Fertilization using manure minimizes the trade-offs between biodiversity and forage production in agri-environment scheme grasslands

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 4;18(10):e0290843. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290843. eCollection 2023.

Abstract

A common practice used to restore and maintain biodiversity in grasslands is to stop or decrease the use of fertilizers as they are a major cause of biodiversity loss. This practice is problematic for farmers who need fertilizers to increase forage and meet the nutritional needs of livestock. Evidence is needed that helps identify optimal fertilizer regimes that could benefit biodiversity and livestock production simultaneously over the long-term. Here, we evaluated the impact of different fertilizer regimes on indicators related to both biodiversity (plant, pollinator, leaf miners and parasitoid Shannon-Weiner diversity, bumblebee abundance, nectar productivity and forb species richness), and forage production (ash, crude protein, ruminant metabolizable energy and dry matter). To this end, we used data from a grassland restoration experiment managed under four nutrient inputs schemes for 27 years: farmyard manure (FYM; 72 kg N ha-1 yr-1), artificial nitrogen-phosphorus and potassium (NPK; 25 kg N ha-1 yr-1), FYM + NPK (97 kg N ha-1 yr-1) and no-fertilizer. Results showed strong trade-offs between biodiversity and forage production under all treatments even in applications lower than the critical load in the EU. Overall, farmyard manure was the fertilizer that optimized production and biodiversity while 97 kg N ha-1 yr-1 of fertilizer addition (FYM+NPK) had the most negative impact on biodiversity. Finally, forage from places where no fertilizer has been added for 27 years did not meet the nutritional requirements of cattle, but it did for sheep. Rethinking typical approaches of nutrient addition could lead to land management solutions suitable for biological conservation and agriculture.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Agriculture / methods
  • Animals
  • Biodiversity
  • Cattle
  • Fertilization
  • Fertilizers
  • Grassland*
  • Livestock / metabolism
  • Manure*
  • Nitrogen / metabolism
  • Sheep
  • Soil

Substances

  • Manure
  • Fertilizers
  • Nitrogen
  • Soil

Grants and funding

"Project was partly funded by Bristol Centre for Agricultural Innovation (BCAI, project no.42). https://www.bristol.ac.uk/biology/bcai/ EVG was funded by a grant from CONACYT, Mexico for graduate studies (381429). https://conacyt.mx SMS was supported in part by the UK-SCaPE program delivering National Capability (NE/R016429/1) funded by the Natural Environment Research Council. https://www.ukri.org/councils/nerc/" The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."