Glossary

Agro-ecosystem services = biotic (e.g., soil biota) and abiotic (e.g., soil organic matter) services that sustain crops/cultivars variably (Mace et al., 2011; Bommarco et al., 2013). They are a subset of all ecosystem services.

Objective

The paper describes a novel approach towards semi-natural habitats. First, it aims at identifying those habitats that are dually-beneficial to conservation and arable crop production (hereafter db-habitats; Glossary). Second, we will elaborate on the qualitative effects of db-habitats’ on agro-ecosystem services and disservices, while addressing, trade-offs and synergies, thereby applying a mostly ecologically focused agro-ecosystem services and disservices framework defined in this paper. Our paper will also consider the constraints farmers face in terms of habitat creation, such as ease of manageability and cost-effectiveness. These informations will support farmers decision-making, which is based on the provision of ecosystem goods and services, plus typically a reaction to private use value of biodiversity, not to biodiversity-centered ‘external’ benefits that accrue to the wider society (Jackson et al., 2007). Considering that habitat loss is most severe in, e.g., simplified landscapes, defined as containing less than 20% of non-managed habitats, these landscapes were chosen as the priority areas for our work (Tscharntke et al., 2005). Arable field crops, typically grown in these simplified landscapes on large farms are cereal, oilseed rape and sunflower that constitute more than 70% of all EU arable land (Fig. 1). Precision agriculture, for instance spatial soil quality or plant health mapping based on global positioning systems (GPS) give impetus to advan­ce­ments. These technologies can also serve the improved identification of db-habitat locations within fields thus may become more common, tailor-made precision conservation technologies (Berry, J. K. et al., 2005). These technologies can also lead to db-habitats’ increased upscaling and better configuration as part of broader landscape planning efforts that address multi-use lands in addition to protected areas and assist the transformative change called upon in the context of the development of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Landis, 2016; Sayer et al., 2017; Früh-Müller et al., 2019; Gassner et al., 2020). Currently, farmers are entitled to payments for the creation of certain types of habitats under the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (EC, 2013). While this paper will refer to these habitat payments, it will not discuss the CAP’s biodiversity quality outcomes as this has been exhaustively covered elsewhere (e.g., ECA, 2018; Pe’er et al., 2014; Früh-Müller et al., 2019; Cole et al., 2019; Mammola et al., 2020). The objective of this paper is to provide plausible rationales to assist farmers with the creation of cost efficient db-habitats as a concrete, practical management tool. This comes in addition to other tools, such as good agricultural practices, as mainstreaming requires the appropriate use of various solutions adapted to local conditions and landscape context irrespective of cropping systems (Schneider et al., 2014).

Identifying db-habitats

The creation of many different habitats on cropland is usually recommended along with a broader mix of other environmental enhancement measures (Glossary) of which habitats, or the CAP’s agri-environmental or greening measures are only a subset (EC, 2013). The Web of Science core collection 2015–2020 listed 31 publications for environmental enhancement measures, 130 for semi-natural habitats, 67 for agri-environmental measures, and 335 for greening measures in the context of EU agriculture. As this paper focuses on the identification of db-habitats, the 31 publications on environmental enhance­ment measures and the 130 for semi-natural habitats were surveyed irrespective of the year of publication and publication platform. Out of those 161 publications, six key ones were selected and further investi­gated. They included: A European review by Dicks et al. (2014) and studies or guidelines by Thomas et al., 2009, Jenny et al., 2011, ILöK, 2012, Jahn et al., 2014, and INSPIA, 2015. These publications were chosen as they contain a broad variety of perspectives across cropping systems (integrated, organic), European geographies and target various purposes and stakeholder groups (e.g., policy recommendations, farmers). 204 environmental enhancement measures were found in these publications. They included 96 habitats of which 42 (Table S1) qualified as db-habitats, based on criteria defined by the authors: a) broadly beneficial to multiple species, b) potentially beneficial to agro-ecosystem services delivery in arable field crops and c) ease of manageability, cost effectiveness (Table 1).

