Do improved pollination services outweigh farm-economic disadvantages of working in small-structured agricultural landscapes? – Development and application of a bio-economic model

Abstract

Increases in the size of agricultural fields, the loss of permanent green field edges and other semi-natural habitats have accompanied the intensification of agriculture, and are still ongoing. From a farm economic perspective, an increase in field size increases efficiency mainly due to cost savings. However, recent evidence suggests that increases in field size might lead to the loss of ecosystem services provided by farmland biodiversity, but this trade-off is rarely considered. Here, we aim to quantify the economic and ecological effects of these changes by developing a bio-economic simulation-based land-use modelling framework based on spatially explicit data from an agricultural region in Germany. The results show a substantial decrease in flower visitation in oilseed rape when field sizes increase and permanent green edges are lost. This also leads to a decrease in pollination from wild bees and affects yields and farm economics. However, this loss in agricultural gross margin is overcompensated by economic gains of field enlargement. We conclude that further, more comprehensive evaluations are required and suggest that maintaining fine-grained agricultural landscapes with permanent field margins in the long term may require incentives to farmers, as well as innovations that allow to farm small fields at lower costs.

Field boundary features can stabilise bee populations and the pollination of mass‐flowering crops in rotational systems

“…Although the benefits of pollination services to arable crops are modulated by a number of factors, such as variety and growing conditions (Bartomeus et al., 2015; Bishop et al., 2020), consistent availability of pollination service is likely to have a stabilising effect on yield, resulting in more consistent harvests over time. This could have significant economic benefits to growers in countries such as the UK that are vulnerable to pollinator declines (Aizen et al., 2019), particularly in the case of field beans, which rely upon bumblebees for pollination (Garratt, Coston, et al., 2014; but see Kirchweger et al., 2020). As farmers are often risk averse, emphasising these yield‐stabilising benefits could help incentivise farmers to proactively increase the area and quality of boundary features (IPBES et al., 2016).…”

Productive versus environmental objectives of agricultural policies dealing with climate change: a French case study

“…Complementary data are obtained from ADEME and FranceAgrimer reports. The ecosystem service function is calibrated with data from numerous works focusing on the impact of pollination on fruits and rapeseed (Klein et al, 2006;Bommarco et al, 2012;Garratt et al, 2014;Lindström et al, 2015;Geslin et al, 2017;Perrot et al, 2019;Kirchweger et al, 2020). Changes in yield due to climate change is taken from the European Joint Research Centre's technical report 1 analyzing the impacts of climate change on European agriculture by 2050 (European Commission Research Centre, Joint et al, 2020).…”

Environmental Sustainability Assessment of Pig Farms in Selected European Countries: Combining LCA and Key Performance Indicators for Biodiversity Assessment

“…with beneficial insects) [40]. Furthermore, the positive effects of measures to promote biodiversity, such as providing opportunities for pollination or biological pest control, can positively impact crop yields and even farm incomes [49,50].…”