Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES) Thematic Pilot 2 on agroecosystems Maria Luisa Paracchini (EC – Joint Research Centre) Jan Verboven (Vlaamse Landmaatschappij Regio West, Belgium) MAES Working Group meeting, DG-ENV - 26 April 2013

Thematic Pilot 2 on agroecosystems Scope of the pilot: definition of the targeted ecosystems; identification of availability and quality of data to assess the extent and condition of the ecosystems and their services, including identification of units of measure and mapping scale; identification of approaches to assess ecosystem services; identification of data and knowledge gaps.

Developments since January 2013 Teleconference with EC and EEA partners and discussion of first steps and tasks  done: Discussion with co-leader on Pilot aims and key points to be addressed in the Rubicode Matrix Draft of Rubicode Matrix for EU (pan-European) agroecosystems uploaded in CIRCABC Draft to be discussed and agreed (co-leader and Pilot members)

Developments since January 2013 In view of discussion with Pilot 1 on the use of Art. 17 data, a preliminary analysis has been carried out and uploaded in CIRCABC (MAES Pilot2 Art.17.pdf) Reference documents available on circa

Issues to be addressed through the pilot Defining agroecosystems Cropland  it should be broad enough to take into consideration land under crop rotation + permanent crops and other semi-vegetation part of the farm holding (i.e. hedges, woodlots). This is crucial in view of CAP greening and to take into account ecosystem services provided by cropland in the wide sense (i.e. not only provisioning)

Grassland  Grassland ecosystems may be loosely defined as areas dominated by grasses. Within these, semi-natural grasslands are extremely important for biodiversity in the EU. Example: EUROSTAT definition: Permanent grassland and meadow is land used permanently (for several - usually more than five - consecutive years) to grow herbaceous forage crops, through cultivation (sown) or naturally (self-seeded); not included in the crop rotation scheme on the agricultural holding. Permanent grassland and meadow can be either used for grazing by livestock, or mowed for hay or silage (stocking in a silo). The Farm structure survey (FSS) identifies permanent grassland and meadow used or not for productive purposes and rough grazings.

Issues to be addressed through the pilot (1) Agreement on ecosystem services relevant to agroecosystems:  framework provided by CICES classification  Rubicode matrix to be adapted to the scale of analysis, data and models for ecosystem services (EU, national) Next step  start discussion on rows/columns of the draft Rubicode Matrix

Analysis of possibilities offered by the use of IACS data (Integrated Administration and Control System) Distinction food/feed/fibre/fuel Besides production, agricultural management is key to the maintenance of biodiversity depending from agriculture (i.e. High Nature Value farmland) and ecosystem services beneficial to agriculture itself (  functional biodiversity: pollination, pest control, soil fertility). A conceptual frame to deal with the trade-off provisioning/regulating services must be established Issues to be addressed through the pilot (2)

Issues to be addressed through the pilot (3) Use of Art.17 data Use of other biodiversity data

Way forward and next steps Agree on the Rubicode matrix (co-leaders, COM, EEA, stake-holders) To invite pilot participants to complete the Rubicode matrix for each specific country (  by May) Replies from pilot participants (matrix) (  mid June) Summary of information collected (end June) Rubicode matrix completed  Pan-European and MS (mid July) Drafting and other issues (end August) Final delivery (18 September)

Thank you

Conceptualization of contribution of regulating and supporting services to provisioning services (crop production). (a) Production can only attain a level set by the lowest underpinning regulating or supporting service, in this case pest regulation, despite other services being superoptimal. (b) Pest regulation is enhanced; thus, production increases and the yield gap is reduced to the level set by the next limiting service, in this case soil nutrients. (c) Ecological replacement is where a proportion of one (e.g., pest regulation) of several underpinning services is supplied by biodiversity (e.g., natural enemies, green bar) rather than by anthropogenic inputs (e.g., insecticides, red bar); production remains the same overall, but more of the regulating and/or supporting service(s) are provided by biodiversity. (d) Ecological enhancement is where the level of one (e.g., pest regulation) of several underpinning services is boosted by biodiversity (green bar) rather than by anthropogenic inputs (red bar); with the result that production increases overall. Bommarco R., Kleijn D., Potts S.G., Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security. Trends in Ecology and Evolution Production is limited by the lowest underpinning regulating and maintenance service

Wild Pollinators Enhance Fruit Set of Crops Regardless of Honey Bee Abundance L.Garibaldi et al., Science, 2013 Given the absence of interaction between the effects of visitation by wild insects and honey bees, maximum fruit set is achieved with high visitation by both wild insects and honey bees (upper right area of graph). The plane in orange is the overall regression (model P in table S4; the inclination of the surface in the y and x directions reflects the β+ for visitation of wild insects and honey bees, respectively), and each point is a field in a crop system (fruit set increases from cyan to dark blue).

Doxa et al., 2010, Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 1348–1356 HNV farmland holds more specialized bird communities than non-HNV farmland areas