We compared the seedbanks, seed rains, plant densities and biomasses of weeds under two contrasting systems of management in beet, maize and spring oilseed rape. Weed seedbank and plant density were measured at the same locations in two subsequent seasons. About 60 fields were sown with each crop. Each field was split, one half being sown with a conventional variety managed according to the farmer's normal practice, the other half being sown with a genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) variety, with weeds controlled by a broad-spectrum herbicide. In beet and rape, plant densities shortly after sowing were higher in the GMHT treatment. Following weed control in conventional beet, plant densities were approximately one-fifth of those in GMHT beet. In both beet and rape, this effect was reversed after the first application of broad-spectrum herbicide, so that late-season plant densities were lower in the GMHT treatments. Biomass and seed rain in GMHT crops were between one-third and one-sixth of those in conventional treatments. The effects of differing weed-seed returns in these two crops persisted in the seedbank: densities following the GMHT treatment were about 20% lower than those following the conventional treatment. The effect of growing maize was quite different. Weed density was higher throughout the season in the GMHT treatment. Late-season biomass was 82% higher and seed rain was 87% higher than in the conventional treatment. The difference was not subsequently detectable in the seedbank because the total seed return was low after both treatments. In all three crops, weed diversity was little affected by the treatment, except for transient effects immediately following herbicide application.

Summary 1.Several genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops have cleared most of the regulatory hurdles required for commercial growing in the United Kingdom. However, concerns have been expressed that their management will have negative impacts on farmland biodiversity as a result of improved control given by the new herbicide regimes of the arable plants that support farmland birds and other species of conservation value. 2. The Farm-Scale Evaluations (FSE) project is testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the management of GMHT varieties of beet, oilseed rape and maize and that of comparable conventional varieties in their effect on the abundance and diversity of arable plants and invertebrates. The FSE also aims to estimate the magnitude and consider the implications of any differences that are found. 3. The experimental design of the FSE is a randomized block, with two treatments allocated at random to half-fields. The target sample is around 60-75 fields for each crop, selected to represent variation of geography and intensity of management across Britain. The experimental crops are managed by commercial farmers as if under commercial conditions. 4. Biodiversity indicators have been selected from plants and terrestrial invertebrates to identify differences between crop management regimes that may result in important ecological changes over larger scales of space and time. Field sampling is at fixed points, mainly along transects from the field boundary, starting before the crop is sown and continuing into following crops. 5. Synthesis and applications. The FSE is best considered as an investigation into the effects of contrasting crop management regimes on farmland biodiversity, rather than a study of the effects of genetic modification. It could become a model for future studies of ecological effects of the way we use and manage agricultural land.

We evaluated the effects of the herbicide management associated with genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) winter oilseed rape (WOSR) on weed and invertebrate abundance and diversity by testing the null hypotheses that there is no difference between the effects of herbicide management of GMHT WOSR and that of comparable conventional varieties. For total weeds, there were few treatment differences between GMHT and conventional cropping, but large and opposite treatment effects were observed for dicots and monocots. In the GMHT treatment, there were fewer dicots and monocots than in conventional crops. At harvest, dicot biomass and seed rain in the GMHT treatment were one-third of that in the conventional, while monocot biomass was threefold greater and monocot seed rain almost fivefold greater in the GMHT treatment than in the conventional. These differential effects persisted into the following two years of the rotation. Bees and Butterflies that forage and select for dicot weeds were less abundant in GMHT WORS management in July. Year totals for Collembola were greater under GMHT management. There were few other treatment effects on invertebrates, despite the marked effects of herbicide management on the weeds.

The proposed introduction of genetically modified herbicide tolerant (GMHT) crops, with claims of improved weed control, has prompted fears about possible environmental impacts of their widespread adoption, particularly on arable weeds, insects and associated farmland birds. In response to this, we have developed a novel weed-management system for GMHT sugar beet, based on band spraying, which exploits the flexibility offered by the broad-spectrum partner herbicides. Here, we show the results from two series of field experiments which, taken together, demonstrate that, by using this system, crops can be managed for enhanced weed and insect biomass without compromising yield, thus potentially offering food and shelter to farmland birds and other wildlife. These results could be applicable widely to other row crops, and indicate that creative use of GMHT technology could be a powerful tool for developing more sustainable farming systems in the future.

The effects of the management of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant (GMHT) crops on the abundances of aerial and epigeal arthropods were assessed in 66 beet, 68 maize and 67 spring oilseed rape sites as part of the Farm Scale Evaluations of GMHT crops. Most higher taxa were insensitive to differences between GMHT and conventional weed management, but significant effects were found on the abundance of at least one group within each taxon studied. Numbers of butterflies in beet and spring oilseed rape and of Heteroptera and bees in beet were smaller under the relevant GMHT crop management, whereas the abundance of Collembola was consistently greater in all GMHT crops. Generally, these effects were specific to each crop type, reflected the phenology and ecology of the arthropod taxa, were indirect and related to herbicide management. These results apply generally to agriculture across Britain, and could be used in mathematical models to predict the possible long-term effects of the widespread adoption of GMHT technology. The results for bees and butterflies relate to foraging preferences and might or might not translate into effects on population densities, depending on whether adoption leads to forage reductions over large areas. These species, and the detritivore Collembola, may be useful indicator species for future studies of GMHT management.