GAIA 28/4(2019): 342– 347
Insect conservation in agricultural landscapes
An outlook for policy-relevant research
Insect populations decline, particularly in intensively managed agricultural landscapes. Insect communities are influenced by
current agricultural practices, which are themselves determined by the economic, political and social frameworks.
We highlight these direct and indirect drivers affecting insect communities, raise key research questions and discuss options
for action to encourage a transformative change towards an economic, political and social system protecting biodiversity.
Anne-Christine Mupepele, Katrin Böhning-Gaese, Sebastian Lakner, Tobias Plieninger, Nicolas Schoof, Alexandra-Maria Klein
Dr. Anne-Christine Mupepele | University of Freiburg | Faculty of Environment
and Natural Resources | Tennenbacher Str. 4 | 79106 Freiburg | Germany and
Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Center | Frankfurt am Main |
Germany | +49 7612033631 | email@example.com |
Prof.Dr. Katrin Böhning-Gaese | Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate
Research Center | Frankfurt am Main | Germany and Goethe University
Frankfurt | Institute for Ecology, Evolution and Diversity | Frankfurt am Main |
Germany | firstname.lastname@example.org |
Dr.Sebastian Lakner | Thünen-Institute for Rural Studies | Braunschweig |
Germany and University of Göttingen | Agricultural Economics and
Rural Development | Göttingen | Germany | email@example.com |
iological diversity is declining across the globe, resulting in the
loss of ecosystem functioning and services (IPBES 2019). For
insects, declining diversity has been shown in long-term studies,
especially in areas with intensive agricultural land use (Beckmann
et al. 2019, Homburg et al. 2019). A long-term record in Germany
measuring the biomass of flying insects indicated a dramatic loss
of flying insects in protected areas over the past 27 years (Hall-
mann et al. 2017).1Hallmann et al.’s publication has attracted world-
wide public attention and led to a societal and professional debate
on how to improve insect conservation. It supported conclusions
from the first report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES 2016) that
had stirred discussion on insect conservation internationally. In
Germany, these reports contributed to recent political action that
extends existing efforts to protect biodiversity by programs focus -
ing particularly on insect conservation, for example, the “action
program for insect conservation”(Aktionsprogramm Insektenschutz)
of the German Federal Government (BMU 2019).
Here we aim to give a perspective from a social-ecological and
economic research experience on future research that is required
to improve knowledge about declining insect populations in agri-
cultural landscapes and to develop effective conservation strate-
gies with a focus on Germany. To mitigate insect decline the driv-
ers responsible for these losses need to be addressed. As drivers
occur on different levels and manifest as direct or indirect influ -
ences on insect communities, we proceed as follows: first, we iden-
tify the potential drivers influencing insect communities and group
them according to their type of impact (direct or indirect). Second,
we raise research questions related to these drivers and define the
prerequisites to answer them (research approach). Lastly, we sug-
gest conservation measures based on knowledge that is currently
available. In the following, we start by introducing the conserva -
tion target: insect communities.
Insects fulfill manifold ecosystem functions and develop various
values for humans.2They provide ecosystem services, for example
pollinating crops or decomposing litter and excrements (Klein et
al. 2018). They can also harm human well-being, for example, as
crop pests or vectors of disease (Schäckermann et al. 2015). Their
decline can have tremendous effects on ecosystem functions and
Insect conservation in agricultural landscapes. An outlook for policy-relevant research |GAIA 28/4(2019): 342 – 347
Keywords: biodiversity, drivers for change, insect decline, interdisciplinary, transdisciplinarity
Prof.Dr. Tobias Plieninger | University of Göttingen | Agricultural Economics
and Rural Development | Göttingen | Germany and University of Kassel |
Organic Agricultural Sciences | Witzenhausen | Germany |
firstname.lastname@example.org | https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1478-2587
Nicolas Schoof,MSc | University of Freiburg | Faculty of Environment and Natural
Resources | Freiburg | Germany | email@example.com
Prof.Dr. Alexandra-Maria Klein | University of Freiburg | Faculty of
Environment and Natural Resources | Freiburg | Germany |
©2019 A.-C. Mupepele et al.; licensee oekom verlag.This article is distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License CCBY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0).
