Skip to main content

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

Agronomy for Sustainable Development volume 31, pages 463–473 (2011)Cite this article

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  • 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 

  • Anonymous (2009) Barème d'entraide 2009 Nord Est : Evaluez le coût de vos matériels, Entraid’ Est n°185 supplement

  • 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 165–169

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 25:137–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Changnon SA (1971) Hailfall characteristics related to crop damage. J Appl Meteorol 10:270–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Donald WW, Khan M (1996) Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) effects on yield components of spring wheat (Triticum aestivum). Weed Sci 44:114–121

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Forche T (1991) Changing vegetation and weed floras during set-aside and afterwards. Proc Brighton Crop Prot Conf; pp. 377–386

  • Fournier P (1947) Les quatre flores de France, 1990th edn. Lechavalier, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD (2001) Past: paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol Electronica 4:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 123:315–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooks GM, Napier TL, Carter MV (1983) Correlates of adoption behaviors—the case of farm technologies. Rural Sociol 48:308–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Jauzein P (1995) Flore des champs cultivés. SOPRA-INRA, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Jongepierova I, Jongepier JW, Klimes L (2004) Restoring grassland on arable land: an example of a fast spontaneous succession without weed-dominated stages. Preslia 76:361–369

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. 95–101

  • Marshall EJP (1989) Distribution patterns of plants associated with arable field edges. J Appl Ecol 26:247–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. 15

  • Mueller-Dombois D, Ellenberg H (1974) Aims and methods of vegetation. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemeth I (2001) Weed flora of fields set-aside for a long period in Northern Hungary. Novenytermeles 50:217–230

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 13:431–438

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sotherton NW (1985) The distribution and abundance of predatory coleoptera overwintering in field boundaries. Ann Appl Biol 106:17–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. INRA, UMR1210, Biologie et Gestion des Adventices, 21000, Dijon, France

    Stéphane Cordeau, Xavier Reboud & Bruno Chauvel

  2. INRA, UMR1210, Biologie et Gestion des Adventices, 21065, Dijon cedex, France

    Bruno Chauvel

Authors
  1. Stéphane Cordeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xavier Reboud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruno Chauvel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bruno Chauvel.

Additional information

Selected article from the International Conference on Weed Biology, Dijon, France, 2009.

About this article

Cite this article

Cordeau, S., Reboud, X. & Chauvel, B. Farmers’ fears and agro-economic evaluation of sown grass strips in France. Agronomy Sust. Developm. 31, 463–473 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0004-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-011-0004-6

Keywords

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