@article{RaatzBacchiPirhoferWalzletal.2019, author = {Raatz, Larissa and Bacchi, Nina and Pirhofer Walzl, Karin and Glemnitz, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H. and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin and Scherber, Christoph}, title = {How much do we really lose?}, series = {Ecology and Evolution}, volume = {9}, journal = {Ecology and Evolution}, number = {13}, publisher = {John Wiley \& Sons}, address = {S.I.}, issn = {2045-7758}, doi = {10.1002/ece3.5370}, pages = {7838 -- 7848}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large-scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field-to-field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid-field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log-scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near G{\"o}ttingen, and 2015-2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11\%-38\% in comparison with mid-field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95\% of mid-field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in-field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes.}, language = {en} } @article{RaatzBacchiWalzletal.2019, author = {Raatz, Larissa and Bacchi, Nina and Walzl, Karin Pirhofer and Glemnitz, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H. and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin and Scherber, Christoph}, title = {How much do we really lose?}, series = {Ecology and evolution}, volume = {9}, journal = {Ecology and evolution}, number = {13}, publisher = {Wiley}, address = {Hoboken}, issn = {2045-7758}, doi = {10.1002/ece3.5370}, pages = {7838 -- 7848}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large-scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field-to-field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid-field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log-scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near Gottingen, and 2015-2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11\%-38\% in comparison with mid-field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95\% of mid-field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in-field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes.}, language = {en} } @misc{RaatzBacchiPirhoferWalzletal.2019, author = {Raatz, Larissa and Bacchi, Nina and Pirhofer Walzl, Karin and Glemnitz, Michael and M{\"u}ller, Marina E. H. and Jasmin Radha, Jasmin and Scherber, Christoph}, title = {How much do we really lose?}, series = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, journal = {Postprints der Universit{\"a}t Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe}, number = {811}, issn = {1866-8372}, doi = {10.25932/publishup-44331}, url = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-443313}, pages = {13}, year = {2019}, abstract = {Natural landscape elements (NLEs) in agricultural landscapes contribute to biodiversity and ecosystem services, but are also regarded as an obstacle for large-scale agricultural production. However, the effects of NLEs on crop yield have rarely been measured. Here, we investigated how different bordering structures, such as agricultural roads, field-to-field borders, forests, hedgerows, and kettle holes, influence agricultural yields. We hypothesized that (a) yield values at field borders differ from mid-field yields and that (b) the extent of this change in yields depends on the bordering structure. We measured winter wheat yields along transects with log-scaled distances from the border into the agricultural field within two intensively managed agricultural landscapes in Germany (2014 near G{\"o}ttingen, and 2015-2017 in the Uckermark). We observed a yield loss adjacent to every investigated bordering structure of 11\%-38\% in comparison with mid-field yields. However, depending on the bordering structure, this yield loss disappeared at different distances. While the proximity of kettle holes did not affect yields more than neighboring agricultural fields, woody landscape elements had strong effects on winter wheat yields. Notably, 95\% of mid-field yields could already be reached at a distance of 11.3 m from a kettle hole and at a distance of 17.8 m from hedgerows as well as forest borders. Our findings suggest that yield losses are especially relevant directly adjacent to woody landscape elements, but not adjacent to in-field water bodies. This highlights the potential to simultaneously counteract yield losses close to the field border and enhance biodiversity by combining different NLEs in agricultural landscapes such as creating strips of extensive grassland vegetation between woody landscape elements and agricultural fields. In conclusion, our results can be used to quantify ecocompensations to find optimal solutions for the delivery of productive and regulative ecosystem services in heterogeneous agricultural landscapes.}, language = {en} } @article{JaenickeGoddardSteinetal.2022, author = {J{\"a}nicke, Clemens and Goddard, Adam and Stein, Susanne and Steinmann, Horst-Henning and Lakes, Tobia and Nendel, Claas and M{\"u}ller, Daniel}, title = {Field-level land-use data reveal heterogeneous crop sequences with distinct regional differences in Germany}, series = {European journal of agronomy}, volume = {141}, journal = {European journal of agronomy}, publisher = {Elsevier}, address = {Amsterdam}, issn = {1161-0301}, doi = {10.1016/j.eja.2022.126632}, pages = {12}, year = {2022}, abstract = {Crop cultivation intensifies globally, which can jeopardize biodiversity and the resilience of cropping systems. We investigate changes in crop rotations as one intensification metric for half of the croplands in Germany with annual field-level land-use data from 2005 to 2018. We proxy crop rotations with crop sequences and compare how these sequences changed among three seven-year periods. The results reveal an overall high diversity of crop sequences in Germany. Half of the cropland has crop sequences with four or more crops within a seven-year period, while continuous cultivation of the same crop is present on only 2\% of the cropland. Larger farms tend to have more diverse crop sequences and organic farms have lower shares of cereal crops. In three federal states, crop rotations became less structurally diverse over time, i.e. the number of crops and the number of changes between crops decreased. In one state, structural diversity increased and the proportion of monocropping decreased. The functional diversity of the crop sequences, which measures the share of winter and spring crops as well as the share of leaf and cereal crops per sequence, remained largely stable. Trends towards cereal-or leaf -crop dominated sequences varied between the states, and no clear overall dynamic could be observed. However, the share of winter crops per sequence decreased in all four federal states. Quantifying the dynamics of crop sequences at the field level is an important metric of land-use intensity and can reveal the patterns of land-use intensification.}, language = {en} }