Submitted July 13, 2019; revised version accepted November18, 2019.
342_347_Mupepele 03.12.19 20:40 Seite 342
GAIA 28/4(2019): 342– 347
1 This was recently confirmed by an insect survey in 150 grassland sites
covering ten years (Seibold et al. 2019).
2 Insects include very diverse taxonomic orders, such as beetles (Coleoptera),
butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera), bees, wasps and ants (Hymenoptera)
and flies (Diptera).
Insect communities are characterized by their diversity, num-
bers of individuals and community composition. While general
trends of diversity are known, there is less certainty about the long-
term trends of specific species and the community composition
(IPBES 2019, Basset and Lamarre 2019). It remains mostly un-
known whether insect species that are beneficial or damaging for
human well-being are more affected by decline(IPBES 2016). Be-
side changes in species diversity, traits and genetic diversity are
lost (Pereira et al. 2012). Insect communities and their character -
istic components are influenced by direct and indirect drivers (fig -
ure 1) – these are explained in the next step.
Direct drivers of insect losses
Direct drivers of insect losses comprise 1. habitat availability and
quality, and 2. land-use practices.
Habitat availability and quality (1)
To maintain stable populations, insects require habitats depend-
ing on their species-specific needs. On a landscape scale, two com-
ponents are important: first, the species-specific habitat needs to
be large enough to host a viable population, and second, with in-
creasing landscape diversity multiple species will find their habi-
tat requirements. Isolated habitat patches resulting from homo -
genization of landscapes and fragmentation of natural habitats
have negative effects on diversity (Rossetti et al.2017). Habitat re -
quirements for particular insect groups such as bees are known
especially in regard to landscape elements such as hedges, field
margins and extensively used meadows and pastures (Ponisio et
al. 2019, Sands and Wall 2017) (figure 2,p.345).Quantification of
how many and what kind of landscape elements are required for
conserving insects across taxa has been less investigated (e.g., Bat -
áry et al. 2017). Habitat availability and quality are themselves in-
fluenced by various drivers, such as climate change or land-use
practices. Land-use practices such as the application of pesticides
can also directly influence insects.
Land-use practices (2)
Most typically, the decline in insect diversity is related to multiple
processes of land-use intensification in agricultural landscapes
(Beckmann et al. 2019). Intensification increases cultivation or live-
stock husbandry outputs (e.g., via fertilizer inputs) and narrows
the variety of agricultural ecosystem services via specialization.
Intensification also leads to a decrease in landscape elements, such
as hedgerows (Van Vliet et al. 2015). Additionally, the abandon-
ment of landscape management can be an important driver of di-
versity decline, for example, if extensively managed grasslands are
given up and overgrown by scrub (Ernst et al. 2017). Location fac-
tors such as accessibility, soil quality or local climate explain why
some regions are more prone to agricultural intensification or
abandonment, while others have preserved higher shares of high
nature value farming (Van Vliet et al. 2015).
Indirect drivers: political, economic and social
Agricultural practices are driven by economic, political, cultural
and natural factors (Plieninger et al. 2016). Economic drivers (3)
play an important role, as agricultural production is influenced
by local, European and global markets. Political drivers (4) influ -
ence land use either by shaping the economy with income subsi -
dies or support for production, or via laws for land consolidation
or directly regulating management. The most important Europe -
an Union policy is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the
way it is implemented in national policies (Heinrich et al. 2013).
Despite relating 30 percent of the direct payments to measures
Anne-Christine Mupepele et al.
FIGURE 1: Drivers influencing
insect communities in agricul-
tural landscapes. The flowchart
is giving broad categories
(bold), specified by a non-
exhaustive list with examples
within these categories (bullet
points). Numbers provide
a link to equally numbered
a Food may be seen as part of ecosystem services, but here we emphasize the role of food as the main
purpose of agricultural production and therefore explicitly mention it beside other ecosystem services.
342_347_Mupepele 03.12.19 20:40 Seite 343
Anne-Christine Mupepele et al.344 FORUM344
GAIA 28/4(2019): 342– 347
intended to protect the environment (“greening”) and offering pay-
ments for voluntary measures (“agri-environmental schemes”),
the present CAP has shown substantial weaknesses in delivering
public goods and sustaining biodiversity (Pe’er et al. 2017, Pe’er
et al. 2019).
Society (5) influences political action and agricultural produc-
tion for example through consumer behavior (Seufert and Raman -
kutty 2017). Agricultural practices are also influenced by attitudes
and motivations of farmers. Farmers either focus on production,
emphasize their role in conserving biodiversity, or have a more ho-
listic understanding of being conservationists, primary producers,
and managers of a range of ecosystem services. Individual farm-
ers’ motivations have so far not been sufficiently considered for
the success of the implementation of some public policies (Dess -
art et al. 2019), although these policies are key to place farmland
biodiversity “in the hands and minds of farmers” (De Snoo et al.
2013). Motivations and practices of farmers are themselves influ -
enced by markets, social acceptance and the regulations set up by
the political frame. Effective insect conservation requires manage -
ment changes at the scale of landscapes, hence the degree of col-
laboration between farmers in a landscape is also an important
driver (Prager et al. 2012).
Successful conservation of insects requires strong knowledge per-
taining to the direct and indirect drivers as well as their complex
interactions, and about the design and implementation of com-
prehensive action as informed by transformation research. Based
on the experience of the authors, we suggest exemplary research
questions that would improve the understanding of these rela-
tionships in the following:
Research on direct drivers:
1. How does the above- and belowground insect community
composition and their traits in agricultural landscapes
change with quantity, quality and configuration of
2. How does the management of permanent grasslands and
croplands affect insect communities and their diversity on
different landscape scales?
3. How do beneficial insects and pest species interact and
influ ence each other?
4. How does the equilibrium between beneficial insects and
pests change related to land use and various landscape
5. How do different pesticides and their combinations
(includ ing livestock medication) affect different insect
species and their ecological interactions?
6. How much of which pesticide is retained in the soils?
7. What are suitable indicators to monitor biodiversity on
farmland and how can the indicators successfully be linked
Research on indirect drivers:
1. How can we organize transformation processes within
industrialized societies to a more sustainable farming and
economic system, where externalities are priced into the
2. How can we identify most effective leverage points to
transform a system of natural and social components
towards a more sustainable system?
3. How do different actors, such as farmers, consumers and
the civil society, influence each other in their direct or
indirect impacts on insect populations?
4. How can we organize or support collaborative actions
between farmers and citizens through, for example,
community-supported agriculture, which can also support
5. How do political measures, including incentives
(subsidies) and obligations (regulations), lead to changes
in insect communities?
6. How will measures in the CAP, such as the eco-schemes
and conditionality, presumably replacing the “greening”
after 2020, impact insect conservation?
7. How can the link between incentive-based schemes and
conservation targets be improved while simultaneously
considering and leaving space to farmers’ intrinsic motivation?
8. How can agricultural policy incentivize a diversification of
farms regarding the provision of biodiversity as a regular
part of their business and support investments into farm
resources (labor, machinery, land) being necessary for such
All the drivers mentioned interact in multiple ways, so that an
integrative research approach including production, economics,
politics, legislation, biodiversity and society is needed to accom-
modate the complexities among them (figure 1). So far, mainly
individual links, for example, between political activities and land
use, have been investigated (Batáry et al. 2015). An integrative ap -
proach requires an interdisciplinary research design, where differ -
ent disciplines collaborate in design, implementation and evalu -
a tion, such as in Rosa-Schleich et al. (2019). This can be achieved
by integrating socio-cultural, economic and ecological methodol -
ogies at the farm level offering the opportunity to gain valuable
in sights for sustainable production systems (Poudel et al. 2002,
Lakner and Breustedt 2017).3
Research approaches to gain knowledge
Research to fill the previously outlined knowledge gaps needs dif-
ferent approaches. Transdisciplinary research, linking science and
practice, is based on integrative approaches (Pohl et al. 2017). Giv-
en the complexity of the interaction of drivers, transformation re-
search can help navigate the process, including balancing trade-
offs between multiple stakeholders affected and monitoring and
evaluating the impact of measures undertaken (Loorbach et al.
