Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

On transferring outcome-oriented agri-environmental reward schemes for grasslands between regions

On transferring outcome-oriented agri-environmental reward schemes for grasslands between regions International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 3 (2007) 195–208 On transferring outcome-oriented agri-environmental reward schemes for grasslands between regions 1 2 1 Annika Höft , Johannes Isselstein and Bärbel Gerowitt Institute for Land Use, Crop Health, University of Rostock, Germany Georg-August-University Göttingen, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Institute of Grassland Science, Göttingen, Germany Key words: Agri-environmental scheme, ecological goods and services, grassland, agriculture and biodiversity, outcome-oriented reward, Germany SUMMARY In Germany, there is an increasing tendency to focus on outcome-oriented agri- environmental schemes (AES) as future concepts to reward farmers. The new concepts are designed to be better in terms of economic–ecological efficiency, acceptance and practicability. Once developed, such schemes cannot be transferred directly from one region to another. The schemes require regional adjustment of the rewarded ecological goods as well as a regional adjustment of the rewarding criteria. This paper focuses on regional adjustment of rewards for ecological goods on grassland. By comparing the particular attributes of grassland communities of two contrasting study areas in Germany (Doberan and Northeim), the necessary adjustment measures were identified and implemented. INTRODUCTION Agriculture can both reduce and enhance this supply of ecological goods and services (Kleijn biodiversity and, around the world, different et al. 2006; OECD 2005). Such schemes should have approaches have been developed to promote the higher economic–ecological efficiency, acceptance latter (e.g. Knop 2006; Diakosavvas 2005; Cattaneo and practicality (Hanley et al. 1999; Moxey et al. 2001). In the European Union (EU), the most 1998). In general, for reasons of practicality, partici- significant programmes to reward farmers for the pating farmers are paid for policy ‘performance’, supply of biodiversity are the agri-environmental i.e. for maintaining or improving environmentally- schemes (AES) deriving from the Rural Develop- friendly agricultural practices (action-, perform- ment Regulation (Council regulation (EC) No ance- or measure-oriented AES), rather than for 1257/1999) and, since 2007, the European Agri- attaining the environmental quality targeted by the cultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). schemes (paying for ‘outcome effects’) (Oñate et al. Scientific research is underway to develop new 2000; Osinski et al. 2003; Primdahl et al. 2003). approaches for concepts which effectively reward Correspondence: Annika Höft, University of Rostock, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Institute for Land Use, Crop Health, Satower Straße 48, 18051 Rostock, Germany. EMail: annika.hoeft@agrar.uni-giessen.de 195 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Discussion on the practicality of these different Saxony, the ‘original region’. The regional district payment schemes goes back to the development of Doberan in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania was AES in the 1980s (Hofmann et al. 1995). It was only chosen as the ‘transfer region’. An explicit goal of 20 years after the introduction of measure-oriented this study is to test whether regional adjustment can AES that the first result-/outcome-oriented AES be conducted solely with existing data (instead of were implemented by Switzerland, Germany and field work as in Northeim), as this would consider- the Netherlands (Oppermann and Gujer 2003; ably reduce the costs and time devoted to future Oppermann and Briemle 2002; Verhulst et al. adjustment. 2007). This is due to the many difficulties in mea- suring and evaluating policy effects (protection/ improvement effects), based directly on environ- MATERIALS AND METHODS mental characteristics, for result-/outcome- Materials oriented AES. In this context, Oñate et al. (2000) specified the main limitations of the necessary Regional data of both the original and the transfer indicators as: lack of linearity and immediacy, region were collected, analysed and compared to unequivocal causality, and extremely high costs of each other. These data include regional landscape measurement. The large effort required for data framework plans, regional statistical data on agri- collection is also a common criticism (Osinski et al. culture over the last 20 years, scientific studies on 2003). To overcome these limitations, outcome- historical land-use practices and scientific studies oriented AES have to include convenient methods on changes in regional grassland communities over for measuring the produced ecological goods. In the last 50 years. In Northeim, field data for the Germany and Switzerland, floristic biodiversity is grassland communities were collected (Bertke used for this purpose (Oppermann and Gujer 2003; 2004). For Doberan, it was possible to utilise the Oppermann and Briemle 2002, Wittig et al. 2006). provincial floristic database of vascular plants and Farmers have to prove the existence of defined goal their areal distribution, the provincial data base of species or defined species richness in order to vegetation cover (over 52,000 relevés) and the pro- obtain a reward. However, species composition and vincial compilation of plant communities and their richness of vegetation cover vary in relation to areal distribution (Berg et al. 2001; Berg et al. 2004; biogeographical variations in landscape features. Dengler et al. 2003, 2004). It was therefore possible Hence, outcome-oriented AES have to be adjusted to compile a complete species list (1,445 vascular to specific regional conditions. Osinski et al. (2003) plants, including 303 dicotyledonous grassland state that the transferability and effort required for plants) and a list of the relevant plant communities data collection, as well as data availability, are of of the Doberan regional district without conduct- great importance and concern (see also: OECD ing field research. In addition, 223 relevés (from 1997, 2001). 1980 till the present) of the relevant grassland com- At present, there is no experience regarding the munities in the transfer region were made available methodology, costs and limitations of transferring (statement of location in ordinance map quad- AES from one region to another. We have used rants) (Berg et al. 2001). an innovative regionalized (rural district) and The objectives of the utilised AES are to con- pure outcome-oriented AES developed in Lower serve permanent grassland through agricultural Saxony, Germany (Gerowitt et al. 2003a; 2003b) to practice, especially in marginal locations, and to test the regional adjustment of outcome-oriented conserve or promote typical regional grassland AES. In this paper, we focus on ecological goods communities. The payment scheme includes a list produced on grasslands in two very different study of ecological goods produced on grassland, reward regions in Germany. First, the concept was devel- criteria for these goods (Bertke 2004), and a list of oped and examined in the field with farmers and criteria for selecting regional goal species for grass- with the regional administration in relation to prac- land. A key criterion relates to the number of tical applications and control methods (Bertke et al. (undefined) dicotyledonous plants. Bertke (2004) 2005, Gerowitt et al. 2003a, 2003b, Isselstein 2005, proposed fixed control units (12.6 m ) and set a Klimek et al. 2006, 2007, Richter-Kemmermann minimum reward criterion of eight dicotyledonous et al. 2006) in the district of Northeim in Lower plants per control unit, complying with ecological 196 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. good ‘grassland I’ (Table 1). Two more ecological Selecting the relevant regional grassland communities goods require additional species, or ‘goal species’, Only the agriculturally-used grassland communi- which are crucial for the grassland to be worth ties in the transfer region were used for this study. rewarding (Table 1). The selection of herbaceous These were selected according to their frequency of grassland goal species (dicotyledonous plants) was occurrence in relevés at the level of associations. conducted on the basis of four criteria (Bertke The data were verified with GIS-based aerial habitat 2004): maps at the level of classes (based on colour infra- 1. Phytosociological allocation of the species red aerial photographs, provided by the State within the regional grassland communities Office for the Environment, Conservation and (character species and ‘characteristic’ species Geology (LUNG)) and other maps of areal distri- of the associations). bution of plant communities (GIS-based maps provided by the Institute for the Management 2. Frequency (and abundance) of occurrence of Rural Areas, University of Rostock, also Benkert within the selected grassland communities. et al. 1998). Grassland communities were excluded 3. Indicator species of ‘low-intensive use’, with if they were not typical for the region or agricul- indicator values for ‘Nitrogen’ (Ellenberg et al. tural use (e.g. Nardetalia stricta, only occurred in 2001) and ‘Tolerance to mowing’ (Briemle areas of former military use) or were very rare and Ellenberg 1994) less than or equal to in Doberan (e.g. associations Cnidio dubii- seven. Deschampsietum cespitosae and Potentillio anserinae- Festucetum arundinaceae). 4. Ease of identification of the species to ensure easy and fast data collection. Testing the suitability of the reward criteria To check for compliance of the reward criteria with Methods the rewarding objectives, test parameters based on The selected regional districts provide different specific attributes of grassland communities were premises for the implementation of concepts for developed: the average number of species per plot outcome-oriented reward. To determine key issues unit of measure (in m²) and the proportion of the in regional adjustment of the concept, the regions number of dicotyledonous plants to the total num- were compared to each other in terms of landscape ber of species. Each grassland community has dif- and land use. ferent parameter values for these attributes, which are essential for their ability to fulfil the reward cri- teria. A comparison of the selected regional grass- land communities using these specific attributes Table 1 Definition of the ecological goods in grassland, allowed examination of the need for adjustment of Northeim (Bertke 2004). In Doberan, a control unit is the reward criteria, i.e. the minimum reward crite- equivalent to one relevé (no standardized size). Grass- rion and the goal species list. land I complies with the minimum-reward criterion The determination of a minimum reward crite- Ecological good Rewarding criteria rion is a central problem of outcome-oriented pay- Grassland I (G I) [1] >= 8 undefined dicots per ment schemes. This criterion decides whether a control unit (12.6 m ) specific grassland plot is eligible for reward. Its definition is a balancing act between acceptance by Grassland II (G II) [1] >= 8 undefined dicots per farmers (practicality), fulfilment of the underlying control unit (12.6 ) ecological goals (efficiency), and fulfilment of [2] >= 2 goal species per control government guidelines (key word: ‘cross compli- unit ance’, as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No Grassland III (G III) [1] >= 8 undefined dicots per 1782/2003). Thus, our goal was to define the control unit (12.6 m ) number of (herbaceous) species that indicate the [2] >= 4 goal species per control implementation of low-intensity grassland use and, unit at the same time, guarantees compliance with the International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 197 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. above terms and conditions. Our test of the accu- the last ice age (outwash plain, ground and end racy of the existing minimum reward criterion moraines, glacial valleys). The base material for (eight undefined dicots) in