title: Land-use intensity and the effects of organic farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical meta-analysis.
abstract: The benefits of organic farming to biodiversity in agricultural landscapes continue to be hotly debated, emphasizing the importance of precisely quantifying the effect of organic vs. conventional farming. We conducted an updated hierarchical meta-analysis of studies that compared biodiversity under organic and conventional farming methods, measured as species richness. We calculated effect sizes for 184 observations garnered from 94 studies, and for each study, we obtained three standardized measures reflecting land-use intensity. We investigated the stability of effect sizes through time, publication bias due to the 'file drawer' problem, and consider whether the current literature is representative of global organic farming patterns. On average, organic farming increased species richness by about 30%. This result has been robust over the last 30 years of published studies and shows no sign of diminishing. Organic farming had a greater effect on biodiversity as the percentage of the landscape consisting of arable fields increased, that is, it is higher in intensively farmed regions. The average effect size and the response to agricultural intensification depend on taxonomic group, functional group and crop type. There is some evidence for publication bias in the literature; however, our results are robust to its impact. Current studies are heavily biased towards northern and western Europe and North America, while other regions with large areas of organic farming remain poorly investigated.Synthesis and applications. Our analysis affirms that organic farming has large positive effects on biodiversity compared with conventional farming, but that the effect size varies with the organism group and crop studied, and is greater in landscapes with higher land-use intensity. Decisions about where to site organic farms to maximize biodiversity will, however, depend on the costs as well as the potential benefits. Current studies have been heavily biased towards agricultural systems in the developed world. We recommend that future studies pay greater attention to other regions, in particular, areas with tropical, subtropical and Mediterranean climates, in which very few studies have been conducted.
authors: Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford Oxford, OX1 3RB, UK.
authors: Sean L
authors: SL
authors: Tuck
authors: Section for Landscape and Soil Ecology, Department of Ecology, SLU Box 7044, Uppsala, S-750 07, Sweden.
authors: Camilla
authors: C
authors: Winqvist
authors: Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich Zurich, 8057, Switzerland.
authors: Flávia
authors: F
authors: Mota
authors: Section for Landscape and Soil Ecology, Department of Ecology, SLU Box 7044, Uppsala, S-750 07, Sweden.
authors: Johan
authors: J
authors: Ahnström
authors: Department of Plant Sciences, University of Oxford Oxford, OX1 3RB, UK ; Institute of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich Zurich, 8057, Switzerland.
authors: Lindsay A
authors: LA
authors: Turnbull
authors: Section for Landscape and Soil Ecology, Department of Ecology, SLU Box 7044, Uppsala, S-750 07, Sweden.
authors: Janne
authors: J
authors: Bengtsson
keywords: agricultural management; diversity; farming systems; landscape complexity; species richness
references: Ecology. 2010 Sep;91(9):2550-2
references: 20957947
references: Mycorrhiza. 2009 Jun;19(5):317-328
references: 19301039
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2002 Jan 7;269(1486):43-8
references: 11788035
references: J Environ Manage. 2012 Dec 15;112:309-20
references: 22947228
references: Science. 2005 Jan 28;307(5709):550-5
references: 15618485
references: Conserv Biol. 2007 Feb;21(1):274-7
references: 17298536
references: Science. 2011 Sep 2;333(6047):1289-91
references: 21885781
references: Trends Ecol Evol. 2013 Apr;28(4):230-8
references: 23153724
references: Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58
references: 12111919
references: Biol Lett. 2005 Dec 22;1(4):431-4
references: 17148225
references: Nature. 2010 Jul 1;466(7302):109-12
references: 20596021
references: J Appl Ecol. 2014 Jun;51(3):746-755
references: 25653457
references: Science. 2002 May 31;296(5573):1694-7
references: 12040197
references: Ecology. 2012 Sep;93(9):2001-7
references: 23094371
references: Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012 Feb;1249:191-203
references: 22335471
references: Ecol Lett. 2010 Nov;13(11):1358-67
references: 20825453
references: Ecol Lett. 2010 Jul;13(7):858-69
references: 20482572
references: Nature. 2012 May 10;485(7397):229-32
references: 22535250
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 30;109(44):18226-31
references: 23071312
references: Nature. 2012 May 09;485(7397):176-7
references: 22575951
references: Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Jun 22;278(1713):1894-902
references: 21106585