342_347_Mupepele 03.12.19 20:40 Seite 344
GAIA 28/4(2019): 342– 347
Anne-Christine Mupepele et al. FORUM 345
2017). Assessing and synthesizing the available knowledge relat -
ed to one research question can be best done by a systematic re-
view, as it was realized for example in an analysis on the effective -
ness of agri-environmental management on pollinators (Marja et
al. 2019) or the effects of schooling on farming practices (Wad -
dington et al. 2014).
Primary studies in research are most commonly based on short
funding phases. The link between particular species and the ef-
fect of a driver (e.g., pesticides) can be investigated in short term
at best through experimental studies, but changes in communi -
ties may be found only over longer time scales, and extinctions oc-
cur with a delay. Long-term social-ecological research can reveal
the long-term impact on species groups and communities result-
ing from an experimental manipulation. In Germany, long-term
(social-)ecological research is organized as part of a European and
global network, with most prominent sites being the Biodiversity
Exploratories4and the Jena Experiment5, both supported by Deut -
sche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
In addition to long-term social-ecological research, monitoring
is required as it provides information on a longer scale and with
a better coverage in space. It takes place to report the state of land -
scapes and society. So far, the coordination of comparable moni -
toring schemes covering a large space (across Germany, Europe
or even globally) and a broad range of taxonomic groups is miss-
ing (see also Geschke et al. 2019).
Insect conservation measures
Beside the identification of the drivers and their interaction re-
sponsible for insect decline, immediate changes need to and can
be instigated to reach a transformation towards a more favorable
environment for insect communities (Leopoldina et al. 2018, SRU
2018, Forister et al. 2019, BMU 2019). The current knowledge of-
fers multiple leverage points to foster insect conservation in agri-
cultural landscapes and each of them is ideally monitored and
Key arenas for action are:
Agricultural policy: In 2018, the European Commission launched
a new reform proposal for their CAP post 2020 (Pe’er et al. 2019).
To become a central instrument to mitigate biodiversity decline,
the link between subsidies and good practice prioritizing environ -
mental protection and the adaptability to local conditions needs
fundamental improvement, for example, by strengthening and
simplifying agri-environmental measures emphasizing specif-
ic targeted measures, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach like >
3 Ecosystem services provide a good common framework to investigate
trade-offs between ecological, economic and social interests.
FIGURE 2: An ivy bee (Colletes hederae) collecting pollen from ivy (Hedera helix) at Kaiserstuhl in Southern Germany. The ivy bee nests in coarse clay
and sandy soils and is mainly oligolectic, which means it requires particular plants as food source.
342_347_Mupepele 03.12.19 20:40 Seite 345
GAIA 28/4(2019): 342– 347
Anne-Christine Mupepele et al.346 FORUM346
“greening” (see Pe’er et al. 2017). This requires knowledge on spe-
cific relationships such as between agri-environmental practices
and resulting impacts on insect populations, and how to embed
measures in farming cultures to be sustained self-evidently as part
of conventional “good farming” practice (Burton and Paragahaw -
e wa 2011).
Law enforcement: The number of laws and regulations to sustain
biodiversity has substantially increased over the past decades, but
there is a lack of implementation of existing laws and controls, typ-
ically due to missing financial and staff resources (LANA 2016).
Especially at the level of local administration, a lack of priority and
financial means can hamper the implementation of regulations
(Haupt et al. 2010).
Trade and markets: Incorporating non-marketable services into
the market, for example, by taxing or subsidizing through payments
of ecosystem services, potentially protects habitats required for in-
sect conservation. Creating markets for regional products will sup-
port local value chains. The market for organic products with its es-
tablished certification system for a more environmental-friendly
farming process might serve as a guide to incorporate “biodiversi -
ty-friendly” products into respective certification systems. There
are some promising first approaches to develop and test such a cer-
tification scheme together with the food retailers (Stein-Bachinger
and Gottwald 2016). But here, particular social-ecological impacts
of different certification systems, direct and indirect land-use chang -
es resulting from certification, and a potential “consumer fatigue”
regarding new certificates and labels need further investigation.n
Civil society: Civil society plays an important role to realize initia -
tives from bottom-up. These serve as multipliers and can influ-
ence public opinion and politics, such as recently seen in the pop-
ular petition to conserve biodiversity in Bavaria.6The engagement
of society in research activities (citizen science) can empower cit-
izens’ scientific competences and simultaneously support science
by voluntary labor and outreach. As a relatively new research area,
little is known about the mechanisms underlying a successful cit-
izen science initiative.
