Does organic grassland farming benefit plant and arthropod diversity at the expense of yield and soil fertility?

Organic management is one of the most popular strategies to reduce negative environmental impacts of intensive agriculture. However, little is known about benefits for biodiversity and potential worsening of yield under organic grasslands management across different grassland types, i.e. meadow, pasture and mown pasture. Therefore, we studied the diversity of vascular plants and foliage-living arthropods (Coleoptera, Araneae, Heteroptera, Auchenorrhyncha), yield, fodder quality, soil phosphorus concentrations and land-use intensity of organic and conventional grasslands across three study regions in Germany. Furthermore, all variables were related to the time since conversion to organic management in order to assess temporal developments reaching up to 18 years. Arthropod diversity was significantly higher under organic than conventional management, although this was not the case for Araneae, Heteroptera and Auchenorrhyncha when analyzed separately. On the contrary, arthropod abundance, vascular plant diversity and also yield and fodder quality did not considerably differ between organic and conventional grasslands. Analyses did not reveal differences in the effect of organic management among grassland types. None of the recorded abiotic and biotic parameters showed a significant trend with time since transition to organic management, except soil organic phosphorus concentrations which decreased with time. This implies that permanent grasslands respond slower and probably weaker to organic management than crop fields do. However, as land-use intensity and inorganic soil phosphorus concentrations were significantly lower in organic grasslands, overcoming seed and dispersal limitation by re-introducing plant species might be needed to exploit the full ecological potential of organic grassland management. We conclude that although organic management did not automatically increase the diversity of all studied taxa, it is a reasonable and useful way to support agro-biodiversity.

Grassland management intensification weakens the associations among the diversities of multiple plant and animal taxa

Land-use intensification is a key driver of biodiversity change. However, little is known about how it alters relationships between the diversities of different taxonomic groups, which are often correlated due to shared environmental drivers and trophic interactions. Using data from 150 grassland sites, we examined how land-use intensification (increased fertilization, higher livestock densities, and increased mowing frequency) altered correlations between the species richness of 15 plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate taxa. We found that 54% of pairwise correlations between taxonomic groups were significant and positive among all grasslands, while only one was negative. Higher land-use intensity substantially weakened these correlations (35% decrease in r and 43% fewer significant pairwise correlations at high intensity), a pattern which may emerge as a result of biodiversity declines and the breakdown of specialized relationships in these conditions. Nevertheless, some groups (Coleoptera, Heteroptera, Hymenoptera and Orthoptera) were consistently correlated with multidiversity, an aggregate measure of total biodiversity comprised of the standardized diversities of multiple taxa, at both high and low land-use intensity. The form of intensification was also important; increased fertilization and mowing frequency typically weakened plant–plant and plant–primary consumer correlations, whereas grazing intensification did not. This may reflect decreased habitat heterogeneity under mowing and fertilization and increased habitat heterogeneity under grazing. While these results urge caution in using certain taxonomic groups to monitor impacts of agricultural management on biodiversity, they also suggest that the diversities of some groups are reasonably robust indicators of total biodiversity across a range of conditions. Read More: http://www.esajournals.org/doi/10.1890/14-1307.1