Abstract
Context
A key global challenge is to meet both the growing demand for food and feed while maintaining biodiversity’s supporting functions. Protected grasslands, such as Natura 2000 sites in Europe, may play an important role in harmonising productivity and biodiversity goals. This work contributes to an understanding of the relationship between forage production and plant diversity in protected and non-protected grasslands.
Objectives
We aimed to identify differences in plant diversity and forage production between protected and non-protected grasslands by assessing the effects of land-use intensity (i.e. mowing, grazing, fertilising) on these variables.
Methods
Data were available for 95 managed grassland plots (50 × 50 m) in real-managed landscapes. After controlling for site conditions in the analysis, we tested for significant differences between protected and non-protected grasslands and used a multi-group structural equation modelling (SEM) framework to investigate the linkages between land-use intensity, biomass and plant diversity.
Results
In protected grasslands, plant diversity was significantly higher while forage production was significantly lower. In non-protected grasslands we found significantly higher land-use intensity, particularly in relation to mowing and fertilisation. Grazing intensity did not significantly differ between protected and non-protected grasslands. In non-protected grasslands we found a significant negative association between forage production and plant diversity. However, this effect was not significant in protected grasslands. We also found a negative association between land-use and plant diversity in both grassland types that was related to mowing and fertilising intensity. These two management aspects also influenced the positive association between land-use intensity and forage production. Furthermore, environmental conditions had a positive effect on forage production and a negative effect on plant diversity in protected grasslands.
Conclusions
Our results confirm that the protection of grassland sites is successful in achieving higher plant diversity compared to non-protected grasslands and that protected grasslands do not necessarily trade-off with forage production. This is possible under moderate grazing intensities as higher land-use intensity has a negative effect on plant diversity, particularly on rare species. However, forage production is lower in protected sites as it is driven by mowing and fertilisation intensity. Future research needs to further investigate if the nature of these relationships depends on the livestock type or other management practices.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Human well-being critically relies on the Earth’s resources and the protection and restoration of life-supporting systems (United Nations Environment Programme 2021). One of the most pressing global challenges is to meet the growing demand for food and feed while maintaining biodiversity’s supporting functions that are required to ensure high and stable yields in the long-term (Seppelt et al. 2020; Savage et al. 2021). Grasslands provide numerous material, regulating, and non-material nature’s contributions to people (NCP) and ecosystem services, such as forage for livestock, pest control, or aesthetic values (Petermann & Buzhdygan 2021). The reported benefits are often linked to plant species richness (Sanderson et al. 2004). Developing balanced human-nature interactions (Buonocore et al. 2018) that support plant diversity and ensure forage production (Rieb et al. 2017; Wang & Wang 2019) remains a challenge in European grasslands. Temperate grasslands are usually preserved through moderate disturbances in the form of grazing, mowing, or wildfires that disfavour woody plants (Pärtel et al. 2005; Habel et al. 2013; Keune et al. 2022). Thereby, low-intensity land-use has been favouring increasing biodiversity for millennia (Habel et al. 2013; Vellak et al. 2009). With increasing populations and growing demand for food, land managers have been pushed to manage their grasslands more intensively since the 1950s, (Seppelt et al. 2020; Mayel et al. 2021), turning grasslands into the fastest declining habitats in terms of extent and biodiversity in Europe and Eastern Asia (IPBES 2018). Simultaneously, a large proportion of pastures have been converted into cropland, causing overgrazing in remaining grasslands (Carlier et al. 2009). The production of livestock feed in the European Union (EU) has increased by more than 50% in the past three decades (IPBES 2018). The use of anthropogenic inputs, such as fertilisers, that affect both biodiversity and regulating NCP has risen (Foley et al. 2011; Bennett et al. 2021). In 2020, the EU’s nitrogen fertiliser consumption was 6.9% and phosphorus consumption 21.9% higher than in 2010 (Eurostat 2022). Thus, more intensive land-use has led to the homogenization of ecological communities as it supports generalist species and negatively impacts habitat specialists (Bullock et al. 2011; Hudewenz et al. 2012). For instance, in 58% of British grasslands, the use of selective herbicides, nutrient addition, and reseeding as measures to increase livestock production have resulted in floristically species-poor grasslands and have had negative impacts on regulating NCP such as pollination (Bullock et al. 2011). Differing priorities regarding plant species diversity, forage quality and production lead to conflicts between farmers and nature conservationists (Pavlů et al. 2006) and have therefore been the object of NCP and ecosystem services research and practice.
Protected areas that exclude any human intervention have traditionally been used to preserve biodiversity and halt environmental degradation (Pärtel et al. 2005). Indeed, previous research has shown that high levels of biodiversity can be typically found in habitat types with a favourable conservation status (Silva et al. 2019). In temperate grasslands, however, it has been shown that minor management interventions can support species-rich habitats (Fülöp et al. 2021; Ostermann 1998; Silva et al. 2019). Pavlů et al. (2006) showed that plant species diversity increased within intensively and extensively grazed plots in comparison to unmanaged grassland plots in an experimental setting. Similarly, Hudewenz et al. (2012) found that greater resource availability may enhance plant diversity at low land-use intensity in contrast to high land-use intensity. Most evidence on the relationship between plant species richness and ecosystem functioning come from experimental sites (Petermann & Buzhdygan 2021), but this is yet to be proven in non-experimental sites, i.e., in real landscapes. Thus, the task is to find management solutions that offer synergistic effects in managed grassland ecosystems (Wang & Wang 2019) and thereby support both agricultural and nature conservation targets (Pavlů et al. 2006).
