Agronomy for Sustainable Development

, Volume 31, Issue 3, pp 463–473 | Cite as

Farmers’ fears and agro-economic evaluation of sown grass strips in France

  • Stéphane Cordeau
  • Xavier Reboud
  • Bruno ChauvelEmail author
Original Paper


Since 2005, French farmers must set up sown grass strips along rivers in order to decrease pesticide levels and soil erosion. Farmers have thus parcelled out their fields, set aside 3% of their farm size and managed grass without herbicide. Consequently, this environmental policy may cause farmers’ fears due to economic losses and weed infestations of their field margins. Here, we studied farmers’ perception of sown grass strips. First, we interviewed 29 farmers in two French regions. Second, we evaluated the economic loss of gross margin when replacing crop by grass. Third, we evaluated the weed risk using flora surveys in sown grass strips. Our results showed that two thirds of interviewed farmers thought that sown grass strips affected their farm revenue and represented a weed risk. Concerning economy, we found that farmers loose from 358 to 853€/ha the year of installation and from 126 to 641€/ha next years. This economic loss is mainly due to the loss of crop production, with a minor impact of grass management cost. At the farm level, 3% of sown grass strips decreased the farm revenue by 7%. Concerning the weed risk, the farmers’ perception was linked with the presence of some competitive perennial weeds, e.g. Cirsium arvense, and wind-dispersing weeds, e.g. Asteraceae. Sown grass strips with high weed species richness of 26 species on average, or with dominance of non-sown species (16.7% of sown grass strips) did not affect the farmers’ perception. In our study, the economic loss was weak and acceptable at the farm level.


Field margin Weed risk Gross margin Agri-environmental measure Farmers’ acceptance 



This work was funded by grants from ANR Ecoger, ANR-STRA-1 08-02 and INRA. The authors thank Fabrice Dessaint and Sandrine Petit for their help. We also thank Rémi Bonnot and the farmers of the two sites for their assistance in the sown grass strips surveys. We thank Jean-Luc Demizieux and the anonymous reviewers for their help in reviewing the manuscript.


