillage in addition to habitat patch diversity within the fields. Clough et.al states further that it has been shown that more intensive management can result in greater heterogeneity between plots and thus increase β-diversity, albeit on a temporal and not on a spatial scale. In an earlier study addressing spider diversity in relation to this topic at a localregional scale, Clough et al. local management exerted no effect on species richness, and that spider activity density was higher in field edges though differed among regions. Farmland spider diversity was influenced by spatial differences on two scales; edge vs. centre and simple vs. complex landscapes, but not at the two others; field management andaccording to the authors emphasized the importance of addressing various spatial scales to adequatelpatterns of biodiversity (Clough et al. 2005)heterogeneity in land use at landscape scales was understood as one of the keys to promoting spider diversity in agro-ecosystems, and not

Term Paper in Landscape Ecology, 2008 Nils Harley Boisen

Predatory Epigeal Arthropods Predatory epigeal arthropods displayed the most

result type, with significant and insignificant equally common. The two best

for significant results with predatory epigeal arthropods was vegetative structural

habitat patch diversity respectively, while the two best explanations for insignificant results were the degree of surrounding landscape heterogeneity and habitat patch diversity (figure 4).

negative result for predatory epigeal explained by the degree of

surrounding landscape heterogeneity (figure 4). (Clough et al. 2007a) study on

alpha (ἄ) and beta (β) diversity of arthropods and plants in OA vs. CA wheat fields, β diversity of spiders was larger in conventional fields than in organic fields, and was attributed partly to the fact that the species composition of spiders varies more strongly with landscape composition than in organic fields. The species composition of only one group, rove beetles staphylinidae spp.), were shown to

be affected by local habitat factors when habitat characteristics were analysed (Clough et al. 2007a). The habitat variability between CA fields is lower than that in OA fields, thus in this study it seemed to Clough et al. (2007a) that the limiting factor for spiders and rove beetles was habitat to overwinter in

outside arable fields due to tillage in addition to habitat patch diversity within the fields. Clough et.al (2007a)

been shown that more intensive management can result in greater heterogeneity between

diversity, albeit on a temporal and not on a spatial scale. In an earlier study addressing spider diversity in relation to this topic at a local, landscape and regional scale, Clough et al. (2005) found that region and local management exerted no effect on species richness, and that spider activity density was higher in field edges though differed among regions. Farmland spider diversity

nced by spatial differences on two scales; edge vs. centre and simple vs. complex landscapes, but not at he two others; field management and region, which

according to the authors emphasized the importance of addressing various spatial scales to adequately explain

(Clough et al. 2005). Promoting heterogeneity in land use at landscape scales was understood as one of the keys to promoting spider diversity

ecosystems, and not specific management styles

4


(i.e. OA) (Clough et al. 2005). Schmidt et al.’s study on epigeal spiders revealed that organic agriculture did not increase spider species richness, but did however enhanced spider density by 62%. Otherwise, increased non-crop habitats in the landscape increased local species richness of spiders from 12 to 20 species, irrespective of local management, which according to Schmidt et al. (2005) indicates that larger species pools are sustained in complex landscapes with a higher availability of refuge and overwintering habitats.

In Pfiffner & Luka’s (2003) study, carabid species richness between integrated crop management (ICM) fields and OA fields was in most cases highest in OA fields. Spider species richness displayed mixed result between ICM and OA fields (Pfiffner & Luka 2003)Carabid and spider activity density was higher in the OA fields as opposed to the ICM fields. Endangered species, and species with a narrow ecological preference were more abundant in OA fields (Pfiffner & Luka 2003)abundance in OA was demonstated to be the greatest factor influencing carabid fauna, and weed diversity in OA the greatest factor influencing spider fauna (Pfiffner & Luka 2003). Furthermore, according to Pfiffner & Lukamany species of carabids and wolf spiders (

Term Paper


. Schmidt et al.’s (2005) study on epigeal spiders revealed that organic agriculture

ot increase spider species richness, but did however enhanced spider density by 62%. Otherwise, increased

crop habitats in the landscape increased local species richness of spiders from 12 to 20 species, irrespective of

g to Schmidt et al. indicates that larger species pools are sustained in

her availability of refuge

study, carabid species richness between integrated crop management (ICM) fields and OA fields was in most cases highest in OA fields. Spider species richness displayed mixed result

Pfiffner & Luka 2003). Carabid and spider activity density was higher in the OA fields as opposed to the ICM fields. Endangered species, and species with a narrow ecological preference were more

(Pfiffner & Luka 2003). Weed onstated to be the greatest factor

influencing carabid fauna, and weed diversity in OA the (Pfiffner & Luka

Pfiffner & Luka (2003) many species of carabids and wolf spiders (Lycosidae spp.)

which have their main distribhabitats occurred more abundantly in OA fields, indicating a correlation between organic farming and semi-natural habitats. Thus (2003) state that seminatural habitats in combination with OA may be a practical way toconserve and enhancement species rich assemblages on agricultural land. In Puratauf et al.’s (2005) study of carabids however, the main conclusion was that surrounding landscape features were much more important than OA for enhancing local biodiversity. Here, with landscape complexity demonstrated to be independent of management system, carabid activity density and species richness augmented with percent grassland cover in the surrounding landscape

Insect Pollinators For insect pollinators the three chief explanations for

significant results were habsurrounding landscape heterogeneity, and pesticide/herbicide use (figureal.’s study from 2007a, a greater regional

well as site ἄ and β diversity of wild bees was associated with the positive response to OA flowering plants (discussed further down). In part due to lack of herbicide application in OA., CA managed fields in comparison contain few broadspecies which can attract bees addressing bumblebee (Bombus

species richness, Rundolf etpairs of OA and CA farms located in homogenous and heterogeneous landscapes. Here, abundance and species richness were significantly positively relatedsurrounding landscape heterogeneity However, significantly higher species richnabundance was only associated with OA farms located in homogeneous landscapes Furthermore, this influence of bumble bee abundance was most relevant for species with medium sized colonies (Rundlof et al. 2008)


which have their main distribution in semi-natural habitats occurred more abundantly in OA fields, indicating a correlation between organic farming

natural habitats. Thus Pfiffner & Luka that seminatural habitats in

combination with OA may be a practical way to conserve and enhancement species rich assemblages on agricultural land. In Puratauf et

study of carabids however, the main conclusion was that surrounding landscape features were much more important than OA for enhancing local biodiversity. Here, with landscape complexity

ted to be independent of management system, carabid activity density and species richness augmented with percent grassland cover in the surrounding landscape (Purtauf et al. 2005).

