English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Intensification of agricultural land-use was shown to be the key reason behind declines in wildlife species associated with farmland. I looked at scenarios of agricultural development across the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and the ways they are seen to affect farmed environments as a habitat of farmland bird species. Community richness and abundance of many farmland bird species were positively related to the number of non-cropped elements within farmland, the local mixture of annual crop and grass fields, and the variety of field types. The above positive associations were strongest in open landscapes. There was a clear indication that the more intensively farmed areas across the region provided habitat for fewer bird species and individuals. The difference could partly be explained by the more heterogeneous landscape and field areas in the latter. Within homogenous arable fields intensification of field management was reflected in a tangible decrease in farmland bird abundance, especially in species in need of edge structures. Based on the interviews in Estonia and Finland I explored farmers’ interest in and knowledge of farmland wildlife, their understanding of the concept of biodiversity, and awareness of the potential causes behind declines of farmland birds. Many farmers viewed biodiversity from a narrow perspective often excluding species directly related to farming. In Finland farmers expressed concern about the decline in common farmland species, but Estonian farmers did not, which might be related to the fact that these species are still very common. In both countries farmers rated intensification of agriculture as the major driving force behind farmland bird declines. The expressed interest in wildlife positively correlated with willingness to undertake wildlife-friendly measures. Only farmers with agri-environment contracts targeted specifically at biodiversity enhancement were more knowledgeable about practical on-farm activities favouring wildlife, and were more willing to employ them that the rest. The results suggest that, by contributing to simplification of the farmland structure, homogenisation of crops, and increase in intensity of field use EU agricultural policies will have a detrimental effect on farmland bird populations in Eastern Europe. Farmers are on the whole positive to the idea of supporting wildlife in the fields, and are concerned about its decline, but they require payments to offset their income loss and extra work. Biodiversity conservation should be better integrated into the agri-environment programmes if it to serve as awareness tool for farmers. I argue that with a foreseen tripling of cereal yields across the region, the EU Council’s Göteborg target of slowing biodiversity decline by 2010 may not be realistic unless considerable improvements are made into the EU agricultural policy for the region.

Farmland bird communities in the Baltic region: impact of agricultural intensification and farmers’ attitudes