Although correlations between farm management indica-tors and actual biodiversity indicaindica-tors were observed in some case study regions, no general pattern emerged. The same applies to correlations within habitat, species and genetic diversity indicators, which were observed in some case study regions, but which were not consistent for types of farming, let alone for the whole range of case study re-gions. This shows that the remaining indicator set cannot be further reduced without losing information. Even in comparable farm types, biodiversity patterns and relation-3.8.5 Vineyard case study – Italy
In the vineyard case study, habitat indicators of farms rep-resented by habitat indicators such as tree cover, propor-tion of farmland with shrubs, length of linear elements per hectare, average patch size, and the share of semi-natural habitats were significantly and positively correlated with each other, with the result that the most appropriate indi-cator could be assessed as a surrogate for the others. By contrast, management and species indicators were only marginally correlated with each other or with other indica-tors, except for plant species richness, for which habitat richness or diversity could be proposed as a proxy.
3.8.6 Olive plantation case study – Spain
In the olive plantation case study, most of the indicators correlated with each other within groups – i.e. species, habitats and management – as well as between groups. In fact, species indicators were highly and positively corre-lated with habitat diversity indicators such as habitat rich-ness or diversity, as well as with management indicators
Figure 3.6: Example of Spearman correlations of BioBio indicators in Switzerland’s grassland case study. The relationship between indicators is shown graphically below the diagonal. Positive (red) and negative (blue) correlation coefficients with significance (stars) are given above the diagonal. Font size is proportional to coefficient value. See Figure 3.5’s legend for abbreviations.
GRA Switzerland
34 ART-Schriftenreihe 17 | September 2012
34
Methods for assessing biodiversity indicators at farm scale
ships between indicators are case specific. Consequently, all of the resulting biodiversity indicators should be moni-tored at the European scale. Despite this, not all indicators are applicable for all farm types (see Chapter 4). An addi-tional argument for not reducing the indicator set further – even for specific farm types where indicators did corre-late – is that these observed correlations may disappear over time. This is because disturbances occurring in the ag-ricultural landscape may support some indicators (e.g. spe-cies) whilst adversely affecting others. Thus, each elimina-tion of an indicator must be considered very carefully.
The resulting indicator set underwent a two-level stake-holder audit to determine whether it met the criteria for-mulated by the stakeholders at the outset of the project.
Findings from individual case study regions were first dis-cussed with local stakeholder groups. These groups then reported to the stakeholder advisory board, which then conducted an audit and overall assessment (see Chapter 2).
References
Andersen E., Baldock D., Bennett H., et al. 2003. Develop-ing a High Nature Value Indicator. Report for the Euro-pean Environment Agency, Copenhagen.
Bunce R. G. H., Metzger M. J., Jongman R. H. G., et al. 2008.
A standardized procedure for surveillance and monitor-ing European habitats and provision of spatial data.
Landscape Ecology 23,11–25.
Dennis P., Arndorfer M., Balázs et al. 2009. Conceptual foundations for biodiversity indicator selection for or-ganic and low-input farming systems. Aberystwyth, De-liverable 2.1 of the EU FP7 Project BioBio. ISBN 978-3-905733-16-7. http://www.biobio-indicator.org/delivera-bles.php
Dennis P., Bogers M.M.B., Bunce R.G.H., Herzog F. & Jean-neret P. 2012. Biodiversity in organic and low-input farming systems. Wageningen, Deliverable 2.2 of the EU FP7 Project BioBio. ISBN 1566-7197. ALTERRA Report 2308. http://www.biobio-indicator.org/deliverables.php EBONE (no date). http://www.ebone.wur.nl. [Accessed
24/7/12].
EC, 2007. Council Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 of 28 June 2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products and repealing Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/91.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=
OJ:L:2007:189:0001:0023:EN:PDF [Accessed 30/04/2012]
EUROSTAT, Organic Farming in Europe – Country reports (no date). http://www.organic-europe.net/. [Accessed 25/7/12].
Jeanneret P., Lüscher G., Schneider M. et al. 2012. Report on scientific analysis containing an assessment of per-formance of candidate farming and biodiversity indica-tors and an indication about the cost of indicator meas-urements. Deliverable 4.1 of the EU FP7 Project BioBio. http://www.biobio-indicator.org/deliverables.php
French Case Study: Arable Farming System
Valleys and Hills of Gascony is a typical agricultural land-scape of the southwest of France, under both Sub-At-lantic and Sub-Mediterranean climate influences. This region is dominated by a mosaic of intensive to extensive
crop production such as cereals, sunflowers, oilseed rape and natural and sown pastures, with small forest rem-nants. Agriculture is the main source of income for most of the farmers.
