Next Article in Journal
Apple Trajectory Prediction in Orchards: A YOLOv8-EK-IPF Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Addressing Biological Invasions in Agriculture with Big Data in an Informatics Age
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/agriculture15111159
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Properties of Grassland Habitats in Organic and Conventional Farms Located in Mountainous Areas—A Case Study from the Western Sudetes

by
Krzysztof Solarz
1,2,
Agnieszka Dradrach
2,*,
Marta Czarniecka-Wiera
2,
Adam Bogacz
3 and
Anna Karczewska
3
1
Doctoral School, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, 50-375 Wrocław, Poland
2
Institute of Agroecology and Plant Production, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, 50-361 Wrocław, Poland
3
Institute of Soil Science, Plant Nutrition and Environmental Protection, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, 50-357 Wrocław, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2025, 15(11), 1159; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111159
Submission received: 29 April 2025 / Revised: 22 May 2025 / Accepted: 26 May 2025 / Published: 28 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Agricultural Systems and Management)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Organic farming is becoming increasingly important in agricultural production, especially in mountain and foothill areas. In organic farms, unlike conventional ones, no mineral fertilization or chemical plant protection is used, which often limits the economic efficiency of production. It is commonly believed that conventional farming poses a threat to biodiversity due to the use of mineral fertilization, chemical plant protection, and highly productive crop varieties, and the products obtained are in many respects of lower quality than those from organic farms. The aim of this work is to compare the quality and fertility of soils and the biodiversity of grasslands in organic and conventional farms, using the example of a foothill area within the commune of Kamienna Góra located in the Western Sudetes. Thirty-three areas representing 11 farms that produce dairy cattle in a grazing system were selected for analysis. The properties of soils in organic and conventional farms and their nutrient status did not differ significantly, except for the content of available potassium, which was higher in the group of organic farms. This fact seems to be related to the type of parent rock. All soils had acidic, slightly acidic, or strongly acidic pH levels. The greatest differences between pastures in organic and conventional farms concerned the sward species composition and biodiversity indices. Grasslands in organic farms were much richer in species, which was reflected by the species richness (SR) index and the F-fidelity index. The species inventoried clearly formed two groups that are characteristic of organic and conventional grasslands. The greater biodiversity of grasslands in organic farms did not have a significant effect on the fodder value of the sward, which should be considered good, allowing producers to participate in short supply chains. However, in all farms, regardless of their type, it would be advisable to carry out gentle liming.

1. Introduction

Grasslands provide a wide range of ecosystem services, such as food production, recreation, tourism and biodiversity maintenance. They provide a habitat for many pollinators, such as bees and butterflies, which are essential for the reproduction of numerous plants. Grasslands offer food for birds, small mammals, and insects. The diversity of plant species in grasslands helps create a balanced ecosystem, improves soil quality, and contributes to climate regulation [1,2]. In recent decades, organic farming has become increasingly important in agricultural production, particularly in mountain and foothill regions. Under the EU Green Deal’s “Farm to Fork” strategy, the European Commission has set a target for at least 25% of the EU’s agricultural land to be designated for organic farming [3,4,5]. Nowadays, organic farming is developing dynamically worldwide, which is due, among other things, to the intensive activity of social organizations, the growing popularity of pro-ecological attitudes, and the increased consumer demand for food that is perceived as natural and health-promoting. In 2018, the share of organic farms in the total number of agricultural holdings in the EU was 3.2%. The highest shares were recorded in Austria (20.27%), Czechia (17.69%), and Denmark (11.02%), while the lowest were observed in Poland and Slovakia, at 1.37% and 1.65%, respectively [6]. Mountain and foothill areas, where intensive agricultural production is limited, may encourage producers to opt for organic farming. In 2021, 69.1% of all organic farms supported under the CAP were located in municipalities, with a particularly high share of Areas with Natural Constraints (ANCs) [7]. It is important to emphasize the role of permanent grasslands (PG) in mountain agriculture, especially in the context of organic farms, as it is crucial for the sustainable development of agriculture in mountainous regions, as well as for the potential to increase farm profitability [8]. In organic farms, unlike conventional ones, practically no mineral fertilization or chemical plant protection is used [9,10,11]. Such an approach provides important environmental benefits, including preserving the biodiversity of agroecosystems [12] and preventing water bodies from being exposed to eutrophication and contamination with toxic pesticides [13,14]. Animal welfare is also strongly emphasized [15]. Economically, organic farming is believed to outperform conventional systems due to its lower production costs and higher market price. However, it definitely faces lower yields and is much more labor intensive [16,17]. In 2020, organic farms in Poland accounted for a relatively small area of 509.3 thousand ha, which is ca. 3% of the total agricultural area [18], and there was a systematic decrease in the area of organic farmlands in the period of 2014–2020. This trend was caused by various mainly economic factors, including changing rules of support for organic farms, associated control systems, extensive documentation, lack of labor (despite theoretically large resources), and high animal welfare requirements, as well as low soil productivity and frequent droughts. Restoring the desired level of soil fertility, mainly via the high input of organic matter, takes longer and requires more effort and resources than in conventional farming [18]. The largest areas of organic farming are located in the northern part of Poland, in lowlands and slightly undulating areas. In 2020, the largest areas of organic farmlands in Poland were devoted to cereals (29.2%) and forage crops (23.1%), while pastures and meadows covered only 16.9% of that area. Although livestock production plays an important role in the organic system, the scale of livestock production should be considered a niche in the structure of Polish organic farming [18]. The situation is slightly different in the foothills and mountains, where grasslands constitute a large share of agricultural land due to natural conditions related to the climate and often shallow, poorly developed soils [19,20]. Soil productivity in organic farms may be lower than in conventional farms, which may have a significant impact on the economic efficiency of agricultural production [18]. Many researchers claim that organic meadow farms constitute a significant opportunity for protecting biodiversity while ensuring appropriate economic effects [21]. The widespread promotion of organic farming and related financial support primarily results from the fact that this system is considered environmentally friendly and conducive to biodiversity, while conventional agricultural production often leads to the radical impoverishment of soils in terms of biodiversity [22]. Some authors emphasize, however, that conventional farms do not always contribute to the reduction of biodiversity [23,24]. This study aims to compare habitat conditions by considering soil properties, biodiversity, and the quality of fodder in grasslands in organic and conventional farms. The main scientific objective is to verify the hypothesis that in mountainous areas, soil and natural conditions on organic farms are generally better than those on conventional farms, according to the commonly accepted belief.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

