Effects of farmland heterogeneity on biodiversity are similar to—or even larger than—the effects of farming practices

Structural implications of traditional agricultural landscapes on the functional diversity of birds near the Korean Demilitarized Zone

“…Heterogeneous landscapes, such as those traditionally used in Korean agriculture, can further enhance biodiversity in rice paddies (Kim et al., 2016). Compared with modern intensive agriculture practices, traditional farming maintains greater heterogeneity in landscapes by using small fields, retaining field margins and natural land cover, and planting diverse crops—all practices that have been demonstrated to effectively promote biodiversity (Benton et al., 2003; Martin et al., 2020). Traditional Japanese agricultural landscape, including spatially mixed rice paddies and forests, similarly supports high levels of species diversity (Katoh et al., 2009; Takeuchi, 2003).…”

“…Compared with modern intensive agriculture practices, traditional farming maintains greater heterogeneity in landscapes by using small fields, retaining field margins and natural land cover, and planting diverse crops-all practices that have been demonstrated to effectively promote biodiversity (Benton et al, 2003;Martin et al, 2020).…”

Cropland heterogeneity changes on the Northeast China Plain in the last three decades (1980s–2010s)

“…Fragmentation always leads to the heterogeneity of cropland, which is an important property that describes the variability of the observed surface properties in space (Chen et al, 2012). Because the cropland heterogeneity affects biodiversity or the environmental risks in crop fields (Martin et al, 2020;Sun et al, 2017a), it becomes a hot topic for researchers to focus on. There was some conclusion that different land uses with its heterogeneity could lead to a widespread decline in cropland biodiversity (Benton, Vickery & Wilson, 2003;Zhou et al, 2008).…”

Insect and insecticides in agricultural landscapes; socio-ecological challenges and patterns

“…The differential responses of natural enemies and pollinators to semi-natural habitat in our study could be explained by functional group specific traits (Martin et al, 2019). For example, pollinators are very mobile and sensitive to habitat quality of semi-natural habitats (Li et al, 2020), and the spatial scale of 1 km radius may not have captured the functional spatial scales of the pollinator community (Martin et al, 2020). Thus, the response of beneficial arthropods to semi-natural habitat may be species specific, while it also depends on their biology and resource requirements (Karp et al, 2018;Martin et al, 2019).…”

“…the 'action at a distance' mechanism) (Sherratt and Jepson, 1993;Spromberg, John and Landis, 1998;Bianchi, Ives and Schellhorn, 2013;Topping et al, 2015;EFSA Scientific Committee, 2016). While there is theoretical support for such landscape scale impacts of insecticides on arthropods from models, relatively few field studies have investigated at what spatial scale insecticides impact arthropod communities and how this is influenced by landscape context (but see Gagic et al, 2019Gagic et al, , 2017Geiger et al, 2010;Jonsson et al, 2012;Martin et al, 2020;Rundlöf et al, 2015).…”