Figure 1.
Mean (± SEM) forb richness in organic vs. conventional meadows (A) and in organic vs. conventional wheat fields (B).
Data were gathered in edge and interior (Int.) transects of 20 m2.
Table 1.
Results of general linear mixed models testing the effects of landscape composition (intensive agricultural area %), agroecosystem type (meadow vs. wheat field), management (organic vs. conventional), position in field (edge vs. interior) and pollination (insect-pollinated vs. non-insect pollinated) on species richness and percentage cover of forbs in meadows and in wheat fields.
Figure 2.
Mean (± SEM) forb cover (%) in organic vs. conventional meadows (A) and in organic vs. conventional wheat fields (B).
Data were gathered in edge and interior (Int.) transects of 20 m2.
Figure 3.
RDA plots for insect-pollinated and non-insect pollinated forbs in meadows (A, B) and wheat fields (C, D).
White circles: plant survey transects in organic fields; black circles: plant survey transects in conventional fields; smaller grey circles: forb species with the highest fraction of variance (Ca: Convolvulus arvensis; Cb: Crepis biennis; Ce: Cirsium arvense; Cp: Capsella bursa-pastoris; Gm: Galium mollugo; Hr: Hypochaeris radicata; Ma: Myosotis arvensis; Mr: Matricaria recutita; Ms: Medicago sativa; Pl: Plantago lanceolata; Pr: Papaver rhoeas; Ra: Rumex acetosa; Rc: Rumex crispus; Ta: Thlaspi arvense; Tp: Trifolium pratense; Tr: Trifolium repens; Va: Veronica arvensis). Minimum convex polygons of the two management types are shown.
Table 2.
Results of partial RDA to analyse effects of landscape (intensive agricultural area %), management (organic vs. conventional) and position in field (edge vs. interior) on species composition of insect and non-insect pollinated forbs in meadows and in wheat fields.