the transfer region was soil formation consists solely of the glacial sedi- based on the ability of the vegetation to indicate the ments and mineral and organic substrates (clay, intensity of use in practice, using typical agricul- sand, boggy soil) (Landesamt für Umwelt und tural use intensities assigned to grassland commu- Natur Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (LAUN) 1996). nities of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania at the Northeim (1,265 km , 800 mm average rainfall level of associations/subassociations by Hundt and p.a.) belongs to the Weser and Leine highland Succow (1984), Succow and Joosten (2001) and of the German low mountains. The region is Berg et al. (2004). We selected regional grassland characterised by diverse geological structures. associations of low- and high-intensity grassland use Valley lowlands alternate with loess-covered depres- which are critical in terms of being correctly sions and mountains of sandstone or limestone addressed by the minimum reward criterion. We (Bauplanungsamt Landkreis Northeim 1988) then tested whether the corresponding relevés are (Figure 1). correctly separated by the criterion into grassland worth rewarding (low-intensity use, at least eight Land use undefined dicots) and grassland which is not worth rewarding (high-intensity use, less than eight un- Since the 17th century, the region around the town defined dicots). In addition, the species lists of the of Doberan has been characterised by large-scale relevés of the selected grassland communities were agriculture, i.e. it is a structurally impoverished sorted according to dicotyledonous and non- landscape. The proportion of arable land and grass- dicotyledonous plants and analysed with statistical land has stayed almost unchanged for more than methods (SPSS 13.0, TURBOVEG). The regional 100 years, as most of the grassland is on boggy soils goal species list of Doberan was prepared on the that are not suitable for conversion into arable land basis of the selection criteria listed above. The status (fen grassland in depressions and along rivers). of threat (Red Data List) and the areal distribution Due to a history of high-intensity agricultural of the dicotyledonous plants were also used as addi- tional criteria. Finally, we analysed the fulfilment of the reward criteria within our database relevés. We examined the percentage distribution of un- defined dicotyledonous plants and goal species and the Ellenberg indicator value, nitrogen, of the dicotyledonous plants within the relevés with the ecological goods G I to G III. RESULTS Contrasting regional premises . . . The regional districts of Doberan (the ‘transfer region’) and Northeim (the ‘original region’) have very different premises for the implementation of outcome-oriented AES, as they differ significantly in terms of both the occurring grassland communi- ties and the percentage of species-rich grassland. Landscape Doberan (1,362 km , 600 mm average rainfall p.a.) is part of the North German depression. The land- Figure 1 Map of location of the study areas in scape is composed of different formations from Germany 198 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Table 2 Agrarian structure 2003 1 2 Doberan Northeim Total area ha 136,200 126,663 Agricultural area ha 94,538 57,362 Farms no. 406 1,203 Average size of farms ha 240 48 Arable land % 82 82 Grassland % 18 17 Permanent crop % 0.3 0.2 Livestock LSU per 100 ha 41 49 Legal form: Individual enterprise no. 307 1,142 on regular basis no. 126 496 As a sideline no. 181 646 Civil law association no. 44 / Body corporate no. 43 / Type of farming: Horticulture no. 9 15 Field crops no. 181 598 Permanent crops no. 5 13 Gazing livestock (inc. milk) no. 125 233 Pigs and/or poultry no. 13 16 Mixed (crops and livestock) no. 73 338 State Office of Statistics of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Office of Statistics of Lower Saxony LSU – livestock unit practice – i.e. drastic drainage, conversion into . . . entail the adjustment of reward intensive use, fertilized seed grassland (Succow criteria 1986) – the former large diversity of grassland Three grassland communities were selected with vegetation types was depleted. Consequently, the the methods described for the adjustment of the primary conservation goal in Doberan is the re- ecological goods in Doberan: establishment of species-rich grassland. In contrast, in Northeim, rather small-scale agriculture based 1. Juncetea maritimi Tx. & Oberd. 1958 (salt- on family farms has been maintained (Table 2). marsh and brackish water reed), The wet grassland along rivers is suitable for inten- 2. Festuco-Brometea Br.-Bl. & Tx. ex Klinka & sive tillage, as the soil substrate is nutrient-rich allu- Hadaè 1944 (basiphilous oligotrophic grass- vial clay. Since much of the Northeim grassland is land and steppe of the submeridional and located on hillsides as (meso-) xerophytic grassland temperate zone), and and mat grass meadows, threatened with abandon- ment, the regional grassland has declined by 25% 3. Molinio-Arrhenatheretea Tx. 1937 (cultivated over the last three decades (own data evaluation grassland). based on statistical data from the State Office of Statistics of Lower Saxony), resulting in a major Comparing the grassland communities decrease in species and habitat diversity (LRP 1988). Therefore, the primary conservation goal Table 3 provides a comparative analysis of 223 in Northeim is to continue the utilization of relevés of the three above communities, compared the remaining species-rich grassland in marginal according to the attributes stated above. The total agricultural areas. number of species of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea (391 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 199 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Table 3 Comparative analysis of 223 relevés of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea, Festuco-Brometea and Juncetea maritimi. Remark- ably few relevés of Juncetea maritimi can fulfil the minimum-reward criterion Class Molinio-Arrhenath Festuca-Brometea Juncetea maritimi relevés/class no. 183 27 13 species/class no. 391 101 68 dicots/class no. 260 79 39 % species 65.5 78.2 57.4 species/relevé mean 23 32 13 median 22 32 12 max 62 40 14 min 4 10 6 dicots/relevé mean 15 24 7 median 14 24 6 ≥ 8 dicots/relevé % relevés 85.2 100.0 36.8 G III % relevés 38.3 92.6 / Festuco- Molinio Arrhenatheretea Juncetea maritimi Brometea Figure 2 Number of dicots per relevé (max/min/mean) in grassland communities of Doberan. The x-axis shows grassland associations of the classes Juncetea maritimi, Festucu-Brometea and Molinio-Arrhenatheretea (as in Berg et al. 2004). The eight-dicots-line complies with the minimum-reward criterion species) far exceeds that of Festuco-Brometea (101) communities of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea. Another and Juncetea maritimi (68). Likewise, the total clear influencing factor is the different number of number of dicots exceeds that of the other two available relevés per grassland class: in relative classes. This derives from the wide range of repre- terms, Festuco-Brometea is the class with the highest sented habitat factors within the grassland proportion of dicots per total number of species. In 200 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Armer on maritimae Puccinellietum distantis Scirpetum maritimi Solidagini virgaureae Adonido vernalis-Brachypodietum pinnati Arrhenatheretum elatioris Lolio perennis-Cynosuretum cristati Plantagini majoris-Lolietum perennis Ranunculo repentis-Alopecuretum geniculati Deschampsio cespitosae-Heracleetum sibirici Selino carvifoliae-Molinietum caeruleae Cirsio oleracei-Angelicetum sylvestris Scirpetum sylvatici number of dicots per relevé Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Figure 3 Fulfilment of the minimum-reward criterion in dependence on the intensity of grassland use. The associa- tion Plantagini majoris-Lolietum perennis is a typical grassland community of high-intensity use, Cirsio oleracei-Anglicetum sylvestris of low-intensity use (high-intensity use = ≥ 2 cuts, ≥ 2 LSU/ha, manuring, pasture maintenance; low-intensity use = < 2 cuts, < 2 LSU/ha, no manuring). Each point represents one relevé of the grassland communities. The eight-dicots-line complies with the minimum-reward criterion comparison, Juncetea maritimi is dominated by Ranunculus repens grassy species and not by dicotyledonous plants. Trifolium repens Taraxacum officinale Figure 2 shows the different potentials of the three Achillea millefolium s.str. communities in terms of the number of dicots per Plantago lanceolata Ranunculus acris grassland relevé. Only Molinio-Arrhenatheretea is Cerastium holosteoides crucial for the adjustment of the minimum reward Lotus pedunculatus criterion. Some of the relevés of corresponding Rumex acetosa Cirsium oleraceum associations are critical in terms of being correctly Plantago major addressed by the criterion (e.g. Cirsio oleracei- Cirsium arvense Anglicetum sylvestris, Plantagini majoris-Lolietum Filipendula ulmaria Silene flos-cuculi perennis). The analysed regional relevés of Festuco- Vicia cracca s.str. Brometea have far more than eight dicots per relevé Potentilla anserina Cirsium palustre (Figure 2). A decision on Juncetea maritimi’s value Urtica dioica for reward is not advised on the basis of this crite- Stellaria graminea rion due to its special attribute characteristics. For Rumex crispus Myosotis scorpioides ssp. scorpioid the selection of goal species, all three communities Lathyrus pratensis were further analysed. Galium mollugo s.str. Galium palustre ssp. palustre Persicaria amphibia Equisetum arvense Adapting the minimum reward criterion Veronica chamaedrys ssp. chamaedrys Mentha aquatica To test the need to adjust the minimum reward Geum rivale Ajuga reptans criterion of Northeim (eight undefined dicots 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 per control unit), the attributes of Molinio- percent of relevés (N=183) Arrhenatheretea at the level of associations were Figure 4 Dicots in relevés of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea, analysed. For example, Figure 3 compares two typi- sorted by their frequency of occurrence (in percent of cal associations of high- and low-intensity use. While relevés). The 8 most frequent dicots are very common most of the relevés of low-intensity grassland use species with a broad habitat spectrum (e.g. Cirsio oleracei-Anglicetum sylvestris) can fulfil the criterion, those of high-intensity grassland use (e.g. Plantagini majoris-Lolietum perennis) cannot. It is accurate division between high- and low-intensity also clear that the criterion cannot guarantee an grassland use. Some relevés of high-intensity International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 201 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. grassland use have more than eight dicotyledonous plants, and therefore the eight dicots criterion can- not guarantee compliance with the stated goals and conditions which the minimum reward criterion has to ensure. Figure 4 shows that the eight most fre- quent dicots in relevés of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea are very common species, with a broad habitat spec- trum. This might explain why grassland with a long history of intensive use is still characterised by a basic level of species diversity. Figure 6 Festuco-Brometea: Spearman Correlation dicots The adaptation of the miminum reward crite- with non-dicots (r = 0.916**; p = 0.000; N = 27). Each rion shows that the eight dicots criterion cannot point represents one relevé of the grassland community. guarantee an accurate division between high- and The number of dicotyledonous plants is significantly low-intensity grassland use in Doberan. A resulting correlated with the number of non-dicots per relevé recommendation is, therefore, that the minimum reward criterion should be increased to at least ten dicots per control unit to achieve a better separation, as this would exclude most of the intensive-use grassland fields. At the same time, the policy goal of the AES, of providing a relatively low-entry level in order to be accepted by farmers, is maintained. Nevertheless, this