Establishing a framework for agro-ecosystem services and disservices for arable crop production

Ecosystem services (Glossary) frameworks provide multiple disciplinary perspectives for evaluating human wellbeing, i.e., the value of nature to people to inform decisions. For instance, frameworks can be used to measure the delivery of ecosystem services, to determine their [monetary or qualitative] value or to define their management (Power, 2010). Here, to practically connect the db-habitats with the addressed crops and elucidate their potential suitability, i.e., value in terms of agro-ecosystem services and disservices delivery, a mostly ecology-focused ecosystem services and disservices framework was used (Bremmer et al., 2020). To evaluate ecosystem services, first all services potentially affecting a decision and in a second step the priority services relevant to the particular context, here db-habitat creation in the three addressed crops, have to be identified (Geneletti, 2015). All potentially relevant agro-ecosystem services were identified by consulting the key ecosystem services’ frameworks (MA, 2005; TEEB, 2010; CICES, version 5.1 by Haines-Young & Potschin, 2018) and publications on the subject (Lin, 2011; Dale & Polasky, 2007; Power, 2010; Finisdore et al., 2020). In crop production, disservices (Glossary) such as weeds, pests, and diseases present significant production constraints, yet are rarely considered in evaluations. Here the disservices are considered to achieve a more balanced and meaningful system approach (Schaubroeck, 2017). Table 2 summarizes all potentially relevant agro-ecosystem services and disservices as they were defined here.

Prioritizing agro-ecosystems services and disservices by connecting the db-habitats and the crops addressed here

In the following we will elucidate, with respect to the four db-habitats categories, which of the services and disservices summarized in Table 2 are priority ones, i.e., add ecological value, disservices, i.e., hamper production or are possibly not relevant for the crops focused on here. This elucidation will determine the db-habitats overall suitability, although suitability is subject to significant variability. For instance, soil type, climatic conditions, crop protection and topographic needs will in practice influence the db-habitats targeted deployment. When crop and cultivar specific know-how is available it will be included. For other services, e.g., those relating to soil, common agricultural knowledge and publications are used. The potential monetary value of db-habitats cannot be addressed as it goes beyond the scope of this paper and only limited specific data are available (Dale & Polasky, 2007). As profitability aspects are key to farmers, the costs for the creation and ease of management of the db-habitats, loss of yield and production area and disservices are qualitatively evaluated.

Soil-related agro-ecosystem services

Soil related agro-ecosystem services are indispensable to all crops and have been the focus of farmers’ attention for centuries. Ancient examples include the so-called Plaggenesch soils (plaggic anthrosols). They demonstrate how the continuous application of grass and heather ‘plaggen’ improved soil fertility, including by adding organic matter content over time (Giani et al., 2014). In the context of habitat creation, soil services have been the least assessed for effects on crop production, although soil erosion by water is one of the major threats to soils in Europe (Panagos et al., 2015; Holland et al., 2017). All db-habitats provide erosion prevention while its extent depends on the field’s topography e.g., inclination of slopes, soil texture, and root depth of the plants grown in habitats (Schulte Moore et al., 2017). Uncropped, naturally vegetated entire fields or smaller, subfield areas (db-habitat-1) are easily integrable into crop rotation systems. They can provide an increase in organic matter and soil fertility, while simultaneously support ecological benefits such as bird nesting opportunities, flowering plants (forage sources), refuge and connec­tivity for multiple species.

Water related agro-ecosystem services

All four db-habitats have the potential to positively influence the maintenance of the soil water regime (retention, regulation) including in neighboring fields and landscapes (Brandes et al., 2016; Capmourteres et al., 2018). Depending on the location of the db-habitat in the field (topography and vicinity to water bodies) water quality is protected by reducing run-off and/or leaching of nutrients and pesticides (Finger et al., 2019). The subcategory, vegetated buffers (under db-habitat-4) have thus a long tradition as part of pesticide risk mitigation approaches under the EU Plant Protection Products Regulation and complements biodiversity protection goals (EC, 2009; MAgPIE, 2017) by providing habitat.