This research was conducted in the Kamienna Góra commune, located in southwestern Poland, in the Western Sudetes (Figure 1a). The commune has a mountainous character, with the highest peak being Skalnik, which is 945 m above sea level. The region has a relatively harsh climate. The average annual air temperature from 1980 to 2010 was 6.2 °C (with the average temperature in January being −3.3 °C and the average temperature in July being 15.8 °C). The average annual total precipitation in selected localities of the commune ranges from 724 to 949 mm [25]. The properties of soils are largely determined by the type of parent rocks, which are highly diversified. Locally, there are rocks rich in alkaline components, such as greenstones and mudstones, and even limestones, often with an admixture of loess; however, acidic rocks dominate in the commune, especially granitoids and gneisses. Despite this, the typological differentiation of soils in the Kamienna Góra commune is small. The largest soil areas are occupied by Dystric and Eutric Cambisols (61%) and Luvisols (26%) that cover the foothill areas and vast depressions in the terrain. River valleys are typically covered by Fluvisoils and Fluvic Cambisols. Other soil types occupy very small areas.
The location of this commune in the foothill zone, characterized by dominating poor soils and harsh climatic conditions, is the main cause of relatively low yields compared to lowland areas. Grasslands, i.e., meadows and pastures, are the main kinds of land used in agricultural land structures, which has recently resulted in reorientation of production from crop production to animal husbandry, primarily cattle [25].

2.2. Farms Included in the Study

The farms included in this study were selected from the database of the Lower Silesian Chamber of Agriculture in Kamienna Góra. Out of approximately 50 agricultural holdings involved in dairy cattle farming in Kamienna Góra County, 20 were randomly selected, and 11 producers ultimately agreed to participate in the study. The selection aimed to ensure a comprehensive representation of the Kamienna Góra region. Although the sample size may appear limited, it reflects the decreasing interest of agricultural producers in cattle farming in the area (Figure 1).
The selected farms, distributed throughout the entire commune, specialized in pasture-based dairy cattle production (Figure 1b). Among the analyzed holdings, seven were managed within organic farming systems (Org.), while four operated within conventional systems (Conv.) (Table 1).

2.3. Soil Sampling and Analysis

In each farm, three areas 25 m2 (5 m × 5 m) in size were selected, representative of the grasslands in that farm. Soil samples representative of the 0–20 cm layer were obtained by mixing 10 subsamples taken using an Eijkelkamp soil sampler. The collected soil material was transported to the laboratory, where the samples were air-dried for 5 days at 20–25 °C and ground to pass through a 2 mm sieve before the analysis. Soil texture, i.e., grain size distribution, was determined using a combined sieve and hydrometer method [26]. The content of soil organic carbon (SOC) was measured using a dry combustion method (Vario MacroCube, Elementar, Langenselbold, Germany), and the soil pH was determined potentiometrically in a suspension of 1 M KCl (1:2.5, m/v). Soil concentrations of “plant available” potassium (K) and phosphorus (P) were determined using the Egner–Riehm double lactate method [27,28,29]. The concentrations of “plant available” magnesium (Mg) in soils was determined using the Schachtschabel method, which is based on soil extraction with 0.0125 M CaCl2 [30,31]. The concentrations of K, Mg, and P in extracts were measured using ICP-AES (iCAP 7400, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The total concentrations of potentially toxic metals, including Zn, Pb, Cu, and Cd, in soils were also measured using ICP-AES after microwave digestion with aqua regia (concentrated HCl + HNO3, 3 + 1). Validation of the analytical methods was accomplished by using blanks, certified reference materials (CNS 392 supplied by Sigma-Aldrich (Darmstadt, Germany), trace elements in freshwater sediments, RTC, the Netherlands and CRM 027 supplied by Sigma-Aldrich, trace elements in sandy loam 10, Fluka Analytical), and internal standards.