For insect pollinators the three chief explanations for habitat patch diversity, degree of

surrounding landscape heterogeneity, and lack of figure 5). Returning to Clough et

al.’s study from 2007a, a greater regional β diversity, as

diversity of wild bees was associated with the positive response to OA demonstrated by

(discussed further down). In part due to lack of herbicide application in OA., CA managed fields in comparison contain few broad-leaved flowering plant species which can attract bees (Clough et al. 2007a). In

Bombus spp.) abundance and species richness, Rundolf et al.’s (2008) study matched pairs of OA and CA farms located in homogenous and heterogeneous landscapes. Here, abundance and species

gnificantly positively related OA and surrounding landscape heterogeneity (Rundlof et al. 2008). However, significantly higher species richness and abundance was only associated with OA farms located in homogeneous landscapes (Rundlof et al. 2008). Furthermore, this influence of landscape context on bumble bee abundance was most relevant for species with

(Rundlof et al. 2008). The greater

5


bumblebee abundance OA farms was partially correlated to higher flower abundance on these sites 2008). As colony size is believed to reflect the spatial scale at which bumblebees make use of foraging resources, the foraging ranges of species with medium sized colonies are most negatively affected by fragmentation of foraging habitat (Rundlof et al. 2008). An earlier study by and Smith (2006) addressed butterfly abundance and diversity also using matched pairs of OA and CA farms located in homogenous and heterogeneous landscapes. Here as well abundance and species diversity was shown to be significantly correlated with both OA and surrounding landscape heterogeneity (Rundlof & Smith 2006)Moreover, like in Rundolf et al’s (2008)study, the positive influence on abundance and specierichness was most evident in intensively farmed homogeneous landscapes (Rundlof & Smith 2006)

Ekroos et al (2007) looked at the role of organic and conventional field boundaries for bumblebees and butterflies and found no significant effect of OA field boundaries on butterfly diversity, but did however see higher (though not significant) abundance and species richness of bumblebees. Ekroos et al. (2007)as the effects of organic farming possibly being overpowered by the influences of landscape structure in heterogeneous landscapes, as the abundance of nectar flowers clearly was an important factor explaining butterfly diversity and bumblebees are likely to benefit from higher weed abundance and species diversity in the fields, both being factors otherwise associatedfrom other studies (e.g. Hald 1999; Hyvönen et al. 2003)Both bumblebee and butterfly abundance were also investigated by Belfrage et al. (2005), though hpaired OA and CA farms consisted of pairs of large and small farms. Butterfly numbers were 40% higher on smaller compared to larger farms, and 65% higher on OA farms compared to CA farms (Belfrage et al. 2005)Bumblebee numbers were 40% higher on smaller compared to larger farms, and 13 % higher on OA farms compared to CA farms, though the latter was not

Term Paper


ee abundance OA farms was partially correlated to higher flower abundance on these sites (Rundlof et al.

reflect the spatial scale at which bumblebees make use of foraging resources, the foraging ranges of species with medium sized colonies are most negatively affected by fragmentation of foraging

. An earlier study by Rundlof addressed butterfly abundance and

diversity also using matched pairs of OA and CA farms located in homogenous and heterogeneous landscapes. Here as well abundance and species diversity was shown to

e significantly correlated with both OA and surrounding (Rundlof & Smith 2006).

(2008) later bumblebee study, the positive influence on abundance and species

evident in intensively farmed (Rundlof & Smith 2006). looked at the role of organic and

entional field boundaries for bumblebees and butterflies and found no significant effect of OA field boundaries on butterfly diversity, but did however see higher (though not significant) abundance and species

(2007) interprets this as the effects of organic farming possibly being

es of landscape structure in heterogeneous landscapes, as the abundance of nectar flowers clearly was an important factor explaining butterfly diversity and bumblebees are likely to benefit from higher weed abundance and species diversity in the

associated with OA (e.g. Hald 1999; Hyvönen et al. 2003).

Both bumblebee and butterfly abundance were also , though here the

paired OA and CA farms consisted of pairs of large and small farms. Butterfly numbers were 40% higher on smaller compared to larger farms, and 65% higher on OA

(Belfrage et al. 2005). s were 40% higher on smaller

compared to larger farms, and 13 % higher on OA farms compared to CA farms, though the latter was not

considered significant. Thus, the greatest differences in butterfly and bumblebee abundances was between small OA and large CA farms (Belfrage et al. 2005)difference in landscape between the small and large farms in this study was higher crop species diversity per hectare as well and smaller field sizes. In Feber et al.’s study addressing butterfly abundance in relation to this topic, OA farms overall attracted significantly more butterflies (Lepidoptera spp.

than CA counterparts, with significantly more recorded over the uncropped field medge. Moreover, the difference in butterfly abundance between crop edge and field margin was greater in CA than OA systems (Feber et al. 2007)study possessed proportionally more grass leys and larghedgerows, which is Feber et al.’s for differences in butterfly abundance and richness between the two farm types.

Other Insect Groups Stemming from only two studies (mainly one), the

few parameter results (significantspecies group of other insect groups

pesticide/herbicide use, habitat patch diversity, and degree of surrounding landscape heterogeneity Wickramasinghe et al. (2004)spp.) diversity and abundance, in addition to the general abundance of other nocturnal insects, and specifically the abundance of 18 nocturnal insect families of importance to bat foraging. This was for the purpoavailable bat prey in relation to a previous study by Wickramasinghe et al. (2003)Compared to the CA farms in the study, nocturnal insect abundance, species richness, and moth speciewere significantly higher on the OA farms (Wickramasinghe et al. 2004)in OA pastoral and water habitats was significantly higher than analogous habitats on CA farms. Furthermore in regard to the above mentioned 18 insect families, only 5 were significantly more abundant on OA farms, and here


considered significant. Thus, the greatest differences in butterfly and bumblebee abundances was between small

(Belfrage et al. 2005). The greatest difference in landscape between the small and large farms in this study was higher crop species diversity per hectare as well and smaller field sizes. In Feber et al.’s (2007)

addressing butterfly abundance in relation to this topic, OA farms overall attracted significantly more

.) with greater species diversity than CA counterparts, with significantly more samples recorded over the uncropped field margin than the crop edge. Moreover, the difference in butterfly abundance between crop edge and field margin was greater in CA than

(Feber et al. 2007). Organic farms in this study possessed proportionally more grass leys and larger hedgerows, which is Feber et al.’s (2007) best explanation for differences in butterfly abundance and richness

Stemming from only two studies (mainly one), the

few parameter results (significant and mixed) for the other insect groups were lack of

pesticide/herbicide use, habitat patch diversity, and degree of surrounding landscape heterogeneity (figure 6).

(2004) examined moth (Lepidoptera

) diversity and abundance, in addition to the general abundance of other nocturnal insects, and specifically the abundance of 18 nocturnal insect families of importance to bat foraging. This was for the purpose of quantifying available bat prey in relation to a previous study by

(2003) (discussed further down). Compared to the CA farms in the study, nocturnal insect abundance, species richness, and moth species diversity were significantly higher on the OA farms (Wickramasinghe et al. 2004). Moreover, insect abundance in OA pastoral and water habitats was significantly higher

logous habitats on CA farms. Furthermore in regard to the above mentioned 18 insect families, only 5 were significantly more abundant on OA farms, and here



as well most highly correlated with OA pastoral, water, as well as woodland habitats. (Wickramasinghe et al. 2004). Wickramasinghe et al. (2004) states that nearly all of these sites were surrounded by trees or bushes, which likely provide shelter for emerging aquatic insects and dead leaf beds that are essential habitats for other insect groups. This fact, in addition to the lack of herbicide application is indicated as the best explanation for the results. Species richness of insect herbivores (belonging to Coleopteran,

Dipteral, Hymenoptera, and Lepidoptera) of non-crop plants (Canada thistle; Cirsium arvense) was addressed by Clough et al. (2007b). OA and surrounding landscape heterogeneity, but not higher densities of thistles in the landscape was shown to enhance insect herbivore species richness (Clough et al. 2007b). Host-plants located in OA fields were extra prone colonization than those in the CA fields (Clough et al. 2007b).