Pollination (crop pollination needs and pollinator conservation)

This ecosystem service is complex, and knowledge is steadily evolving. Together with natural pest control, this service received the highest attention regarding habitat creation, pollinator-centered conservation goals and pollination needs of crops (e.g., Wagner et al., 2014; Holland et al., 2017; Dainese et al., 2019; Table S1). With some exceptions, investigations into pollination effectiveness regard­ing crop and cultivar specific parameters such as yield, fruit set and quality are rare (e.g., Bommarco et al., 2013; Garibaldi et al., 2014; Holland et al., 2017; Cole et al., 2019; Albrecht et al., 2020). The four identified db-habitats provide different amounts of floral resources, reaching from residual flowering plants on uncropped, naturally vegetated land to seeded wildflowers, aesthetically attractive, hereafter ‘artificial’, flowering plants or cover crops providing bee forage, such as phacelia (Phacelia tanacetifolia) or clover (Trifolium sp.). Habitat characteristics (annual, perennial), their spatial configuration and the need for cross seasonal (especially late season) bee forage provision require thorough consideration to provide stable pollinator conservation over scale and time that achieve abundance and diversity benefits (Kleijn et al., 2015; Hofmann et al., 2019).

Natural pest control

Natural pest control also attracts significant attention, yet it is complex and depends on many variables (Holland et al., 2017; Albrecht et al., 2020). If natural enemies of pests (predators, parasitoids) exist and are available in a landscape matrix, the four db-habitats may potentially contribute to natural pest control as they provide space for a broad spectrum of insects. Positive impacts of habitats to support natural pest control, especially in arable field crops, have been difficult to substantiate because of the many variables involved, e.g., landscape matrix that may or may not hold the required natural enemy of pests in the sufficient quantity to be effective. (Cardinale et al., 2012; Scheper et al., 2013). A few examples of floral resources, e.g., buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum) or oilseed radish exist as attractive forage sources that support parasitoids in natural pest control. These resources are often overlooked in natural pest control, yet, could be further screened for their specific suitability as part of seeded floral db-habitats, similarly as pollinator supporting plants (Garibaldi et al., 2014; Araj et al., 2019). Natural pest control may be easier to verify in perennial crops. For instance, in fruit orchards, vegetated strips are grown between the rows of the trees for integrated pest management and erosion prevention pur­poses (Pfiffner et al., 2018). Here natural enemies of the crop may build up over time. However, in these crops a limited number of positive yield effects have been recorded as a result of reduced pest pressure and the presence of a specific natural enemy of the pest (Albrecht et al., 2020). Abundance and occurrence of a specific natural enemy at the right time remains an effectiveness challenge for natural pest control in dynamic arable field crop rotation systems, yet natural pest control has shown to be enhanced in complex landscapes (Bianchi et al., 2006; Tscharntke et al., 2016; Holland et al., 2017). Crops are also often threatened by different pests occurring at the same time, adding complexity for this service’s effectiveness and reliable provision. While all four db-habitats potentially increase natural pest control, they may equally enhance disservices such as weed, pest, and disease pressures for some crops. For example, cereal farmers biggest constraints are weed pressures (see disservices).