In this paper, we focus on the relationships between land-use variables and plant diversity and those between forage production and plant diversity. First, land-use intensity can support or harm biodiversity through different mechanisms. Moderate mowing and grazing may lead to higher plant species richness (Melts et al. 2018; Davidson et al. 2020). For instance, Fischer et al. (2009) suggest that, in order to support biodiversity, grazing intensity patterns may be reduced through, for example, low-intensity short rotations of livestock. Moderate mowing intensity may support plant species diversity by enhancing the flower cover or elongating the flower season through re-flowering (Hudewenz et al. 2012). Higher land-use intensity, in contrast, threatens plant species survival (Mayel et al. 2021; Savage et al. 2021). In particular, higher fertilisation rates, more frequent cutting and greater stocking rates reduce the number of plant species and lead to uniform plant communities (Sanderson et al. 2007). More frequent mowing can disturb resource availability and reduce structural complexity (Hudewenz et al. 2012). It is therefore plausible that grasslands in protected areas with lower land-use intensity show higher plant diversity than grasslands in non-protected areas. Second, high species-richness has been found to be linked to the efficient use of nutrients that can lead to stable biomass production (Melts et al. 2018). Discussions on the linkages between species richness and productivity such as the hump-shaped or unimodal productivity–biodiversity relationships (Guo and Berry 1998; Adler et al. 2011; Brun et al. 2019) remain controversial (Fraser et al. 2015; Mittelbach et al. 2001; Pierce 2014).
In this study, we provide further insights into the linkages between biodiversity and productivity by adding an important factor in real landscapes, namely the effect of the institutional framework of environmental protection guidelines in which these grasslands are placed. Thereby, our paper aims to provide new insights in the relationship between biodiversity and forage production by (i) analysing real-managed grasslands and (ii) considering the conservation context which is framed by legal institutions, such as the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) and Habitat Directive (92/42/EEC) in Europe.
Therefore, we investigate (1) to what extent plant species diversity supports forage production in a range of managed grassland ecosystems, and (2) how this relationship varies between grasslands in protected and non-protected areas. We focus our work on three case study regions in Germany, where grasslands represent the second largest share of habitats in protected areas after forests (https://biodiversity.europa.eu), and host 40% of the endangered ferns and flowering plants (https://www.umweltbundesamt.de). These protected areas fall under national conservation laws or are part of the European Union’s Natura 2000 network,Footnote 1 in which various agricultural-environmental programs established by nature conservation or agricultural administrations have aimed for the preservation and restoration of species-rich grasslands for several decades (Buchwald 2008).
Materials and methods
Study site and data collection
We used data from 95 grassland plots (50 × 50 m) located in three regions of Germany that are part of the long-term research platform Biodiversity Exploratories (www.biodiversity-exploratories.de; Fischer et al. 2010). The grassland plots in the south-west region partly belong to the UNESCOFootnote 2 Biosphere Reserve Schwäbische Alb; those in the central region are located adjacent to the National Park Hainich (referred to as Hainich-Dün) and the grassland plots in the north-east region belong to the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin (Fig. 1). Altitude (above sea level) ranges between 3 and 140 m in Schorfheide-Chorin, 285–550 m in Hainich-Dün, and 460–860 m in Swabian Alb. Annual mean temperature ranges between 8 and 8.5 °C in Schorfheide-Chorin, 6.5–8 °C in Hainich-Dün, and 6–7 °C in Schwäbische Alb. Annual mean precipitation ranges between 500 and 600 mm in Schorfheide-Chorin, 500–800 mm in Hainich-Dün, and 700–1000 mm in Schwäbische Alb (Fischer et al. 2010). Data on land-use intensity, plant species richness, biomass and site conditions were retrieved from the Biodiversity Exploratories Information System (BExIS) (https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de) (see SI1 for a data overview). The selection of variables was based on their relevance for our hypothesised relationships, their use in previous studies on grassland ecosystems in our study site (e.g. Allan et al. 2015; Le Provost et al. 2021) and the availability of data.
Data on protection status was retrieved through spatial analysis in GIS. The majority of plots in protected areas only belong to a Natura 2000 site (69%), while 29% of plots in protected areas belong to both nationally protected areas (German: Naturschutzgebiet) and Natura 2000 sites. As we did not find significant differences between land-use variables, plant diversity, forage production and most site condition variables when separating plots into national protection areas and EU’s Natura 2000 sites (SI3), we decided to merge the data sets and treat these plots as a single group representing protected areas. Therefore, our dataset comprised 43 grassland plots inside protected areas and 52 grassland plots outside protected areas.
All data was processed using R software version 4.2.2 (R Core Team 2022). We obtained data on plant cover for 368 different plant species for a range of available years (i.e. 2008–2018) (see SI11 for an overview of most abundant species). We calculated the Effective Number of Species based on the Shannon Index as a diversity measure (Jost 2006; Jost et al. 2010), as it is more sensitive to the presence of rare species (which is the purpose of grasslands protection in Natura 2000 sites). To allow for comparison, we additionally calculated the Effective Number of Species based on the Simpson Index. Calculations were done using the diverse package (Guevara et al. 2017).
For forage production, we used the mean value of dry biomass for all available years to avoid potential seasonal bias (2009–2018). Biomass was sampled by cutting the biomass at the height of 4 cm before the first mowing or before grazing, then it was dried in the oven at 80 degrees for 24 h and weighed. To avoid strong disturbances the biomass was cut at a different position each year (see Hinderling et al. 2023).
In order to compare across the different management regimes applied in our plots, we used an index composed of grazing, mowing and fertilisation data combined to obtain a single land use intensity metric. Grazing intensity refers to livestock units (i.e. cattle, horses, sheep, goats) per hectare and days of grazing. Mowing intensity refers to the number of cuts per year. Fertilisation intensity is based on the amount of applied nitrogen within the fertiliser per hectare (see Blüthgen et al. 2012; Manning et al. 2021; Ostrowski et al. 2020). Land-use intensity data was collected through annual land-use surveys (Vogt et al. 2019). Here, we used land-use intensity data from 2006 to 2017 to capture land-use management over time and match biomass records (Le Provost et al. 2021, Manning et al. 2021). Data on grassland suitability including soil pH, soil depth, soil sand and clay content, slope, elevation and the Topographic Wetness Index (TWI) was retrieved for the latest available year (SI1). All data was normalised and scaled using the bestNormalize (Peterson 2022) and scales (Wickham & Seidel 2022) packages in R (R Core Team 2022).
Analysis
All analyses were run using R software version 4.2.2 (R Core Team 2022). For our main analysis, we excluded plots from the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin as they all belonged to a Natura 2000 site, and hence, did not provide counterfactuals for the non-protected status. This led to a dataset containing 80 plots. We tested for significant differences between plots in protected and non-protected grasslands through Student’s t-Test and used the violin plots from the R package ggplot (Wickham 2016) for visualisation. We also analysed spearman’s correlations between all variables (including the three components of the land use intensity index) using the R package corrplot (Wei & Simko 2021; SI4).
