General enquiries on this form should be made to:Defra, Science Directorate, Management Support and Finance Team,Telephone No. 020 7238 1612E-mail: research.competitions@defra.gsi.gov.uk

SID 5 Research Project Final Report

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 1 of 22

NoteIn line with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, Defra aims to place the results of its completed research projects in the public domain wherever possible. The SID 5 (Research Project Final Report) is designed to capture the information on the results and outputs of Defra-funded research in a format that is easily publishable through the Defra website. A SID 5 must be completed for all projects.

This form is in Word format and the boxes may be expanded or reduced, as appropriate.

ACCESS TO INFORMATIONThe information collected on this form will be stored electronically and may be sent to any part of Defra, or to individual researchers or organisations outside Defra for the purposes of reviewing the project. Defra may also disclose the information to any outside organisation acting as an agent authorised by Defra to process final research reports on its behalf. Defra intends to publish this form on its website, unless there are strong reasons not to, which fully comply with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.Defra may be required to release information, including personal data and commercial information, on request under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, Defra will not permit any unwarranted breach of confidentiality or act in contravention of its obligations under the Data Protection Act 1998. Defra or its appointed agents may use the name, address or other details on your form to contact you in connection with occasional customer research aimed at improving the processes through which Defra works with its contractors.

Project identification

1. Defra Project code IF0102

2. Project title

Informing the way forward for Defra grassland production R&D to support biodiversity outcomes

3. Contractororganisation(s)

AW IlliusSchool of Biological SciencesUniversity of EdinburghMayfield RdEdinburghEH9 3JR

54. Total Defra project costs £ 35000(agreed fixed price)

5. Project: start date................ 01 May 2006

end date................. 30 September 2006

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 2 of 22

6. It is Defra’s intention to publish this form. Please confirm your agreement to do so...................................................................................YES NO (a) When preparing SID 5s contractors should bear in mind that Defra intends that they be made public. They

should be written in a clear and concise manner and represent a full account of the research project which someone not closely associated with the project can follow.Defra recognises that in a small minority of cases there may be information, such as intellectual property or commercially confidential data, used in or generated by the research project, which should not be disclosed. In these cases, such information should be detailed in a separate annex (not to be published) so that the SID 5 can be placed in the public domain. Where it is impossible to complete the Final Report without including references to any sensitive or confidential data, the information should be included and section (b) completed. NB: only in exceptional circumstances will Defra expect contractors to give a "No" answer.In all cases, reasons for withholding information must be fully in line with exemptions under the Environmental Information Regulations or the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

(b) If you have answered NO, please explain why the Final report should not be released into public domain

Executive Summary7. The executive summary must not exceed 2 sides in total of A4 and should be understandable to the

intelligent non-scientist. It should cover the main objectives, methods and findings of the research, together with any other significant events and options for new work.Aims of this work

Defra commissioned this project to examine the past and future contributions of Defra-funded grassland production R&D to support biodiversity outcomes. Defra has supported a significant portfolio of research to enable business-led innovation in grassland management. The enhancement of the biodiversity value of grassland is considered to be a major policy driver behind this production-orientated research. Defra wants to ensure that this type of research is effective in relation to the outcomes sought.

This report briefly introduces the field, summarises ongoing and recently-completed research, and evaluates the relevance and effectiveness of the research approaches and targets to the biodiversity outcomes sought. Following on from this, it provides guidance to Defra on if and how biodiversity outcomes should be supported by this type of production research in the future.

Background Biodiversity is a complex subject of considerable breadth and depth, for which the term itself is a necessary but very inadequate shorthand. Habitat loss in agriculture is a major threat to biodiversity, and Defra’s obligations to implement the relevant components of the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) will require it to support some fairly radical changes to land use.

Findings The policy rationale and scientific objectives of most of the reviewed research programmes often specify environmental objectives as being secondary outcomes of production research. None of the Livestock Science research contracts directly addressed biodiversity, although there is some useful enabling and component work which could play a part in improved farming systems in the future.

Under-specification of the biodiversity outcomes sought or attained during the commissioning, planning, conduct and reporting of research means that biodiversity can only be treated in a rather superficial manner, and little confidence placed on the generality and wider applicability of the findings.

Faster progress towards enhancing biodiversity will be achieved if research addresses it directly. Such research will be driven by biodiversity hypotheses, rather than these being nested inside production-related hypotheses. Research policy needs to be formulated to address both [1] the changes to practice needed on the very significant land area under grassland farming, and [2] the requirements of specific farming systems to meet particular. Priority Species Action Plans and Habitat Action Plans (SAPS and HAPs).

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 3 of 22

Project Report to Defra8. As a guide this report should be no longer than 20 sides of A4. This report is to provide Defra with

details of the outputs of the research project for internal purposes; to meet the terms of the contract; and to allow Defra to publish details of the outputs to meet Environmental Information Regulation or Freedom of Information obligations. This short report to Defra does not preclude contractors from also seeking to publish a full, formal scientific report/paper in an appropriate scientific or other journal/publication. Indeed, Defra actively encourages such publications as part of the contract terms. The report to Defra should include: the scientific objectives as set out in the contract; the extent to which the objectives set out in the contract have been met; details of methods used and the results obtained, including statistical analysis (if appropriate); a discussion of the results and their reliability; the main implications of the findings; possible future work; and any action resulting from the research (e.g. IP, Knowledge Transfer).

RecommendationsThe commissioning process1. In order to meet the formidable challenge of research that will promote both economic and biodiversity goals:

a. Defra should make more explicit the policy background and its expectations of how research projects will address these.

b. Researchers should make more explicit how they will address Defra’s expectations.

c. Defra should require that objectively verifiable indicators of success are identified in research contracts and reported on by researchers.

2. Research on the enhancement of biodiversity in livestock systems must be clearly and soundly based on a detailed scientific understanding of biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. Multi-disciplinary teams will be needed for this, including in some cases socio-economic input. Defra should evaluate the technical competencies of such teams in specifying and delivering relevant research outputs.

3. Environmental objectives should not be used to justify production research unless there are specific environmental deliverables. Defra’s programme of research on enhancing biodiversity should not be subsumed into production research, but have primacy in selected programmes.

Types of research4. Faster progress towards enhancing biodiversity will be achieved if research addresses it directly. Such research will be driven by biodiversity hypotheses, rather than these being nested inside production-related hypotheses.

5. Component or enabling research could contribute to biodiversity outcomes, if carefully specified and based on an analysis of what it could contribute.

6. Although the policy framework contains some biodiversity goals that are rather general, the goals are more sharply defined for SAPs and HAPs. A research policy needs to be formulated to address both [1] the changes to practice needed on the very significant land area under grassland farming, and [2] the requirements of specific farming systems to meet particular SAPs & HAPs.