Number of farms surveyed: 8 organic, 8 non-organic Average farm size: 79 ha
Average N-Input: 41 kg/ha
Average energy input: 266 kg fuel equivalents Total number of habitat types: 52
Total number of plant species: 440 Total number of bee species: 171 Total number of spider species: 261 Total number of earthworm species: 16 Total number of crop species: 24 Total number of crop varieties: 74
35 35
ART-Schriftenreihe 17 | September 2012 3535 Scientific testing and the subsequent stakeholder audit
yielded a complementary set of indicators with minimum redundancies within the components of habitat-, species- and genetic diversity as well as management indicators.
Whereas some indicators are relevant for all farm types, others apply only to specific farm types. The BioBio indi-cator set focuses primarily on indiindi-cators of the ‘state’ of biodiversity.
4.1 Indicators for farm types
Based on the experience from the case-study regions, the set of candidate indicators was narrowed down by elimi-nating indicators which failed to meet scientific quality cri-teria, or which correlated within the four indicator catego-ries of habitat diversity, species diversity, crop and live-stock diversity, and farm management.
A second major criterion for selecting farm management and habitat indicators was their correlation with species diversity indicators. There are strong hypotheses as to the effect of e.g. management intensity or percentage of semi-natural habitats on the diversity of wild farmland species. These correlations were explored, and contributed
to the selection of management and habitat indicators (Figure 4.1).
The remaining indicators were then submitted to a stake-holder audit in which their conformity with criteria such as practicability and communication were evaluated. This process resulted in the final BioBio indicator set (Table 4.1).
The resultant indicator set consists of 23 indicators of which 16 are generic (i.e. applicable for all farm types) and 7 are restricted to specific farm types (Table 4.2). Using crop-related indicators only makes sense on farms with a significant percentage of arable crops. Grassland- and farm-animal-related indicators can only be applied on spe-cialist grazing or mixed crops/livestock farms. The ‘Tree Cover’ habitat indicator provides no useful information on farms dominated by fruit trees or vines, as these farms hardly differ from one other in this respect. By contrast, on farms where land use is predominately arable or grassland, tree habitats are usually rare and dispersed. There, a higher indicator value indicates greater potential habitat for species dependent upon permanent, woody struc-tures.
4 The B io B io indicator system
Felix Herzog and Philippe Jeanneret
Agroscope Research Station ART, Zurich, Switzerland
Table 4.1: BioBio indicator set. These indicators have passed scientific and practical testing as well as the stakeholder audit.
Indicators for the Genetic Diversity of Livestock and Crops Species Diversity Indicators
Breeds Number and amount of different breeds Plants Vascular plants
CultDiv Number and amount of different varieties Bees Wild bees and bumblebees
CropOrig Origin of crops Spiders Spiders
Earthworms Earthworms
Habitat Diversity Indicators Farm Management Indicators
HabRich Habitat richness EnerIn Total direct and indirect energy input
HabDiv Habitat diversity IntExt Intensification/Extensification Expenditures
on fuel, pesticides, fertiliser and animal fodder PatchS Average size of habitat patches MinFert Area with use of mineral N-fertiliser
LinHab Length of linear elements NitroIn Total nitrogen input
CropRich Crop richness FieldOp Field operations
TreeHab Tree habitats PestUse Pesticide use
ShrubHab Percentage of farmland with shrubs AvStock Average stocking rate
SemiNat Percentage of semi-natural habitats Graze Grazing intensity
36 ART-Schriftenreihe 17 | September 2012
36
The BioBio Indicator system
2:1 - 2 volle Textspalten - Frutiger 16 pt 2:1 - volle Textspalte - Frutiger 16 pt
Habitat diversity indicators
Indicators for the genetic diversity of livestock and
crops
Species diversity indicators
Farm management
indicators State indicators
Pressure/ response indicators
Table 4.2: The BioBio indicator set with generic indicators applicable for all farm types, and with indicators that are only relevant for specific farm types (sensu EC 1985). (See Table 4.1 for abbreviations).
All Farm Types
Genetic diversity CultDiv
Species diversity Plants, Bees, Spiders, Earthworms
Habitat diversity HabRich, HabDiv, ShrubHab, LinHab, PatchS, SemiNat Farm management MinFert, NitroIn, EnerIn, IntExt, FieldOp
Specific Farm Types
Field Crops and
Horticulture Specialist Grazing
Livestock Mixed Crops/
Livestock Permanent Crops
Genetic diversity CropOrig Breeds Breeds
CropOrig Species diversity
Habitat diversity CropRich
TreeHab TreeHab CropRich
TreeHab
Farm management PestUse AvStock
Graze
AvStock PestUse Graze
AvStock PestUse Figure 4.1: Correlations of indicators within the four main categories (red arrows)
were tested and redundant indicators were discarded. Both habitat diversity and farm management were expected to influence species diversity (blue arrows), so indicators demonstrating this interaction were retained.
37 37
ART-Schriftenreihe 17 | September 2012 3737