decision cannot guarantee a perfect separation of the groups, as there are always some intensive-use fields with high-species diversity, and some fields used at a low intensity which have only a few species. Further analysis of Doberan relevés used the ten Figure 7 Molinio-Arrhenatheretea: Spearman Correlation dicots criterion. dicots with non-dicots (r = 0.947**; p = 0.000; N = 183). Each point represents one relevé of the grassland com- munity. The number of dicotyledonous plants is signifi- cantly correlated with the number of non-dicots per 1 1 1 1,,,,44 44 44 445 vasc 5 vasc 5 vasc 5 vascu u u ul l l la a a ar r r r p p p pl l l la a a an n n nt t t ts s s s i i i in n n n D D D Do o o ob b b be e e eran ran ran ran relevé 3 3 3 30 0 0 03 3 3 3 di di di dic c c co o o ot t t ty y y yl l l le e e ed d d do o o ono no no nous us us us p p p pl l l la a a an n n nt t t ts s s s in in in in t t t th h h he e e e s s s se e e ele le le lected cted cted cted gras gras gras grass s s sl l l land and and and Selecting goal species co co co communi mmuni mmuni mmunit t t ti i i ie e e es s s s To compile the goal species list for Doberan, we P P P Ph h h hy y y yt t t tos os os osociolog ociolog ociolog ociologi i i ic c c ca a a al l l l a a a alloc lloc lloc lloca a a at t t tion ion ion ion El El El Ellen len len lenb b b be e e er r r rg g g g in in in indic dic dic dica a a at t t to o o or r r r v v v va a a al l l lues ues ues ues applied the above-listed selection criteria to the Fr Fr Fr Fre e e eq q q que ue ue uenc nc nc ncy y y y o o o of f f f o o o oc c c cc c c cu u u ur r r rr r r re e e en n n nc c c ce e e e St St St Stat at at atus o us o us o us of f f f thr thr thr thre e e ea a a at t t t/ / / / plant species list of Doberan (1,445 vascular w w w wi i i it t t th h h hin in in in t t t th h h his is is is co co co comm mm mm mmun un un uni i i itie tie tie ties s s s a a a ar r r re e e ea a a al dis l dis l dis l dist t t tri ri ri rib b b bu u u ution tion tion tion plants). Figure 5 illustrates this process. Figures 6 and 7 show that the number of dicotyledonous plants is significantly correlated with the number of Molinio- Molinio- Molinio- Molinio- Fes Fes Fes Festuco- tuco- tuco- tuco- J J J Ju u u uncet ncet ncet ncetea ea ea ea non-dicots per relevé. The result verifies the suit- Ar Ar Ar Arr r r rh h h he e e en n n nather ather ather atheret et et etea ea ea ea Br Br Br Brome ome ome omet t t tea ea ea ea ma ma ma maritimi ritimi ritimi ritimi 66 66 66 66 s s s sp p p pecie ecie ecie ecies s s s 49 49 49 49 s s s sp p p pe e e ec c c ci i i ie e e es s s s 14 14 14 14 s s s sp p p peci eci eci ecie e e es s s s ability of the number of dicotyledonous plants as an Fr Fr Fr Fre e e eq q q que ue ue uenc nc nc ncy y y y o o o of f f f Easy Easy Eas Ease e o of f indicator for total floristic species diversity. By occu occu occu occur r r rr r r re e e en n n nc c c ce e e e w w w wi i i ith th th thi i i in n n n de de iden iden t te er r t ti im m f fi ii ic c n na aa ati ti b bo o i il ln n i it ty y applying the selection criteria (except abundance the the the the g g g gr r r ra a a as s s ss s s sl l l la a a and nd nd nd rel rel rel rele e e ev v v vé é é és s s s o o o of f f f and ease of identification), the plant species list of Dob Dob Dob Dobe e e era ra ra ran n n n Doberan was reduced to 129 dicotyledonous plants De De De Dev v v ve e e el l l lo o o op p p pm m m me e e en n n nt t t t o o o of f f f goa goa goa goal l l l- - - -s s s sp p p pec ec ec ecies ies ies ies lis lis lis list o t o t o t of f f f Do Do Do Dob b b be e e eran ran ran ran within the preselected grassland communities sp sp sp spe e e ec c c cia ia ia ial l l l s s s sel el el ele e e ec c c ct t t ti i i io o o on n n n 30 30 30 30 s s s sp p p pe e e ec c c ci i i ie e e es s s s crite crite crite criter r r ri i i ia a a a n n n ne e e ece ce ce ces s s ss s s sar ar ar ary y y y (Juncetea maritimi: 14 species; Festuco-Brometea:49 species; Molinio-Arrhenatheretea: 66 species). It is lh f l i l i Figure 5 Flowchart of selecting goal-species worth noting that these plant communities have 202 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Se Se Se Sel l l le e e ec c c ct t t tio io io ion n n n c c c cr r r ri i i ite te te ter r r ri i i ia a a a Se Se Se Sel l l le e e ec c c ct t t tio io io ion n n n c c c cr r r ri i i ite te te ter r r ri i i ia a a a Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Figure 8 Molinio-Arrhenatheretea: Spearman Correlation Figure 9 Festuco-Brometea: Spearman Correlation goal- goal-species with non-goal-species (r = 0.701**; species with non-goal-species (r = 0.370; p = 0.058; p = 0.000; N = 183). Each point represents one relevé of N = 27). Each point represents one relevé of the grass- the grassland community. The number of goal-species is land community. The number of goal-species is not significantly correlated with the number of non-goal- correlated with the number of non-goal-species per species per relevé relevé very different attributes (Figure 2; Table 3), such selected goal species as an indicator for total that few dicotyledonous plants of Juncetea maritimi floristic species diversity. For the goal species list of fulfil the compiled criteria. Festuco-Brometea, the relationship was not signifi- By applying the criteria ‘frequency of occur- cant, so that the selected goal species cannot be rence’ and ‘ease of identification’, 30 of the 115 used as an indicator for total floristic species diver- preselected dicotyledonous plants of Festuco- sity (Figure 9). This is probably because of the small Brometea and Molinio-Arrhenatheretea were selected number of available relevés of Festuco-Brometea for the goal species list of Doberan (Table 4). The (n = 27). In such cases, outliers can more easily frequency of occurrence was considered at two impact the outcome of the statistical analysis. spatial levels: within Mecklenburg-Western Nevertheless, the selected goal species of Festuco- Pomerania (typical frequency within the grassland Brometea are able to correctly identify relevés of this communities; qualifying level of frequency: upper: genus, which means that they ‘operate’ in terms of 64%, lower: 10%; Berg et al. 2001); and within the the goals of the reward concept. Doberan relevés. The frequency of occurrence within the Doberan relevés was mainly used as a check: species with a regional frequency below Fulfilment of the reward criteria within 3% were excluded from the list. The ‘abundance’ the data base relevés criterion could not be applied in Doberan due to a lack of information about the species dominance Table 5 shows the percentage distribution of structure in the available regional relevés. In cases relevés of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea in fulfilling the of difficult determination of species of one genus, reward criteria. By separately analysing the fulfil- the ‘goal species’ was defined at the genus level ment of these criteria (undefined dicots/goal (e.g. Centaurea spp.). All species of this genus species), we could visualise how the criteria ‘work’ occurring in the study area have to indicate a low- in categorising the database relevés. Relevés that do intensive use. Due to difficulties in differentiation, not lead to a reward have less than ten dicotyledo- some yellow-flowering Asteraceae were also grouped nous plants, though some have up to three goal (Hieracium pilosella, H. sabaudum, H. umbellatum, species. All relevés with at least four goal species Hypochaeris maculata, H. radicata, Leontondon also fulfil the minimum reward criterion. In other autumnalis, Tragopogon dubius, T. pratensis). words, this criterion both enhances the number of Figure 8 shows that the number of goal species relevés worth rewarding and identifies relevés with per relevé of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea is significantly goal species but few dicotyledonous plants. The correlated with the number of non-goal-species per relevés were also analysed with the Ellenberg relevé. The result verifies the suitability of the indicator value for nitrogen (dicots per relevé) International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 203 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Table 4 Goal-species list of Doberan (DBR), valid for Molinio-Arrhenatheretea and Festuco-Brometea Ellenberg indicator Frequency of occurrence values (relevé data DBR) Ease of Red data Species identification Nitrogen Mowing list MV C 23 (N183) C 22 (N27) Centaurea spp. 1–2 x 5 8 44 Filipendula spp. 1 2–5 3–4 25 0 Potentilla spp. 1–2 2–7 3–8 36 74 Rhinanthus spp. 1 2–3 4–5 3 0 Veronica spp. 1 x 3–(9) 22 0 Hypericum spp. 1 3–4 3 7 26 Hieracium spp., Hypochaeris spp., 2 1–5 3–7 23 30 Leontondon autumnalis, Tragopogon spp. Campanula spp. 1 2–7 3–5 4 4 Origanum vulgare 1–2 3 4 0 37 Primula veris 1 3 5 3 2 52 Scabiosa columbaria 1–2 3 5 3 0 63 Carlina vulgaris 1 3 3 3 1 30 Thymus pulegioides 1 1 4 0 93 Fragaria viridis 1 3 3 0 89 Ranunculus bulbosus 1 3 6 3 48 Pimpinella saxifraga 1–2 2 5 2 26 Daucus carota 1–2 7 4 Lotus corniculatus 2 3 6 3 89 Vicia cracca 2 x 6 24 26 Lathyrus pratensis 1–2 6 5 19 0 Stellaria graminea 1–2 3 4 21 11 Trifolium dubium 2 4 7 4 37 Bistorta officinalis 1–2 5 6 2 4 0 Achillea ptarmica 1–2 2 4 3 9 0 Lysimachia nummularia 1–2 x 6 8 0 Cardamine pratensis 1–2 6 3 10 0 Silene flos-cuculi 1 x 4 2 24 0 Cirsium oleraceum 1 5 5 27 0 Caltha palustris 1 6 4 7 0 Geum rivale 1 4 4 14 0 C 23: Molinio-Arrhenatheretea; C 22: Festuco-Brometea MV: province Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania ease of identification: 1 = easy ; 3 = difficult nitrogen: 1 = indicator species of habitats very low in nitrogen; 7 = indicator species of nitrogen-rich habitats ; 9 = excessive indicator species for nitrogen; x = indifferent. mowing: 1 = extremely incompatible with mowing; 7 = compatible with mowing; 9 = very compatible with mowing and grazing. red data list: 2 = endangered; 3 = threatened (Table 5). The calculated values show that a shift to DISCUSSION lower nitrogen indicator values is only measurable A database with deficits and benefits when the reward criteria for ecological goods GII and GIII are fulfilled, i.e. when at least two to four The province of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania goal species are found per relevé. has the world´s largest phytosociological database 204 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Table 5 Molinio-Arrhenatheretea: Fulfilment of the reward criteria for theEllenberg indicator value for nitrogen. A shift to lower nitrogen indicator values is only measurable if at least 2 to 4 goal species are found per relevé (G II, G III) 8 dicots: 10 dicots: Ellenberg indicator value N of dicots per Ellenberg indicator value N of dicots per Category % % relevé relevé good relevés relevés mean max min mean max min none 14.8 26.2 6.05 7.83 2.80 5.97 7.83 2.80 G I 20.2 11.5 6.00 7.50 2.67 6.07 7.00 3.00 G II 26.8 24.6 5.58 7.08 2.73 5.52 6.92 2.69 G III 38.3 37.7 4.86 6.19 2.25 4.86 6.19 2.25 Σ 100.0 100.0 8 dicots 10 dicots Ellenberg indicator value nitrogen: 1 = indicator species of habitats very low in nitrogen; 7 = indicator species of nitrogen-rich habitats ; 9 = excessive indicator species for nitrogen (Ewald 2001 in: Berg et al. 2004). This comprehen- according to experience is necessary in order to sive work provides an excellent basis for scientific derive an adequate goal species list for the region. research. However, the grassland relevés of Doberan within the database have one major Establishing equal opportunities for deficit: they were not systematically organized, so reward that the database is effectively a collection of all available survey data. There is, for example, no Remarkably few species of Juncetea maritimi can standardised area of relevés, and for 61.2% of the fulfil the criteria for goal species. This can be grassland relevés from Doberan in the database, the ascribed to the special structure of the community. area is not stated. The average area of the remain- In addition to the dominance of grassy species, few ing relevés is 23.9 m . Furthermore, the number of species have their centre of occurrence within this relevés is not directly associated with the frequency