7. By comparison with our knowledge of how animals respond to vegetation state, less is known about how biodiversity responds. It would be useful to have comparable predictive ability of this, so that the biodiversity-livestock trade-offs could be modelled and understood.

Systems and markets8. Policy analysis at farm level, ideally by modelling, could clarify the potential effects of management practice, technical change, price premia etc. on farm viability and biodiversity.

9. Research at higher scale than the sward-animal interface and at enterprise level could pay dividends. The integration of management practices across the holding, such as systems engineering to localise intense practice with areas managed for biodiversity, and integration of management practice between holdings and across landscapes to ensure habitat connectivity and metapopulation persistence, could attract a biodiversity certification premium if properly marketed.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 4 of 22

10. If farmers were able to develop and exploit niche markets and price premia for livestock products from systems that benefit biodiversity, these premia could partly compensate for producing less from a given area. This will require the promotion of quality assurance schemes and niche markets for livestock products of certified origin and rearing conditions. Granting of the status of Protected Designation of Origin (PDO), Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) or Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG) should be considered in support of this.

11. Systems research that targets and relieves nutritional bottlenecks, such as use of red clover, could maintain the viability of upland livestock production. Such research needs to be framed as in 1 (above) to convince commissioners and policy makers that its ultimate focus is towards biodiversity benefits.

12. There is a need to develop systems of land use that can reduce the soil nutrient concentrations that have built up under intense farming. Not only is the removal of soil nutrients a key to regaining biodiversity, but their removal via production would mitigate the opportunity cost of production lost.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 5 of 22

Background and aimsIn addition to research driving Environmental Stewardship, Defra has supported a significant portfolio of research to enable business-led innovation in grassland management. The enhancement of the biodiversity value of grassland and other grazed habitats through informing the development of policy with respect to farming systems and innovation in business led farm practice is a major policy driver behind this production-orientated research. In addition to work on grassland flora and grazing, wider research in support of grassland-related biodiversity outcomes ranges from research supporting plant and animal breeding through to animal nutrition and husbandry. Defra wants to ensure that this type of research is effective in relation to the outcomes sought. Defra seeks to ensure that it is founded on a clear understanding of the impact of the research on farm practice with respect to the biodiversity outcomes sought.

The specific remit (see Appendix 1) of the project is to:

(1) Assess past and current Defra-funded research work related to biodiversity outcomes

(2) Evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of the research approaches and targets to the biodiversity outcomes sought.

(3) Review and evaluate alternative possible research approaches and targets to the biodiversity outcomes sought.

(4) Formulate and supply guidance to Defra on if and how biodiversity outcomes should be supported by this type of production research in the future

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 6 of 22

Introduction to biodiversityDefining the field. Biodiversity is the variety and variability among living organisms and the ecological complexes in which they occur, encompassing the diversity of genes, populations, species, communities and ecosystems. Although the term is used loosely to describe the variety of life and richness of the natural environment, considerably greater precision is needed to assess biodiversity and to address research aimed at enhancing it.

It is important to recognise the scale effects in the assessment of biodiversity at the level of genes, populations and ecosystems. Populations supply genetic diversity, because populations across a species’ range will differ to some degree in genetic composition and local adaptation. Accordingly, the loss of a population locally may lead to the loss of genes globally, yet not threaten the species at regional or global scale. At ecosystem level, most of the benefits conferred by biodiversity arise from large numbers of local populations of species. Loss of an ecosystem, or of local populations of species that are not globally threatened, may nevertheless deprive us of local ecosystem services and genetic diversity. Spatial scale effects are also important. Diversity within a particular area or ecosystem can be expressed as the number of species present (α diversity); diversity between locations or across ecosystems is the amount of species change between them (β diversity); diversity can also be expressed as the overall diversity within a landscape or region (γ diversity). Landscape diversity is not just biodiversity – it also consists of unique landscape features such as bogs, rocky outcrops etc. In agriculture, the relevant spatial scales are likely to be: field, enterprise, holding and landscape. The problems of assessing biodiversity across these scales, and especially of implementing policy, are challenging. For example, the equivocal record of Agri-environment schemes in Europe1,2 may be due partly to their focus on relatively small and isolated components of the landscape (eg hedges, field and water margins) without integration with the surrounding majority of intensively-farmed land or across holdings in the landscape3. Agriculture is a major user of land, and conservation efforts aimed at a small fraction of it may be insufficient.

Biodiversity has an important role in providing ecosystems services (eg the productivity and stability of ecosystems, provisioning, cultural values) and it has an intrinsic value independent of any human concern. But, given the complexities of assessing biodiversity, the most readily available measures rarely reflect the real attribute of interest for any particular role. For example, to measure biodiversity in terms of visible organisms, such as animals or plants, misses the hugely greater taxonomic diversity of micro-organisms4. These dominate the branches of the tree of life, and include most forms that are the main providers of most regulating and supporting services and are key to many provisioning services.5,6 Soil invertebrate fauna, another low-visibility and uncharismatic group, may also play a key role in grassland succession and biodiversity7. In short, there is a lot more to biodiversity than meets the eye.

Policies.

Biodiversity loss in recent times is regarded as a crisis, with an expected loss of 10-50% of the world’s biodiversity over the next 100 years6. The UK has seen a marked decline in farmland birds, butterflies and flowering plants8. The four main causes of biodiversity loss are: habitat destruction, overexploitation, introduced species, and secondary extinctions – where loss of one species is due to loss of another. The reported association between loss of pollinating insects and the plants that depend on them9 may be an example of the latter.

The policy framework to address biodiversity loss is provided by the EU and UK Biodiversity Action Plans. The problem is clearly defined and analysed in the EU Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture (see Appendix 2), identifying priorities that include “developing sound agricultural practices taking biodiversity into account (...diversification of types of production...); encouraging less intensive use of inputs; promoting coherent production systems, like organic farming .... that are in many ways favourable to biodiversity; supporting extensive methods of production, in particular in the stockfarming sector”. The UK Biodiversity Action Plan has a suite of Priority Species Action Plans (SAPs) for 382 threatened species, Habitat Action Plans (HAPs) for both broad habitats and for 45 priority habitats of conservation importance (Table ), and Local Action Plans (see Appendix 2). Defra is obliged to support these plans. SAPs are quite specific, and HAPs vary from the specific (“Attempt to re-establish 500 ha of lowland meadow of wildlife value at carefully targeted sites by 2010”) to the very general (“Encourage environmentally sensitive farming methods”).