Sustaining insect diversity and mitigating losses of insect popu -
la tions requires a transformative change towards an economic,
political and social system protecting biodiversity. Transformative
change ideally starts at several leverage points simultaneously, and
the above-mentioned key arenas demand action from multiple
stakeholder groups. Action needs to be coordinated on a landscape
scale, while constantly monitoring the impact of change and act-
ing based on continuously updated, best available evidence.
We thank the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, the Union of
the German Academies of Sciences and Humanities and the National Academy
of Science and Engineering (acatech) for initiating and funding the working
group Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscape providing the opportunity for the
authors to meet in workshops and share their ideas. We thank the members
of the working group for discussions and input. The first author was funded
by the STAY scholarship of the Neue Universitätsstiftung Freiburg.
Basset, Y., G. P.A. Lamarre. 2019. Toward a world that values insects.
Science 364/6447: 1230 –1231.
Batáry, P., L.V. Dicks, D. Kleijn, W. J. Sutherland. 2015. The role of agri-
environment schemes in conservation and environmental management.
Conservation Biology 29/4: 1006 –1016.
Batáry, P. et al. 2017. The former iron curtain still drives biodiversity-profit trade-
offs in German agriculture. Nature Ecology and Evolution 1/9: 1279 –1284.
Beckmann, M. et al. 2019. Conventional land-use intensification reduces
species richness and increases production: A global meta-analysis.
Global Change Biology 25: 1941–1956.
BMU (Bundesministerium für Umwelt Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit).
2019. Aktionsprogramm Insektenschutz der Bundesregierung. Gemeinsam
wirksam gegen das Insektensterben. www.bmu.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/
bf.pdf (accessed November 6, 2019).
Burton, R. J.F., U. H. Paragahawewa. 2011. Creating culturally sustainable
agri-environmental schemes. Journal of Rural Studies 27/1: 95–104.
De Snoo, G. R. et al. 2013. Toward effective nature conservation on farmland:
Making farmers matter. Conservation Letters 6/1: 66 –72.
Dessart, F. J., J. Barreiro-Hurlé, R. van Bavel. 2019. Behavioural factors
affecting the adoption of sustainable farming practices: A policy-oriented
review. European Review of Agricultural Economics 46/3: 417– 471.
Ernst, L. M., T. Tscharntke, P. Batáry. 2017. Grassland management in
agricultural vs. forested landscapes drives butterfly and bird diversity.
Biological Conservation 216/217: 51–59.
Forister, M. L., E.M. Pelton, S. H. Black. 2019. Declines in insect abundance
and diversity: We know enough to act now. Conservation Science and
Practice 1/8: 1 8.
Geschke, J. et al. 2019. Biodiversitätsmonitoring in Deutschland. Wie
Wissenschaft, Politik und Zivilgesellschaft ein Nationales Monitoring
unterstützen können. GAIA 28/3: 265– 270. DOI:10.14512/gaia.28.3.6.
Halley, J.M., N. Monokrousos, A. D. Mazaris, W.D. Newmark, D. Vokou.
2016. Dynamics of extinction debt across five taxonomic groups.
Nature Communications 7: 1– 6.
Hallmann, C. et al. 2017. More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in
total flying insect biomass in protected areas. Plos One 12/10: e0185809.
Haupt, H., H.G. Schneider, B. Poppe. 2010. Biodiversität ohne nennens -
werten Naturschutz? Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 42/1: 19– 24.
Heinrich, B., C. Holst, S. Lakner. 2013. Die Reform der gemeinsamen
Agrarpolitik: Wird alles grüner und gerechter? GAIA 22/1: 20– 24.