Plants

In regards to plants the significant results were chiefly explained by habitat patch diversity, with lack of pesticide/herbicide use and degree of surrounding landscape heterogeneity more or less tied as the secondary explanation (figure 7). The four negative results for plants were equally attributed to lack of pesticide/herbicide use and habitat patch diversity (figure 8).

Once again returning to Clough et al.’s (2007a)

study, site ἄ diversity of plants was greater on OA farms, and was attributed to the more extensive (heterogeneous) type of farm management in OA, as well as the lack of herbicide application and greater insect pollinator abundance. However, as mentioned earlier one can wonder if the latter is partially the result of greater flowering plant diversity. The species richness of plants which utilise insect pollination was shown in Gabriel & Tscharntke’s (2007) study addressing if insect pollinated plants benefit from OA to be much higher in OA than CA fields. This trend was even more significant in field edges rather than centres (Gabriel & Tscharntke 2007). Conversely, the abundance of non-insect pollinated plants showed an opposite trend, being more numerous in CA farms and to an increasing degree at CA field edges (Gabriel & Tscharntke 2007). Gabriel & Tscharntke (2007) attributed these results to greater pollinator densities in organic fields as well. Thus as agricultural intensification implies a disruption of plant-pollinator interactions, this may cause important shifts in plant community structure (Gabriel & Tscharntke 2007).

Returning to Belfrage et al.’s (2005) study, in addressing herbaceous plant species, 89 % more species were recorded on small compared to large farms and 75% more on OA compared to CA farms. A separate study by Gabriel et al. (2006) addressing the diversity of plant

communities at different spatial scales found that that ἄ, β, and γ diversity were higher at all scales in OA compared to

CA fields, and like their previously mentioned study (Gabriel & Tscharntke 2007) this trend was more significant at the field edge compared to the centre. β diversity at the meso and macro scale explain the majority of species richness which according to Gabriel et al. (2006) indicated substantial environmental heterogeneity among fields and regions (Gabriel et al. 2006). This was particularly true for rare plant species on OA farms, while the richness of common species independent of farming system was explained by β diversity at the micro and meso scale (among plots and fields) (Gabriel et al. 2006). Aude et al. (2004) looked at the conservation value of herbaceous vegetation in hedgerows. Here, OA hedgerows contained significantly more plant species than CA equivalents, and the species composition was most significantly similar to seminatural communities (Aude et al. 2004). Aude et al. (2004) thus concluded that that OA is better for conserving herbaceous plant diversity in hedgerows given otherwise intensively cultivated surrounding landscapes. The OA and CA farms in this study were situated analogous landscapes regarding connectivity, fragmentation, etc. Thus the authors explain the semi-natural plant species composition of the OA hedgerows as likely being the effect lacking of chemical fertilizer application in adjacent OA fields, as eutrophication of field boundaries is shown to result in smaller stress-tolerant species and dominance of taller nutrient avaricious ruderals (Aude et al. 2004). With surrounding landscape parameters being similar between the OA and CA study pairs, the authors speculate that the greater species richness of the OA hedgerows was possibly due to greater ornithochory in these sites, as OA in many circumstances has been shown to be favourable for bird fauna (as discussed further down) (Aude et al. 2004). The reduced species richness in the CA hedgerows was chiefly attributed to herbicide application though there was no direct evidence for this (Aude et al. 2004). Petersen et al.’s (2006) study revealed that nutrient greedy annual ruderal plant species as well as annual species otherwise common to nutrient rich conditions were most prevalent in CA field borders, whereas perennial stress-tolerant species were more numerous around OA boarders. That stress-tolerant species could be indicators of organic farming were explained by the authors of this study as likely being the result of such species possessing a competitive edge over ruderals in biotopes with low nutrient input (low productivity) as well as disturbance (Petersen et al. 2006). In addition, lack of herbicide application in OA is also given as a likely explanation (Petersen et al. 2006). These factors could also explain how the differences recorded between OA and CA in this study were only visible 3–4 years after conversion to organic farming since the edge habitats would need time to readapt to new conditions (Petersen et al. 2006). Romero et al.’s (2007) study which addressed weed diversity in inner fields and crop edges,

7


here too it appeared that OA enhanced total weed diversity, however in this particular study the concentration of diversity in the crop edge was much lower in OA fields. The greater total weed diversity in OA stemmed from a greater diversity of broad-leaved species in the inner fields, and was attributed to CA’s thicker cover of herbicidetreated and heavily fertilized arable fields 2007).

Plant diversity in Gibson et al.’s (2007)that at the whole farm scale OA farms possessed significantly higher plant species richness than CA counterparts, with OA fields also demonstrating higher plant abundance. The authors note this entails a greater number of species per metre in OA arable fields despite the lower fraction of arable land on OA farms 2007). The study also showed that OA farms contained in total more areas of semi-natural habitat (woodland, field margins and hedgerows combined) (Gibson et al. 2007)Moreover, woodland area itself on OA farms was also significantly greater, with more unbroken pockets of woodland while woodland on CA farms often consisted of more linear patches (Gibson et al. 2007). However, within the patches of semi-natural habitat there was no signifidifferences in plant species richness between OA and CA farms, though high species richness did approach significance in conventional woodlands and organic hedgerows (Gibson et al. 2007). Gabriel et al. attributed their significant results for plant species richness and abundance to lack of herbicide / chemical fertilizer application, as well as to spillover from the increased degree of semi-natural habitat on the OA farms, whigreater amount of semi-natural habitat was only explained by the lack of herbicide / chemical fertilizer application. Another study looking at plant species richness in contrasting landscapes by Boutin et al (2008)greater species richness in OA fields and hedgerows. Though there was no apparent differences in species composition between the two farming types, many plants however were recorded only on OA farms, among these several of conservation interest such herbaceous forest

Term Paper


here too it appeared that OA enhanced total weed diversity, however in this particular study the concentration of diversity in the crop edge was much lower in OA fields. The greater total weed diversity in OA stemmed from a

leaved species in the inner fields, and was attributed to CA’s thicker cover of herbicide-treated and heavily fertilized arable fields (Romero et al.

(2007) study found that at the whole farm scale OA farms possessed significantly higher plant species richness than CA

h OA fields also demonstrating higher plant abundance. The authors note this entails a greater number of species per metre in OA arable fields despite the lower fraction of arable land on OA farms (Gibson et al.