Research. The study of biodiversity covers a wide range from the practical to theoretical, including: studies in conservation biology of single (usually endangered) species, studies of particular groups (eg birds) in a habitat or region, invasion biology, disturbance and restoration ecology as well as biogeography, macroecology, environmental genomics and phylogenetics. Common themes are to estimate, explain, conserve and restore biodiversity. A fundamental question is whether research and conservation effort is best aimed at particular species or at whole ecosystems. Applied and practically-focussed research needs to be set in the wider context of current scientific knowledge. This is a precondition for interpreting the results of research and for a sound evaluation of any recommended changes to farm practice.

Conclusions.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 7 of 22

Biodiversity is a complex subject of considerable breadth and depth, for which the term itself is a necessary but very inadequate shorthand. Habitat loss in agriculture is a major threat to biodiversity, and Defra’s obligations to implement the relevant components of the UKBAP will require it to support some fairly radical changes to land use.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 8 of 22

Assessment of the effectiveness of recent past and current R&D in meeting its biodiversity-driven research objectives Commissioned researchIt must first be clarified what is expected of grassland research. Research carried out under the Livestock Science programme was primarily intended to promote sustainable livestock production, and to develop management systems that will allow profitable farming while improving biodiversity. The relevant ROAME statements for LS34, LS35 and LS36 vary in emphasis on environmental objectives.

LS34 (Management of livestock production to sustain and enhance the environment in less favoured areas) states that “Defra has a crucial role in promoting sustainable development and a better quality of life with ... a better environment, diversity of wildlife and sustainable use of natural resources”, and that “Overgrazing leads to ecological imbalance and environmental deterioration”. It cites a specific policy objective likely to impact on livestock production in LFAs: “Achieve the environmental benefits envisaged within the England Rural Development Programme and reverse the long-term decline in the number of farmland birds by 2020 through changes to agricultural practices.” The Scientific/Technical Objectives to be achieved by 3/2007 address optimal grazing management systems for a combination of production and environmental values: producing quality livestock and sward conditions in an environmentally sustainable and cost-effective manner; and “optimising stocking and husbandry of hill livestock to restore upland biodiversity, while making best use of the available resources”.

LS35 (Improving the quality and marketable value of meat and milk) makes no explicit reference to environment.

LS36 (Improving the sustainability of livestock production through optimal nutrition) makes some reference to environmental impacts, friendliness, and sustainability. The Scientific/Technical Objectives to be achieved by 3/2007 cover a very broad programme with five distinct areas, three of which combine environmental and production concerns, eg: “understanding and meeting the nutritional requirements of livestock breeds genetically selected for improved performance and reduced environmental impact”.

The conclusion to be drawn from the policy rationale and scientific objectives of these research programmes is that environmental objectives, where present, are intended to guide the direction of production research, but are seldom the primary focus.

PrinciplesEffective research is hypothesis-driven, resulting in greater mechanistic understanding and predictive ability of the way systems will respond to altered management. Monitoring alone yields weaker inferences. The key question is whether the hypotheses are framed in terms of livestock production or biodiversity. Occasionally, it may be possible to frame research to test both production and biodiversity hypotheses, but usually a judgement will have to be made on which of these to compromise. Experiments testing hypotheses that are focused on livestock production, albeit framed in the context of environmental outcomes and combined with monitoring the biodiversity consequences, will have weaker inferential power for biodiversity than for production. For example, an experiment to compare the effects of two ratios of cattle and sheep on vegetation structure and hence on biodiversity effectively ‘nests’ the biodiversity hypothesis inside the livestock hypothesis, because livestock ratio is the independent variable, and vegetation structure is a potential effect. The vegetation structure effects on biodiversity are then contingent on the how the livestock treatments work out. This may make sense from the perspective of livestock production systems, but the biodiversity effects may be harder to generalise to other situations. And if there turns out to be no effect of livestock ratio on vegetation structure, there can be no biodiversity treatment effects. Manipulations of vegetation structure as the control variable to impose pre-determined treatments would be a much more reliable way to test hypotheses about effects on biodiversity.

Research that does not have biodiversity as the primary focus of the hypotheses to be tested must be regarded as being indirect. Biodiversity benefits may well flow from such research, but with much less certainty than from research in which the hypotheses are biodiversity-focused. Whether useful contributions be made to environmental objectives from indirect research partly depends on how far the research is valid in isolation, as may apply in component and enabling research.

Component research tackles knowledge gaps, and is set in a particular context. Thus, research to develop systems that feature low input use and taller swards could be important for finding how to create the conditions that are generally recognised as enhancing biodiversity without actually measuring the biodiversity impact in the same experiment (see, for example LS3659). This indirect approach has merit to the extent that the original premise is well-founded (ie, all systems with lower inputs and taller swards will see increases in biodiversity), but it would still be prudent to monitor the response of biodiversity to the treatments. Unexpected effects of site, management history and year often manifest themselves, and the treatments themselves may have unpredicted side-effects (as shown in BD1440).

Enabling research is that which elucidates an important component of an eventual farming system, without needing to directly assess biodiversity. Examples are research on whether meat quality is enhanced in animals

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 9 of 22

grazing biodiverse swards, which could open a premium market (LS3523), and on development of red clover cultivars that could be limited by key nutritional components of otherwise extensive systems (LS3645).

Review of projects.

Research can be categorized on the basis of its production or biodiversity focus (Table 1), with the categories of interest numbered 1-5. The evidence reviewed was the Application for a Research Contract with Defra, except where stated. Summaries of each project, by category, are in Appendix 3.

Table 1

Biodiversity focus

Absent, may provide context

Indirect, including monitoring

Hypothesis-driven

Production focus

Absent, may provide context

5 Biodiversity research in a production context

Indirect, including monitoring

4 Biodiversity-driven with production monitoring

Hypothesis-driven

1 Production research

2 Production-driven with environmental monitoring

3Jointly driven

Eleven of the 15 projects reviewed fall into Research Category 1: Production research, including enabling research, without explicit treatment of biodiversity. Some could make a valuable contribution as component research, but often the environmental context was stated as a pretext for the work, without any analysis of the conditions under which the effects would be positive. This is not to denigrate the projects’ usefulness for production, but merely to state that the biodiversity contribution is often trivial. For example, grass and clover breeding programmes have merit from an agronomic perspective, but from a biodiversity perspective, ‘improved’ pastures are a part of the problem, not a part of the solution. Sheep breeding may improve the economics of hill farming, and thereby enable extensification, but has itself no predictable link to biodiversity.

Conclusions. None of the LS research contracts directly address biodiversity, although it is a stated objective under LS34 and LS36. There is some useful enabling and component work which could play a part in improved farming systems in the future.