Homburg, K. et al. 2019. Where have all the beetles gone? Long-term study
reveals carabid species decline in a nature reserve in Northern Germany.
Insect Conservation and Diversity 12/4: 268–277.
IPBES (International Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). 2016.
The assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food pro-
duction. Bonn: IPBES. www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/downloads/pdf/2017_
(accessed November 19, 2019).
IPBES. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on
biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/
(accessed November 19, 2019).
342_347_Mupepele 03.12.19 20:40 Seite 346
GAIA 28/4(2019): 342– 347
Anne-Christine Mupepele et al. FORUM 347
Born 1971 in Göppingen, Germany. Studies in forestry and en -
vironmental sciences. PhD at the University of Freiburg. Since
2017 professor of social-ecological interactions in agricultural
systems at the Universities of Kassel and Göttingen, Germa -
ny. Research interests: cultural landscape development, land
use change, nature conservation, rural development, ecosys-
tem services, social-ecological systems, science-policy interface.
Born 1973 in Marburg an der Lahn, Germany. Studies in agri-
cultural sciences. PhD in agricultural economics. 2010 to 2019
researcher at the Department of Agricultural Economics and
Rural Development, University of Göttingen, and since 2019
researcher at Thünen-Institut for Rural Studies, Braunschweig,
Germany. Research areas: organic agriculture, environmen-
tal aspects of agricultural policies, productivity and efficiency analysis.
Born 1972 in Göttingen, Germany. Studies in biology, PhD in
agroecology and entomology in 2003 on plant-insect interac-
tions in changing land-use systems, University of Göttingen.
2011 to 2013 Head of the Institute of Ecology, University of
Lü neburg. Since 2013 professor of nature conservation and
landscape ecology, University of Freiburg, Germany. Research
fields: causes and consequences of species interactions in bee-pollinator inter-
actions in agricultural landscapes.
Born 1985 in Baden-Baden, Germany. Studies in forest science,
geography, biology. 2012 to 2015 researcher on conservation of
wilderness at the University of Freiburg. Since 2016 project
manager at University of Applied Sciences, Rottenburg. Ger-
many. Research interests: common agricultural policy, grass-
land management, ecological intensification, wilderness.
Klein, A.-M., V. Boreux, F. Fornoff, A.-C. Mupepele, G. Pufal. 2018. Relevance
of wild and managed bees for human well-being. Current Opinion in
Insect Science 26/4: 82– 88.
Lakner, S., G. Breustedt. 2017. Efficiency analysis of organic farming systems:
An overview on joint topics, results and conclusions. German Journal of
Agricultural Economics 66/2: 85– 108.
LANA (Bund/Länderarbeitsgemeinschaft Naturschutz Landschaftspflege und
Erholung). 2016. Wirksamkeit der derzeitigen EU-Naturschutzfinanzierung
in Deutschland und Anforderungen für die nächste Förderperiode ab 2020.
Positionspapier der LANA-Expertengruppe EU-Naturschutzfinanzierung/GAP
Naturschutzfinanzierung__3_.pdf (accessed November 6, 2019).
Leopoldina (Nationale Akademie der Wissenschaften Leopoldina), acatech –
Deutsche Akademie der Technikwissenschaften, Union der deutschen
Akademien der Wissenschaften. 2018. Artenrückgang in der Agrarland-
schaft: Was wissen wir und was können wir tun? Halle/Saale: Leopoldina.
nahme_Artenrueckgang_web.pdf (accessed November 19, 2019).
Loorbach, D., N. Frantzeskaki, F. Avelino. 2017. Sustainability transitions
research: transforming science and practice for societal change.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 42/1: 599– 626.
Marja, R., D. Kleijn, T. Tscharntke, A.-M. Klein, T. Frank, P. Batáry. 2019.
Effectiveness of agri-environmental management on pollinators is
moderated more by ecological contrast than by landscape structure or
land-use intensity. Ecology Letters 22/9: 1493 –1500.
Pe’er, G. et al. 2017. Adding some green to the greening: Improving the EU’s
ecological focus areas for biodiversity and farmers. Conservation Letters
10/5: 517– 530.
Pe’er, G. et al. 2019. A greener path for the EU Common Agricultural Policy.
