Diversifying crop rotations with temporary grasslands - Université de ...

concern whole fields and thus a larger proportion of the area, and may therefore have higher
impacts on the environment, soil quality, and biodiversity. This is firstly important for
organisms with low spatial dispersal abilities including soil micro-organisms, invertebrates
and plants, but also for higher organisms such as a number of farmland birds, that rely on the
provision of food resources on big surfaces and ‘open’ habitats (Siriwardena et al., 2006;
Storkey and Westbury, 2007). Modelling results from farming systems in the Netherlands
indicated that rotating wildlife conservation practices across the farm (such as OSFs) is
economically more efficient than fixed-location practices such as wildlife strips (Van Wenum
et al., 2004).
Time
Maximum separation Maximum integration
1) Large scale
spatial separation
2) Small scale
spatial separation
3) Spatio-temporal
mosaic
Intensive production
Conservation
Less intensive production and conservation
Fig. 5: Comparison of strategies for combining agricultural production and biodiversity conservation.
The four strategies on the left lie on a separation-integration gradient. In strategies 1 and 2, some parts of the land
are intensively farmed while other parts are unfarmed nature reserves (large- and small-scale spatial separation,
respectively). In strategies 3 and 4, all land is farmed, either always with a lower intensity in order to integrate
biodiversity (strategy 4) or on a rotational scale forming a spatio-temporal mosaic of high, low and no crop
production, as well as high and low values for biodiversity (strategy 3). See further descriptions in Table 3. The
column of figures on the right shows a possible combination of the four strategies.
17
4) Complete
integration
Combination of
strategies