Potential disservices created by all db-habitats

All four db-habitats potentially increase weed and pest pressure at different extents over time. Cover crops or mixtures thereof are an exception. They are used as a key preventive measure to manage weeds and pests as part of integrated crop protection management (Glossary). Weed pressure particularly affects cereal crops. Here, the control of monocotyledonous weeds such as couch grass (Elymus repens), and black grass (Alopecurus myosuroides) in a monocot cereal crop is particularly challenging (Critchley & Fowbert, 2000; Buhler, 2002). This grass weed disservice has been substantiated through practical experience made in integrated and organic cropping systems and remains the most difficult, expensive, and time-consuming challenge, negatively affecting yield, quality, and economic viability (farm income) (Berry, P., et al., 2005; McErlich & Boydston, 2013). Thus, integrated weed management practices using multiple control strategies need to be available to counter weed seed build-up. These integrated management approaches are very well established and include, e.g., preventive crop rotation and diversification including cover crops, mecha­nical weeding (harrowing), as well as the targeted use of chemical control measures (herbicides) that integrate weed biology knowledge (Buhler, 2002). Seeding flowers, which become (invasive) weeds, or seeding wildflowers that are attractive to herbivory slugs, should be avoided (Frank, 2003). Disease pressures depend on local conditions and are less important in the crops addressed here, yet various pests, such as slugs in winter wheat (Eggenschwiler et al., 2013) and soil diseases, for instance take-all (Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici), may spread and cause disservices through db-habitat creation (Dulout et al., 1997). Accordingly, it is important to adapt site-specific strategies when creating db-habitats that take account of specific disservices. Disservices are commonly omitted from ecosystem services framework evaluations as focus is given to benefits to people (MA, 2005). However, to properly address all nature contributions to people, negative and positives ones, both services (benefits) and disservices need consideration. Otherwise evaluations lack practical real-world realism and remain conceptual approaches (Shackleton et al., 2016; Schaubroeck, 2017; Kenter, 2018).

Cultural services

The importance of cultural services (Glossary) has been emphasized with respect to human wellbeing in the Millennium Ecosystem Approach, MA, 2005. However, there is still a lack of clarity on how they can be integrated into management models among the ecosystem services research community and policy makers (Jones et al., 2016; Torralba et al., 2020). Here these services are addressed in the following way: ‘Artificial’ flower areas are appreciated in more densely populated areas by the public at large and may provide societal acceptance or image benefits for farmers in nearby, local communities (COPA-COGECA, 2010). They have, however, less value in remote, simplified arable crop landscapes where tourism or recreation activities are limited. This cultural service does not directly translate into dual, direct ecological and economic benefits unless it is turned into new business models, e.g., sales of wildflowers (Delphia et al., 2019). Another unpaid aspect of a cultural service provided by farmers is the large-scale cropping of e.g., oilseed rape in Schleswig-Holstein, northern Germany. It attracts thousands of tourists each year to view the bloom (Haase, 2020). However, unless a farmer provides ecotourism services (accommodation, farm shop, cafés) during the flowering season the beneficiary of this service is appropriated by the community (Stallman, 2011). The consequences of higher disturbance by human activity, e.g., through presence and moving, including hiking and driving has shown to have stronger negative impact on animal movement than habitat modification, such as logging and agriculture itself (Doherty et al., 2021). Therefore, from a conservation point of view, recreation activities in cropland are questionable, especially, as an increas­ing number of visitors and selfie-takers cause damage to private crop land and production (Fu, 2019).

Synergies

Synergies relate to the combined benefits for biodiversity and agro-ecosystem services in this paper. Enhancing soil-related services on less productive entire fields for a longer time, benefits certain birds, e.g., skylarks, which need larger fields (Meichtry-Stier et al., 2014). Similarly, these fields also provide benefits for insects and small mammals, although many insects are better off with smaller, connected subfield areas for better orientation within the landscape (Hass et al., 2018). The benefits to these species can be additional to the soil erosion prevention benefits of all db-habitats (Briner et al., 2005; Albrecht et al., 2020). Synergies also occur when flowering cover crops such as phacelia, or clover, are grown as they provide pollinator forage in addition to their well-known benefits to crop production. For example, phacelia’s deep roots are good to loosen soil compaction, thus improve soil structure, they are annual, non-winter-hardy, and non-invasive plants that will not become a weed; oilseed radish (Raphanus sp.), another cover crop, attracts predatory hoverflies that feed on aphids and other pests, thus providing pest control benefits as part of integrated pest management (Glossary) (Garibaldi et al., 2014). Synergies could potentially also accrue when entire fields of db-habitats and cover crops are harnessed as new value chains for biomass, feed, flower production, or carbon sequestration, which enhances ecological services such as soil and plant health.