community. Most only ‘immigrate’ into these loca- of occurrence of the plant communities in the tions due to their high-salt tolerance. To establish regional district. As a result, the percentage of equal opportunities for reward, it is necessary to relevés that fulfils the reward criteria allows no con- develop special selection criteria for the produc- clusions on the percentage of grassland in the tion of ecological goods in saltmarshes. A suitable regional district of Doberan that is worth reward- criterion could be the Ellenberg indicator value for ing. However, the available relevés are still suitable salt tolerance (Ellenberg et al. 2001). Some easily for adjusting the reward criteria. They reflect typi- identifiable grasses should also be added to the cal attributes of the regional grassland communi- goal species list. The criterion to select species ties and allow the compilation of a regional goal which have their centre of occurrence within the species list. Nevertheless, it might be possible that grassland community might be softened, while the apparently necessary raising of the minimum strengthening the importance of the salt-tolerance reward criterion derives from the higher average criterion. Another specific characteristic of Juncetea size of the relevés for Doberan than for Northeim. maritimi is the formation of tessellated vegeta- tion structures. The positioning of representative control units therefore might be rather difficult, Compiling the goal species list – expert which could lead to difficulties in administrative knowledge needed implementation. The existence of selection criteria for identifying potential goal species should not lead to the Selecting and calibrating the reward assumption that the process of compiling the goal criteria species list can be automated. The selection of specific species is carried out in a process within There is a difference between having a goal of which a manual weighting of the selection criteria promoting biodiversity as plant species diversity International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 205 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. per se without any further requirements, and a fieldwork will be required in order to produce goal requirement for the occurring species to fulfil species lists. certain qualities (e.g. to indicate low-intensity agri- The underlying goals of outcome-oriented pay- cultural practice). Our investigations into the ment schemes determine the selection and the cali- mechanisms of how the reward criteria work on bration of the reward criteria. It is necessary to grassland relevés show that a shift to lower nitrogen regionally adjust these reward criteria when the indicator values is only measurable if at least two to attributes of single plant communities differ signifi- four goal species are found per relevé. Thus, if the cantly from those of the criteria defining plant com- goal of reward is to promote plant species diversity munities in the original region. This statement is per se, the evidence of a specific number of un- true also for the criteria used to select the goal defined dicotyledonous plants is a sufficient crite- species. The implementation of outcome-oriented rion. If the goal is the selective promotion of AES can be limited not only due to the attributes of grassland communities that are typical for low- plant communities, or the environmental state of intensity use, as in this case, the definition of the regional grassland, but also by limited (adminis- specific goal species might be a more precise tool trative) practicality, as shown in this study. to select adequate grassland plots. CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study has shown that it is possible to transfer The authors are grateful to the Federal Ministry of and adjust an outcome-oriented payment scheme Education and Research (BMBF), Germany for by utilising existing field survey data. However, it is financial support. We would like to thank the inter- advisable to be careful in interpreting the data. A disciplinary project BIOPLEX (Biodiversity and potential lack of data can be adjusted through the spatial complexity in agricultural landscapes under reasonable application of expert knowledge. With global change) for promoting research in the con- regard to the acquisition of data, the main problem text of global change and decreasing biodiversity. is the incoherence in the available databases for Special thanks go to the University of Greifswald for biodiversity indicator systems in Germany and else- providing access to the phytosociological database where in Europe (Brouwer 1999). Thus, due to a of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. We highly lack of adequate databases in many regions, appreciate the helpful comments of the reviewers. REFERENCES Bauplanungsamt Landkreis Northeim. Landschafts- Benkert D, Fukarek F and Korsch H. Verbreitungsatlas rahmenplan für den Landkreis Northeim. 1988 der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Ostdeutschlands. Jena, (unpublished) Stuttgart, Lübeck, Ulm: Gustav Fischer; 1998 Berg C, Dengler J and Abdank A. Die Pflanzen- Briemle G and Ellenberg H. The mowing compat- gesellschaften Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns und ihre ibility of grassland plants. Possibilities of the practi- Gefährdung. Jena: Weissdorn-Verlag; 2001 cal application of indicator values. Natur und Berg C, Dengler J, Abdank A and Isermann M. Die Landschaft 1994;69:139–47 Pflanzengesellschaften Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns und Brouwer F. Agri-environmental indicators in the ihre Gefährdung. – Textband – Jena: Weissdorn- European Union: policy requirements and data Verlag; 2004 availability. In Brouwer F and Crabtree B (eds), Bertke E. Ökologische Güter in einem ergebnisorientierten Environmental Indicators and Agricultural Policy. Honorierungssystem für ökologische Leistungen der Wallingford: CABI Publishing 1999;57–72 Landwirtschaft. Göttingen; 2004 Cattaneo A. Resources and Environment – EQIP: Bertke E, Gerowitt B, Hespelt SK, Isselstein J, Marggraf Conserving While Farming. Agricultural outlook R and Tute C. An outcome-based payment scheme 2001;284:26–7 for the promotion of biodiversity in the cultural Dengler J, Berg C, Elsenberg M, Isermann M, Jansen F, landscape. Grassland Science in Europe 2005;10 Koska I, Lobel S, Mathey M, Pazolt J and 206 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Spangenberg A. New descriptions and typifica- environmental factors. Biological Conservation tions of syntaxa within the project ‘Plant communi- 2007;134: 559–70 ties of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and their Knop E, Kleijn D, Herzog F and Schmid B. Effective- vulnerability’ – Part I. Feddes Repertorium 2003; ness of the Swiss agri-environment scheme in pro- 114:587–631 moting biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology 2006; Dengler J, Koska I, Timmermann T, Berg C, 43:120–7 Clausnittzer U, Isermann M, Linke C, Pazolt J, Landesamt für Umwelt und Natur Mecklenburg- Polte T and Spangenberg A. New descriptions and Vorpommern (LAUN). Erster Gutachterlicher Land- typifications of syntaxa within the project ‘Plant schaftsrahmenplan der Region Mittleres Mecklenburg- communities of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Rostock. Gülzow; 1996 their vulnerability’ – Part II. Feddes Repertorium LRP. Landschaftsrahmenplan für den Landkreis 2004;115:343–92 Northeim; 1988 Diakosavvas D. Agriculture, trade and the environment. 3: Moxey A, Whitby M and Lowe P. Agri-environmental The arable crop sector. Paris: OECD; 2005 indicators: Issues and choices. Land Use Policy 1998; Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V and Werner 15:265–9 W. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Göttingen: Verlag Erich Goltze; 2001 Development). Environmental Indicators for Agricul- Gerowitt B, Bertke E, Hespelt S and Tute C. Towards ture. Paris; 1997 multifunctional agriculture – weeds as ecological OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and goods? Weed Research 2003a;43:227–35 Development). Methods and results. Environmental Gerowitt B, Isselstein J and Marggraf R. Rewards for Indicators for Agriculture. Paris; 2001;3 Ecological Goods – Requirements and Perspec- OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and tives for Agricultural Land Use. Agriculture, Eco- Development). Evaluating agri-environmental poli- systems and Environment 2003b;98:541–7 cies: design, practice and results. Paris; 2005 Hanley N, Whitby M and Simpson I. Assessing the Oppermann R and Gujer HU. Artenreiches Grünland: success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. bewerten und fördern – MEKA und ÖQV in der Praxis. Land Use Policy 1999;16:67–80 Stuttgart: Ulmer; 2003 Hofmann H. Umweltleistungen der Landwirtschaft: Oppermann R and Briemle G. Flower meadows and Konzepte zur Honorierung. Stuttgart: Teubner; 1995 agricultural subsidies: First experiences with the Hundt R and Succow M. Vegetationsformen des Graslandes result-oriented subsidies of the combined agri- der DDR. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen/Institut environmental programme MEKA II. Naturschutz für Geographie und Geoökologie der Akademie und Landschaftsplanung 2002;34:203–9 der Wissenschaften der DDR 1984;14:61–104 Oñate JJ, Andersen E, Peco B and Primdahl J. Isselstein J. Enhancing grassland biodiversity and Agri-environmental schemes and the European its consequences for grassland management and agricultural landscapes: the role of indicators as utilisation. In Grassland: a global resource. XX Inter- valuing tools for evaluation. Landscape Ecology national Grassland Congress. Invited Papers. 2000:15:271–80 Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Press 2005; Osinski E, Meier U, Büchs W, Weickel J and Matzdorf 305–20 B. Application of biotic indicators for evaluation Kleijn D, Baquero RA, Clough Y, Díaz M, Esteban J, of sustainable land use – current procedures and Fernández F, Gabriel D, Herzog F and Holzschuh future developments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and A. Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment Environment 2003;98:407–21 schemes in five European countries. Ecology Letters Primdahl J, Peco B, Schramek J, Andersen E 2006;9:243–254 and Oñate JJ. Environmental effects of Klimek S, Isselstein J and Steinmann HH. Effects of agri-environmental schemes in Western Europe. field management, environment and landscape Journal of Environmental Management 2003;67: context on vascular plant species diversity in man- 129–38 aged grasslands. In Rossing WAH, Eggenschwiler Richter-Kemmermann A, Klimek S, Bertke E and L. and Poehling HM (eds), Landscape Manage- Isselstein J. Auctioning ecological goods within ment for Functional Biodiversity. IOBC Bull. agri-environmental schemes – a new approach and 2006;29:69–72 its implementation in species-rich grasslands. Klimek S, Richter-Kemmermann A, Isselstein J In:Meyer BC (ed.), Sustainable land use in agricul- and Hofmann M. Plant species richness and tural regions. Landscape Europe 2006;152–61 composition in managed grasslands: The rela- Succow M. Standorts- und Vegetationswandel tive importance of field management and der intensiv landwirtschaftlich genutzten International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 207 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Niedermoore der DDR. Archiv für Naturschutz und Dutch agri-environment schemes on breeding Landschaftsforschung 1986;26:225–42 waders. Journal of Applied Ecology 2007;40:70–80 Succow M and Joosten H (eds). Landschaftsökologische Wittig B, Richter-Kemmermann A and Zacharias D. Moorkunde. Stuttgart: Schweizerbart; 2001 An indicator species approach for result- Verhulst J, Kleijn D and Berendse F. Direct and in- orientated subsidies of ecological services in grass- direct effects of the most widely implemented lands – a study in Northwestern Germany. Biologi- cal Conservation 2006 133:186–97 208 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management Taylor & Francis

On transferring outcome-oriented agri-environmental reward schemes for grasslands between regions

Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/on-transferring-outcome-oriented-agri-environmental-reward-schemes-for-lDvJVtNcRp