Research on the enhancement of biodiversity in livestock systems must be clearly and soundly based on a detailed scientific understanding of biodiversity in grassland ecosystems. It is hard to argue that, without such a firm basis, anything much of significance to biodiversity is likely to accrue from research. Under-specification of the biodiversity outcomes sought or attained during the commissioning, planning, conduct and reporting of research means that biodiversity can only be treated in a rather superficial manner, and little confidence placed on the generality and wider applicability of the findings.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 10 of 22

Analysis of potential biodiversity benefits from Defra R & DThe essential question underlying research into joint enhancement of livestock production and biodiversity is about livelihood. What management procedures would farmers adopt to improve economic performance that would also lead to positive biodiversity outcomes? Agri-environment schemes and other subsidies or payments that apply to rural stewardship are not the main focus here – these schemes pay for stewardship and compensate for loss of income from production. We seek to identify how biodiversity might be enhanced in the process of farmers augmenting their income from livestock production itself. Yet most increases in profitability have come from intensification - greater use of inputs, more efficient grassland use, and use of silage instead of hay, which are all changes likely to be deleterious for biodiversity10. The challenge is to identify production improvements that favour, rather than disfavour, biodiversity, and to do so over the entire range of grazing systems.

Principles. Grazing systems vary widely, from lowland intensive dairying to extensive hill sheep systems. The altitudinal stratification of grazing system type has many associations relevant to the effects of livestock production on biodiversity. Table 2 summarises these for the two extremes, with lowland beef-sheep and upland sheep-beef systems being intermediate.

Table 2. Grass farming has wide divergence in intensity, and in the relative importance of research to augment livelihoods and biodiversity.

Dairying Hill sheep, some cattle

Location Lowland Hills, mountains

Input intensity, esp. nutrients High Low or none

Grassland utilisation intensity Usually high Usually low

Grassland structural diversity Low High

Grassland botanical diversity Low Medium/high

Other grassland biodiversity Low Medium/high

Risks to biodiversity and constraints on its recovery

Nutrient and land-use intensity

Under-utilization of vegetation

Sensitivity to CAP reform Moderate High

Likely fate under CAP reform Fewer, larger holdings, possibly with lower input use

Reduced livestock numbers in some localities, abandonment

Niche market/diversification potential

High Medium

Livelihood – income/ha High Low

Research/policy priority Biodiversity Livelihood

Intensive lowland systems have comparatively high potential for providing livelihood but generally have low biodiversity, the converse applying for more extensive and hill systems. This suggests that the research priority in intensive systems should be on augmenting biodiversity. At the other extreme, where the natural environment has been much less damaged by intensification, research to enhance livelihoods is the priority in systems where localised land abandonment may possibly result in reduced biodiversity. At intermediate altitude, nutrient input use and grassland utilisation intensity are probably sufficient to be deleterious for biodiversity, and farmers’ livelihoods are also at risk from declining Single Farm Payments and modest economic performance of livestock systems. Here, a combination of livelihood- and biodiversity-oriented research is needed.

The key target for biodiversity in grassland is the attainment and maintenance of structural and botanical diversity. Botanical diversity is sought for its own sake and for species that depend on particular plants or plant parts, as many invertebrates do. Structural diversity (ie, variation in vegetation height, the presence of gaps, disturbed and bare patches) offers a wider range of habitats for invertebrates11, 12 and vertebrates (eg insects, voles, ground-nesting birds) and favours the establishment and persistence of sub-dominant plant species. Moderate grazing intensity is likely to maintain higher biodiversity than more intensive grazing or the absence of grazing, both of which act against botanical and structural diversity. Varied grazing management, including some temporary ungrazed areas, may be necessary to maintain the structural variability of grassland patches so as to maintain a spatial mosaic that favours the optimum insect fauna of upland grasslands11, 12. There has been some research on the restoration of botanical diversity on ‘agriculturally improved’ grassland. Light utilisation, or particular combinations of spring and autumn grazing with cutting, together with low fertiliser input and seed addition are

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 11 of 22

likely to be required for extended periods13. Late season haylage is a quite adequate forage for beef cows, and might reproduce the benefits that were lost when silage-making replaced hay-making.

There is a strong connection between soil nutrients and botanical diversity: nutrient inputs favour strongly competitive species such as perennial ryegrass at the expense of weak competitors14,15. Recovery of biodiversity on sites with a history of fertilisation presents a significant challenge16. Utilisation intensity is distinct from input intensity, referring instead to the harvesting efficiency of herbage. Few high input systems are utilised with low efficiency for very long, but other combinations of input and utilisation intensity occur. For example, low-input (including organic) systems may well be very intensively grazed, producing short, homogeneous swards. Although lacking structural diversity, such pastures would probably once have had high botanical diversity, containing species well adapted to intense defoliation and suppression of competition by grasses. Comparatively modest nutrient inputs, augmented by the rapid nutrient cycling under intensive grazing, soon reduces biodiversity in such systems. At the landscape scale, it has been noted that grassland areas tend to be species-poor and structurally uniform, irrespective of apparently broad differences in farming intensity, and that the consequences of this spatial uniformity on grassland biodiversity are likely to be profound17.

Extensification. Extensification of grassland use, with low fertiliser inputs and with seasonally-controlled and spatially-heterogeneous grazing and cutting management, seems to be a prerequisite for enhancing biodiversity. Extensification implies a reduction in output, and therefore an opportunity cost of foregone production – for example, BD1440 showed a reduction of 50% in beef output from swards grazed sufficiently lightly to maintain botanical and insect diversity. Extensification is, therefore, unlikely to be market-driven unless farmers can raise significantly the prices of what they produce to compensate for the production foregone. Modelling the economic effects of extensification could usefully indicate the scope for the necessary changes in farming practices to occur, given a range of input and output price assumptions.

One useful mitigation of the blanket extensification scenario might be a ‘mixed-economy’ approach to production, where extensification of the majority of grassland is permitted by intensifying key components of the overall system. For example, if periods of the year when nutrition is limiting (‘nutritional bottlenecks’) can be identified and overcome using intensively managed resources, such as red clover, this could improve the economic viability of farms that are otherwise extensively managed. Again, this strategy could be evaluated to some extent by modelling.

Market development. Diversification offers a way of overcoming the conflict between livelihood and biodiversity, especially in marginal areas. Stewardship is its natural partner in areas where livestock farming is uneconomic in its own right, and where agri-environment schemes provide insufficient income to be viable on their own. Where diversification is related to enhancing value from livestock that are primarily kept for stewardship or even from non-farm economic activity, it has merit as a topic for technical and socioeconomic research aimed at coupling farming and environmental benefits.