  1. Amiaud B, Touzard B (2004) The relationships between soil seed bank, aboveground vegetation and disturbances in old embanked marshlands of Western France. Flora 199:25–35. doi: 10.1078/0367-2530-00129 Google Scholar
  2. Anonymous (2009) Barème d'entraide 2009 Nord Est : Evaluez le coût de vos matériels, Entraid’ Est n°185 supplementGoogle Scholar
  3. Bailey KL, Gossen BD (2005) Boundary areas and plant diseases. In: Thomas AG (ed) Field boundary habitats: implications for weed, insect and disease management, topics in canadian weed science, Canadian weed science soc. Soc Canadienne Malherbologie, Quebec, pp 165–169Google Scholar
  4. Burton RJF, Kuczera C, Schwarz G (2008) Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociol Rural 48:16–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00452.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carpy-Goulard F, Daniel K, Kephaliacos C, Mosnier C, Ridier A, van De Moortel C (2006) Conditionnalité des aides directes: impact de la mise en oeuvre de certaines BCAE et de la mesure de maintien des pâturages permanents. Notes et études économiques 25:137–164Google Scholar
  6. Changnon SA (1971) Hailfall characteristics related to crop damage. J Appl Meteorol 10:270–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Critchley CNR, Fowbert JA, Sherwood AJ, Pywell RF (2006) Vegetation development of sown grass margins in arable fields under a countrywide agri-environment scheme. Biol Conserv 132:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.03.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Cauwer B, Reheul D, D'Hooghe K, Nijs I, Milbau A (2005) Evolution of the vegetation of mown field margins over their first 3 years. Agric Ecosyst Environ 109:87–96. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Cauwer B, Reheul D, Nijs I, Milbau A (2006) Dry matter yield and herbage quality of field margin vegetation as a function of vegetation development and management regime. NJAS Wagening J Life Sci 54:37–60. doi: 10.1016/S1573-5214(06)80003-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Cauwer B, Reheul D, Nijs I, Milbau A (2008) Management of newly established field margins on nutrient-rich soil to reduce weed spread and seed rain into adjacent crops. Weed Res 48:102–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.2007.00607.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Snoo GR, de Wit PJ (1998) Buffer zones for reducing pesticide drift to ditches and risks to aquatic organisms. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 41:112–118. doi: 10.1006/eesa.1998.1678 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Defrancesco E, Gatto P, Runge F, Trestini S (2008) Factors affecting farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures: a northern Italian perspective. J Agric Econ 59:114–131. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00134.x Google Scholar
  13. Donald WW, Khan M (1996) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) effects on yield components of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci 44:114–121Google Scholar
  14. Forche T (1991) Changing vegetation and weed floras during set-aside and afterwards. Proc Brighton Crop Prot Conf; pp. 377–386Google Scholar
  15. Fournier P (1947) Les quatre flores de France, 1990th edn. Lechavalier, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank T (1998) Slug damage and numbers of the slug pests, Arion lusitanicus and Deroceras reticulatum, in oilseed rape grown beside sown wildflower strips. Agric Ecosyst Environ 67:67–78. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(97)00108-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fried G, Petit S, Dessaint F, Reboud X (2009) Arable weed decline in Northern France: crop edges as refugia for weed conservation? Biol Conserv 142:238–243. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2008.09.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gokkus A, Koc A, Serin Y, Comakli B, Tan M, Kantar F (1999) Hay yield and nitrogen harvest in smooth bromegrass mixtures with alfalfa and red clover in relation to nitrogen application. Eur J Agron 10:145–151. doi: 10.1016/S1161-0301(98)00061-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) Past: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electronica 4:1–9Google Scholar
  20. Henry M, George S, Arnold GM, Dedryver CA, Kendall DA, Robert Y, Smith BD (1993) Occurrence of barley yellow dwarf virus (BYDV) isolates in different farmland habitats in western France and south-west England. Ann Appl Biol 123:315–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Herzon I, Mikk M (2007) Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: a comparative study from Estonia and Finland. J Nat Conserv 15:10–25. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2006.08.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hooks GM, Napier TL, Carter MV (1983) Correlates of adoption behaviors—the case of farm technologies. Rural Sociol 48:308–323Google Scholar
  23. Jauzein P (1995) Flore des champs cultivés. SOPRA-INRA, ParisGoogle Scholar
  24. Jongepierova I, Jongepier JW, Klimes L (2004) Restoring grassland on arable land: an example of a fast spontaneous succession without weed-dominated stages. Preslia 76:361–369Google Scholar
  25. Lerin J (1995) Assessment of yield losses caused by insects in winter oilseed rape, a critical review, in: IOBC/WPRS Working Group 'Integrated control in oilseed crops', Zurich, Switzerland, 24–25 February 1994, pp. 95–101Google Scholar
  26. Marshall EJP (1989) Distribution patterns of plants associated with arable field edges. J Appl Ecol 26:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marshall EJP (2009) The impact of landscape structure and sown grass margin strips on weed assemblages in arable crops and their boundaries. Weed Res 49:107–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.2008.00670.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marshall EJP, Arnold GM (1995) Factors affecting field weed and field margin flora on a farm in Essex, UK. Landsc Urban Plan 31:205–216. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(94)01047-C CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marshall EJP, Moonen AC (2002) Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:5–21. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00315-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Montanarella L, van Rompaey A, Jones R (2003) Soil erosion risk in Europe. European Commission report, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, pp. 15Google Scholar
  31. Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H (1974) Aims and methods of vegetation. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Nemeth I (2001) Weed flora of fields set-aside for a long period in Northern Hungary. Novenytermeles 50:217–230Google Scholar
  33. Sausse C, Wagner D, Lucas JL, Estragnat A, Mangenot O, Garric B, Reau R, Devaux C, Champolivier J, Messean A (2006) Estimate of losses at harvest of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus) under varying conditions. OCL-Ol Corps Gras, Lipides 13:431–438Google Scholar
  34. Schellberg J, Moseler BM, Kuhbauch W, Rademacher IF (1999) Long-term effects of fertilizer on soil nutrient concentration, yield, forage quality and floristic composition of a hay meadow in the Eifel mountains, Germany. Grass Forage Sci 54:195–207. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2494.1999.00166.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shield IF, Godwin RJ, Smith DLO (1996) The costs of alternative methods of managing ‘set-aside’ land within the European Community. Soil Tillage Res 37:273–287. doi: 10.1016/0167-1987(96)01007-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sotherton NW (1985) The distribution and abundance of predatory coleoptera overwintering in field boundaries. Ann Appl Biol 106:17–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vickery JA, Bradbury RB, Henderson IG, Eaton MA, Grice PV (2004) The role of agri-environment schemes and farm management practices in reversing the decline of farmland birds in England. Biol Conserv 119:19–39. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2003.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walker KJ, Critchley CNR, Sherwood AJ, Large R, Nuttall P, Hulmes S, Rose R, Mountford JO (2007) The conservation of arable plants on cereal field margins: an assessment of new agri-environment scheme options in England, UK. Biol Conserv 136:260–270. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.11.026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Westbury DB, Woodcock BA, Harris SJ, Brown VK, Potts SG (2008) The effects of seed mix and management on the abundance of desirable and pernicious unsown species in arable buffer strip communities. Weed Res 48:113–123. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3180.2007.00614.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stéphane Cordeau
    • 1
  • Xavier Reboud
    • 1
  • Bruno Chauvel
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.INRA, UMR1210, Biologie et Gestion des AdventicesDijonFrance
  2. 2.INRA, UMR1210, Biologie et Gestion des AdventicesDijon cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations