How effective are European agri‐environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?

By D. Kleijn, W. J. Sutherland. 2003

1,546 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/65853fb694e10dd8231d490080e45b721b10be92

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

In Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Striking a new balance between agricultural production and biodiversity (2005, background): “Not surprisingly, the evidence of benefi ts of agri-environment schemes for biodiversity has been mixed, with early claims that there have been few benefi ts (Kleijn et al., 2001; Kleijn & Sutherland, 2003), contrasting with more recent evidence of greater success.”
Motivations for implementation of ecological compensation areas on Swiss lowland farms (2014, neutral): “more sustainable (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003).”
Rewilding: Science, Practice, and Politics (2015, background): “In the wider countryside, European conservation is delivered through agri-environment schemes (EEC Regulation 2078/92) (172).”
Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources (2011, background): “Developed countries, such as the EU, have for some time provided payments to farmers to change agricultural practices towards more biodiversity- and ecosystem-friendly practices (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003), which in many ways resemble the idea of PES.”
Diversity of flower-visiting bees in cereal fields: effects of farming system, landscape composition and regional context (2006, background): “In the latter scenario, the positive impact of organic farming will be smaller in the most intensively used homogeneous landscapes (Kleijn & Sutherland 2003).”
Landscape connectivity, habitat structure and activity of bat guilds in farmland-dominated matrices (2013, background): “The effectiveness of AES has been controversially discussed (e.g. Kleijn et al. 2001; Kleijn & Sutherland 2003; Whittingham 2006), which led to improvements that aim not only at increasing size but also quality of compensation areas.”
Biodiversity for multifunctional grasslands: equal productivity in high-diversity low-input and low-diversity high-input systems (2009, background): “Agri-environmental incentives have been established to promote this management changes in favour of biodiversity, with varying success (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003).”
An assessment of market-based approaches to providing ecosystem services on agricultural lands (2007, background): “For example, in most European Union countries agri-environment schemes with a biodiversity component are in place (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003).”
Weed-insect pollinator networks as bio-indicators of ecological sustainability in agriculture. A review (2016, background): “cline of landscape diversity and a loss of biodiversity observed in many taxa, especially for insects and plants (Sotherton 1998; Chamberlain et al. 2000; Benton et al. 2002; Kleijn and Sutherland 2003; Thomas et al. 2004; Tscharntke et al. 2005; Flynn et al. 2009; Brückmann et al. 2010).”
Plant species responses to cattle grazing in mesic semi-natural grassland (2005, background): “Yet, little is known about their effectiveness (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003; Marggraff, 2003).”
Optimizing agri-environment schemes for biodiversity, ecosystem services or both? (2014, background): “In contrast, another hypothesis suggests that a decelerating loss of biodiversity with increased agricultural intensity makes AES most effective in areas where biodiversity is high, since the marginal gain from a reduction in intensity is largest in these landscapes (Gabriel et al., 2010; Kleijn et ”