Plot measures, not affecting yield

Overview of measures

The interest in farming practices that maintain yield, while minimizing environmental impacts of crop production is certainly growing. These practices help a farmer to reduce the amount of external inputs, replacing them by enhanced ecosystem services. This means that instead of adding excessive amounts of fertilizers and pesticides, the capability of the agri-environment is enhanced (Bommarco, Kleijn, & Potts, 2013).

These measures affect yield only minimally, because they include measures that should be taken after the growing season on the one hand, while covering certain practices during the growing season on the other hand. The categories defined are soil related practices, catch crops and other practices.

Soil related

Several measures to enhance the environment while not affecting the yield are related to soil. All of these practices take place after the growing season. They include mulching the ground, stubble and exercising no-till agriculture.

Catch/cover crops

Catch and cover crops are essentially the same, although the goal of the both concepts is different. Both are plants that grow in between two main crops and both are usually not harvested. Cover crops are used to cover the soil and reduce soil erosion, while catch crops take up the excess nitrogen and thus prevent leaching. Although both have another goal, the practice is the same and they are therefore looked into together 1.

Other practices

Also other practices are mentioned by policy makers. There is no great coherence in these measures, as these are neither measures that were soil related nor catch/cover crops. They include under- sowing, late mowing and limited use of mechanical equipment.

Comparison and details

⬤ Agri-environmental schemes ⬤ Greening ⬤ Less favoured area payment

Category	Expected from farmer	Environmental benefits	Price	Examples of regions	Barriers	Opportunities
Soil related; mulch ⬤	Use of mulch (plant-based) in cropping	Water quality Biodiversity Carbon sequestration Erosion		Nord-Pas-De-Calais	Might increase pests and diseases Allelopathy towards the crop might occur Flammability of the dry mulch	Can be adopted by small and large farmer Not a high burden of application Less erosion Better water retention Improved seedling germination because of higher soil temperature
Soil related; stubble ⬤	Remain stubbles in field during the winter	Preserve organic matter Reduce run-off Biodiversity Habitat for birds (they eat left-over grains)	138-354 EUR/ha	Wales Latvia Netherlands	Burden of seed bank (of no glyphosate application)	Less erosion Snow is conserved on the land and creates benefits such as water infiltration and warming up of the ground
Soil related; no-till ⬤	Farmer cannot or only for a small part till soil	Minimize soil damage Reduce erosion Reduce leaching of nitrogen Biodiversity		Lower Saxony	Weed control is harder, more herbicide use is necessary Crop establishment problems might occur More variability in yield Only suitable for well drained soils Possible problems of residual plough pans	Crop yield may be higher after a while Lower cost of production Reduced erosion Greater capacity of soil to bare water
Catch crops ⬤ ⬤	Cultivation of catch crops	Reduced nutrient leaching from arable land Reduced erosion More soil organic matter	130-682 EUR/ha	Sweden Poland Finland Romania Lower Saxony Wales	Cost of sowing Slower warming up of the soil Slower demineralization of plant Possible interference with cash crop Not complementary with winter ploughing	Improve pest suppression Improve yield of cash crop More SOM in soil Keep nutrients from leaching Less erosion
Other practices; under-sowing ⬤	Under-sowing in crops: make sure to maintain both the first and under-sowed crop are maintained	Biodiversity Water quality (lower use of pesticides and less leaching) Carbon sequestration		Lower Saxony Wales	Reduced yield Problems with destruction of under sowed crop at harvest Problem with use of herbicides	Better weed control Take up of excess nitrogen Higher SOM
Other practices; Mowing ⬤	Mow hard land that is hard to access Do not mow during a certain period	Preserve habitat Maintain biodiversity	58 EUR/ha (Romania)	Bavaria Austria Romania	Extra cost of mowing equipment Lower quality of grass if late mowing	Land does not become forested Yield is maintained and payment is given
Other practices; Less irrigation ⬤	Use less irrigation	Not make land more saline Reduce downstream disposal of irrigated land with nutrients and pesticides Reduce use of water		Portugal Spain	Irrigation is needed to maintain yield No use of sunk cost of installation	Irrigation might make soils saline Irrigation might spread water borne diseases The maintenance cost is not applicable anymore Cost of water

Case studies:

Management for farmbirds in West-Sussex, UK

This case study covers four farms in the South of England. The farms have a mix of arable and grassland, of which some grasslands can be considered wetlands as well. All the land is managed for the greatest benefit of farmland birds. Therefore, buffer strips, over-wintered stubbles and unharvested headlands are implemented. The results of the implemented measures are incredible. Over the six years that was reported of (2003-2009) the grey partridge, corn bunting and skylarks have all grown heavily. Also mammals, wildflowers and associated insects have increased during these years. The particular case study does not mention any social and economic benefits for farmers, although these could be expected.

Source: Natural England. (2009). Farming with nature. Agri-environment schemes in action. Retrieved from http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/41005

ID kit

What:	Management of land for birds
Location:	West-Sussex, UK
Duration:	/
Area:	4 farms
Measures taken:	Over-wintered stubbles Buffer strips Unharvested headlands
Results:	More birds More wildlife More wildflowers and associated insects