Trade-offs

As there is a lack of quantitative data for measuring the monetary value of ago-ecosystem services per field, crop, and cultivar (with the exception of food, or feed provision as traded goods), their financial implications cannot be calculated and are not the focus of this paper. All four db-habitats can potentially maintain or enhance agro-ecosystem services, which provide a feedback loop over time in terms of soil related services (Schulte Moore et al., 2017). Potential yield losses are often seen as the major trade-off. They can be minimized when db-habitats are created in chronically unproductive fields and especially subfield areas that are e.g., nutrient-deficient, dry, wet, shaded, erosion-prone (topography: contours and slopes), compaction-prone (e.g., headlands, field margins) (Capmourteres et al., 2018). These areas can increasingly be better mapped through precision technologies and exist in all landscape types including in simplified, intensively cropped landscapes, although homogeneous soils usually dominate in productive land (Corry, 2018). Additionally, costs for db-habitat creation can be reduced in areas where access with machinery is difficult or which support “squaring up” edges. Trade-offs of habitats also include disservices (weeds, pests, diseases) as all db-habitats can add to the disservices enhanced repro­duction or spread.

Effects and effectiveness of db-habitats on biodiversity at local and landscape level

Positive effects of the four db-habitat groups are expected for multiple species at field level as per the survey of the six publications undertaken. For instance, Table S1 highlights in more details the number of research studies that substantiate biodiversity benefits. For example, Dicks et al. (2014), report that the db-habitat subcategory ‘provide or retain set-aside areas’ demonstrated benefits in 23 out of 44 studies, and the subcategory ‘take field corners out of management’ showed benefits in 17 out of 21 studies. In addition, the positive effects of the db-habitats in terms of biodiversity connectivity at landscape level is expected to be greatest if their spatial configuration in priority areas and e.g., forage provision across seasons is taken into account (Hofmann et al., 2019; Früh-Müller et al., 2019). However, their overall effect, is unequivocally, dependent of the landscape matrix, environmental, climatic and geophysical conditions and indirect drivers of change, e.g., population growth and wealth (more protein-based diets) increase. Figure 3 visualizes the interlinkages between cropland and other EU land areas such as non-arable land, woodland and shrubs and others.

Identifying suitable areas for db-habitat creation through new precision technologies

To avoid yield loss, habitats have preferentially been created on less fertile subfield areas such as headlands, field margins, cropland bordering forests or tramlines, as these are often less productive as a result of limited access to water, light, nutrients, or soil compaction or lack of easy access. Extended long-term studies showed that the variability of soil parameters within a single field can easily be as high as the variability of the same parameters within the surrounding landscape. A meta-data analysis by Rogasik et al., (1999) showed that the variability of grain yield within fields may exceed the variability between years (Haneklaus & Schnug, 2006). This influences the effectiveness of fertilizer input that interferes with soil parameters in different ways and to different degrees, leading to unsatisfying side by side of nutrient deficiency and surplus. This in turn results in not achieving the potential yield, or having negative impacts on local ecosystems, and thus the sustainability of crop production. It is estimated that for instance nutrient input only matches the demand on about 70% of a field while variable rates of fertilizers promise a 100% match (Haneklaus & Schnug, 1998). Betteridge et al. (2008) pointed out that soil texture and structure are the common limitation to yield as they reflect the soil water holding capacity and aeration state. In New Zealand, unproductive areas are mostly not planted, because the cost of production in these areas can exceed the value of the crop grown. These subfield areas are ideal for db-habitats creation.

