Premium
Plant diversity and land use under organic and conventional agriculture: a whole‐farm approach
Author(s) -
GIBSON R. H.,
PEARCE S.,
MORRIS R. J.,
SYMONDSON W. O. C.,
MEMMOTT J.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
journal of applied ecology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.503
H-Index - 181
eISSN - 1365-2664
pISSN - 0021-8901
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01292.x
Subject(s) - species richness , woodland , organic farming , arable land , agroforestry , abundance (ecology) , ecology , habitat , biodiversity , geography , agriculture , intensive farming , land use , species diversity , environmental science , biology
Summary1 Organic farming is thought to lead to increased biodiversity and greater sustainability than higher‐yielding conventional farming systems. It is usually assumed that organic farms have both larger and higher quality areas of semi‐natural habitats, although this assumption has not been unequivocally tested. 2 Here we test the hypothesis that in comparison to conventional farms, organic farms have larger areas of semi‐natural and boundary vegetation, and organic farms support higher levels of plant abundance, richness and diversity within cropped and semi‐natural areas. 3 Our study compared whole‐farms: 10 organic farms were paired with 10 conventional farms in a complex landscape in the south‐west of England. On average, organic farms were 7·3 years post conversion. Plant abundance, species richness and diversity were measured in all crop and non‐crop landscape elements on each farm. 4 Organic farms had greater total areas of semi‐natural habitat (woodland, field margins and hedgerows combined). Woodland area on it's own was also significantly greater. Organic farms had more continuous blocks of woodland (with simpler perimeters than similarly sized patches on conventional farms), whereas woodland on conventional farms often consisted of more linear patches. 5 Semi‐natural habitats on organic farms did not have higher plant abundance, richness or diversity than their conventional counterparts. The only landscape element that showed a significant increase in plant abundance, richness or diversity was arable fields. 6 Synthesis and applications . Even within a complex agricultural landscape differences do exist between organic and conventional farms, these differences being larger areas of semi‐natural habitats on organic farms. However, with the exception of arable fields, no habitats on organic farms were yet of a better quality than their conventional counterparts in terms of plant abundance and diversity. Conventional farmers may be able to achieve an increase in plant diversity within arable fields by adopting some organic management practices at the field scale (e.g. exclusion of synthetic herbicides), and whole‐farm conversion to organic practice might not be required. However, further work is needed to determine any biodiversity benefits of larger areas of semi‐natural habitat on conventional farmland.