Diversification by adding value to livestock products may offer a way for farmers to reduce land-use intensity if the added value could be coupled to enhanced environmental standards. A few niche markets already exist for meat and dairy products that achieve something equivalent to appellation d’origine contrôlée (AOC) status. The French appelation system guarantees that the product will be produced consistently in the traditional manner, with ingredients from a designated geographical area, and will be made and at least partially aged in this area. Additionally, the production is strictly regulated by a control commission following AOC-defined standards, which may even specify the type and diversity of grassland to be used for animal products. For example, AOC rule changes in pricing of ewes’ milk for Roquefort cheese have led to extensification of grazing regimes18. Coherence of local production groups could also provide a platform for managing grassland at landscape scale, which could be very beneficial to biodiversity.

Development of products with biodiversity certification may seem a long way off in the UK, and to offer a limited market outlet, but could nevertheless form a market-driven environmental benefit. There is a legislative framework to establish PDO (Protected Designation of Origin), PGI (Protected Geographical Indication) or TSG (Traditional Speciality Guaranteed) status for European food products, and Defra is the relevant national authority for receiving applications. A proactive stance by Defra could be popular and, in the longer term, effective in helping re-connect consumers with a number of positive production values.

There is limited underpinning research on the organoleptic properties and healthiness of animal products derived from diverse pastures19. The absence of proof of a connection may be a constraint on the development of niche markets, but the main impediments are the attitudes of UK producers and consumers, for whom low cost seems the uppermost consideration.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 12 of 22

Appendix 1 Definition of this project

DefraSustainable Farming and Food Science Division

Informing the way forward for Defra grassland production R&D to support biodiversity outcomes

Background

In addition to research driving Environmental Stewardship, Defra has supported a significant portfolio of research to enable business led innovation in grassland management. The enhancement of the biodiversity value of grassland and other grazed habitats through informing the development of policy with respect to farming systems and innovation in business led farm practice is a major policy driver behind this production orientated research. In addition to work on grassland flora and grazing, wider research in support of grassland related biodiversity outcomes ranges from research supporting plant and animal breeding through to animal nutrition and husbandry. Defra wants to ensure that this type of research is effective in relation to the outcomes sought. Defra seeks to ensure that it is founded on a clear understanding of the impact of the research on farm practice with respect to the biodiversity outcomes sought.

This study will summarise ongoing and recently completed research. As one basis for the input into the direction of future research, the study will briefly evaluate the relevance and effectiveness of the research approaches and targets to the biodiversity outcomes sought. Following on from this, the main purpose is to provide guidance to Defra on if and how biodiversity outcomes should be supported by this type of production research in the future.

This study is being commissioned on the advice of the cross-Defra Environment and Landscape R&D Working Group, informed by the Research Priorities Group Report. It is being procured by the DG for Sustainable Farming and Food. Dr David Cooper will be the Defra Project Officer.

Specific objectives of the project

1. To assess the effectiveness of recent past and current R&D in meeting its biodiversity driven research objectives.

2. To assess the relevance of recent past and current grassland production research targets with respect to Defra’s biodiversity objectives.

3. To provide input into the identification and prioritisation of future research targets to support production-led innovation to increase in the biodiversity value of grassland.

Approach

Desk based study of existing research proposals and plans, and the reports arising from recently completed research.

Discussions with principal research scientists as appropriate. Assessment the overall cohesiveness and direction of the relevant R&D. Assessment of the research hypotheses and methodologies/approaches. Assessment of the effectiveness of the interface between grassland production research and research

driven to support Environmental Stewardship. (mainly the Species Rich Grassland (BD14) and Uplands (BD12) programme areas.

Analysis of the potential biodiversity benefits that can be realistically expected from Defra research aimed at production-led changes in grassland farm management, in addition to those arising from the interventions driven by Environmental Stewardship schemes.

Synthesis and report to Defra.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 13 of 22

Appendix 1.1 Relevant LS Projects as provided by Defra (February 2006)

Project number

Title Lead Scientist & Organisation

Sub contractors (Joint Contractors)

LS1511 Development of efficient, biologically sustainable and economically viable upland beef systems

IGER

LS2202 The development of multi-trait selection indices for longwool sheep to breed halfbred ewes of superior economic performance

University of Wales, Aberystwyth

LS3005 Demonstration of genetic improvement in crossbred progeny from Swaledale sheep

ADAS Consulting Ltd

LS3407 Optimal grazing management systems for sheep and beef cattle in the hills and uplands

Dr Mariecia Fraser IGER, Aberystwyth

LS3523 Healthiness and quality of beef produced from traditional and modern breeds reared on species-rich, unimproved grasslands

Prof Jeffrey WoodUniversity of Bristol

IGER, AberystwythIGER, North Wyke

LS3611 Improving the efficiency of utilisation of grass and legumes by grazing cattle and sheep

Dr Mark RutterIGER, North Wyke

LS3628 Optimising low input forage beef production systems

IGER

LS3643 Developing selection criteria for forage legumes that balance production, biodiversity and reduced environmental pollution

Dr Athole Marshall IGER, Aberystwyth

LS3644 Utilisation of selection criteria in white clover to produce varieties that balance production, biodiversity and environmental impact

Dr Michael AbbertonIGER, Aberystwyth

LS3645 Developing productive and persistent red clover varieties for sustainable livestock systems

Dr Michael AbbertonIGER, Aberystwyth

LS3646 Developing approaches to the use of forage legumes in upland environments to enhance biodiversity and produce balanced quality ruminant feed

Dr Michael AbbertonIGER, Aberystwyth

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 14 of 22

LS3648 Identification, genetic control and evaluation of traits enhancing environmental quality and bioremediation in multifunctional grassland

Dr James MacduffIGER, Aberystwyth

LS3659 Optimising nutrient use efficiency in beef cattle grazing lowland semi-natural pastures

Mr Robert J. Orr IGER, North Wyke

IS0214 New integrated dairy production systems: specification, practical feasibility and ways of implementation

Prof David Scholefield/ Mr Raymond Jones IGER, North Wyke

BD1228 Determining environmentally sustainable and economically viable grazing systems for the restoration and maintenance of heather moorland in England and Wales

Mr Owen DaviesADAS ConsultingLtd, Pwllpeiran

Penny Anderson Associates Ltd.(IGER Bronydd Mawr), (CEH), RSPB), (SAC), Newcastle

Major enphasis to be on those projects in bold script

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 15 of 22

Appendix 2. Extracts of Biodiversity Action Plans.