The study also showed that OA farms contained in natural habitat (woodland, field

(Gibson et al. 2007). Moreover, woodland area itself on OA farms was also

ificantly greater, with more unbroken pockets of woodland while woodland on CA farms often consisted of

. However, within natural habitat there was no significant

differences in plant species richness between OA and CA farms, though high species richness did approach significance in conventional woodlands and organic

. Gabriel et al. (2007) attributed their significant results for plant species richness and abundance to lack of herbicide / chemical fertilizer application, as well as to spillover from the increased

natural habitat on the OA farms, while the natural habitat was only explained

by the lack of herbicide / chemical fertilizer application. Another study looking at plant species richness in

(2008) indeed found greater species richness in OA fields and hedgerows. Though there was no apparent differences in species

on between the two farming types, many plants however were recorded only on OA farms, among these several of conservation interest such herbaceous forest

perennials (Boutin et al. 2008)landscape surrounding the study sites showed that OA hedgerows were situated in a matrix comprised more of non-crop habitats, in particular oldslighter degree forest patches. According to Boutin et al (2008) the significant results of this study could be explained by the increased heterogeneity of the surrounding landscape which worked synergistically with OA management.

Looking at the effects of landscape complexity on arable weed species diversity Rouncovered that the γ diversity of weed vegetation at the field scale, the was higher in OA than in CA fields, and that the greater γ diversity of OA fields was just weakly associated with greater landscape complexity. Moreover,

and ἄ diversities in the seed rain and seed bank were generally higher in organic than in conventional fields (Roschewitz et al. 2005). This significant trend of greater diversity for OA farms was principally valid in fields located in simple landscapes with an elevated proportion of arable land, with γ diversity in conventional fields strongly linked with landscape complexity Thus in complex landscapes with large proportions of noncrop areas the γ diversities of OA and CA fields were nearly similar (Roschewitz et al. 2005)interpreted this as a suggestion that OA fields are more or less self-sufficient ecological units, independent from species immigration from surrounding habitats in complex landscapes (Roschewitz et al. 2005)

same pattern of γ diversity was revealed for diversities (Roschewitz et al. 2005)landscape complexity did not appear to influence the weed species diversity of OA fields straight away, the potential to do so seemed apparent in the followiat the more diverse germinable seed bank in complex landscapes (Roschewitz et al. 2005)

When separating the βbroad-leafs and grasses, grasses did not differ between farming systems, though were negatively correlated with the proportion of arable land


(Boutin et al. 2008). An examination of the landscape surrounding the study sites showed that OA hedgerows were situated in a matrix comprised more of

icular old-field patches and to a slighter degree forest patches. According to Boutin et al

the significant results of this study could be explained by the increased heterogeneity of the

andscape which worked synergistically with

Looking at the effects of landscape complexity on arable weed species diversity Roschewitz et al. (2005)

diversity of weed vegetation at the field scale, the was higher in OA than in CA fields, and

diversity of OA fields was just weakly associated with greater landscape complexity. Moreover, γ

seed rain and seed bank were generally higher in organic than in conventional fields

. This significant trend of greater γ diversity for OA farms was principally valid in fields

dscapes with an elevated proportion of diversity in conventional fields strongly

linked with landscape complexity (Roschewitz et al. 2005). Thus in complex landscapes with large proportions of non-

diversities of OA and CA fields were (Roschewitz et al. 2005). The authors

interpreted this as a suggestion that OA fields are more or sufficient ecological units, independent from migration from surrounding habitats in complex

schewitz et al. 2005). Furthermore, the

diversity was revealed for ἄ and β (Roschewitz et al. 2005). However, though

landscape complexity did not appear to influence the weed species diversity of OA fields straight away, the potential to do so seemed apparent in the following years by looking at the more diverse germinable seed bank in complex

(Roschewitz et al. 2005). When separating the β and gamma diversities into leafs and grasses, grasses did not differ between

farming systems, though were negatively correlated with the proportion of arable land (Roschewitz et al. 2005).



Roschewitz et al. (2005) believed that broad-leaved species were less numerous on CA fields since these are more susceptible to herbicide application. There was otherwise no difference in the quantity of red-list species between OA and CA farms, though the number of species was shown to be higher in complex as opposed to simple landscapes, demonstrating the value of alternative habitats (Roschewitz et al. 2005).

Birds For birds, the significant results were chiefly

explained by degree of surrounding landscape heterogeneity, followed by habitat patch diversity and vegetative structural heterogeneity, respectively (figure 8).

Once again returning to Belfrage et al.’s (2005) study, this time addressing bird fauna, total species richness was 55% higher and the number of bird territories 78% higher on OA farms. This trend increased in importance from large CA farms, to large OA farms, to small CA farms, to small OA farms (Belfrage et al. 2005). However, in Chamberlain et al.’s (1999) study there was no significant difference in bird species diversity between OA and Ca farms during the breeding season, yet OA farms contained consistently elevated densities of specific species as well all species combined than CA counterparts outside the breeding season. Furthermore, no one bird species was more abundant on CA farms, while the species displaying greater densities on OA farms were principally recorded in the field boundaries (Chamberlain et al. 1999). Hedges in the OA field boundaries of this study were higher and wider with more trees, as well as field sizes being smaller, and an analysis pointed to the importance of habitat structure in explaining the divergence in bird density between farm types (Chamberlain et al. 1999). Furthermore, the stronger trend in bird densities outside the breeding season was explained by the authors as likely associated with seasonal variation in territorial behaviour, with the strongest individuals constraining the habitat use of less dominant individuals thus forcing these into sub-optimal habitats (Chamberlain et al. 1999). In Freemark et al.’s (2001) study from Ontario (the only study in this meta analysis not from Europe) addressing bird fauna, species richness and total abundance was superior on OA farms. According to the authors analyses differences in farm type practices explained 23.7%, habitat 26%, and habitat and practices together 5.7%. The gradient of bird species richness and abundance appeared to follow the gradient of habitat heterogeneity implied by more pasture, winter grain, and non-crop habitats (hedgerow, woodland) to sites with few bird species associated with larger fields with more rowcroping and spring grain, passes and tilling, and use of herbicides and chemical fertilizers (Freemark & Kirk 2001).

Bats

Significant results for bats were equally explained by habitat patch diversity and vegetative structural heterogeneity (figure 9). Though bats as a species group is represented by only one study in this meta-analysis, the results of this particular study have such wide reaching implications that it seems only pertinent to include them. In this study, bat activity was quantified using acoustic surveys which made it possible to identify 89 % of bat passes to species, and a further 9% to genus, as well as quantify foraging activity by tallying total feedings buzzes as well as feeding buzzes per pass. OA farms displayed 61% higher bat activity of all recorded species, including far more passes over “organic” water habitats when habitats were viewed separately (Wickramasinghe et al. 2003). Foraging activity was 84% higher on organic farms, with the number of feeding buzzes per pass also significantly higher over the organic farms and also correlating to hedgerow height (Wickramasinghe et al. 2003). The species richness of bats was however not significantly different between the two management forms with 14 of the sixteen documented species being observed over the organic farms and 11 over the conventional (Wickramasinghe et al. 2003). Looking more closely at the life history traits of the bat species sampled by Wickramasinghe et al. (2003), it is observed that those which are more specialized and therefore sensitive to habitat degradation were all species which had the highest bat activity over the organic farms (Wickramasinghe et al. 2003). The authors attribute this to taller hedgerows and improved water quality on the OA farms. The uncommonly substantial results of Wickramasinghe et al.’s (2003) bat study suggests that given otherwise similar landscape features, the habitat structure and quality found on these particular organic farms were more suitable not necessarily for the diversity of bats in southern England, but certainly their foraging and general activity, which of course will influence bat population demography in many complex ways. The addition of higher foraging activity over the organic farms also indicates greater habitat quality for prey insects and if we recall Wickramasinghe et al.’s (2004) study on nocturnal insects, it was stated here that the activity of bats that mainly ate Lepidoptera was significantly correlated with the abundance of this order.