Size of db-habitats

Another key aspect regarding biodiversity conservation is the minimum size of a habitat. Aljmli (2007) studied the impact of different nitrogen and sulfur rates to oilseed rape on the inventory of pests and beneficial insects in soil and plants. As a result, plot sizes of 60 and 135 m² proved to be suitable to assess input related differences in the insect inventory and are used here as an indication for a meaningful plot size. This is in line with Bianchi et al. (2006) and Albrecht et al., (2020) findings that a dense spatial network of relatively small habitats across the landscape is more effective for natural pest control, i.e., beneficial insects build up. Briner et al. (2005) made a similar observation for the movement pattern of voles, which stayed in a confined area of 125 m². Some birds e.g., skylarks (Alauda arvensis), corn bunting, lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), linnet (Carduelis cannabina) and partridges (Perdix perdix) require larger open cropland, as part of their wider use of different habitat types to thrive. Other birds and bees benefit from smaller connected patches (Fuller et al., 2004; EC, 2017; Meichtry-Stier et al., 2014, Hass et al., 2018). Therefore, it seems appropriate to combine several smaller subfield areas with larger open areas.

Overview of the four db-habitats’ effects on biodiver­sity, agro-ecosystem services and disservices, synergies and trade-offs

The qualitative evaluation of the db-habitats identified priority services for the addressed crops: All crops rely on soil health related services and all db-habitats provide at least erosion prevention benefits and differing extents of benefits to soil health. Grass weed control is a priority disservice in monocot cereal production. This disservice is difficult to manage through natural weed control and can be enhanced through some db-habitats. Hence it requires special attention as to the choice of the db-habitat. Here, cover crop inclusion in crop rotation are indispensable preventive tools to manage weed and other plant health needs. Wild pollinator dependency, with the exception of some oilseed rape cultivars, is not a priority agro-ecosystem service in the arable crops addressed, yet sunflowers benefit from honeybee pollination for which they serve as forage. Likewise, cultural services are not considered a priority service in the addressed crops. Creation of db-habitats at local level translates to improved biodiversity connectivity gains at landscape level, if their spatial configuration would be improved in priority areas (e.g., simplified landscapes) and their creation upscaled, while fitting the surrounding landscape matrix needs.

Discussion

The four identified db-habitat groups can provide services/benefits and disservices/disadvantages simultaneously, although their benefits for conservation or production purposes vary. db-habitat-1, subcategory ‘entire uncropped, naturally vegetated fields’ (fallow land) is the easiest to integrate as part of common crop management and has been deployed on 6% of EU arable land (Fig. 1). These ‘ecological production’ areas are entitled to incentives under the CAP, however, their ecological value depends much on their longer term deployment (EC, 2013). Fallow land has a well-established track record as being more beneficial to various bird species than integrated and organic farming and it also supports pollinator conservation (Berg & Pärt, 1994; Poschold, 2015). In Europe, fallow land (formerly called set-aside) was introduced in the 1980s to reduce overproduction. Some of that land later lost its status as cropland in some countries (EC, 1988; COPA-COGECA, 2010). This negative experience still resonates with farmers and requires clear policy and legal framework responses to reassure farmers. Cover crops as part of good agricultural prac­tices are traditionally well-established in the EU. They provide indispens­able soil and plant health services and reduce the use of crop production products and ferti­lizers. While some pollination conservation-centered research criti­cizes the CAP incentivized uptake of some specific cover crops as biased towards agriculture, these crops' inte­grated, multiple ecosystem services delivery benefits are being increasingly researched (Berti et al., 2017; Cole et al., 2019). This research combines ecological, biological, pollination, soil sciences, crop health and crop production knowledge. It attempts to link biodiversity, climate change and food production needs and points to ever more system-based solutions thinking. The creation of db-habitats on margins has the benefit that they occupy unproductive, compacted soils on the one hand and protect adjacent biodiversity-sensitive habitats on the other hand. With regard to pollination conservation through seeded flower areas a balance must to be struck between pollinator conservation and crop pollinator dependency. Seeded flower areas bear a higher risk of sheltering potential pest and invasive weed species. They incur higher costs for seeds and management (seeding, mowing, workhours in busy times). These habitats are not expected to become farmers’ preferred options with most arable crops and are only marginally relevant for the addressed crops in terms of pollination, although they may prevent soil erosion like all other db-habitats (Briner et al., 2005). It is noteworthy that in cases where additional pollination is needed and has shown to significantly increase productivity of crop production, the provision of bee hives is already part of the technological tool box farmers draw upon. Examples include the high-value crops and cultivars, almond, and canola and sunflower for hybrid seed production (Ghazoul, 2005; Greenleaf & Kremen, 2006; Ovinge & Hoover, 2018). This is a good example that plausible rationales resonate with farmers. The subcategory “leaving stubble fields over winter” (under uncropped fields/areas) relates to the full replacement of spring cereals (e.g., wheat, barley) by more productive (longer vegetation period), winter-hard cultivars in the 1960s (Chamberlain et al., 2000; Statistisches Bundes­amt, 1955-2014). This change is considered a key reason for the decline in the numbers of some farmland birds, as it led to a decrease of larger habitats and food sources for birds (EC, 2017). However, according to the German fertilizer ordinance it is not permitted to leave fields unvegetated over winter to avoid nitrate leaching thus this subcategory’s dual suitability is not supported (BMJV, 2017). Partly re-introducing spring cereals, e.g., on non-erosion prone land, could benefit some species, despite productivity reduction that some farmers may want to accept (Dicks et al., 2014).