Extract: Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture /* COM/2001/0162 final */

3.2. Priorities

27. Ensuring the development of current intensive farming practices towards the achievement of a reasonable or rational degree of intensification. This involves:

* developing sound agricultural practices taking biodiversity into account (throughout diversification of types of production and of cultivated varieties together with all the aspects related to crop rotation);

* encouraging less intensive use of inputs (fertilisers and plant protection products) in certain situations;

* promoting coherent production systems, like organic farming or integrated crop management , that are in many ways favourable to biodiversity;

* supporting extensive methods of production, in particular in the stockfarming sector;* achieving sustainable management of natural resources, in particular of water.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52001DC0162(03):EN:HTML

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 16 of 22

Extracts from some Habitat Action Plans (www.ukbap.org.uk/) relevant to grassland farming systems.

Priority habitatsCurrent factors affecting the habitat Action plan objectives and targets

Lowland meadow

• The factors currently affecting lowland meadows reduce the quality and decrease the quantity of the habitat, and its fragmentation brings increased risk of species extinctions in the small remnant areas.• Agricultural improvement through, drainage, ploughing, re-seeding, fertiliser treatment, slurry application, conversion to arable and a shift from hay-making to silage production.• Decline in the perceived agricultural value of species-rich pasture and hay in farming regimes.• Abandonment leading to rank over-growth, and bracken (Pteridium aquilinum) and scrub encroachment.• Supplementary stock feeding, associated with increased stocking levels, which can lead to eutrophication as well as localised poaching.• Application of herbicides and other pesticides.• Atmospheric pollution and climate change, the influence of which is not fully assessed.• Reduced inundation frequency and duration, in water-meadows and floodplain grasslands associated with abandoned irrigation schemes, and lowered water tables as a result of land drainage, flood alleviation engineering, surface and ground water abstraction, floodplain gravel extraction and other activities.• Floristic impoverishment due to heavy grazing pressure and changes in stock species and breeds.

• Arrest the depletion of unimproved lowland meadow throughout the UK.• Within SSSIs and ASSIs, initiate rehabilitation management for all significant stands of unimproved lowland meadow in unfavourable condition by 2005.• Wherever biologically feasible achieve favourable status of all significant stands of unimproved lowland meadow within SSSIs and ASSIs by 2010• For stands outside SSSIs and ASSIs, secure favourable condition over 30% of the resource by 2005.• For stands outside SSSIs and ASSIs, wherever biologically feasible, secure favourable condition over 100% of the resource by 2015.• Attempt to re-establish 500 ha of lowland meadow of wildlife value at carefully targeted sites by 2010.

Purple moor grass and rush pastures• Agricultural improvement through drainage, cultivation and fertiliser applications. • Inappropriate management, including overgrazing by sheep and too frequent burning. • Agricultural abandonment, leading to rankness and scrub encroachment through lack of grazing. • Fragmentation and disturbance for developments such as housing and road constructions. • Afforestation, especially in Northern Ireland and Scotland.

• Arrest the depletion of purple moor grass and rush pasture throughout the UK.• Within SSSIs and ASSIs, initiate rehabilitation management for all significant stands of purple moor grass and rush pasture in unfavourable condition by 2005.• Wherever biologically feasible, achieve favourable status of all significant stands of purple moor grass and rush pasture in SSSIs and ASSIs by 2010.• For stands outside SSSIs and ASSIs, secure favourable condition over 30% of the resource by 2005.• For stands outside SSSIs and ASSIs, secure favourable condition over as near as practicable to 100% of the resource by 2010.• Attempt to re-establish 500 ha of purple moor grass and rush pasture of wildlife value at carefully targeted sites by 2010.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 17 of 22

Broad habitatsCurrent factors affecting the habitat Conservation direction

Acid grasslandsIn the lowlands this habitat is affected by:• Agricultural intensification, particularly fertilisation, ploughing and drainage.• Lack of grazing leading to an invasion by coarse grasses and scrub.In the uplands the main causes of change are:• Inappropriate grazing regimes by sheep, cattle, ponies and deer, typically excessive grazing levels at the wrong time of the year, which causes the habitat to become degraded.• Forestry planting.• Abandonment and neglect leading to encroachment by bracken Pteridium aquilinum.• Liming, ploughing and reseeding around the lower fringes of upland areas.

• Maintain and enhance important areas of acid grasslands, restore areas of degraded acid grassland, in particular to buffer existing important areas.Measures to be considered further include:• Identify the true extent and quality of the acid grassland resource.• Encourage appropriate livestock grazing to conserve the habitat.• Protect acid grasslands of conservation importance from inappropriate land use and intensification.• Restore habitat adjacent to important or vulnerable sites.• Research appropriate methods of managing and restoring acid grasslands in the uplands.

Improved grassland• In recent years the area of improved grassland has remained relatively stable. Grass remains one of the cheapest animal feed stuffs and as farm profit margins have decreased this has resulted in an intensification of grassland management on many farms since 1980.• Attempts to convert improved grassland to species-rich grassland have met with variable but generally limited success due to the residual fertiliser effect, particularly of phosphate.• A proportion of newly afforested land, particularly in the lowlands has been on improved grassland.• On improved grassland managed for recreation and amenity, particularly road verges and public open spaces, there is likely to have been some reduction in the intensity of management.• A high proportion of land restoration on former industrial sites, or associated with civil engineering projects, is to improved grassland.

• Enhance areas of improved grassland which are of importance for wildlife and restore semi-natural vegetation on sites where this would enhance their value for wildlife. Measures to be considered further include:• Protect important sites, which include areas of improved grasslands and enhance their potential for wildlife.• Research methods for recreating semi-natural habitats on areas of improved grassland and establish relevant habitat creation schemes.• Target activities which would damage semi-natural habitats, including economic development, recreation and some forms of forest planting, to areas of improved grassland which have no potential for restoration to semi-natural habitat.• Encourage environmentally sensitive farming methods.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 18 of 22

Appendix 3. Summaries of each project, by category.

Research category 1: Production research, including enabling research, without explicit treatment of biodiversity.

LS1511 Development of efficient, biologically sustainable and economically viable upland beef systems. Final Report

Evaluation of beef breeds grazing improved or Molinia-dominated (SNRG) pastures and wintered on grass silage or red clover silage. Improved pastures showed 55% higher LWG than SNRG; red clover silage gave higher gains than grass silage. Few breed differences, though good match of Welsh Black with systems containing SNRG. Useful information on performance of SNRG systems, but no explicit treatment of any environmental objectives.

LS2202 The development of multi-trait selection indices for longwool sheep to breed halfbred ewes of superior economic performance

Comparison of sheep breeds and development of a multi-trait selection index. Research of economic value to sheep producers but without reference to biodiversity.