Next, we constructed the latent variable condition defined by our indicators soil depth, Topographic Wetness Index, sand content, elevation, and slope. The environmental variables soil pH and soil clay were excluded from the latent variables as this improved the model fit. Then, we fitted a multi-group structural equation model (SEM) for the two groups (i.e. protected and non-protected sites) using the R package lavaan (Rosseel 2012).
As our data did not fit a multivariate normal distribution, we used the maximum likelihood estimation as a robust procedure (Yuan et al. 2000; Andreassen et al. 2006). We compared different model fits by releasing parameter constraints in sequence and comparing modification indices based on the difference of a constrained versus a free model. For each constraint it was considered whether releasing the parameter would align with theoretical knowledge. We tested and established configural, metric, scalar and strict invariance (Bialosiewicz et al. 2013; van de Schoot et al. 2012) by comparing the goodness-of-fit indicators for chi-square, Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (Hu and Bentler 1999; Schumacker and Lomax 2010, SI2). Using the proposed cut-off criteria for CFI, TLI and RMSEA tends to over-reject true‐population models at small sample size (< 200). Therefore, we additionally used the chi-square divided by the degrees of freedom (χ2/df) as a measure of model fits (Anderson and Gerbing 1984) for all our SEMs.
In addition, we ran a separate analysis using the Effective Number of Species based on the Simpson Index (SI6). As results were largely the same (except the negative links between land-use intensity and plant diversity, plant diversity and forage in non-protected plots that turned not significant), we show only the results based on the Shannon index in the main text.
To investigate potential regional differences in protected grasslands, we ran a separate SEM including only the plots belonging to protected areas from all three regions, including the UNESCO biosphere reserve Schorfheide-Chorin (SI7) using a total of 43 plots.
In addition, to test for potential differences in the effects of the individual components of the land use intensity index, we ran the SEM analyses separately for each of the three indicators (mowing, fertilisation and grazing) (SI 8–10).
Results
Differences between protected and non-protected grasslands
Mowing intensity, fertilisation intensity, and overall land-use intensity were significantly higher in plots in non-protected grasslands in comparison to plots located in protected grasslands (Fig. 2). Grazing intensity did not significantly differ between protected and non-protected sites. Regarding other key variables, plant diversity was significantly higher in plots of protected grasslands while forage production was significantly higher in plots belonging to non-protected grasslands. Differences in site condition variables were only significant for soil clay and sand content, which had a larger range of values in protected grasslands (Fig. 2).
Modelled links between land-use intensity, plant diversity, forage and site condition variables
We found that, in both protected and non-protected grasslands, land-use intensity was positively associated with forage production but negatively associated with plant diversity (Fig. 3). In non-protected grasslands, plant diversity and forage production were negatively linked while this association was not significant in protected sites. In addition, for protected grasslands our results depict a positive link between condition and forage production. Our sensitivity analysis using individual land-use variables revealed that the positive association between land-use intensity and forage production could be mainly explained by mowing and fertilising intensity (SI8; SI9). When fitting a separate model with grazing intensity only, the linkage of grazing intensity and forage production is much lower in magnitude and non-significant (SI10). Furthermore, the sensitivity analysis showed that the negative association between land-use variables and plant diversity is only significant and negative for the model fits using mowing and fertilising. When fitting the data using grazing intensity the linkage with plant diversity becomes non-significant. For protected grasslands, this linkage is positive yet non-significant.
When running a separate SEM with plots belonging only to protected grasslands for all three regions, the link between land-use intensity and forage production remained positive (0.54***) (SI7) while the link between land-use intensity and plant diversity remained negative (− 0.52***). The negative link between plant diversity and forage production stays negative yet non-significant (− 0.07). The latent variable condition shows strong significant linkages with forage production and plant diversity.
Discussion
In this study we show that land-use intensity drives the relationship between forage production and plant diversity in grasslands and that this is mediated by mowing and fertilisation intensity. Importantly, the trade-off between forage production and plant diversity found in non-protected sites seems to be alleviated in protected grasslands, as it becomes non-significant. This trade-off was also non-significant when considering a diversity index less sensitive to rare species (SI6).
Our results show that grassland plots in protected areas are successful in protecting biodiversity in terms of plant species diversity while allowing similar grazing intensities as non-protected grasslands. Apart from management effects, the site conditions play an important role in these observations and vary between protected and non-protected grasslands. For example, protected grasslands seem to have adequate soil conditions for biomass production, although non-protected grasslands are still more productive.
Management effects on grassland plant diversity
In line with our expectations, our results showed that plant diversity was significantly higher in protected grasslands (Fig. 3) as, in general, habitat types with favourable conservation status host high levels of biodiversity (Silva et al. 2019). In addition, the negative association between land-use intensity and plant diversity appeared to be driven by fertilisation and mowing intensity, even in protected grasslands where these variables were significantly lower. These results partially align with those by Allan et al. (2014), who in the same sites showed that declines in the average proportional species richness across taxonomic groups could be best explained by mowing (and grazing intensity) rather than by fertilisation intensity. However, as mowing and fertilisation intensity are strongly correlated in our case-study sites, deriving conclusions on the individual effects of the land-use variable needs to be done with caution. Other studies suggest that, in line with our results, meadows with low mowing intensities and without any fertilisation seem to have higher biodiversity values (Mayel et al. 2021). Moderate mowing intensity may support plant species diversity by enhancing the flower cover or elongating the flowering season through re-flowering while higher mowing intensity disturbs structural complexity (Hudewenz et al. 2012). Regarding fertilisation intensity, nutrient inputs in fertilised plots, such as cumulative N input, can increase the biomass of generalist species and decrease the biomass of rare or threatened species (for an overview see Melts et al. 2018).
Another option to support biodiversity is to reduce grazing intensity patterns through, for example, low-intensity short rotations of livestock (Fischer et al. 2009). Indeed, although grazing is promoted by the Natura 2000 guidelines, we did not find significantly higher values for grazing intensity in protected grasslands in our main analysis. Moreover, in our sensitivity analysis, grazing intensity showed a positive yet non-significant linkage with plant diversity (SI10) for protected plots. At higher intensity, grazing can be a driver for biodiversity loss. The trend of increasing loss of vegetation cover in intensive grazing regimes can cause evaporation and thereby upward movement of water and soluble salts in the soil. Accumulated salt in the top horizon can lead to a decrease in vegetation growth (Mayel et al. 2021). Furthermore, the more aboveground plant biomass is consumed by livestock, the less plant litter is present on the surface and fewer residues can be incorporated into the soil. This affects the soil water and temperature content, which in turn affects soil organic C and soil biological activity. At light grazing intensities, the soil may recover through the growth and decomposition of plants and roots or the activities of soil microorganisms (Mayel et al. 2021). Our sensitivity analysis for protected grassland plots revealed that the negative linkage between overall land-use intensity and plant diversity was reduced in magnitude in comparison to our main analysis with plots from both protected and non-protected sites. This finding could suggest that appropriate grazing activities could be more beneficial for biodiversity than other land-use management strategies. In contrast, significantly higher mowing and fertilisation in non-protected grasslands may be responsible for observed biodiversity losses in comparison to protected sites.
The positive effect of grazing on biodiversity has been shown for different grassland environments. For instance, in the tallgrass prairie of North America, moderately grazed plant communities are more species rich than ungrazed or intensively grazed communities due to structural heterogeneity and limited defoliation by livestock (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001). An experimental study in the Great Plains (USA) showed that, at the plot level (10 m2), under bison grazing native species richness was 103% higher and under cattle grazing 41% higher when compared to ungrazed plots (Ratajczak et al. 2022). Furthermore, using a standardised survey at 98 sites across six continents, Maestre et al. (2022) found that in drylands, increasing grazing pressure shifts the relationships between plant species richness and aboveground biomass from negative to positive at the plot level (45 × 45 m). The effects of grazing on biodiversity, however, remain context-dependent as the results of the interactions between grazing pressure and abiotic and biotic features cause some uncertainty on the effects of grazing on ecosystem services and nature’s contributions to people (Maestre et al. 2022).
Furthermore, at the plot level, we found a positive association between mowing and fertilising intensity and biomass production, while grazing was positively associated with plant diversity in protected areas. Zooming out to a landscape perspective, this implies that a ‘land sparing’ strategy (high-intensity grasslands on a small land footprint) may reconcile productivity and biodiversity at the landscape level. Hence, non-protected grasslands deliver forage through mowing and fertilising and non-protected grasslands maintain biodiversity through grazing. Hypotheses on the biodiversity-productivity relationship at the landscape level, however, require further testing as multiple mechanisms aside the land-sparing versus land-sparing dichotomy come into play at this spatial scale. For instance, whether negative land-use impacts on the plot scale could be buffered by landscape level mechanisms such as recolonization of species from diverse surrounding habitats needs to be further explored (Öster et al. 2007). For instance, Le Provost et al. (2021) found that vascular plant diversity was negatively impacted by the permanency of surrounding grasslands and forests and positively, yet insignificantly, affected by the forest cover and land cover diversity at the landscape level in our study sites. Further research could investigate how these landscape mechanisms play a role in protected versus non-protected areas. For instance, negative spill-over effects of the application of fertilisers and herbicides on agricultural fields adjacent to conservation areas (Köthe et al. 2023) and positive spill-over effects from natural areas to managed grasslands (Blitzer et al. 2012) could be tested in non-experimental managed grasslands.
The significant negative linkage between land-use intensity and plant diversity, in both non-protected and protected plots, highlights the need to moderate land-use intensity to reduce the negative influence of human activities on biodiversity in grasslands and minimise trade-offs. Based on a simulation approach, Neyret et al. (2021) found that trade-offs between ecosystem services such as fodder production and carbon storage persist in high- and low-intensity grasslands while multifunctionality in terms of ecosystem services diversity can be achieved when a moderate level of ecosystem services supply is accepted by stakeholders.
Insights for the diversity-productivity debate
Our SEM analysis showed that the trade-off between biomass and plant diversity was only significant in non-protected grasslands and especially relevant for rare species, as using a Simpson-based diversity index instead of a Shannon-based one did not yield significant effects (SI6). Similarly, we found a negative correlation between forage production and plant diversity (SI4). This contrasts with studies suggesting that improving grassland species richness can increase forage production. In temperate grasslands, for instance, the occupation of different niches by distinct species often results in improved resource utilisation over space and time (Sanderson et al. 2004). Additionally, interactions between legumes and other plants have been found to affect nitrogen availability which in turn improves productivity (Sanderson et al. 2004; Savage et al. 2021). Previous research in our case-study sites found that changes to the plant community including diversity declines were key mediating factors by which land-use intensity indirectly affected ecosystem multifunctionality (Allan et al. 2015). Likewise, Isbell et al. (2011) found that 84% of 147 grassland plant species analysed in 17 biodiversity experiments supported ecosystem functions at least once and were therefore relevant for sustaining ecosystem services. Hence, evidence from other studies does not necessarily confirm the negative linkages between biodiversity and productivity that we found here. In general, there are different hypotheses on the shape of the productivity-plant species richness relationship (Adler et al. 2011) and the mechanisms behind these shapes are still under investigation (Grace et al. 2016). Still, our study provides evidence that these relationships are most likely associated with the management practices in real-world grasslands.
In addition, our sensitivity analysis with only protected sites revealed that the magnitude of the effect of land-use intensity on forage production is substantially higher than in the multi-group SEM results. These results indicate that the management of grasslands differs between protected areas across Germany, and that these differences in management may affect the diversity-productivity relationship in real managed grasslands. For instance, a higher grazing intensity in the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin paired with rich organic soil may balance the linkages towards a positive diversity-productivity relationship. This supports the findings of other studies in our case-study region highlighting the careful consideration of regional environmental differences when attempting to generalise land-use effects on species diversity (Socher et al. 2012).
Our study also points to the limitation of studying the relationship of biodiversity and productivity in real landscapes. For instance, as non-productive sites may be of lower economic value they may be set aside for biodiversity conservation. Arguing from another perspective, highly biodiverse grasslands may be put under environmental protection to conserve already existing plant diversity. However, this may not be true for all protected ecosystems, as former intensively used grasslands can also be targeted for ecological restoration or set aside for conservation through environmental commitments at the policy level.
In this paper we assumed that relationships between biodiversity and forage provision can be measured on a plot scale-i.e. 50 × 50 m. These relationships may also be detectable and synergies between biodiversity and productivity desired at larger landscape scales where factors such as landscape heterogeneity are relevant drivers of biodiversity. Theory suggests that heterogeneous landscapes with a diversity of suitable habitats contain a species pool with higher species richness due to seed dispersal and pollen flow (Gaujour et al. 2012). For instance, it was shown for the Great Plains in the United States that restoring heterogeneity within a landscape through grazing-fire interactions can increase plant diversity (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001). Studies on the effects of landscape heterogeneity on plant diversity, however, show mixed results and some plant species may be unaffected by landscape heterogeneity (Gaujour et al. 2012). Nonetheless, many scholars advocate for management paradigms that consider landscape heterogeneity within rangelands and permanent grasslands (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001; Tscharntke et al. 2012; Harlio et al. 2019).
From a policy perspective, maintaining higher biodiversity at a landscape level cannot be achieved by a single farmer or conservation measure at the farm level (Gaujour et al. 2012). Conservation schemes, thus, need to acknowledge the joint effort of several farmers required to manage the landscape in its entirety (Landis 2017; Westerink et al 2017).
Limitations & outlook
In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of managed grasslands in maintaining plant diversity and yielding high productivity. However, there are other criteria for evaluating the potential benefits of biodiverse grasslands. These include the seasonal distribution of yields, the comparison of input costs to achieve productivity, and the provision of other NCP and ecosystem services including improved wildlife habitat and landscape aesthetics (Sanderson et al. 2004; Schmitt et al. 2022).
We are aware that we used a simplified representation of managed grassland ecosystems in this study and that other constituents of grasslands, such as belowground biodiversity and functions may influence plant diversity and forage production. As grasslands are associated with high plant species richness, we focused on plant diversity as an indicator of biodiversity. Other biodiversity indicators such as pollinators or bird species (Petermann & Buzhdygan 2021) could be considered in future analyses. Besides, we only investigated plant diversity as a driver of productivity. Future studies could investigate which species might be especially relevant as a mediating factor of land-use intensity linkages and forage production. However, in line with the precautionary principle, all species should be conserved as uncertainty regarding the role of specific species in the provision of NCP remains (Isbell et al. 2011).
Our latent variable site conditions might only capture a selection of relevant indicators, as the range of soil conditions analysed appeared to be larger in protected grasslands, which could potentially drive some of these results. While conclusions on the magnitude and direction of the described relationships have to be drawn with caution, it is important to highlight that the linkages of plant diversity and productivity depend on the underlying environmental conditions in which protected and non-protected grasslands are placed and assessed.
This study relied on available land-use data which could limit a deeper understanding of land management effects in our case-study sites. For instance, we used total livestock units per hectare as a measure of grazing intensity without distinguishing among grazer types. Previous studies have shown that intensive grazing regimes with only one herbivore species can negatively impact biodiversity, while multiple different grazing animals with different foraging strategies may contribute to more biodiverse grasslands (Fraser et al. 2014, 2022; Freschi et al. 2015). Moreover, we did not consider other management characteristics that may affect grasslands’ biodiversity, such as re-seeding (Sanderson et al. 2004; Hyvönen et al. 2021) or the type of mowing head used (Steidle et al. 2022). Despite this limitation, zooming into the linkages of land-use intensity in real-managed grasslands delivered useful insights into the relevance of environmental protection status for plant diversity and forage production.
Our results show differences in land-use intensity, forage production and biodiversity across the protected sites. This highlights the importance of combining biophysical analyses with environmental policy analyses. The impacts of agricultural and environmental regulations need to be disentangled from individual land managers’ motivations and practices (see e.g. Hauck et al. 2014; Bouwma et al. 2018; Metzger et al. 2021). Furthermore, having identified significant linkages within the ecosystem, the next step would be to explore how managers’ motivations and values, including the co-production of NCP (Kachler et al. 2023), explain land management strategies and their effects observed in our model. We therefore suggest combining biophysical data on the plot or field level with survey data about land users and their management strategies. This would not only facilitate a better understanding of how NCP and ecosystem services are provided in managed grasslands but also help to identify leverage points for policymakers to promote multifunctional land management at the landscape level. In general, as landscape strategies are highly sensitive to the prioritisation and demand for NCP by stakeholders, it is crucial to apply participatory approaches in the development of land management strategies (Neyret et al. 2021).
Conclusion
Our study provides new insights in the relationship between biodiversity and forage production by (i) analysing real-managed grasslands and (ii) considering the conservation context which is framed by legal institutions such as the Birds Directive and Habitat Directive in Europe.
This study provides evidence of the role of land-use intensity in driving the relationship between forage production and plant diversity in grasslands. In particular, we showed that the trade-off between forage production and plant diversity found in non-protected sites was not further significant in protected grasslands or when considering a diversity index less sensitive to rare species.
Our results support that moderate levels of grazing in protected grasslands can balance forage production with biodiversity conservation, while high levels of mowing and fertilisation decrease plant diversity. While hypotheses need to be tested at the landscape level, our study supports recommendations at the plot level to moderate anthropogenic inputs as a means to reduce trade-offs and maintain a healthy biodiversity-productivity balance.
Data availability
This work is based on data elaborated by several projects of the Biodiversity Exploratories program (DFG Priority Program 1374). The datasets are publicly available in the Biodiversity Exploratories Information System (http://doi.org/10.17616/R32P9Q), (ID 31018, ID 20826, ID 27087, ID 26106).
Notes
The Natura 2000 network includes areas protected under the EU’s Habitats Directive (92/42/EEC) and the Birds Directive (2009/147/EC) (European Commission 2022).