Discussion The theory of island biogeography has directed much

of its focus on the influences of habitat fragmentation and isolation on population dynamics (Collinge 1996; Wu & Hobbs 2007), and thus appears particularly applicable for studies located in intense modern agricultural landscapes. It is easy to depict an arable agricultural landscape as a “sea” of homogenous inhospitable matrix, potentially containing an archipelago of more or less favourable non-crop habitats of differing sizes, and distances from each other. In this meta-analysis a greater amount of habitat



(patches) with higher quality (partitioned in this study to vegetative structural heterogeneity and habitat patch diversity) was intrinsic with nearly every OA farm in comparison to CA counterparts either by direct measurements or as implied by authors when such pairs were located in otherwise homogenous landscapes. Therefore, the concept of metapopulation dynamics can be a key component in explaining the significant, mixed, and insignificant results of this meta-analysis. Freckleton and Watkinson (2002) in reference to Hanski (1997) state in general that four conditions must be fulfilled for a metapopulation to persist; i: “suitable habitat occurs in discrete patches that may be occupied by local reproducing populations”/ ii: “even the largest local populations have a measurable risk of extinction (unless the largest population is the source of a source-sink system)”/ iii: “habitat patches must not be too isolated to prevent recolonization following local extinctions” iv: “local populations do not have completely synchronous dynamics”.

This dispersal is a key process for meta-population persistence through colonization of empty patches and supplementation of occupied patches (Rabasa et al. 2007). According to Van Dyck & Baguette (2005) dispersal is a process consisting of emigration (crossing habitat boundaries), landscape traversal (including resource-poor matrix) and settlement. In such cases dispersal is initially realized as a by-product of a search for daily resources by routine movements, or by special movements intended to result in displacement and settlement at a distance from the previous or natal site. Vuilleumier et al. (2007) states that colonization of habitat patches is more likely to occur between adjacent patches, and accordingly the spatial configuration of patches in the matrix affects the capability of a given species to disperse. Thus the amount of, and distance between, habitat patches amidst the matrix (in this case agricultural fields) defines their degree of dispersal facilitation by acting as “stepping stones”.

While some few thistles in a large field of grain could be stepping stones between each other or two pockets of edge habitat for a given species of parasitic wasp (Apocrita sp.), a given bird species such as quail (Bonasa bonasia) would likely require that such isolated patches in the field be far more substantial and frequent for it to brave predation dangers the matrix between. Conversely magpies (Pica pica) would not need the stepping stones at all. This exemplifies that what also controls the degree of dispersal for individuals in a fragmented landscape is scale dependant; i.e. the accessibility of habitat patches is related to the individual species dispersal capabilities (Turner 2005), and as stated above it appears that the OA farms of this meta-analysis also contain greater patchiness possessing offering different degree of qualities for the individual species groups. However, stepping stone habitat is only one side of the connectivity coin. The other side is linear “corridor”

habitat. Such linear habitats are presumptively believed to be important for facilitating dispersal for individual species depending on their landscape context, habitat type, scale, and nature of the connected patches (MacDonald 2003). Fewer than half of the studies gave persuasive results in a meta-analysis by Beier & Noss (1998) on the effectiveness of dispersal facilitation by corridors. Nevertheless the authors state that evidence from the well designed studies suggest that corridors in fact are very effective (Beier & Noss 1998). A study by Pocock & Jennings (2007) for example found that shrews (Sorex spp.) and bats were strongly sensitive to boundary loss. Again, in looking at the OA farms of this meta-analysis, the greater majority of them are described as possessing a higher proportion and /quality of non-crop field edges which are likely to facilitate dispersal for a greater array of species depending on their qualities.

According to Rabasa et al. (2007), many studies demonstrate that habitat quality is possibly of greater importance than size and degree of connectivity in shaping metapopulation dynamics. It is common to regard an amount of habitat area as a potential indication of population size for a given species while overlooking the crucial role that even miniscule differences in quality can play (Pellet et al. 2007). This is particularly important regarding how one identifies potential source and sink habitat patches for a metapopulation, as the largest patches are not necessarily the sources (Tveit 2008). An example of this was partially observed in Chamberlain et al.’s (1999) study (above) when they explain the possible reasons for greater bird densities on OA farms only outside the breeding season. Potentially greater breeding success despite lower density of individuals through ideal despotic distribution would in the case of Chamberlain et al.(1999) make his OA sites an unanticipated source. In addition to being more structurally divers as indicated by this meta-analysis, stability is an apparent quality more intrinsic to OA non-crop habitats as indicated by plant studies which inclusion of species associated with more stable conditions (e.g. Aude et al. 2004; Boutin et al. 2008; Gabriel et al. 2006; Pfiffner & Luka 2003). Disturbance in this case is most likely experienced through the drift of agro-chemicals (synthetic herbicides/pesticides and fertilizers) applications which can have enormous spatial and temporal implications for species richness and abundance. Furthermore, soil conservation practices such as no-till are increasing in popularity in OA (Badgley et al. 2006). Vuilleumier et al. (2007) expects that metapopulation persistence can be highly influenced by disturbances that directly increase the extent of local extinctions and /or reduce the pool of empty patches that could be colonized.

The thin edge of the connectivity coin often overlooked, is the boundary between habitat and surrounding matrix. The ecological characteristics of matrix are also influential on migration rates between



fragments (Jules & Shahani 2003). Depending on a particular species the habiat-matrix boundary can either be relatively impervious, or highly porous (Collinge 1996). Many see the agricultural matrix initially as desolate and inhospitable for patch-species and focus is thus directed on the value of patches. However Jules & Shahani (2003) suggest that matrix can in fact be of value for certain species. In their example of pollinators, an increase in the amount of flowering plant species in the matrix can increase its permeability, while simultaneously augmenting pollinator numbers which could in turn augment pollination effectiveness in proximal patches. We can recall that this resembles the theorized catch twenty-two explanation by Gabriel et al. (2007) for greater abundance and richness of insect pollinated plants on OA farms, i.e. more pollinators = more flowering plants = more pollinators = etc. A significantly greater matrix quality is one area in particular where OA management is indeed drastically different from CA management. This is primarily the result of greater stability as described above, which as seen in this study can further result not only in a greater diversity of flowering plants, but a greater diversity of these plants within the fields, i.e. matrix. Furthermore, OA farms are in general more extensive and by being so incorporate more flowering plants (quite often nitrogen fixing plants, e.g. legumes) in their crop rotations (Stolze et al. 2000) as actual crop plants (e.g. soybean Glycine max) and/or as green manure plants (e.g. red clover Trifolium

pretense). This extension of vegetative structural heterogeneity in the OA matrix in addition to greater stability has obvious positive implications for matrix quality regarding arthropods, with further implications for species which are top-down dependant (recource limited) on these, such as bats (Hendrickx et al. 2007; Wickramasinghe et al. 2004).