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
1745-1604
eISSN
1745-1590
DOI
10.1080/17451590709618173
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 3 (2007) 195–208 On transferring outcome-oriented agri-environmental reward schemes for grasslands between regions 1 2 1 Annika Höft , Johannes Isselstein and Bärbel Gerowitt Institute for Land Use, Crop Health, University of Rostock, Germany Georg-August-University Göttingen, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Institute of Grassland Science, Göttingen, Germany Key words: Agri-environmental scheme, ecological goods and services, grassland, agriculture and biodiversity, outcome-oriented reward, Germany SUMMARY In Germany, there is an increasing tendency to focus on outcome-oriented agri- environmental schemes (AES) as future concepts to reward farmers. The new concepts are designed to be better in terms of economic–ecological efficiency, acceptance and practicability. Once developed, such schemes cannot be transferred directly from one region to another. The schemes require regional adjustment of the rewarded ecological goods as well as a regional adjustment of the rewarding criteria. This paper focuses on regional adjustment of rewards for ecological goods on grassland. By comparing the particular attributes of grassland communities of two contrasting study areas in Germany (Doberan and Northeim), the necessary adjustment measures were identified and implemented. INTRODUCTION Agriculture can both reduce and enhance this supply of ecological goods and services (Kleijn biodiversity and, around the world, different et al. 2006; OECD 2005). Such schemes should have approaches have been developed to promote the higher economic–ecological efficiency, acceptance latter (e.g. Knop 2006; Diakosavvas 2005; Cattaneo and practicality (Hanley et al. 1999; Moxey et al. 2001). In the European Union (EU), the most 1998). In general, for reasons of practicality, partici- significant programmes to reward farmers for the pating farmers are paid for policy ‘performance’, supply of biodiversity are the agri-environmental i.e. for maintaining or improving environmentally- schemes (AES) deriving from the Rural Develop- friendly agricultural practices (action-, perform- ment Regulation (Council regulation (EC) No ance- or measure-oriented AES), rather than for 1257/1999) and, since 2007, the European Agri- attaining the environmental quality targeted by the cultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). schemes (paying for ‘outcome effects’) (Oñate et al. Scientific research is underway to develop new 2000; Osinski et al. 2003; Primdahl et al. 2003). approaches for concepts which effectively reward Correspondence: Annika Höft, University of Rostock, Faculty of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Institute for Land Use, Crop Health, Satower Straße 48, 18051 Rostock, Germany. EMail: annika.hoeft@agrar.uni-giessen.de 195 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Discussion on the practicality of these different Saxony, the ‘original region’. The regional district payment schemes goes back to the development of Doberan in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania was AES in the 1980s (Hofmann et al. 1995). It was only chosen as the ‘transfer region’. An explicit goal of 20 years after the introduction of measure-oriented this study is to test whether regional adjustment can AES that the first result-/outcome-oriented AES be conducted solely with existing data (instead of were implemented by Switzerland, Germany and field work as in Northeim), as this would consider- the Netherlands (Oppermann and Gujer 2003; ably reduce the costs and time devoted to future Oppermann and Briemle 2002; Verhulst et al. adjustment. 2007). This is due to the many difficulties in mea- suring and evaluating policy effects (protection/ improvement effects), based directly on environ- MATERIALS AND METHODS mental characteristics, for result-/outcome- Materials oriented AES. In this context, Oñate et al. (2000) specified the main limitations of the necessary Regional data of both the original and the transfer indicators as: lack of linearity and immediacy, region were collected, analysed and compared to unequivocal causality, and extremely high costs of each other. These data include regional landscape measurement. The large effort required for data framework plans, regional statistical data on agri- collection is also a common criticism (Osinski et al. culture over the last 20 years, scientific studies on 2003). To overcome these limitations, outcome- historical land-use practices and scientific studies oriented AES have to include convenient methods on changes in regional grassland communities over for measuring the produced ecological goods. In the last 50 years. In Northeim, field data for the Germany and Switzerland, floristic biodiversity is grassland communities were collected (Bertke used for this purpose (Oppermann and Gujer 2003; 2004). For Doberan, it was possible to utilise the Oppermann and Briemle 2002, Wittig et al. 2006). provincial floristic database of vascular plants and Farmers have to prove the existence of defined goal their areal distribution, the provincial data base of species or defined species richness in order to vegetation cover (over 52,000 relevés) and the pro- obtain a reward. However, species composition and vincial compilation of plant communities and their richness of vegetation cover vary in relation to areal distribution (Berg et al. 2001; Berg et al. 2004; biogeographical variations in landscape features. Dengler et al. 2003, 2004). It was therefore possible Hence, outcome-oriented AES have to be adjusted to compile a complete species list (1,445 vascular to specific regional conditions. Osinski et al. (2003) plants, including 303 dicotyledonous grassland state that the transferability and effort required for plants) and a list of the relevant plant communities data collection, as well as data availability, are of of the Doberan regional district without conduct- great importance and concern (see also: OECD ing field research. In addition, 223 relevés (from 1997, 2001). 1980 till the present) of the relevant grassland com- At present, there is no experience regarding the munities in the transfer region were made available methodology, costs and limitations of transferring (statement of location in ordinance map quad- AES from one region to another. We have used rants) (Berg et al. 2001). an innovative regionalized (rural district) and The objectives of the utilised AES are to con- pure outcome-oriented AES developed in Lower serve permanent grassland through agricultural Saxony, Germany (Gerowitt et al. 2003a; 2003b) to practice, especially in marginal locations, and to test the regional adjustment of outcome-oriented conserve or promote typical regional grassland AES. In this paper, we focus on ecological goods communities. The payment scheme includes a list produced on grasslands in two very different study of ecological goods produced on grassland, reward regions in Germany. First, the concept was devel- criteria for these goods (Bertke 2004), and a list of oped and examined in the field with farmers and criteria for selecting regional goal species for grass- with the regional administration in relation to prac- land. A key criterion relates to the number of tical applications and control methods (Bertke et al. (undefined) dicotyledonous plants. Bertke (2004) 2005, Gerowitt et al. 2003a, 2003b, Isselstein 2005, proposed fixed control units (12.6 m ) and set a Klimek et al. 2006, 2007, Richter-Kemmermann minimum reward criterion of eight dicotyledonous et al. 2006) in the district of Northeim in Lower plants per control unit, complying with ecological 196 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. good ‘grassland I’ (Table 1). Two more ecological Selecting the relevant regional grassland communities goods require additional species, or ‘goal species’, Only the agriculturally-used grassland communi- which are crucial for the grassland to be worth ties in the transfer region were used for this study. rewarding (Table 1). The selection of herbaceous These were selected according to their frequency of grassland goal species (dicotyledonous plants) was occurrence in relevés at the level of associations. conducted on the basis of four criteria (Bertke The data were verified with GIS-based aerial habitat 2004): maps at the level of classes (based on colour infra- 1. Phytosociological allocation of the species red aerial photographs, provided by the State within the regional grassland communities Office for the Environment, Conservation and (character species and ‘characteristic’ species Geology (LUNG)) and other maps of areal distri- of the associations). bution of plant communities (GIS-based maps provided by the Institute for the Management 2. Frequency (and abundance) of occurrence of Rural Areas, University of Rostock, also Benkert within the selected grassland communities. et al. 1998). Grassland communities were excluded 3. Indicator species of ‘low-intensive use’, with if they were not typical for the region or agricul- indicator values for ‘Nitrogen’ (Ellenberg et al. tural use (e.g. Nardetalia stricta, only occurred in 2001) and ‘Tolerance to mowing’ (Briemle areas of former military use) or were very rare and Ellenberg 1994) less than or equal to in Doberan (e.g. associations Cnidio dubii- seven. Deschampsietum cespitosae and Potentillio anserinae- Festucetum arundinaceae). 4. Ease of identification of the species to ensure easy and fast data collection. Testing the suitability of the reward criteria To check for compliance of the reward criteria with Methods the rewarding objectives, test parameters based on The selected regional districts provide different specific attributes of grassland communities were premises for the implementation of concepts for developed: the average number of species per plot outcome-oriented reward. To determine key issues unit of measure (in m²) and the proportion of the in regional adjustment of the concept, the regions number of dicotyledonous plants to the total num- were compared to each other in terms of landscape ber of species. Each grassland community has dif- and land use. ferent parameter values for these attributes, which are essential for their ability to fulfil the reward cri- teria. A comparison of the selected regional grass- land communities using these specific attributes Table 1 Definition of the ecological goods in grassland, allowed examination of the need for adjustment of Northeim (Bertke 2004). In Doberan, a control unit is the reward criteria, i.e. the minimum reward crite- equivalent to one relevé (no standardized size). Grass- rion and the goal species list. land I complies with the minimum-reward criterion The determination of a minimum reward crite- Ecological good Rewarding criteria rion is a central problem of outcome-oriented pay- Grassland I (G I) [1] >= 8 undefined dicots per ment schemes. This criterion decides whether a control unit (12.6 m ) specific grassland plot is eligible for reward. Its definition is a balancing act between acceptance by Grassland II (G II) [1] >= 8 undefined dicots per farmers (practicality), fulfilment of the underlying control unit (12.6 ) ecological goals (efficiency), and fulfilment of [2] >= 2 goal species per control government guidelines (key word: ‘cross compli- unit ance’, as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No Grassland III (G III) [1] >= 8 undefined dicots per 1782/2003). Thus, our goal was to define the control unit (12.6 m ) number of (herbaceous) species that indicate the [2] >= 4 goal species per control implementation of low-intensity grassland use and, unit at the same time, guarantees compliance with the International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 197 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. above terms and conditions. Our test of the accu- the last ice age (outwash plain, ground and end racy of the existing minimum reward criterion moraines, glacial valleys). The base material for (eight undefined dicots) in the transfer region was soil formation consists solely of the glacial sedi- based on the