United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
References
Adler PB, Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Hillebrand H, Hautier Y, Hector A, Yang LH (2011) Productivity is a poor predictor of plant species richness. Science 333(6050):1750–1753
Allan E, Bossdorf O, Dormann CF, Prati D, Gossner MM, Tscharntke T, Blüthgen N, Bellach M, Birkhofer K, Boch S, Böhm S, Börschig C, Chatzinotas A, Christ S, Daniel R, Diekötter T, Fischer C, Friedl T, Glaser K, Fischer M (2014) Interannual variation in land-use intensity enhances grassland multidiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(1):308–313
Allan E, Manning P, Alt F, Binkenstein J, Blaser S, Blüthgen N, Böhm S, Grassein F, Hölzel N, Klaus VH, Kleinebecker T, Morris EK, Oelmann Y, Prati D, Renner SC, Rillig MC, Schaefer M, Schloter M, Schmitt B, Fischer M (2015) Land use intensification alters ecosystem multifunctionality via loss of biodiversity and changes to functional composition. Ecol Lett 18(8):8
Andreassen TW, Lorentzen BG, Olsson UH (2006) The impact of non-normality and estimation methods in SEM on satisfaction research in marketing. Qual Quant 40(1):39–58
Bennett EM, Baird J, Baulch H, Chaplin-Kramer R, Fraser E, Loring P, Morrison P, Parrott L, Sherren K, Winkler KJ, Cimon-Morin J, Fortin M-J, Kurylyk BL, Lundholm J, Poulin M, Rieb JT, Gonzalez A, Hickey GM, Humphries M, Lapen D (2021) Ecosystem services and the resilience of agricultural landscapes. Adv Ecol Res 64:1–43
Bialosiewicz S, Murphy K, Berry T (2013) Do our Measures Measure up? The Critical Role of Measurement Invariance (American Evaluation Association, p. 37) [Demonstration Session]. Claremont Evaluation Center
Blitzer EJ, Dormann CF, Holzschuh A, Klein A-M, Rand TA, Tscharntke T (2012) Spillover of functionally important organisms between managed and natural habitats. Agr Ecosyst Environ 146(1):34–43
Blüthgen N, Dormann CF, Prati D, Klaus VH, Kleinebecker T, Hölzel N, Weisser WW (2012) A quantitative index of land-use intensity in grasslands: integrating mowing, grazing and fertilization. Basic Appl Ecol 13(3):207–220
Bouwma I, Schleyer C, Primmer E, Winkler KJ, Berry P, Young J, Carmen E et al (2018) Adoption of the ecosystem services concept in EU policies. Ecosyst Serv 29(February):213–222
Brun P, Zimmermann NE, Graham CH, Lavergne S, Pellissier L, Münkemüller T, Thuiller W (2019) The productivity-biodiversity relationship varies across diversity dimensions. Nat Commun 10(1):5691
Buchwald R (2008) FFH-grünland in deutschland: lebensraumtypen. Ziel- Und Problemarten, Möglichkeiten Der Erhaltung Und Wiederherstellung 20:90–107
Bullock JM, Jefferson RG, Blackstock TH, Pakeman RJ, Emmett BA, Pywell RJ, Philip GJ, Silvertown J (2011) Semi-natural grasslands. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Cambridge, pp 162–195
Buonocore E, Picone F, Russo GF, Franzese PP (2018) The scientific research on natural capital: a bibliometric network analysis. J Environ Account Manag 6(4):381–391
Carlier L, Rotar I, Vlahova M, Vidican R (2009) Importance and functions of grasslands. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici Cluj-Napoca 37(1):25–30
European Commission, 2022. Management of Natura 2000 Habitats. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/habitats/models_en.htm (accessed 11.23.22).
Davidson KE, Fowler MS, Skov MW, Forman D, Alison J, Botham M, Beaumont N, Griffin JN (2020) Grazing reduces bee abundance and diversity in saltmarshes by suppressing flowering of key plant species. Agric Ecosyst Environ 291:106760
Eurostat. (2022). Agri-environmental indicator—Mineral fertiliser consumption. Eurostat. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Agri-environmental_indicator_-_mineral_fertiliser_consumption (Accessed: 01.11.2022).
Fischer J, Stott J, Zerger A, Warren G, Sherren K, Forrester RI (2009) Reversing a tree regeneration crisis in an endangered ecoregion. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106(25):10386–10391
Fischer M, Bossdorf O, Gockel S, Hänsel F, Hemp A, Hessenmöller D, Weisser WW (2010) Implementing large-scale and long-term functional biodiversity research: the biodiversity exploratories. Basic Appl Ecol 11(6):473–485
Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA, Cassidy ES, Gerber JS, Johnston M, Mueller ND, O’Connell C, Ray DK, West PC, Balzer C, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Hill J, Monfreda C, Polasky S, Rockström J, Sheehan J, Siebert S, Zaks DPM (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478(7369):7369
Fraser MD, Moorby JM, Vale JE, Evans DM (2014) Mixed grazing systems benefit both upland biodiversity and livestock production. PLoS ONE 9(2):e89054
Fraser LH, Pither J, Jentsch A, Sternberg M, Zobel M, Askarizadeh D, Zupo T (2015) Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between productivity and plant species richness. Science 349(6245):302–305
Fraser MD, Vallin HE, Roberts BP (2022) Animal board invited review: grassland-based livestock farming and biodiversity. Animal 16(12):100671
Freschi P, Musto M, Paolino R, Cosentino C (2015) Grazing and biodiversity conservation: highlights on a natura 2000 network site. The sustainability of agro-food and natural resource systems in the Mediterranean basin. Springer, Basilicata, pp 271–288
Fuhlendorf SD, Engle DM (2001) Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: ecosystem management based on evolutionary grazing patterns: we propose a paradigm that enhances heterogeneity instead of homogeneity to promote biological diversity and wildlife habitat on rangelands grazed by livestock. Bioscience 51(8):625–632
Fülöp B, Pacsai B, Bódis J (2021) Minor treatments can play a significant role in preserving natural habitats and protected species on the shore of a central European lake. Agronomy 11(8):1540
Gaujour E, Amiaud B, Mignolet C, Plantureux S (2012) Factors and processes affecting plant biodiversity in permanent grasslands. Rev Agron Sustain Dev 32(1):133–160
Grace JB, Anderson TM, Seabloom EW, Borer ET, Adler PB, Harpole WS, Smith MD (2016) Integrative modelling reveals mechanisms linking productivity and plant species richness. Nature 529(7586):390–393
Guevara, M. R., Hartmann, D., & Mendoza, M. (2017). Diverse: diversity measures for complex systems (Version 0.1.5) [Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=diverse
Guo Q, Berry WL (1998) Species richness and biomass: dissection of the hump-shaped relationships. Ecology 79(7):2555–2559
