1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Technology

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)

European Interreg project FABulous Farmers {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6158, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Technology (if relevant)', 'text': 'UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (CEH) - United Kingdom', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Create strips with flowering plants in the margins of arable fields.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

In the Hoeksche Waard area (Netherlands), field margin strips between 2 and 20 meters wide have been sown in the margins of arable or vegetable crop fields with a mixture of native flowering plant species, with plant species targeted to encourage certain target insect abundances. A mixture of annual flowers are sown in spring (April or May), or perennial plant mixtures (flowers and grasses) sown also in spring, or prefernetially in late summer (September). Annual flower strips produce flowers mostly in summer, whereas perennial strips produce mostly flowers in the following spring and following years.

The purpose of flower strips is to support the natural pest control and pollination by native insect species for reduced disease and increased production. Many flying natural enemies of pests require pollen and/or nectar in the adult stage for survival and reproduction, needing food on a regular basis, so must be in short range from the crop fields, i.e. in the margin of or within the field. Pollinators also need food when the crop is not flowering in order to build up a local population.

For the implementation of field margin strips to be successful, knowledge of the plant species mixtures was requried to know what would grow well in this semi-humid, deep heavy soil, agricultural environment, as well as growing well together with the right characteristics to support the target insect groups. For example, most natural enemies have small mouth parts and can only feed on nectar from shallow flowers, thus require a specific seed mix (<2 cm deep, see Van Rijn & Wäckers, Journal of Applied Ecology 2016). Here, the species were selected for their ability to support natural enemies of aphids (such as hoverflies) or wild bees, especially bumblebees. The first group includes flowers with accessible nectar (< 2 cm deep) such as Apiaceae, buckwheat, cornflower, and Asteraceae with shallow florets. The second group includes red clover, lotus and other Fabaceae, as well as Asteraceae with deeper florets (such as sunflowers). Perennial mixtures are generally supplemented with annual flowers (cornflowers and poppies) that already produce flowers the first year, as well as (slow growing) grass species (Festuca) to make the strips more robust when incidentally used as tractor paths.

Additionally for implementation, knowledge on how to effectivly use the seed sowing machines, with special care required for preparing the seed bed in advance, to prevent segregation of bigger and smaller seed in the machine, and for sowing the seeds not to deep and the field margin strips should be maintained for a number of years to allow for a local build up of beneficial insect populations. Another considertation is the farming practise and the surrounding landscape as it should provide other resources needed by the insect population, such as hibernation habitat and bee nesting sites or additional (prey and flower providing) habitats for other generations of natural enemies.

The benefits are multiple. The reduced need to use insecticides, especially against aphids, increases the capacity for pollination and reduces the need to manage honeybees, although regular scouting of pest and natural enimies in the adjacent crop field is required to ensure benefits. The strip acts as a buffer to reduce the drift of fertilisers and pesticides into adjacent ditches and water courses. And, there is a social benefit with an increased appreciaiton of the arable landscape by citizens enjoying the mosaic of flowers and crops in the landscape.

The technology overall has been a great success, yet does have a small number of draw backs to be aware of and manage effectivly. Weeds usually occur in the year of sowing and there can be some dislike of the rough nature of the vegetation compared to crop fields. To help manage these challenges field margin strips are sometimes mown while still flowering, ideally mowing is done only once a year and at the end of the growing season (September).

The compilation of this SLM is a part of the European Interreg project FABulous Farmers which aims to reduce the reliance on external inputs by encouraging the use of methods and interventions that increase the farm’s Functional AgroBiodiversity (FAB). Visit www.fabulousfarmers.eu and www.nweurope.eu/Fabulous-Farmers for more information.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.4 Videos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

2.6 Date of implementation

Indicate year of implementation:

2005

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• during experiments/ research
• through projects/ external interventions

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production
• conserve ecosystem
• protect a watershed/ downstream areas – in combination with other Technologies
• preserve/ improve biodiversity
• create beneficial economic impact

• support natural pest control and improve natural pollination by native insect species

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

No

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• integrated pest and disease management (incl. organic agriculture)

• herbaceous field margin strips

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

Comments:

Applying field margin strips for pest control and improved biodiversity

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• reduce land degradation

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology unit

other/ national currency (specify):

Euro

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

0.89

4.3 Establishment activities

	Activity	Timing (season)
1.	Creating seed bed using shallow plough to invert weeds and provide bare soil surface o sow seed	1 month before sowing
2.	Fertiliser application (as required)	Just before or with sowing
3.	Sowing seed. Annual flowers are typically sown in rows (30 cm apart), allowing for mechanical weed control (once or twice) in between the rows. Perennial strips are broadcast sown (at a density of 18 kg/ha) and not weeded.	April/May or September
4.	Weeding using machinery (of annual strips)	1 month after sowing
5.	Mowing using machenery	1 month after sowing
6.	Ploughing (when strips are removed or resown)	after mowing

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Farm worker	person-days	2.5	100.0	250.0	100.0
Equipment	Tractor	machine-days	2.5	50.0	125.0	100.0
Equipment	Sowing machine	machine-days	0.75	50.0	37.5	100.0
Equipment	Plough	machine-days	1.5	50.0	75.0	100.0
Equipment	Mower	machine-days	0.75	50.0	37.5	100.0
Plant material	Seed mix	kg	18.0	40.0	720.0
Fertilizers and biocides	Fertilizer	kg	100.0	2.0	200.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology					1445.0
Total costs for establishment of the Technology in USD					1623.6

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

	Activity	Timing/ frequency
1.	Mowing	Once per year

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

	Specify input	Unit	Quantity	Costs per Unit	Total costs per input	% of costs borne by land users
Labour	Farm worker	person-days	0.75	100.0	75.0	100.0
Equipment	Tractor	machine-days	0.75	50.0	37.5	100.0
Equipment	Mower	machine-days	0.75	50.0	37.5	100.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology					150.0
Total costs for maintenance of the Technology in USD					168.54

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Seed mixture choice can vary in price and weed control can be challenging

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, not titled

Land use rights:

• leased
• individual

Water use rights:

• communal (organized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

No

Specify:

land use rights are traded

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Water cycle/ runoff

Soil

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Biological disasters

	How does the Technology cope with it?
insect/ worm infestation	very well

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

Evaluation based on no subsidies; with subsidies the returns are balanced or slightly positive.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 11-50%

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 0-10%

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

Yes

other (specify):

changing CAP subsidy regulations

Specify adaptation of the Technology (design, material/ species, etc.):

CAP subsidy regulations are financial supports for land management, changes since technology implementation have supported the use of flower margin strips making the implementaiton more favorable. More general information on CAP can be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cap-glance_en#documents

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Use of land difficult for agricultural practices can be used
Community building when implemented across an area, connecting farmers together and connection to the public who appreciate more flowers in thier landscape

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
New habitat for wildlife, including pollinators and natural pest controls: increased numbers of flowering plants increased numbers of bees, hoverflies and natural enemies
Multifunctionality of flower margins makes them more cost effective; e.g. flower margins close to ditches increases macrofauna diversity in waters
Bufferzone for surface water pollution
Recreational (human health) benefits

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
Additional work & costs sowing and maintaining the flower margins compared to leaving the areas unused	Community effort of the Hoeksche Waard reduces individual efforts

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Without subsidy the implementation costs can be prohibitive	Ensure subsidies available for continued sustainable land use.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Research on field margins by the University of Amsterdam

URL:

https://ibed.uva.nl/content/news/2019/02/importance-of-flower-strips-in-arable-fields.html?1570545036515