It is logical that the positive effects of OA on facilitation of dispersal and settlement should be particularly important for species groups with relatively limited dispersal capabilities such as certain plants and apterous arthropods, as well as species not limited by dispersal capabilities but otherwise possess narrow habitat requirements (regarding e.g. size, shape, disturbance regime, distances between separate resources such as nesting sites and foraging sites, etc) such as small to medium sized bumblebees (Bombus spp.), Skylark (Alauda

arvensis), or grass snake (Natrix natrix). For example a study by Aviron et al. (2005) addressing ground/tiger beetle (Carabidae) assemblages in relation to land use intensity level, divided these up into species with low (LM) vs. high mobility (HM) with the hypothesis that LM species perceive the landscape at fine scales and HM species at coarser scales. The results revealed that LM species, often large and apterous, responded best to the proportion of woody elements in landscape context at the intermediate scale of analysis (250 m) and to the amount of

crops at fine scale (50 m) (Aviron et al. 2005). Likewise, HM species, usually smaller, displayed no response to landscape descriptors at any scale (Aviron et al. 2005). Thus landscape context had a significant effect on carabid species assemblages based on their dispersal abilities, however lower than that of habitat type (Aviron et al. 2005). The greatest proportion of area covered by landscape descriptors of importance to LM carabids (woodland and fallow land, permanent grasslands, and increased hedgerow density) were in the least intensive agricultural landscapes (Aviron et al. 2005). Moreover, the lesser the extent of recurrent disturbances in the less intensely driven landscapes, such as ploughing, may also have been important consequence for the LM species as these are most affected by due to greater needs for stable resources (Aviron et al. 2005). In light of examples like this it is clear that one major weakness in many OA vs. CA biodiversity studies with mixed or insignificant results is clearly due to the generalization of species groups. Nearly every study that went a step further than simple taxonomic divisions and additionally looked at the dispersal abilities and/or niche width of their samples discovered that those individual species which are particularly limited in regard to dispersal or niche were those with the most positive associations to greater vegetative structural heterogeneity, habitat patch diversity, and/or surrounding landscape heterogeneity (e.g. Boutin et al. 2008; Gabriel et al. 2006; Pfiffner & Luka 2003; Roschewitz et al. 2005; Rundlof et al. 2008; Wickramasinghe et al. 2003). One more misleading error seems to be not taking into account the surrounding landscape heterogeneity at all. Every study which specifically looked at farm pairs in landscapes with different degrees of complexity uncovered that OA vs. CA pairs in landscapes with high heterogeneity showed either a synergistic effect between OA and surrounding landscape, or little difference at all. Likewise pairs in homogenous landscapes on the contrary showed results clearly favouring OA (e.g. Aviron et al. 2005; Boutin et al. 2008; Clough et al. 2007a; Clough et al. 2007b; Purtauf et al. 2005; Roschewitz et al. 2005; Rundlof & Smith 2006; Rundlof et al. 2008; Schmidt et al. 2005).

Other Meta-analyses Asking if OA benefits biodiversity, Hole et al.

(2005) appear to think that the answerer is yes based on their own meta-analysis on this topic. Their explanation of the visible benefits of OA management are based on its provision of a greater quantity and/or quality of both crop and non-crop habitat than in CA (Hole et al. 2005). Furthermore they list three broad characteristics of management largely intrinsic though not exclusive to OA which are likely to benefit farmland biodiversity, these being; i: “prohibition/reduced use of chemical pesticides and inorganic fertilisers” ii: “sympathetic management of non-crop habitats and field margins” iii: “preservation of



mixed farming” (Hole et al. 2005). Bengtsson et al. (2005) also found that OA is frequently associated with positive effects on species richness and abundance, though these effects are likely to differ between organism groups and landscapes. Here, birds, predatory insects, soil organisms and plants responded positively to organic farming, whereas non-predatory insects and pests did not (Bengtsson et al. 2005). Furthermore, OA’s positive effects on abundance were most important at the plot and field scales, but not for farms in matched landscapes (Bengtsson et al. 2005). The meta-analysis by Fuller et al. (2005) agrees that organic farming is associated with higher levels of biodiversity and that significant differences are recorded based on species groups. Like Bengtsson et al. (2005), Fuller et al. (2005) agrees that plant studies in particular displayed far more consistent and pronounced results in favour of OA than studies on other taxonomic groups, however Fuller et al. (2005) disagrees with Bengtsson et al. (2005) regarding studies of predatory invertebrates and states that these only occasionally demonstrated significant responses. For other species groups Fuller et al. (2005) further states that though many significant differences are uncovered, these often possess wide confidence intervals.

This meta-analysis corresponds with these other more thorough journal published meta-analyses in seeing that OA farms differ from CA equivalents in habitat extent, composition and management (Fuller et al. 2005). Granted this, and the exclusion of agrochemicals in the matrix, it seems sensible to expect far more significant results from studies on this topic than has been the case. Like this study, Fuller et al. (2005) points to the differential impacts of temporal and spatial scales on the colonization traits of organisms as a likely explanation to the discrepancies regarding results. Plants for example are more immediately affected by herbicide and fertilizer application and can quickly recolonize from the seed bank following conversion to OA, while recolonization of other species groups appears to be more directly dependant on proximity to population sources in time and space (Fuller et al. 2005). Otherwise these other meta-analyses seem to overlook potential differences in niche requirements and dispersal capabilities of specific species within a taxonomic group under focus.

Moreover, the result interpretations within these other meta-analyses are not discussed to any great detail in light of landscape ecological theories other than with brief statements, as if such theories are too obvious to question. This is strange given statements from authoritive authors such as Brown & Lomolino (2000), e.g. “It (island biogeography theory) has not kept pace with relevant theory and our growing appreciation for the complexity of nature, especially with empirical findings”, or Pellet et al. (2007) “Although widely used in conservation, metapopulation models are based on multiple simplifying assumptions that rarely have been validated empirically”,

while others like Collinge (1996) state “Ecologists are increasingly able to understand and predict the consequences of human-induced loss and isolation of native habitats due to the concepts of island biogeography and metapopulation dynamics, combined with empirical field studies in fragmented habitats”.

Conclusion The story of modern agriculture has sadly

emphasized uncritical maximization of short term gain rather than long term sustainability, which has resulted in the fragmentation and homogenization of our cultural landscapes. In landscapes rendered most penurious by intense conventional agriculture, islands of organic management appear to stand out like biodiversity oases, while differences in biodiversity parameters between organic and conventional management seem more obscure in landscapes still rich in complexity. It is these obscurities in the apparently richer landscapes that organic agriculture may or may not be playing important roles for biodiversity which to date have mostly eluded scientific remark, e.g. greater matrix quality, higher diversity of insect pollinated plants, or greater nesting success for farmland birds.