Habel JC, Dengler J, Janišová M, Török P, Wellstein C, Wiezik M (2013) European grassland ecosystems: threatened hotspots of biodiversity. Biodiv Conserv 22(10):2131–2138
Harlio A, Kuussaari M, Heikkinen RK, Arponen A (2019) Incorporating landscape heterogeneity into multi-objective spatial planning improves biodiversity conservation of semi-natural grasslands. J Nat Conserv 49:37–44
Hauck J, Schleyer C, Winkler KJ, Maes J (2014) Shades of greening: reviewing the impact of the new EU agricultural policy on ecosystem services. Change Adapt Socio-Ecol Syst. https://doi.org/10.2478/cass-2014-0006
Hinderling, J., Penone, C., Fischer, M., Prati, D., & Penone, C. (2023). Biomass data for grassland EPs, 2009—2022 (Version 6). Biodiversity exploratories information system. https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/
Hu LT, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Hudewenz A, Klein A-M, Scherber C, Stanke L, Tscharntke T, Vogel A, Weigelt A, Weisser WW, Ebeling A (2012) Herbivore and pollinator responses to grassland management intensity along experimental changes in plant species richness. Biol Cons 150(1):42–52
Hyvönen T, Huusela E, Kuussaari M, Niemi M, Uusitalo R, Nuutinen V (2021) Aboveground and belowground biodiversity responses to seed mixtures and mowing in a long-term set-aside experiment. Agric Ecosyst Environ 322:107656
IPBES (2018) Summary for policymakers of the regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES Secr. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3237428
Isbell F, Calcagno V, Hector A, Connolly J, Harpole WS, Reich PB, Scherer-Lorenzen M, Schmid B, Tilman D, van Ruijven J, Weigelt A, Wilsey BJ, Zavaleta ES, Loreau M (2011) High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature 477(7363):7363
Jost L (2006) Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113(2):363–375
Jost L, DeVries P, Walla T, Greeney H, Chao A, Ricotta C (2010) Partitioning diversity for conservation analyses. Divers Distrib 16(1):65–76
Kachler J, Isaac R, Martín-López B, Bonn A, Felipe-Lucia MR (2023) Co-production of nature’s contributions to people: what evidence is out there? People Nat. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10493
Keune H, Immovilli M, Keller R, Maynard S, McElwee P, Molnár Z, Olsson GA, Payyappallimana U, Schneiders A, Schoolenberg M, Subramanian SM, Reeth WV (2022) Defining nature. In: Visseren-Hamakers IJ, Kok MTJ (eds) Transforming biodiversity governance, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 25–42
Köthe S, Bakanov N, Brühl CA, Gemeinholzer B, Hörren T, Mühlethaler R, Sorg M, Sumser H, Swenson SJ, Lehmann GUC (2023) Negative spill-over effects of agricultural practices on plant species conservation in nature reserves. Ecol Ind 149:110170
Landis DA (2017) Designing agricultural landscapes for biodiversity-based ecosystem services. Basic Appl Ecol 18:1–12
Le Provost G, Thiele J, Westphal CL, Provost G, Thiele J, Westphal C, Penone C, Allan E, Neyret M, Manning P et al (2021) Contrasting responses of above-and belowground diversity to multiple components of land-use intensity. Nat Commun 12(1):1–13
Maestre FT, Le Bagousse-Pinguet Y, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Eldridge DJ, Saiz H, Berdugo M, Gozalo B, Ochoa V, Guirado E, García-Gómez M, Valencia E, Gaitán JJ, Asensio S, Mendoza BJ, Plaza C, Díaz-Martínez P, Rey A, Hu H-W, He J-Z, Gross N (2022) Grazing and ecosystem service delivery in global drylands. Science 378(6622):915–920
Manning P (2021) Aggregated environmental and land-use covariates of the 150 grassland EPs used in ‘Contrasting responses of above- and belowground diversity to multiple components of land-use intensity’ (Version 5). Biodiversity Exploratories Information System. https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/
Mayel S, Jarrah M, Kuka K (2021) How does grassland management affect physical and biochemical properties of temperate grassland soils? A review study. Grass Forage Sci 76(2):215–244
Melts I, Lanno K, Sammul M, Uchida K, Heinsoo K, Kull T, Laanisto L (2018) Fertilising semi-natural grasslands may cause long-term negative effects on both biodiversity and ecosystem stability. J Appl Ecol 55(4):1951–1955
Memmert J (2022) Overview maps with the plots of all regions in the exploratories project (Version 4). Biodiversity Exploratories Information System. https://www.bexis.uni-jena.de/
Metzger JP, Fidelman P, Sattler C, Schröter B, Maron M, Eigenbrod F, Rhodes JR (2021) Connecting governance interventions to ecosystem services provision: a social-ecological network approach. People Nat 3(2):266–280
Neyret M, Fischer M, Allan E, Hölzel N, Klaus VH, Kleinebecker T, Manning P (2021) Assessing the impact of grassland management on landscape multifunctionality. Ecosyst Serv 52:101366
Öster M, Cousins SAO, Eriksson O (2007) Size and heterogeneity rather than landscape context determine plant species richness in semi-natural grasslands. J Veg Sci 18(6):859–868
Ostrowksi A, Lorenzen K, Petzold E, Schindler S (2020) Land use intensity index (LUI) calculation tool of the biodiversity exploratories project for grassland survey data from three different regions in Germany since 2006, BEXIS 2 module (v2.0.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3865579
Pärtel M, Bruun HH, Sammul M (2005) Biodiversity in temperate European grasslands: origin and conservation. Grassl Sci Eur 10(1):14
Pavlů V, Hejcman M, Pavlů L, Gaisler J, Nežerková P (2006) Effect of continuous grazing on forage quality, quantity and animal performance. Agr Ecosyst Environ 113(1–4):349–355
Petermann JS, Buzhdygan OY (2021) Grassland biodiversity. Curr Biol 31(19):R1195–R1201
Peterson, R. A. (2022). Using the best normalize package. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/bestNormalize/vignettes/bestNormalize.html
Pierce S (2014) Implications for biodiversity conservation of the lack of consensus regarding the humped-back model of species richness and biomass production. Funct Ecol 28(1):253–257
R Core Team. (2022). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Computer software]. https://www.R-project.org/
Ratajczak Z, Collins SL, Blair JM, Koerner SE, Louthan AM, Smith MD, Taylor JH, Nippert JB (2022) Reintroducing bison results in long-running and resilient increases in grassland diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 119(36):e2210433119