ability of the vegetation to indicate the ments and mineral and organic substrates (clay, intensity of use in practice, using typical agricul- sand, boggy soil) (Landesamt für Umwelt und tural use intensities assigned to grassland commu- Natur Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (LAUN) 1996). nities of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania at the Northeim (1,265 km , 800 mm average rainfall level of associations/subassociations by Hundt and p.a.) belongs to the Weser and Leine highland Succow (1984), Succow and Joosten (2001) and of the German low mountains. The region is Berg et al. (2004). We selected regional grassland characterised by diverse geological structures. associations of low- and high-intensity grassland use Valley lowlands alternate with loess-covered depres- which are critical in terms of being correctly sions and mountains of sandstone or limestone addressed by the minimum reward criterion. We (Bauplanungsamt Landkreis Northeim 1988) then tested whether the corresponding relevés are (Figure 1). correctly separated by the criterion into grassland worth rewarding (low-intensity use, at least eight Land use undefined dicots) and grassland which is not worth rewarding (high-intensity use, less than eight un- Since the 17th century, the region around the town defined dicots). In addition, the species lists of the of Doberan has been characterised by large-scale relevés of the selected grassland communities were agriculture, i.e. it is a structurally impoverished sorted according to dicotyledonous and non- landscape. The proportion of arable land and grass- dicotyledonous plants and analysed with statistical land has stayed almost unchanged for more than methods (SPSS 13.0, TURBOVEG). The regional 100 years, as most of the grassland is on boggy soils goal species list of Doberan was prepared on the that are not suitable for conversion into arable land basis of the selection criteria listed above. The status (fen grassland in depressions and along rivers). of threat (Red Data List) and the areal distribution Due to a history of high-intensity agricultural of the dicotyledonous plants were also used as addi- tional criteria. Finally, we analysed the fulfilment of the reward criteria within our database relevés. We examined the percentage distribution of un- defined dicotyledonous plants and goal species and the Ellenberg indicator value, nitrogen, of the dicotyledonous plants within the relevés with the ecological goods G I to G III. RESULTS Contrasting regional premises . . . The regional districts of Doberan (the ‘transfer region’) and Northeim (the ‘original region’) have very different premises for the implementation of outcome-oriented AES, as they differ significantly in terms of both the occurring grassland communi- ties and the percentage of species-rich grassland. Landscape Doberan (1,362 km , 600 mm average rainfall p.a.) is part of the North German depression. The land- Figure 1 Map of location of the study areas in scape is composed of different formations from Germany 198 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Table 2 Agrarian structure 2003 1 2 Doberan Northeim Total area ha 136,200 126,663 Agricultural area ha 94,538 57,362 Farms no. 406 1,203 Average size of farms ha 240 48 Arable land % 82 82 Grassland % 18 17 Permanent crop % 0.3 0.2 Livestock LSU per 100 ha 41 49 Legal form: Individual enterprise no. 307 1,142 on regular basis no. 126 496 As a sideline no. 181 646 Civil law association no. 44 / Body corporate no. 43 / Type of farming: Horticulture no. 9 15 Field crops no. 181 598 Permanent crops no. 5 13 Gazing livestock (inc. milk) no. 125 233 Pigs and/or poultry no. 13 16 Mixed (crops and livestock) no. 73 338 State Office of Statistics of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania State Office of Statistics of Lower Saxony LSU – livestock unit practice – i.e. drastic drainage, conversion into . . . entail the adjustment of reward intensive use, fertilized seed grassland (Succow criteria 1986) – the former large diversity of grassland Three grassland communities were selected with vegetation types was depleted. Consequently, the the methods described for the adjustment of the primary conservation goal in Doberan is the re- ecological goods in Doberan: establishment of species-rich grassland. In contrast, in Northeim, rather small-scale agriculture based 1. Juncetea maritimi Tx. & Oberd. 1958 (salt- on family farms has been maintained (Table 2). marsh and brackish water reed), The wet grassland along rivers is suitable for inten- 2. Festuco-Brometea Br.-Bl. & Tx. ex Klinka & sive tillage, as the soil substrate is nutrient-rich allu- Hadaè 1944 (basiphilous oligotrophic grass- vial clay. Since much of the Northeim grassland is land and steppe of the submeridional and located on hillsides as (meso-) xerophytic grassland temperate zone), and and mat grass meadows, threatened with abandon- ment, the regional grassland has declined by 25% 3. Molinio-Arrhenatheretea Tx. 1937 (cultivated over the last three decades (own data evaluation grassland). based on statistical data from the State Office of Statistics of Lower Saxony), resulting in a major Comparing the grassland communities decrease in species and habitat diversity (LRP 1988). Therefore, the primary conservation goal Table 3 provides a comparative analysis of 223 in Northeim is to continue the utilization of relevés of the three above communities, compared the remaining species-rich grassland in marginal according to the attributes stated above. The total agricultural areas. number of species of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea (391 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 199 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Table 3 Comparative analysis of 223 relevés of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea, Festuco-Brometea and Juncetea maritimi. Remark- ably few relevés of Juncetea maritimi can fulfil the minimum-reward criterion Class Molinio-Arrhenath Festuca-Brometea Juncetea maritimi relevés/class no. 183 27 13 species/class no. 391 101 68 dicots/class no. 260 79 39 % species 65.5 78.2 57.4 species/relevé mean 23 32 13 median 22 32 12 max 62 40 14 min 4 10 6 dicots/relevé mean 15 24 7 median 14 24 6 ≥ 8 dicots/relevé % relevés 85.2 100.0 36.8 G III % relevés 38.3 92.6 / Festuco- Molinio Arrhenatheretea Juncetea maritimi Brometea Figure 2 Number of dicots per relevé (max/min/mean) in grassland communities of Doberan. The x-axis shows grassland associations of the classes Juncetea maritimi, Festucu-Brometea and Molinio-Arrhenatheretea (as in Berg et al. 2004). The eight-dicots-line complies with the minimum-reward criterion species) far exceeds that of Festuco-Brometea (101) communities of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea. Another and Juncetea maritimi (68). Likewise, the total clear influencing factor is the different number of number of dicots exceeds that of the other two available relevés per grassland class: in relative classes. This derives from the wide range of repre- terms, Festuco-Brometea is the class with the highest sented habitat factors within the grassland proportion of dicots per total number of species. In 200 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Armer on maritimae Puccinellietum distantis Scirpetum maritimi Solidagini virgaureae Adonido vernalis-Brachypodietum pinnati Arrhenatheretum elatioris Lolio perennis-Cynosuretum cristati Plantagini majoris-Lolietum perennis Ranunculo repentis-Alopecuretum geniculati Deschampsio cespitosae-Heracleetum sibirici Selino carvifoliae-Molinietum caeruleae Cirsio oleracei-Angelicetum sylvestris Scirpetum sylvatici number of dicots per relevé Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Figure 3 Fulfilment of the minimum-reward criterion in dependence on the intensity of grassland use. The associa- tion Plantagini majoris-Lolietum perennis is a typical grassland community of high-intensity use, Cirsio oleracei-Anglicetum sylvestris of low-intensity use (high-intensity use = ≥ 2 cuts, ≥ 2 LSU/ha, manuring, pasture maintenance; low-intensity use = < 2 cuts, < 2 LSU/ha, no manuring). Each point represents one relevé of the grassland communities. The eight-dicots-line complies with the minimum-reward criterion comparison, Juncetea maritimi is dominated by Ranunculus repens grassy species and not by dicotyledonous plants. Trifolium repens Taraxacum officinale Figure 2 shows the different potentials of the three Achillea millefolium s.str. communities in terms of the number of dicots per Plantago lanceolata Ranunculus acris grassland relevé. Only Molinio-Arrhenatheretea is Cerastium holosteoides crucial for the adjustment of the minimum reward Lotus pedunculatus criterion. Some of the relevés of corresponding Rumex acetosa Cirsium oleraceum associations are critical in terms of being correctly Plantago major addressed by the criterion (e.g. Cirsio oleracei- Cirsium arvense Anglicetum sylvestris, Plantagini majoris-Lolietum Filipendula ulmaria Silene flos-cuculi perennis). The analysed regional relevés of Festuco- Vicia cracca s.str. Brometea have far more than eight dicots per relevé Potentilla anserina Cirsium palustre (Figure 2). A decision on Juncetea maritimi’s value Urtica dioica for reward is not advised on the basis of this crite- Stellaria graminea rion due to its special attribute characteristics. For Rumex crispus Myosotis scorpioides ssp. scorpioid the selection of goal species, all three communities Lathyrus pratensis were further analysed. Galium mollugo s.str. Galium palustre ssp. palustre Persicaria amphibia Equisetum arvense Adapting the minimum reward criterion Veronica chamaedrys ssp. chamaedrys Mentha aquatica To test the need to adjust the minimum reward Geum rivale Ajuga reptans criterion of Northeim (eight undefined dicots 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 per control unit), the attributes of Molinio- percent of relevés (N=183) Arrhenatheretea at the level of associations were Figure 4 Dicots in relevés of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea, analysed. For example, Figure 3 compares two typi- sorted by their frequency of occurrence (in percent of cal associations of high- and low-intensity use. While relevés). The 8 most frequent dicots are very common most of the relevés of low-intensity grassland use species with a broad habitat spectrum (e.g. Cirsio oleracei-Anglicetum sylvestris) can fulfil the criterion, those of high-intensity grassland use (e.g. Plantagini majoris-Lolietum perennis) cannot. It is accurate division between high- and low-intensity also clear that the criterion cannot guarantee an grassland use. Some relevés of high-intensity International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 201 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. grassland use have more than eight dicotyledonous plants, and therefore the eight dicots criterion can- not guarantee compliance with the stated goals and conditions which the minimum reward criterion has to ensure. Figure 4 shows that the eight most fre- quent dicots in relevés of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea are very common species, with a broad habitat spec- trum. This might explain why grassland with a long history of intensive use is still characterised by a basic level of species diversity. Figure 6 Festuco-Brometea: Spearman Correlation dicots The adaptation of the miminum reward crite- with non-dicots (r = 0.916**; p = 0.000; N = 27). Each rion shows that the eight dicots criterion cannot point represents one relevé of the grassland community. guarantee an accurate division between high- and The number of dicotyledonous plants is significantly low-intensity grassland use in Doberan. A resulting correlated with the number of non-dicots per relevé recommendation is, therefore, that the minimum reward criterion should be increased to at least ten dicots per control unit to achieve a better separation, as this would exclude most of the intensive-use grassland fields. At the same time, the policy goal of the AES, of providing a relatively low-entry level in order to be accepted by farmers, is maintained. Nevertheless, this decision cannot guarantee a perfect separation of the groups, as there are