Science 365/6452: 449– 451.
Pereira, H. M., L.M. Navarro, I. Santos Martins. 2012. Global biodiversity
change: The bad, the good, and the unknown. Annual Review of Environ-
ment and Resources 37/1: 25– 50.
Plieninger, T. et al. 2016. The driving forces of landscape change in Europe:
A systematic review of the evidence. Land Use Policy 57: 204 –214.
Pohl, C., P. Krütli, M. Stauffacher. 2017. Ten reflective steps for rendering re-
search societally relevant. GAIA 26/1: 43– 51. DOI: 10.14512/gaia.26.1.10.
Ponisio, L. C., P. de Valpine, L. K. M’Gonigle, C. Kremen. 2019. Proximity of
restored hedgerows interacts with local floral diversity and species’ traits
to shape long-term pollinator metacommunity dynamics. Ecology Letters
Poudel, D. D., W. R. Horwath, W. T. Lanini, S.R. Temple, A. H.C. Van Bruggen.
2002. Comparison of soil N availability and leaching potential, crop yields
and weeds in organic, low-input and conventional farming systems in
Northern California. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 90: 125–137.
Prager, K., M. Reed, A. Scott. 2012. Encouraging collaboration for the
provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale-rethinking
agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29/1: 244– 249.
Rosa-Schleich, J., J. Loos, O. Mußhoff, T. Tscharntke. 2019. Ecological-
economic trade-offs of diversified farming systems: A review.
Ecological Economics 160: 251–263.
Rossetti, M. R., T. Tscharntke, R. Aguilar, P. Batáry. 2017. Responses of
insect herbivores and herbivory to habitat fragmentation: A hierarchical
meta-analysis. Ecology Letters 20/2: 264 –272.
Sands, B., R. Wall. 2017. Dung beetles reduce livestock gastrointestinal parasite
availability on pasture. Journal of Applied Ecology 54/4: 118 0 –118 9.
Schäckermann, J., G. Pufal, Y. Mandelik, A.-M. Klein. 2015. Agro-ecosystem
services and dis-services in almond orchards are differentially influenced
by the surrounding landscape. Ecological Entomology 40/S1:12–21.
Seibold, S. et al. 2019. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is
associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574: 671– 674.
Seufert, V., N. Ramankutty. 2017. Many shades of gray: The context-dependent
performance of organic agriculture. Science Advances 3: e1602638.
SRU (Sachverständigenrat für Umweltfragen). 2018. Für einen flächenwirk-
samen Insektenschutz. www.ble.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Land-
blob=publicationFile&v=2 (accessed November 6, 2019).
Stein-Bachinger, K., F. Gottwald. 2016. Naturschutzleistungen vermarkten.
Ökologie und Landbau 2/2016: 49– 50.
Van Vliet, J., H.L. F. de Groot, P. Rietveld, P.H. Verburg. 2015. Manifestations
and underlying drivers of agricultural land use change in Europe.
Landscape and Urban Planning 133/1: 24 –36.
DOI : 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.001.
Waddington, H. et al. 2014. Farmer field schools for improving farming
practices and farmer outcomes: A systematic review.
Campbell Systematic Reviews 10/1: 1– 335.
Born 1964 in Oberkochen, Germany. Studies in biology. 1993
PhD on continent-wide trends in bird populations. 2001 to 2010
professor for ecology at University Mainz. Since 2010 profes-
sor at Goethe University and Director of Senckenberg Biodi-
versity and Climate Research Centre, Germany. Research inter -
ests: impact of climate and land-use change on biodiversity,
ecosystem functions and services, social-ecological systems.
Born 1985 in Konstanz, Germany. Studies in biology. PhD on
the evidence base of ecosystem services research. Since 2017
Postdoc in nature conservation and landscape ecology, Uni-
versity of Freiburg, Germany. Coordinater of the AG Biodiver-
sity in Agricultural Landscape funded by the German Academy
of Sciences Leopoldina. Research interests: evidence-based
conservation, arthropod ecology, ecosystem services, ecological statistics.
342_347_Mupepele 03.12.19 20:40 Seite 347