Rieb JT, Chaplin-Kramer R, Daily GC, Armsworth PR, Böhning-Gaese K, Bonn A, Cumming GS, Eigenbrod F, Grimm V, Jackson BM, Marques A, Pattanayak SK, Pereira HM, Peterson GD, Ricketts TH, Robinson BE, Schröter M, Schulte LA, Seppelt R, Bennett EM (2017) When, where, and how nature matters for ecosystem services: challenges for the next generation of ecosystem service models. BioScience 67(9):820–833
Rosseel Y (2012) lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Soft 48(2):1–36
Sanderson MA, Skinner RH, Barker DJ, Edwards GR, Tracy BF, Wedin DA (2004) Plant species diversity and management of temperate forage and grazing land ecosystems. Crop Sci 44(4):1132–1144
Sanderson MA, Goslee SC, Soder KJ, Skinner RH, Tracy BF, Deak A (2007) Plant species diversity, ecosystem function, and pasture management—a perspective. Can J Plant Sci 87(3):479–487
Savage J, Woodcock BA, Bullock JM, Nowakowski M, Tallowin JRB, Pywell RF (2021) Management to support multiple ecosystem services from productive grasslands. Sustainability 13(11):6263
Schmitt TM, Riebl R, Martín-López B, Hänsel M, Koellner T (2022) Plural valuation in space: mapping values of grasslands and their ecosystem services. Ecosyst People 18(1):258–274
Schumacker RE, Lomax RG (2010) A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling, 3rd edn. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group
Seppelt R, Arndt C, Beckmann M, Martin EA, Hertel TW (2020) Deciphering the biodiversity-production mutualism in the global food security debate. Trends Ecol Evol 35(11):1011–1020
Silva V, Catry FX, Fernandes PM, Rego FC, Paes P, Nunes L, Caperta AD, Sérgio C, Bugalho MN (2019) Effects of grazing on plant composition, conservation status and ecosystem services of Natura 2000 shrub-grassland habitat types. Biodivers Conserv 28(5):1205–1224
Socher SA, Prati D, Boch S, Müller J, Klaus VH, Hölzel N, Fischer M (2012) Direct and productivity-mediated indirect effects of fertilization, mowing and grazing on grassland species richness. J Ecol 100(6):1391–1399
Steidle JLM, Kimmich T, Csader M, Betz O (2022) Negative impact of roadside mowing on arthropod fauna and its reduction with ‘arthropod-friendly’ mowing technique. J Appl Entomol 146(5):465–472
Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Rand TA, Didham RK, Fahrig L, Batáry P, Bengtsson J, Clough Y, Crist TO, Dormann CF, Ewers RM, Fründ J, Holt RD, Holzschuh A, Klein AM, Kleijn D, Kremen C, Landis DA, Laurance W, Westphal C (2012) Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes—eight hypotheses. Biol Rev 87(3):661–685
United Nations Environment Programme. (2021). Making peace with nature: a scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. Nairobi. https://www.unep.org/resources/making-peace-nature
van de Schoot R, Lugtig P, Hox J (2012) A checklist for testing measurement invariance. Eur J Dev Psychol 9(4):486–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2012.686740
Vogt J, Klaus V, Both S, Fürstenau C, Gockel S, Gossner M, Weisser W (2019) Eleven years’ data of grassland management in Germany. Biodiv Data J. https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.7.e36387
Wang D, Wang L (2019) A new perspective on the concept of grassland management. Chin Sci Bull 64(11):1106–1113
Wei, T., & Simko, V. (2021). R package ‘corrplot’: visualization of a correlation matrix (Version 0.92) [Computer software]. https://github.com/taiyun/corrplot
Westerink J, Jongeneel R, Polman N, Prager K, Franks J, Dupraz P, Mettepenningen E (2017) Collaborative governance arrangements to deliver spatially coordinated agri-environmental management. Land Use Policy 69:176–192
Wickham, H., & Seidel, D. (2022). Scale functions for visualization. [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/scales/scales.pdf
Wickham, H. (2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. [Computer software]. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org
Yuan K-H, Chan W, Bentler PM (2000) Robust transformation with applications to structural equation modelling. Br J Math Stat Psychol 53(1):31–50
Acknowledgements
We thank the managers of the three Exploratories, Max Müller, Julia Bass, Robert Künast, Miriam Teuscher, Anna K. Franke, Franca Marian and all former managers for their work in maintaining the plot and project infrastructure; Victoria Grießmeier for giving support through the central office, Andreas Ostrowski for managing the central database, and Markus Fischer, Eduard Linsenmair, Dominik Hessenmöller, Daniel Prati, Ingo Schöning, François Buscot, Ernst-Detlef Schulze, Wolfgang W. Weisser and the late Elisabeth Kalko for their role in setting up the Biodiversity Exploratories project. We thank the administration of the Hainich National Park, the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Swabian Alb and the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Schorfheide-Chorin as well as all landowners for the excellent collaboration. The work has been (partly) funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Priority Program 1374 “Biodiversity-Exploratories” (DFG-Refno. 43316337). Field work permits were issued by the responsible state environmental offices of Baden-Württemberg, Thüringen, and Brandenburg. Furthermore, we gratefully acknowledge the support of iDiv funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG–FZT 118, 202548816).
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. The work has been partly funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Priority Program 1374 “Biodiversity-Exploratories” (DFG-Refno. 43316337). Furthermore, it was supported by iDiv which is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG–FZT 118, 202548816). MFL contract was partly supported by the RYC2021-032828-I grant, financed by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033 and by the European Union “NextGenerationEU”/PRTR».
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
JK, FB, RI, AB, and MFL contributed to the study’s conception and design. RB and RI provided data. Material preparation and analysis were performed by JK, FB, and MFL. The first draft of the manuscript was written by JK and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Kachler, J., Benra, F., Bolliger, R. et al. Can we have it all? The role of grassland conservation in supporting forage production and plant diversity. Landsc Ecol 38, 4451–4465 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01729-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-023-01729-4