always some intensive-use fields with high-species diversity, and some fields used at a low intensity which have only a few species. Further analysis of Doberan relevés used the ten Figure 7 Molinio-Arrhenatheretea: Spearman Correlation dicots criterion. dicots with non-dicots (r = 0.947**; p = 0.000; N = 183). Each point represents one relevé of the grassland com- munity. The number of dicotyledonous plants is signifi- cantly correlated with the number of non-dicots per 1 1 1 1,,,,44 44 44 445 vasc 5 vasc 5 vasc 5 vascu u u ul l l la a a ar r r r p p p pl l l la a a an n n nt t t ts s s s i i i in n n n D D D Do o o ob b b be e e eran ran ran ran relevé 3 3 3 30 0 0 03 3 3 3 di di di dic c c co o o ot t t ty y y yl l l le e e ed d d do o o ono no no nous us us us p p p pl l l la a a an n n nt t t ts s s s in in in in t t t th h h he e e e s s s se e e ele le le lected cted cted cted gras gras gras grass s s sl l l land and and and Selecting goal species co co co communi mmuni mmuni mmunit t t ti i i ie e e es s s s To compile the goal species list for Doberan, we P P P Ph h h hy y y yt t t tos os os osociolog ociolog ociolog ociologi i i ic c c ca a a al l l l a a a alloc lloc lloc lloca a a at t t tion ion ion ion El El El Ellen len len lenb b b be e e er r r rg g g g in in in indic dic dic dica a a at t t to o o or r r r v v v va a a al l l lues ues ues ues applied the above-listed selection criteria to the Fr Fr Fr Fre e e eq q q que ue ue uenc nc nc ncy y y y o o o of f f f o o o oc c c cc c c cu u u ur r r rr r r re e e en n n nc c c ce e e e St St St Stat at at atus o us o us o us of f f f thr thr thr thre e e ea a a at t t t/ / / / plant species list of Doberan (1,445 vascular w w w wi i i it t t th h h hin in in in t t t th h h his is is is co co co comm mm mm mmun un un uni i i itie tie tie ties s s s a a a ar r r re e e ea a a al dis l dis l dis l dist t t tri ri ri rib b b bu u u ution tion tion tion plants). Figure 5 illustrates this process. Figures 6 and 7 show that the number of dicotyledonous plants is significantly correlated with the number of Molinio- Molinio- Molinio- Molinio- Fes Fes Fes Festuco- tuco- tuco- tuco- J J J Ju u u uncet ncet ncet ncetea ea ea ea non-dicots per relevé. The result verifies the suit- Ar Ar Ar Arr r r rh h h he e e en n n nather ather ather atheret et et etea ea ea ea Br Br Br Brome ome ome omet t t tea ea ea ea ma ma ma maritimi ritimi ritimi ritimi 66 66 66 66 s s s sp p p pecie ecie ecie ecies s s s 49 49 49 49 s s s sp p p pe e e ec c c ci i i ie e e es s s s 14 14 14 14 s s s sp p p peci eci eci ecie e e es s s s ability of the number of dicotyledonous plants as an Fr Fr Fr Fre e e eq q q que ue ue uenc nc nc ncy y y y o o o of f f f Easy Easy Eas Ease e o of f indicator for total floristic species diversity. By occu occu occu occur r r rr r r re e e en n n nc c c ce e e e w w w wi i i ith th th thi i i in n n n de de iden iden t te er r t ti im m f fi ii ic c n na aa ati ti b bo o i il ln n i it ty y applying the selection criteria (except abundance the the the the g g g gr r r ra a a as s s ss s s sl l l la a a and nd nd nd rel rel rel rele e e ev v v vé é é és s s s o o o of f f f and ease of identification), the plant species list of Dob Dob Dob Dobe e e era ra ra ran n n n Doberan was reduced to 129 dicotyledonous plants De De De Dev v v ve e e el l l lo o o op p p pm m m me e e en n n nt t t t o o o of f f f goa goa goa goal l l l- - - -s s s sp p p pec ec ec ecies ies ies ies lis lis lis list o t o t o t of f f f Do Do Do Dob b b be e e eran ran ran ran within the preselected grassland communities sp sp sp spe e e ec c c cia ia ia ial l l l s s s sel el el ele e e ec c c ct t t ti i i io o o on n n n 30 30 30 30 s s s sp p p pe e e ec c c ci i i ie e e es s s s crite crite crite criter r r ri i i ia a a a n n n ne e e ece ce ce ces s s ss s s sar ar ar ary y y y (Juncetea maritimi: 14 species; Festuco-Brometea:49 species; Molinio-Arrhenatheretea: 66 species). It is lh f l i l i Figure 5 Flowchart of selecting goal-species worth noting that these plant communities have 202 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Se Se Se Sel l l le e e ec c c ct t t tio io io ion n n n c c c cr r r ri i i ite te te ter r r ri i i ia a a a Se Se Se Sel l l le e e ec c c ct t t tio io io ion n n n c c c cr r r ri i i ite te te ter r r ri i i ia a a a Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Figure 8 Molinio-Arrhenatheretea: Spearman Correlation Figure 9 Festuco-Brometea: Spearman Correlation goal- goal-species with non-goal-species (r = 0.701**; species with non-goal-species (r = 0.370; p = 0.058; p = 0.000; N = 183). Each point represents one relevé of N = 27). Each point represents one relevé of the grass- the grassland community. The number of goal-species is land community. The number of goal-species is not significantly correlated with the number of non-goal- correlated with the number of non-goal-species per species per relevé relevé very different attributes (Figure 2; Table 3), such selected goal species as an indicator for total that few dicotyledonous plants of Juncetea maritimi floristic species diversity. For the goal species list of fulfil the compiled criteria. Festuco-Brometea, the relationship was not signifi- By applying the criteria ‘frequency of occur- cant, so that the selected goal species cannot be rence’ and ‘ease of identification’, 30 of the 115 used as an indicator for total floristic species diver- preselected dicotyledonous plants of Festuco- sity (Figure 9). This is probably because of the small Brometea and Molinio-Arrhenatheretea were selected number of available relevés of Festuco-Brometea for the goal species list of Doberan (Table 4). The (n = 27). In such cases, outliers can more easily frequency of occurrence was considered at two impact the outcome of the statistical analysis. spatial levels: within Mecklenburg-Western Nevertheless, the selected goal species of Festuco- Pomerania (typical frequency within the grassland Brometea are able to correctly identify relevés of this communities; qualifying level of frequency: upper: genus, which means that they ‘operate’ in terms of 64%, lower: 10%; Berg et al. 2001); and within the the goals of the reward concept. Doberan relevés. The frequency of occurrence within the Doberan relevés was mainly used as a check: species with a regional frequency below Fulfilment of the reward criteria within 3% were excluded from the list. The ‘abundance’ the data base relevés criterion could not be applied in Doberan due to a lack of information about the species dominance Table 5 shows the percentage distribution of structure in the available regional relevés. In cases relevés of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea in fulfilling the of difficult determination of species of one genus, reward criteria. By separately analysing the fulfil- the ‘goal species’ was defined at the genus level ment of these criteria (undefined dicots/goal (e.g. Centaurea spp.). All species of this genus species), we could visualise how the criteria ‘work’ occurring in the study area have to indicate a low- in categorising the database relevés. Relevés that do intensive use. Due to difficulties in differentiation, not lead to a reward have less than ten dicotyledo- some yellow-flowering Asteraceae were also grouped nous plants, though some have up to three goal (Hieracium pilosella, H. sabaudum, H. umbellatum, species. All relevés with at least four goal species Hypochaeris maculata, H. radicata, Leontondon also fulfil the minimum reward criterion. In other autumnalis, Tragopogon dubius, T. pratensis). words, this criterion both enhances the number of Figure 8 shows that the number of goal species relevés worth rewarding and identifies relevés with per relevé of Molinio-Arrhenatheretea is significantly goal species but few dicotyledonous plants. The correlated with the number of non-goal-species per relevés were also analysed with the Ellenberg relevé. The result verifies the suitability of the indicator value for nitrogen (dicots per relevé) International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 203 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Table 4 Goal-species list of Doberan (DBR), valid for Molinio-Arrhenatheretea and Festuco-Brometea Ellenberg indicator Frequency of occurrence values (relevé data DBR) Ease of Red data Species identification Nitrogen Mowing list MV C 23 (N183) C 22 (N27) Centaurea spp. 1–2 x 5 8 44 Filipendula spp. 1 2–5 3–4 25 0 Potentilla spp. 1–2 2–7 3–8 36 74 Rhinanthus spp. 1 2–3 4–5 3 0 Veronica spp. 1 x 3–(9) 22 0 Hypericum spp. 1 3–4 3 7 26 Hieracium spp., Hypochaeris spp., 2 1–5 3–7 23 30 Leontondon autumnalis, Tragopogon spp. Campanula spp. 1 2–7 3–5 4 4 Origanum vulgare 1–2 3 4 0 37 Primula veris 1 3 5 3 2 52 Scabiosa columbaria 1–2 3 5 3 0 63 Carlina vulgaris 1 3 3 3 1 30 Thymus pulegioides 1 1 4 0 93 Fragaria viridis 1 3 3 0 89 Ranunculus bulbosus 1 3 6 3 48 Pimpinella saxifraga 1–2 2 5 2 26 Daucus carota 1–2 7 4 Lotus corniculatus 2 3 6 3 89 Vicia cracca 2 x 6 24 26 Lathyrus pratensis 1–2 6 5 19 0 Stellaria graminea 1–2 3 4 21 11 Trifolium dubium 2 4 7 4 37 Bistorta officinalis 1–2 5 6 2 4 0 Achillea ptarmica 1–2 2 4 3 9 0 Lysimachia nummularia 1–2 x 6 8 0 Cardamine pratensis 1–2 6 3 10 0 Silene flos-cuculi 1 x 4 2 24 0 Cirsium oleraceum 1 5 5 27 0 Caltha palustris 1 6 4 7 0 Geum rivale 1 4 4 14 0 C 23: Molinio-Arrhenatheretea; C 22: Festuco-Brometea MV: province Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania ease of identification: 1 = easy ; 3 = difficult nitrogen: 1 = indicator species of habitats very low in nitrogen; 7 = indicator species of nitrogen-rich habitats ; 9 = excessive indicator species for nitrogen; x = indifferent. mowing: 1 = extremely incompatible with mowing; 7 = compatible with mowing; 9 = very compatible with mowing and grazing. red data list: 2 = endangered; 3 = threatened (Table 5). The calculated values show that a shift to DISCUSSION lower nitrogen indicator values is only measurable A database with deficits and benefits when the reward criteria for ecological goods GII and GIII are fulfilled, i.e. when at least two to four The province of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania goal species are found per relevé. has the world´s largest phytosociological database 204 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Table 5 Molinio-Arrhenatheretea: Fulfilment of the reward criteria for theEllenberg indicator value for nitrogen. A shift to lower nitrogen indicator values is only measurable if at least 2 to 4 goal species are found per relevé (G II, G III) 8 dicots: 10 dicots: Ellenberg indicator value N of dicots per Ellenberg indicator value N of dicots per Category % % relevé relevé good relevés relevés mean max min mean max min none 14.8 26.2 6.05 7.83 2.80 5.97 7.83 2.80 G I 20.2 11.5 6.00 7.50 2.67 6.07 7.00 3.00 G II 26.8 24.6 5.58 7.08 2.73 5.52 6.92 2.69 G III 38.3 37.7 4.86 6.19 2.25 4.86 6.19 2.25 Σ 100.0 100.0 8 dicots 10 dicots Ellenberg indicator value nitrogen: 1 = indicator species of habitats very low in nitrogen; 7 = indicator species of nitrogen-rich habitats ; 9 = excessive indicator species for nitrogen (Ewald 2001 in: Berg et al. 2004). This comprehen- according to experience is necessary in order to sive work provides an excellent basis for scientific derive an adequate goal species list for the region. research. However, the grassland relevés of Doberan within the database have one major Establishing equal opportunities for deficit: they were not systematically organized, so reward that the database is effectively a collection of all available survey data. There is, for example, no Remarkably few species of Juncetea maritimi can standardised area of relevés, and for 61.2% of the fulfil the criteria for goal species. This can be grassland relevés from Doberan in the database, the ascribed to the special structure of the community. area is not stated. The average area of the remain- In addition to the dominance of grassy species, few ing relevés is 23.9 m . Furthermore, the number of species have their centre of occurrence within this relevés is not directly associated with the frequency community. Most only ‘immigrate’ into these loca- of occurrence of the plant communities in the tions due