Conclusions

The analysis of the db-habitats’ effects on agro-ecosystem services and disservices generated a wealth of interconnected knowledge. It showed that there is not only a need for improved interdisciplinary and complementary knowledge integration: A systems approach that considers disservices, trade-offs and synergies, and addresses multiple services, are equally important to meet the twin goals of conservation and production. Dynamic, annually changing crop production and biodiversity patterns that are constantly occuring, will be amplified as a result of climate change and thus remain a complex challenge. Here, precision technologies will enable more effec­tive and targeted decision-making for db-habitat loca­tion at field and landscape level and enhance the confidence of both conservationists and farmers to inform decisions irrespective of the cropping systems applied. From a crop production perspective, the greatest benefits of precision technologies would be the gain in scientific data that indicate plausible rationales in terms of the delivery of priority agro-ecosystem services per crop while minimizing disservices, and related customized profitability evaluation in terms of cost efficient db-habitat creation. These gains usually convince and motivate farmers to integrate db-habitats in their fields irrespective of financial incentives as the example of cover crops for the provision of soil and plant health services demonstrate. Targeting the creation of varying db-habitats in priority cropland areas through these technologies as part of broader landscape management efforts also assist in building multifunctional landscapes that are more environmentally and economically sustainable and which benefit biodiversity connectivity. The habitats' effectiveness, however, also crucially relies on coherent policies, regulations and conducive incen­tives, as well as on novel partnerships and cooperative approaches consisting of state and non-state actors. Together with these, db-habitats have a great potential to become a concrete, practical biodiversity mainstreaming tool for crop production. They can be deployed across groups of multiple local farms for better biodiversity outcomes through connectivity at scale, thus advance transformative change in arable crop production.

Acknowledgements

Particular thanks for valuable input are due to various scientists, especially Sabine E. Apitz, SEA Environmental Decisions Ltd and Dr. Christian Bogen, Bayer AG. The sciences represented by the authors and contributors include agriculture, soil, crop protection, policy, landscape ecology, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. The authors would like to note that while drafting this paper they experienced challenges on how to appropriately integrate their specific expertise and on clarifying the understand­ing of terminologies. The resulting paper demonstrates the potential for cooperation around the mutually supported twin goals of conservation and crop production. The results of this study are the sole responsi­bility of the authors.

Conflicts of interest Statement

This paper was partly funded by Bayer AG as part of an interdisciplinary biodiversity capacity building effort. The part funded relates to the survey of the publications. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.