LS3523 Healthiness and quality of beef produced from traditional and modern breeds reared on species-rich, unimproved grasslands

Aims to identify the role of unimproved biodiverse pastures and traditional breeds in achieving high levels of healthiness and quality in beef, and to develop an objective basis for branding the advantages of beef produced on biodiverse grassland. Chemical composition and eating quality are the two main response criteria, with possible breed effects due to genotype and differences in diet selection from biodiverse pastures. The latter assumption is not supported by other work, but the research could make a significant and useful enabling contribution to enhancing the image and price of the product from extensive systems.

LS3611 Improving the efficiency of utilisation of grass and legumes by grazing cattle and sheep

Aims to optimise the use of grass and legume-based sward systems. The principal focus is on diet choice in relation to the spatial heterogeneity of grass and clover. The only environmental component is the possible increase in the use of clover rather than N fertiliser, but this has limited relevance to biodiversity.

LS3628 Optimising low input forage beef production systems

Aims to exploit high sugar grasses and legumes to deliver low input systems, high animal performance and desired carcass characteristics. By reducing purchased inputs, the development of better forage-based systems could be of economic benefit, but the technology on its own has no predictable linkage to biodiversity benefits.

LS3643 Developing selection criteria for forage legumes that balance production, biodiversity and reduced environmental pollution

This is a forage breeding programme aimed at improving nutrient use efficiency, production and persistence, and how forage legumes perform agronomically in mixtures with other functional groups. There is a clear agronomic justification for forage breeding, but its connection with environmental and, above all, biodiversity benefits is tendentious. More efficient grassland farming in itself is very unlikely to be associated with noticeable biodiversity benefits of the scale required by the urgency of the problem.

LS3644 Utilisation of selection criteria in white clover to produce varieties that balance production, biodiversity and environmental impact

A programme of genetic improvement of white clover. The pretexts that clover has the merits of fixing nitrogen and providing nutritious traceable and home grown forage, and that fixed N must be used in a way that minimises losses, have clear benefits for grassland systems, but the resulting swards are unlikely to be more biodiverse.

LS3645 Developing productive and persistent red clover varieties for sustainable livestock systems

This programme of red clover breeding could contribute improved forage varieties to low input and organic livestock farming, and recognises that agronomic improvement must not ignore the diffuse N pollution from excreta and from leaching, especially after defoliation. Selection for PPO (which may reduce protein degradation) and leaching propensity is fundamental underpinning and enabling research that could reduce environmental impacts and earn red clover a greater role as a key nutritional component of systems otherwise extensively managed.

LS3646 Developing approaches to the use of forage legumes in upland environments to enhance biodiversity and produce balanced quality ruminant feed

Provides some background information on legume characteristics to support LS3643-5. The emphasis is on varietal improvement for low-fertility and upland situations. The arguments that upland swards into which such legumes are introduced will be more diverse, stable and have improved ‘ecosystem functioning' are highly contentious: negative effects on biodiversity could just as easily be argued. The proposed test of these conjectures goes no further than assessing yield stability and productivity of grass-legume mixtures.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 19 of 22

LS3648 Identification, genetic control and evaluation of traits enhancing environmental quality and bioremediation in multifunctional grassland

Seeks traits that might rehabilitate the image of perennial ryegrass through conferring 'added environmental value'. This will be achieved by genetically mapping a portfolio of 'enhanced environmental quality (EEQ)' traits, such as C-sequestration, 'aspects of functional soil microbial biodiversity’, bioremediation, nitrate removal in buffer zones and flood mitigation. The project usefully combines the need for these traits with the extensive knowledge of ryegrass, and could contribute enabling research findings, but the impact of the work on biodiversity is likely to be very limited even in the long term.

LS3659 Optimising nutrient use efficiency in beef cattle grazing lowland semi-natural pastures

Compares the effects of moderate and lenient grazing pressures on nutrient (N and P) cycling through cattle grazing semi-natural pastures, with the intention of 'producing grazing management guidelines that allow optimisation of product:pollutant ratios, economic performance and biodiversity outcomes'. Actually optimising over these three output criteria will be quite a challenge given their possible discordance and only two treatments, but may be achievable by relation to other projects and modelling. The aim of broadening the association of tall swards with biodiversity into an understanding of nutrient cycling could make a significant contribution to knowledge of system responses to management that is aimed at increasing biodiversity. No mention is made of any biodiversity monitoring during the experiment, allowing only weak inferences to be drawn on direct nutrient-cycling effects on biodiversity.

Research category 2: Production research, with indirect biodiversity components

LS3407 Optimal grazing management systems for sheep and beef cattle in the hills and uplands Research Contract Application 2004; Site Visit August 2006-10-12

Aims to "improve economic viability by improving livestock quality and utilising natural resources more efficiently" and "to promote upland biodiversity, while making best use of available resources". The expectation is that in the absence of headage payments, uplands will be grazed less intensively, with taller sward heights and greater habitat heterogeneity improving habitat value. The practical focus is to assess sheep and cattle impacts on SNRG and on systems research, comparing different ratios of cattle:sheep with or without summer SNRG grazing. The systems research includes extensive monitoring of vegetation condition and botanical composition and the assessment of habitat quality for invertebrate and vertebrate fauna. This is clearly in Research Category 2: the hypotheses are production focussed but there is active consideration of biodiversity consequences and monitoring of botanical and faunal diversity. However, the systems research does not directly apply treatments (eg defined vegetation states) that would be tests of biodiversity hypotheses: rather, it allows vegetation state to arise indirectly, as an effect of livestock treatments. Given the limited number of treatments that the size and complexity of systems research imposes, this will limit the generality and strength of inference of effects on biodiversity.

Systems research may be of great value in determining long-term consequences of management of whole systems and providing a research and demonstration platform, but its weakness lies in the limited number of treatment combinations that are feasible. It needs to be augmented with smaller-scale mechanistic research into system components, which is a more cost-effective and reliable way of driving mechanistic understanding. Plentiful knowledge has been accumulated on sward-animal interactions, but vegetation-biodiversity interactions now need further attention, as the direct, rather than the indirect, subjects of research. Such studies would add value to the present project, and could be separate or form an extension to it.

IS0214 New integrated dairy production systems: specification, practical feasibility and ways of implementation. Research Contract Application and Annual Report 2005/06

Proposes dairy systems modelling to define criteria of sustainability and performance; examine effects of N and P via 'score matrices’ relating biodiversity, landscape, product quality and welfare; and identify conditions for economic and environmental sustainability. This is a coherent and worthwhile approach to integrating a wide range of factors into a modelling framework and is an approach that would have wide utility in other grazing systems research. The Annual Report shows excellent progress towards modelling the physical effects of management changes, although the biodiversity linkage remains to be made at this stage. Dairying is so highly intensified that the approach is unlikely to improve biodiversity unless it is capable of identifying land-use scenarios that are radically different from current practice.