to their high-salt tolerance. To establish regional district. As a result, the percentage of equal opportunities for reward, it is necessary to relevés that fulfils the reward criteria allows no con- develop special selection criteria for the produc- clusions on the percentage of grassland in the tion of ecological goods in saltmarshes. A suitable regional district of Doberan that is worth reward- criterion could be the Ellenberg indicator value for ing. However, the available relevés are still suitable salt tolerance (Ellenberg et al. 2001). Some easily for adjusting the reward criteria. They reflect typi- identifiable grasses should also be added to the cal attributes of the regional grassland communi- goal species list. The criterion to select species ties and allow the compilation of a regional goal which have their centre of occurrence within the species list. Nevertheless, it might be possible that grassland community might be softened, while the apparently necessary raising of the minimum strengthening the importance of the salt-tolerance reward criterion derives from the higher average criterion. Another specific characteristic of Juncetea size of the relevés for Doberan than for Northeim. maritimi is the formation of tessellated vegeta- tion structures. The positioning of representative control units therefore might be rather difficult, Compiling the goal species list – expert which could lead to difficulties in administrative knowledge needed implementation. The existence of selection criteria for identifying potential goal species should not lead to the Selecting and calibrating the reward assumption that the process of compiling the goal criteria species list can be automated. The selection of specific species is carried out in a process within There is a difference between having a goal of which a manual weighting of the selection criteria promoting biodiversity as plant species diversity International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 205 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. per se without any further requirements, and a fieldwork will be required in order to produce goal requirement for the occurring species to fulfil species lists. certain qualities (e.g. to indicate low-intensity agri- The underlying goals of outcome-oriented pay- cultural practice). Our investigations into the ment schemes determine the selection and the cali- mechanisms of how the reward criteria work on bration of the reward criteria. It is necessary to grassland relevés show that a shift to lower nitrogen regionally adjust these reward criteria when the indicator values is only measurable if at least two to attributes of single plant communities differ signifi- four goal species are found per relevé. Thus, if the cantly from those of the criteria defining plant com- goal of reward is to promote plant species diversity munities in the original region. This statement is per se, the evidence of a specific number of un- true also for the criteria used to select the goal defined dicotyledonous plants is a sufficient crite- species. The implementation of outcome-oriented rion. If the goal is the selective promotion of AES can be limited not only due to the attributes of grassland communities that are typical for low- plant communities, or the environmental state of intensity use, as in this case, the definition of the regional grassland, but also by limited (adminis- specific goal species might be a more precise tool trative) practicality, as shown in this study. to select adequate grassland plots. CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study has shown that it is possible to transfer The authors are grateful to the Federal Ministry of and adjust an outcome-oriented payment scheme Education and Research (BMBF), Germany for by utilising existing field survey data. However, it is financial support. We would like to thank the inter- advisable to be careful in interpreting the data. A disciplinary project BIOPLEX (Biodiversity and potential lack of data can be adjusted through the spatial complexity in agricultural landscapes under reasonable application of expert knowledge. With global change) for promoting research in the con- regard to the acquisition of data, the main problem text of global change and decreasing biodiversity. is the incoherence in the available databases for Special thanks go to the University of Greifswald for biodiversity indicator systems in Germany and else- providing access to the phytosociological database where in Europe (Brouwer 1999). Thus, due to a of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. We highly lack of adequate databases in many regions, appreciate the helpful comments of the reviewers. REFERENCES Bauplanungsamt Landkreis Northeim. Landschafts- Benkert D, Fukarek F and Korsch H. Verbreitungsatlas rahmenplan für den Landkreis Northeim. 1988 der Farn- und Blütenpflanzen Ostdeutschlands. Jena, (unpublished) Stuttgart, Lübeck, Ulm: Gustav Fischer; 1998 Berg C, Dengler J and Abdank A. Die Pflanzen- Briemle G and Ellenberg H. The mowing compat- gesellschaften Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns und ihre ibility of grassland plants. Possibilities of the practi- Gefährdung. Jena: Weissdorn-Verlag; 2001 cal application of indicator values. Natur und Berg C, Dengler J, Abdank A and Isermann M. Die Landschaft 1994;69:139–47 Pflanzengesellschaften Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns und Brouwer F. Agri-environmental indicators in the ihre Gefährdung. – Textband – Jena: Weissdorn- European Union: policy requirements and data Verlag; 2004 availability. In Brouwer F and Crabtree B (eds), Bertke E. Ökologische Güter in einem ergebnisorientierten Environmental Indicators and Agricultural Policy. Honorierungssystem für ökologische Leistungen der Wallingford: CABI Publishing 1999;57–72 Landwirtschaft. Göttingen; 2004 Cattaneo A. Resources and Environment – EQIP: Bertke E, Gerowitt B, Hespelt SK, Isselstein J, Marggraf Conserving While Farming. Agricultural outlook R and Tute C. An outcome-based payment scheme 2001;284:26–7 for the promotion of biodiversity in the cultural Dengler J, Berg C, Elsenberg M, Isermann M, Jansen F, landscape. Grassland Science in Europe 2005;10 Koska I, Lobel S, Mathey M, Pazolt J and 206 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Spangenberg A. New descriptions and typifica- environmental factors. Biological Conservation tions of syntaxa within the project ‘Plant communi- 2007;134: 559–70 ties of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and their Knop E, Kleijn D, Herzog F and Schmid B. Effective- vulnerability’ – Part I. Feddes Repertorium 2003; ness of the Swiss agri-environment scheme in pro- 114:587–631 moting biodiversity. Journal of Applied Ecology 2006; Dengler J, Koska I, Timmermann T, Berg C, 43:120–7 Clausnittzer U, Isermann M, Linke C, Pazolt J, Landesamt für Umwelt und Natur Mecklenburg- Polte T and Spangenberg A. New descriptions and Vorpommern (LAUN). Erster Gutachterlicher Land- typifications of syntaxa within the project ‘Plant schaftsrahmenplan der Region Mittleres Mecklenburg- communities of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and Rostock. Gülzow; 1996 their vulnerability’ – Part II. Feddes Repertorium LRP. Landschaftsrahmenplan für den Landkreis 2004;115:343–92 Northeim; 1988 Diakosavvas D. Agriculture, trade and the environment. 3: Moxey A, Whitby M and Lowe P. Agri-environmental The arable crop sector. Paris: OECD; 2005 indicators: Issues and choices. Land Use Policy 1998; Ellenberg H, Weber HE, Düll R, Wirth V and Werner 15:265–9 W. Zeigerwerte von Pflanzen in Mitteleuropa. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Göttingen: Verlag Erich Goltze; 2001 Development). Environmental Indicators for Agricul- Gerowitt B, Bertke E, Hespelt S and Tute C. Towards ture. Paris; 1997 multifunctional agriculture – weeds as ecological OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and goods? Weed Research 2003a;43:227–35 Development). Methods and results. Environmental Gerowitt B, Isselstein J and Marggraf R. Rewards for Indicators for Agriculture. Paris; 2001;3 Ecological Goods – Requirements and Perspec- OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and tives for Agricultural Land Use. Agriculture, Eco- Development). Evaluating agri-environmental poli- systems and Environment 2003b;98:541–7 cies: design, practice and results. Paris; 2005 Hanley N, Whitby M and Simpson I. Assessing the Oppermann R and Gujer HU. Artenreiches Grünland: success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. bewerten und fördern – MEKA und ÖQV in der Praxis. Land Use Policy 1999;16:67–80 Stuttgart: Ulmer; 2003 Hofmann H. Umweltleistungen der Landwirtschaft: Oppermann R and Briemle G. Flower meadows and Konzepte zur Honorierung. Stuttgart: Teubner; 1995 agricultural subsidies: First experiences with the Hundt R and Succow M. Vegetationsformen des Graslandes result-oriented subsidies of the combined agri- der DDR. Wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen/Institut environmental programme MEKA II. Naturschutz für Geographie und Geoökologie der Akademie und Landschaftsplanung 2002;34:203–9 der Wissenschaften der DDR 1984;14:61–104 Oñate JJ, Andersen E, Peco B and Primdahl J. Isselstein J. Enhancing grassland biodiversity and Agri-environmental schemes and the European its consequences for grassland management and agricultural landscapes: the role of indicators as utilisation. In Grassland: a global resource. XX Inter- valuing tools for evaluation. Landscape Ecology national Grassland Congress. Invited Papers. 2000:15:271–80 Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Press 2005; Osinski E, Meier U, Büchs W, Weickel J and Matzdorf 305–20 B. Application of biotic indicators for evaluation Kleijn D, Baquero RA, Clough Y, Díaz M, Esteban J, of sustainable land use – current procedures and Fernández F, Gabriel D, Herzog F and Holzschuh future developments. Agriculture, Ecosystems and A. Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment Environment 2003;98:407–21 schemes in five European countries. Ecology Letters Primdahl J, Peco B, Schramek J, Andersen E 2006;9:243–254 and Oñate JJ. Environmental effects of Klimek S, Isselstein J and Steinmann HH. Effects of agri-environmental schemes in Western Europe. field management, environment and landscape Journal of Environmental Management 2003;67: context on vascular plant species diversity in man- 129–38 aged grasslands. In Rossing WAH, Eggenschwiler Richter-Kemmermann A, Klimek S, Bertke E and L. and Poehling HM (eds), Landscape Manage- Isselstein J. Auctioning ecological goods within ment for Functional Biodiversity. IOBC Bull. agri-environmental schemes – a new approach and 2006;29:69–72 its implementation in species-rich grasslands. Klimek S, Richter-Kemmermann A, Isselstein J In:Meyer BC (ed.), Sustainable land use in agricul- and Hofmann M. Plant species richness and tural regions. Landscape Europe 2006;152–61 composition in managed grasslands: The rela- Succow M. Standorts- und Vegetationswandel tive importance of field management and der intensiv landwirtschaftlich genutzten International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 207 Grassland agri-environmental reward schemes Höft et al. Niedermoore der DDR. Archiv für Naturschutz und Dutch agri-environment schemes on breeding Landschaftsforschung 1986;26:225–42 waders. Journal of Applied Ecology 2007;40:70–80 Succow M and Joosten H (eds). Landschaftsökologische Wittig B, Richter-Kemmermann A and Zacharias D. Moorkunde. Stuttgart: Schweizerbart; 2001 An indicator species approach for result- Verhulst J, Kleijn D and Berendse F. Direct and in- orientated subsidies of ecological services in grass- direct effects of the most widely implemented lands – a study in Northwestern Germany. Biologi- cal Conservation 2006 133:186–97 208 International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management

Journal

International Journal of Biodiversity Science & Management – Taylor & Francis

Published: Dec 1, 2007

Keywords: AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL SCHEME; ECOLOGICAL GOODS AND SERVICES; GRASSLAND; AGRICULTURE AND BIODIVERSITY; OUTCOME-ORIENTED REWARD; GERMANY

There are no references for this article.