Whether agricultural land surrounds protected areas or smaller fragments of natural to seminatural environment, or conversely dominates the view of the landscape, it deserves cultivation that conserves the ecological integrity of the landscape by facilitating heterogeneity and the migration of species. Organic management with its positive trends in biodiversity need not be the modern biodiversity solution in agriculture, but continues offering important lessons which to a larger extent should be dissected by the facets of landscape ecology. Future studies addressing this topic will benefit from a higher degree of classification by species phenology, guild and degree of dispersal capability, together with more highly defined and directly tested explanatory factors in farm management and landscape scale and qualities, with larger spatial and temporal samples sizes.

Acknowledgements This study was facilitated by the course in landscape

ecology at the Department of Landscape Architecture and Spatial Planning with Norwegian University of Life Science. Thanks to my wife’s tolerance of me working long hours at school. Thanks to the course teachers Mari Tveit and Gary Fry for constructive insight. This paper was supported by the lånekassen.



References Underlined references were studies used directly in the meta-analysis Aude, E., Tybirk, K., Michelsen, A., Ejrnaes, R., Hald, A.

B. & Mark, S. (2004). Conservation value of the herbaceous vegetation in hedgerows - does organic farming make a difference? Biological

Conservation, 118 (4): 467-478. Aviron, S., Burel, F., Baudry, J. & Schermann, N. (2005).

Carabid assemblages in agricultural landscapes: impacts of habitat features, landscape context at different spatial scales and farming intensity. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 108 (3): 205-217.

Badgley, C., Moghtader, J., Quintero, E., Zakem, E., Chappell, J., Avile´s-Va´zquez, K., Samulon, A. & Perfecto, I. (2006). Organic Agriculture and the Global Food Supply. Renewable Agriculture and

Food Systems, 22 (2): 86-108. Beier, P. & Noss, R. F. (1998). Do habitat corridors

provide connectivity Conservation Biology, 12 (6): 1241-1252.

Belfrage, K., Bjørklund, J. & Salomonsson, L. (2005). The Effects of Farm Size and Organic Farming on Diversity of Birds, Pollinators, and Plants in a Swedish Landscape. AMBIO: A Journal of the

Human Environment, 34 (8): 582-588. Bengtsson, J., Ahnstrom, J. & Weibull, A.-C. (2005). The

effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Ecology, 42 (2): 261-269. Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A. & Wilson, J. D. (2003).

Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18 (4): 182-188.

Boutin, C., Baril, A. & Martin, P. A. (2008). Plant diversity in crop fields and woody hedgerows of organic and conventional farms in contrasting landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 123 (1-3): 185-193.

Brown, J. H. & Lomolino, M. V. (2000). Concluding remarks: historical perspective and the future of island biogeography theory. Global Ecology and

Biogeography, 9 (1): 87-92. Chamberlain, D. E., Wilson, J. D. & Fuller, R. J. (1999). A

comparison of bird populations on organic and conventional farm systems in southern Britain. Biological Conservation, 88 (3): 307-320.

Clough, Y., Kruess, A., Kleijn, D. & Tscharntke, T. (2005). Spider diversity in cereal fields: comparing factors at local, landscape and regional scales. Journal of Biogeography, 32 (11): 2007-2014.

Clough, Y., Holzschuh, A., Gabriel, D., Purtauf, T., Kleijn, D., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I. & Tscharntke, T. (2007a). Alpha and beta diversity of arthropods and plants in organically and conventionally managed wheat fields. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44 (4): 804-812.

Clough, Y., Kruess, A. & Tscharntke, T. (2007b). Local and landscape factors in differently managed arable fields affect the insect herbivore community of a non-crop plant species. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44 (1): 22-28.

Collinge, S. K. (1996). Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for landscape architecture and planning. Landscape and Urban

Planning, 36 (1): 59-77. Ekroos, J., Piha, M. & Tiainen, J. (2007). Role of organic

and conventional field boundaries on boreal bumblebees and butterflies. Agriculture, Ecosystems

& Environment, In Press, Corrected Proof. FAO. (2007). Biodiversity and organic agriculture.

Biodiversity, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.

Feber, R. E., Johnson, P. J., Firbank, L. G., Hopkins, A. & Macdonald, D. W. (2007). A comparison of butterfly populations on organically and conventionally managed farmland. Journal of Zoology, 273 (1): 30-39.

Freckleton, R. P. & Watkinson, A. R. (2002). Large-scale spatial dynamics of plants: metapopulations, regional ensembles and patchy populations. Journal

of Ecology, 90 (3): 419-434. Freemark, K. E. & Kirk, D. A. (2001). Birds on organic

and conventional farms in Ontario: partitioning effects of habitat and practices on species composition and abundance. Biological

Conservation, 101 (3): 337-350. Fuller, R. J., Norton, L. R., Feber, R. E., Johnson, P. J.,

Chamberlain, D. E., Joys, A. C., Mathews, F., Stuart, R. C., Townsend, M. C., Manley, W. J., Wolfe, M. S., Macdonald, D. W. & Firbank, L. G. (2005). Benefits of Organic Farming to Biodiversity Vary Among Taxa. Biology Letters, 1: 431-434.

Gabriel, D., Roschewitz, I., Tscharntke, T. & Thies, C. (2006). Beta Diversity at Different Spatial Scales: Plant Communities in Organic and Conventional Agriculture. Ecological Applications, Ecological

Society of America, 16 (5): 2011–2021. Gabriel, D. & Tscharntke, T. (2007). Insect pollinated

plants benefit from organic farming. Agriculture,

Ecosystems & Environment, 118 (1-4): 43-48. Gibson, R. H., Pearce, S., Morris, R. J., Symondson, W. O.

C. & Memmott, J. (2007). Plant diversity and land use under organic and conventional agriculture: a whole-farm approach. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44 (4): 792-803.



Hald, A. B. (1999). Weed vegetation (wild flora) of long established organic versus conventional cereal fields in Denmark. Annals of Applied Biology, 134 (3): 307-314.

Hanski, I. A. (1997). Metapopulation dynamics: from

concepts and observations to predictive models

Metapopulation Biology: Ecology, Genetics and Evolution. London, Academic Press

Hendrickx, F., Maelfait, J.-P., Van Wingerden, W., Schweiger, O., Speelmans, M., Aviron, S., Augenstein, I., Billeter, R., Bailey, D., Bukacek, R., Burel, F., Diekotter, T. I. M., Dirksen, J., Herzog, F., Liira, J., Roubalova, M., Vandomme, V. & Bugter, R. O. B. (2007). How landscape structure, land-use intensity and habitat diversity affect components of total arthropod diversity in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44 (2): 340-351.

Hole, D. G., Perkins, A. J., Wilson, J. D., Alexander, I. H., Grice, P. V. & Evans, A. D. (2005). Does Organic Farming Benefit Biodiversity? Biological

Conservation, 122: 113-130. Hyvönen, T., Ketoja, E., Salonen, J., Jalli, H. & Tiainen, J.