Research category 4: Biodiversity research, with a monitoring of production effects

BD1440 Ecologically sustainable grazing management of lowland unimproved neutral grassland and its effect on livestock performance. Final Report

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 20 of 22

Aimed to identify sward-based criteria for grazing botanically-diverse neutral grasslands that would provide optimal conditions for enhancing and maintaining biodiversity and to assess the agronomic value of such grasslands. Use of the proportion of pasture above 12cm appears to be a useful criterion for sustaining botanical and insect biodiversity over two to three years. The build-up of soil nutrients under grazing suggested that integration with periods of hay cutting may be required for the positive biodiversity effect to be sustained. Cattle gains were comparable with more intensively-grazed swards, but the required reduction in stocking rate cut gains per hectare by half.

The research tested biodiversity-focussed hypotheses and produced valuable knowledge of the relationship between sward height under grazing and biodiversity, whilst clearly demonstrating the economic cost in lost animal production and alerting to the dangers of eventual nutrient build-up under grazing.

Research category 5: Biodiversity research

BD1228 Determining environmentally sustainable and economically viable grazing systems for the restoration and maintenance of heather moorland in England and Wales

This is research on the restoration ecology of heather moorland. It has a number of components that are driven by biodiversity-related hypotheses (eg. WP5, Objective 4, ‘Test selected regimes and techniques for restoring and maintaining heather on degraded moorland sites’). This monitors vegetation, biodiversity and animal performance under a range of grazing regimes to elucidate how grazing impacts affect restoration. The wider biodiversity linkage is, therefore, via the conditions that favour heather recolonisation. A comprehensive range of modelling and experimental methodologies is proposed.

References to published material9. This section should be used to record links (hypertext links where possible) or references to other

published material generated by, or relating to this project.

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 21 of 22

References

1. Kleijn, D., Berendse, F., Smit, R. & Gilissen, N. (2001) Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes Nature 413, 723-725 2. Kleijn, D. & Sutherland, W. J. (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?. Journal of Applied Ecology 40, 947-9693. Donald, P.F. & Evans, A.D. (2006) Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider implications of agri-environment schemes. Journal of Applied Ecology 43, 209-2184. The Royal Society (2003) Measuring biodiversity for conservation. The Royal Society, London.5. Nee, S. (2004) More than meets the eye: Earth's real biodiversity is invisible. Nature 429, 804-8056. Mace G.M., Baillie J., Masundire H., Ricketts T.H., Brooks T.M., Hoffmann M., Stuart S., Balmford A., Purvis A., Reyers B., Wang J., Revenga C., Kennedy E.T., Naeem S., Alkemade R., Allnutt T., Bakarr M., Bond W., Chanson J., Cox N., Fonseca G., Hilton-Taylor C., Loucks C., Rodrigues A., Sechrest W., Stattersfield A.J., van Rensburg B. & Whiteman C. (2005) Biodiversity. In: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Current State and Trends: Findings of the Condition and Trends Working Group. Ecosystems and Human Well-being, vol. 1. Island press, Washington DC7. De Deyn GB, Raaijmakers CE, Zoomer HR, Berg MP, de Ruiter PC, Verhoef HA, Bezemer TM, van der Putten WH (2003) Soil invertebrate fauna enhances grassland succession and diversity Nature 422, 711-713 8. Thomas, J. A., Telfer, M. G., Roy, D. B., Preston, C. D., Greenwood, J. J. D., Asher, J., Fox, R., Clarke, R. T., and Lawton, J. H. (2004) Comparative Losses of British Butterflies, Birds, and Plants and the Global Extinction Crisis Science 303, 1879-18819. Biesmeijer, J. C., Roberts, S. P. M., Reemer, M., Ohlemüller, R., Edwards, M., Peeters, T., Schaffers, A. P., Potts, S. G., Kleukers, R., Thomas, C. D., Settele, J. and Kunin, W. E. (2006) Parallel Declines in Pollinators and Insect-Pollinated Plants in Britain and the Netherlands Science 313, 351-35410. Vickery, J.A., Tallowin, J.R., Feber, R.E., Asteraki, E.J., Atkinson, P.W., Fuller, R.J. & Brown, V.K. (2001) The management of lowland neutral grasslands in Britain: effects of agricultural practices on birds and their food resources. Journal of Applied Ecology 38,647-66411. Dennis, P., Young M.R. and Bentleya, C. (2001) The effects of varied grazing management on epigeal spiders, harvestmen and pseudoscorpions of Nardus stricta grassland in upland Scotland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 86, 39-57.12. Dennis P., Young M.R., Howard C.L., & Gordon I.J. (1997) The response of epigeal beetles (Col: Carabidae, Staphylinidae) to varied grazing regimes on upland Nardus stricta grasslands J Applied Ecology 34, 433-44313. Smith, R.S., Shiel, R.S., Millward, D. & Corkhill, P. (2000) The interactive effects of management on the productivity and plant community structure of an upland meadow: an 8-year field trial. Journal of Applied Ecology 37 ,1029-104314. Stevens, C. J., Dise, N. B., Mountford, J. O., Gowing, D. J. (2004) Impact of Nitrogen Deposition on the Species Richness of Grasslands. Science 303, 1876-187915.. Suding, K.N., Collins, S.L., Gough, L., Clark, C., Cleland, E. E., Gross, K.L., Milchunas, D.G., and Pennings, S, (2005) Functional- and abundance-based mechanisms explain diversity loss due to N fertilization PNAS 102, 4387-439216. Dennis, P., Doering, J., Stockan, J. A., Jones, J. R., Rees, M. E., Vale, J. E. & Sibbald, A. R. (2004) Consequences for biodiversity of reducing inputs to upland temperate pastures: effects on beetles (Coleoptera) of cessation of nitrogen fertilizer application and reductions in stocking rates of sheep. Grass & Forage Science 59, 121-13517. Tallowin, J. R. B., Smith, R. E. N., Goodyear, J. & Vickery, J. A. (2005) Spatial and structural uniformity of lowland agricultural grassland in England: a context for low biodiversity. Grass & Forage Science 60, 225-23618. Fabien Quetier, F., Marty, P., & Lepart, J. (2005) Farmers’ management strategies and land use in an agropastoral landscape: roquefort cheese production rules as a driver of change Agricultural Systems 84, 171–19319. Martin B, Verdier-Metz I, Buchin S, Hurtaud C, Coulon JB. 2005. How do the nature of forages and pasture diversity influence the sensory quality of dairy livestock products? Animal Science : 81, 205-212

SID 5 (Rev. 3/06) Page 22 of 22