TY - JOUR A1 - Raatz, Larissa A1 - Bacchi, Nina A1 - Walzl, Karin Pirhofer A1 - Glemnitz, Michael A1 - Müller, Marina E. H. A1 - Jasmin Radha, Jasmin A1 - Scherber, Christoph T1 - How much do we really lose? BT - yield losses in the proximity of natural landscape elements in agricultural landscapes JF - Ecology and evolution N2 - 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. KW - crop production KW - ecosystem services KW - edge effect KW - land sharing vs KW - land sparing KW - natural habitats KW - winter wheat Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5370 SN - 2045-7758 VL - 9 IS - 13 SP - 7838 EP - 7848 PB - Wiley CY - Hoboken ER - TY - JOUR A1 - Raatz, Larissa A1 - Bacchi, Nina A1 - Pirhofer Walzl, Karin A1 - Glemnitz, Michael A1 - Müller, Marina E. H. A1 - Jasmin Radha, Jasmin A1 - Scherber, Christoph T1 - How much do we really lose? BT - Yield losses in the proximity of natural landscape elements in agricultural landscapes JF - Ecology and Evolution N2 - 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 Göttingen, 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. KW - crop production KW - ecosystem services KW - land sharing vs. land sparing KW - natural habitats KW - edge effect KW - winter wheat Y1 - 2019 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5370 SN - 2045-7758 VL - 9 IS - 13 SP - 7838 EP - 7848 PB - John Wiley & Sons CY - S.I. ER -