TY - JOUR A1 - Gevers, Jana A1 - Hoye, Toke Thomas A1 - Topping, Chris John A1 - Glemnitz, Michael A1 - Schroeder, Boris T1 - Biodiversity and the mitigation of climate change through bioenergy impacts of increased maize cultivation on farmland wildlife JF - Global change biology : Bioenergy N2 - The public promotion of renewable energies is expected to increase the number of biogas plants and stimulate energy crops cultivation (e. g. maize) in Germany. In order to assess the indirect effects of the resulting land-use changes on biodiversity, we developed six land-use scenarios and simulated the responses of six farmland wildlife species with the spatially explicit agent-based model system ALMaSS. The scenarios differed in composition and spatial configuration of arable crops. We implemented scenarios where maize for energy production replaced 15% and 30% of the area covered by other cash crops. Biogas maize farms were either randomly distributed or located within small or large aggregation clusters. The animal species investigated were skylark (Alauda arvensis), grey partridge (Perdix perdix), European brown hare (Lepus europaeus), field vole (Microtus agrestis), a linyphiid spider (Erigone atra) and a carabid beetle (Bembidion lampros). The changes in crop composition had a negative effect on the population sizes of skylark, partridge and hare and a positive effect on the population sizes of spider and beetle and no effect on the population size of vole. An aggregated cultivation of maize amplified these effects for skylark. Species responses to changes in the crop composition were consistent across three differently structured landscapes. Our work suggests that with the compliance to some recommendations, negative effects of biogas-related land-use change on the populations of the six representative farmland species can largely be avoided. KW - agriculture KW - ALMaSS KW - biogas KW - farmland biodiversity KW - land-use change KW - maize KW - spatially explicit agent-based modeling Y1 - 2011 U6 - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01104.x SN - 1757-1693 VL - 3 IS - 6 SP - 472 EP - 482 PB - Wiley-Blackwell 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 - TY - GEN 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 T2 - Postprints der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe 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. T3 - Zweitveröffentlichungen der Universität Potsdam : Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe - 811 KW - crop production KW - ecosystem services KW - land sharing vs. land sparing KW - natural habitats KW - edge effect KW - winter wheat Y1 - 2020 U6 - http://nbn-resolving.de/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:kobv:517-opus4-443313 SN - 1866-8372 IS - 811 ER - 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 - Wiggering, Hubert A1 - Dalchow, Claus A1 - Glemnitz, Michael A1 - Helming, Katharina A1 - Müller, Klaus A1 - Schultz, Alfred A1 - Stachow, Ulrich A1 - Zander, Peter T1 - Indicators for multifunctional land use : linking socio-economic requirements with landscape potentials N2 - Indicators to assess sustainable land development often focus on either economic or ecologic aspects of landscape use. The concept of multifunctional land use helps merging those two focuses by emphasising on the rule that economic action is per se accompanied by ecological utility: commodity outputs (CO, e.g., yields) are paid for on the market, but non-commodity outputs (NCO, e.g., landscape aesthetics) so far are public goods with no markets. Agricultural production schemes often provided both outputs by joint production, but with technical progress under prevailing economic pressure, joint production increasingly vanishes by decoupling of commodity from non-commodity production. Simultaneously, by public and political awareness of these shortcomings, there appears a societal need or even demand for some non-commodity outputs of land use, which induces a market potential, and thus, shift towards the status of a commodity outputs. An approach is presented to merge both types of output by defining an indicator of social utility (SUMLU): production schemes are considered with respect to social utility of both commodity and non-commodity outputs. Social utility in this sense includes environmental and economic services as long as society expresses a demand for them. For each combination of parameters at specific frame conditions (e.g., soil and climate properties of a landscape) a production possibility curve can reflect trade-offs between commodity and non-commodity outputs. On each production possibility curve a welfare optimum can be identified expressing the highest achievable value of social utility as a trade-off between CO and NCO production. When applying more parameters, a cluster of welfare optimums is generated. Those clusters can be used for assessing production schemes with respect to sustainable land development. Examples of production possibility functions are given on easy applicable parameters (nitrogen leaching versus gross margin) and on more complex ones (biotic integrity). Social utility, thus allows to evaluate sustainability of land development in a cross-sectoral approach with respect to multifunctionality. (C) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved Y1 - 2006 UR - 1960 = DOI 10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.014 ER -