(2003). Weed species diversity and community composition in organic and conventional cropping of spring cereals. Agriculture, Ecosystems &

Environment, 97 (1-3): 131-149. IFOAM. (2007). Priciples of Organic Agriculture:

Preamble. International Federation of Organic

Agricultural Movements; The Principles of Organic

Agriculture 4. IUCN. (2006a). A situation analysis for the IUCN 2009-

2012 programme - DRAFT. International Union for

the Conservation of Nature; The IUCN Programme

2005 - 2008, Many Voices, One Earth: 60. IUCN. (2006b). A situation analysis for the IUCN 2009-

2012 programme - DRAFT. Internation Union for

the Conservation of Nature; The IUCN Programme

2005 - 2008, Many Voices, One Earth: 60. Jules, E. S. & Shahani, P. (2003). A broader ecological

context to habitat fragmentation: Why matrix habitat is more important than we thought. Journal of

Vegetation Science, 14 (3): 459-464. Krebs, J. R., Wilson, J. D., Bradbury, R. B. & Siriwardena,

G. M. (1999). The second Silent Spring? Nature, 400 (6745): 611-612.

Levin, S. A. & Paine, R. T. (1974). Disturbance, Patch Formation, and Community Structure. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences of the United

States of America, 71 (7): 2744-2747. MacArthur, R. H. & Wilson, E. O. (1967). The Theory of

Island Biogeography. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

MacDonald, M. A. (2003). The role of corridors in biodiversity conservation in production forest

landscapes: a literature review. Tasforests, 14: 41-52.

Pellet, J., Fleishman, E., Dobkin, D. S., Gander, A. & Murphy, D. D. (2007). An empirical evaluation of the area and isolation paradigm of metapopulation dynamics. Biological Conservation, 136 (3): 483-495.

Petersen, S., Axelsen, J. A., Tybirk, K., Aude, E. & Vestergaard, P. (2006). Effects of organic farming on field boundary vegetation in Denmark. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 113 (1-4): 302-306.

Pfiffner, L. & Luka, H. (2003). Effects of low-input farming systems on carabids and epigeal spiders - a paired farm approach. Basic and Applied Ecology, 4 (2): 117-127.

Pocock, M. J. O. & Jennings, N. (2007). Testing biotic indicator taxa: the sensitivity of insectivorous mammals and their prey to the intensification of lowland agriculture. Journal of Applied Ecology;, Online Early Articles.

Pretty, J. & Hine, R. (2001). Reducing Food Poverty with Sustainable Agriculture: A Summary of New Evidence. Final Report from the “SAFE-World”

(The Potential of Sustainable Agriculture to Feed

the World) Research Project, Centre for Environment and Society, University of Essex. 133 s.

Purtauf, T., Roschewitz, I., Dauber, J., Thies, C., Tscharntke, T. & Wolters, V. (2005). Landscape context of organic and conventional farms: Influences on carabid beetle diversity. Agriculture,

Ecosystems & Environment, 108 (2): 165-174. Rabasa, S. G., Gutirrez, D. & Escudero, A. (2007).

Metapopulation structure and habitat quality in modelling dispersal in the butterfly Iolana iolas. Oikos, 116: 793-806.

Reidsma, P., Tekelenburg, T., van den Berg, M. & Alkemade, R. (2006). Impacts of land-use change on biodiversity: An assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the European Union. Agriculture,

Ecosystems & Environment, 114 (1): 86-102. Risser, P. G., J.R., K. & R.T.T., F. (1984). Landscape

Ecology: Directions and Approaches. Special Publication 2. Champaign, IllinoisNatural History Survey.

Romero, A., Chamorro, L. & Sans, F. X. (2007). Weed diversity in crop edges and inner fields of organic and conventional dryland winter cereal crops in NE Spain. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, In Press, Corrected Proof.

Roschewitz, I., Gabriel, D., Tscharntke, T. & Thies, C. (2005). The effects of landscape complexity on arable weed species diversity in organic and



conventional farming. Journal of Applied Ecology, 42 (5): 873-882.

Rundlof, M. & Smith, H. G. (2006). The effect of organic farming on butterfly diversity depends on landscape context. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43 (6): 1121-1127.

Rundlof, M., Nilsson, H. & Smith, H. G. (2008). Interacting effects of farming practice and landscape context on bumble bees. Biological Conservation, 141 (2): 417-426.

Schmidt, M. H., Roschewitz, I., Thies, C. & Tscharntke, T. (2005). Differential effects of landscape and management on diversity and density of ground-dwelling farmland spiders. Journal of Applied

Ecology, 42 (2): 281-287. Scialabba, N. & Williamson, D. (2004). The Scope of

Organic Agriculture, Sustainable Forest Management and Ecoforestry in Protected Area Management. I: FAO (red.). Working Paper No.18. Rome, Italy, Environment and Natural Resources Service Sustainable Development Department. 53 s.

Stoate, C., Boatman, N. D., Borralho, R. J., Carvalho, C. R., Snoo, G. R. d. & Eden, P. (2001). Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe. Journal

of Environmental Management, 63 (4): 337-365. Stolze, M., Piorr, A., Häring, A. & Dabbert, S. (2000). The

Environmental Impacts of Organic Farming in Europe. I: Häring, A. (red.). Organic Farming in

Europe: Economics and Policy. Ettlingen, Germany, University of Hohenheim/Department of Farm Economics. 127 s.

Turner, M. G. (2005). LANDSCAPE ECOLOGY: What Is the State of the Science? Annual Review of Ecology,

Evolution, and Systematics, 36 (1): 319-344. Tveit, M. S. (2008). Habitat lecture. Norwegian University

of Life Sciences. Van Dyck, H. & Baguette, M. (2005). Dispersal behaviour

in fragmented landscapes: Routine or special movements? Basic and Applied Ecology, 6 (6): 535-545.

Vandermeer, J. & Perfecto, I. (2007). The Agricultural Matrix and a Future Paradigm for Conservation. Conservation Biology, 21 (1): 274-277.

Vuilleumier, S., Wilcox, C., Cairns, B. J. & Possingham, H. P. (2007). How patch configuration affects the impact of disturbances on metapopulation persistence. Theoretical Population Biology, 72 (1): 77-85.

Wickramasinghe, L. P., Harris, S., Jones, G. & Vaughan, N. (2003). Bat activity and species richness on organic and conventional farms: impact of agricultural intensification. Journal of Applied

Ecology, 40 (6): 984-993.

Wickramasinghe, L. P., Harris, S., Jones, G. & Vaughan Jennings, N. (2004). Abundance and Species Richness of Nocturnal Insects on Organic and Conventional Farms: Effects of Agricultural Intensification on Bat Foraging. Conservation

Biology, 18 (5): 1283-1292. Wu, J. & Hobbs, R. J. (2007). Synthesis: Landscape

ecology: the state-of-the-science. I: Wu, J. & Hobbs, R. J. (red.) Key Topics in Landscape Ecology. New York, Cambridge University Press.

WWF. (2006). Living Planet Report 2006. I: WWF (red.), Zoological Society of London & Global Footprint Nettwork. 44 s.

solutions for biodiversity in organic agriculture?

Documents

agricultural intensity

landscape omogeneity

agricultural landscapes

agricultural inhomogeneity

conventional agriculture

organic farming

temperate regions

meta key words