Agri-environment schemes are an increasingly important tool for the maintenance and restoration of farmland biodiversity in Europe but their ecological effects are poorly known. Scheme design is partly based on non-ecological considerations and poses important restrictions on evaluation studies. We describe a robust approach to evaluate agri-environment schemes and use it to evaluate the biodiversity effects of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. We compared species density of vascular plants, birds, bees, grasshoppers and crickets, and spiders on 202 paired fields, one with an agri-environment scheme, the other conventionally managed. In all countries, agri-environment schemes had marginal to moderately positive effects on biodiversity. However, uncommon species benefited in only two of five countries and species listed in Red Data Books rarely benefited from agri-environment schemes. Scheme objectives may need to differentiate between biodiversity of common species that can be enhanced with relatively simple modifications in farming practices and diversity or abundance of endangered species which require more elaborate conservation measures.

Worldwide agriculture is one of the main drivers of biodiversity decline. Effective conservation strategies depend on the type of relationship between biodiversity and land-use intensity, but to date the shape of this relationship is unknown. We linked plant species richness with nitrogen (N) input as an indicator of land-use intensity on 130 grasslands and 141 arable fields in six European countries. Using Poisson regression, we found that plant species richness was significantly negatively related to N input on both field types after the effects of confounding environmental factors had been accounted for. Subsequent analyses showed that exponentially declining relationships provided a better fit than linear or unimodal relationships and that this was largely the result of the response of rare species (relative cover less than 1%). Our results indicate that conservation benefits are disproportionally more costly on high-intensity than on low-intensity farmland. For example, reducing N inputs from 75 to 0 and 400 to 60 kg ha −1  yr −1 resulted in about the same estimated species gain for arable plants. Conservation initiatives are most (cost-)effective if they are preferentially implemented in extensively farmed areas that still support high levels of biodiversity.

There is increasing recognition that ecosystems and their services need to be managed in the face of environmental change. However, there is little consensus as to the optimum scale for management. This is particularly acute in the agricultural environment given the level of public investment in agri-environment schemes (AES). Using a novel multiscale hierarchical sampling design, we assess the effect of land use at multiple spatial scales (from location-within-field to regions) on farmland biodiversity. We show that on-farm biodiversity components depend on farming practices (organic vs. conventional) at farm and landscape scales, but this strongly interacts with fine- and coarse-scale variables. Different taxa respond to agricultural practice at different spatial scales and often at multiple spatial scales. Hence, AES need to target multiple spatial scales to maximize effectiveness. Novel policy levers may be needed to encourage multiple land managers within a landscape to adopt schemes that create landscape-level benefits.

Summary 1.There is growing concern about declining species diversity in agro-ecosystems caused by agricultural intensification at the field and landscape scales. Species diversity of arable weeds is classically related to local abiotic factors and resource conditions. It is believed to be enhanced by organic farming but the surrounding landscape may also be important. 2. This study assessed the ruderal vegetation, seed bank and seed rain in 24 winter wheat fields to examine the relative importance of organic vs. conventional farming and landscape complexity for weed species diversity. Diversity was partitioned into its additive components: alpha, beta and gamma diversity. Percentage arable land in a circular landscape sector of 1-km radius around each study site was used as an indicator of landscape complexity. 3. Weed species diversity in the vegetation, seed rain and seed bank was higher in organic than in conventional fields. Increasing landscape complexity enhanced species diversity more strongly in the vegetation of conventional than organic fields, to the extent that diversity was similar in both farming systems when the landscape was complex. Species diversity of the seed bank was increased by landscape complexity irrespective of farming system. 4. Overall diversity was largely determined by the high heterogeneity between and within the fields (beta diversity). Only in very few cases could higher weed species diversity in complex landscapes and/or organic farming be related to species dependence on landscape or farming system. 5. Synthesis and applications. Local weed species diversity was influenced by both landscape complexity and farming system. Species diversity under organic farming systems was clearly higher in simple landscapes. Conventional vegetation reached similar diversity levels when the surrounding landscape was complex through the presence of refugia for weed populations. Consequently, agri-environment schemes designed to preserve and enhance biodiversity should not only consider the management of single fields but also of the surrounding landscape.

Biodiversity studies that guide agricultural subsidy policy have generally compared farming systems at a single spatial scale: the field. However, diversity patterns vary across spatial scales. Here, we examined the effects of farming system (organic vs. conventional) and position in the field (edge vs. center) on plant species richness in wheat fields at three spatial scales. We quantified alpha-, beta-, and gamma-diversity at the microscale in 800 plots, at the mesoscale in 40 fields, and at the macroscale in three regions using the additive partitioning approach, and evaluated the relative contribution of beta-diversity at each spatial scale to total observed species richness. We found that alpha-, beta-, and gamma-diversity were higher in organic than conventional fields and higher at the field edge than in the field center at all spatial scales. In both farming systems, beta-diversity at the meso- and macroscale explained most of the overall species richness (up to 37% and 25%, respectively), indicating considerable differences in community composition among fields and regions due to environmental heterogeneity. The spatial scale at which beta-diversity contributed the most to overall species richness differed between rare and common species. Total richness of rare species (present in < or = 5% of total samples) was mainly explained by differences in community composition at the meso- and macroscale (up to 27% and 48%, respectively), but only in organic fields. Total richness of common species (present in > or = 25% of total samples) was explained by differences in community composition at the micro- and mesoscale (up to 29% and 47%, respectively), i.e., among plots and fields, independent of farming system. Our results show that organic farming made the greatest contribution to total species richness at the meso (among fields) and macro (among regions) scale due to environmental heterogeneity. Hence, agri-environment schemes should exploit this large-scale contribution of beta-diversity by tailoring schemes at regional scales to maximize dissimilarity between conservation areas using geographic information systems rather than focusing entirely at the classical local-field scale, which is the current practice.