2.4. Botanical Analysis in the Field and Collection of Plant Samples

Phytosociological releves were collected in all localities from the same plots from which soil samples were collected, sized 5 × 5 m. Vascular plant species were identified, and their cover was assessed visually and expressed as a percentage value. The nomenclature of vascular plant species was unified according to the Euro + Med PlantBase [32], and the communities were classified according to Matuszkiewicz [33]. To define the species characteristics of a given group, the fidelity index (F-fidelity) was calculated for each species [34], which determines the degree of species concentration in a given community, i.e., how often it occurs in the analyzed type of community compared to other communities. The F-fidelity index takes values from 0 to 1, where the value of F = 1 is assigned to a species that occurs mainly in a given group. Species with F values greater than or equal to 0.30 were considered diagnostic species for a particular plant community. Analyses were performed by using the JUICE software [35,36]. From each releve, plant material, i.e., above-ground plant parts, was collected for chemical analysis. The plants were cut at a height of about 2 cm.

2.5. Biodiversity Indices and the Assessment of Sward Forage Utility

Plant diversity was calculated using species richness (SR), the Shannon–Wiener index (SW), and the Pielou index [37,38]. The species composition and cover data were used to assess the plant biodiversity of the following groups: graminoid species (g), legumes (l), and other species (o). The forage utility value (FUV) was assessed using the 14-degree ordinal utility scale developed by Filipek [39], which defines the value of plant species as fodder for livestock [40]. The maximum FUV value of 10 stands for highly valuable plant species, while the minimum value of −3 means that the species is poisonous. This scale is comparable to the method used for German grasslands, which was developed by Klapp et al. [41]. It was adapted for the species that are typical of grasslands in Poland. For each releve, the average FUV weighted by species cover was calculated.

2.6. Chemical Analysis of Plant Samples

The plant samples were dried in an oven at 105 ± 2 °C for 10 h. Analysis of their chemical composition included the determination of the concentrations of crude ash, crude fiber, crude protein, crude fat, the Ca, Mg, K, and P macroelements, micronutrients, and potentially toxic trace metals: Zn, Pb, Cu, and Cd. The crude ash content in plant material was determined using the weight method after combustion of plant samples in a muffle furnace at 600 °C. The crude protein, crude fat, crude fiber, and ash contents were determined using AOAC International methods [42]. The crude fiber content was determined using the Henneberg–Stohmann method [43], with a VELP extractor (VELP Scientifica, Usmate, Italy). The crude protein content was determined based on the analysis of total nitrogen, which was performed using the Kjeldahl method and by applying a conversion factor of protein to nitrogen of 6.25. Although the use of this universal factor has been criticized for not accounting for protein variability across species [44,45], it was applied consistently to all samples in this study. The crude fat content was determined from the defatted residue using a Soxhlet apparatus, following the procedure described by Krełowska-Kułas [46]. The content of macroelements (Ca, Mg, K, and P) and the concentrations of trace elements (Zn, Cu, Cd, and Pb) in plant biomass were determined after microwave digestion (CEM-MARS Xpress) with concentrated HNO3 supported by oxidation with 30% perhydrol [47]. The concentrations of elements in the analytes were determined, as in the soil digests, using the ICP-AES instrument. To validate the analytical method, two certified plant reference materials were used: BCR-414 (trace elements in plankton, BCR/JCR) and DC-73349 (trace elements in bush branches and leaves, CISRI, Beijing, China/ NCS, Shanghai, China).

2.7. Statistical Analysis

To check whether conventionally managed grasslands differ from organic ones in terms of soil properties, plant biodiversity, and forage quality, a Mann–Whitney U test was used. Statistically significant differences at p < 0.05, p < 0.01, and p < 0.001 have been highlighted and marked in figures with asterisks (*, **, and ***, respectively). The analysis was performed using the R software/environment. The types of plant communities in conventionally and organically managed grasslands were compared based on plant classification performed using a modified Twinspan algorithm [48]. In the distinguished groups, the vegetation type and diagnostic species were determined according to the F-fidelity index. Species with a fidelity index higher than 30% were considered diagnostic species. The analyses were performed in JUICE software [35,36].

3. Results

3.1. Basic Soil Properties: Texture, Organic Matter, and pH

All soil samples exhibited a relatively similar texture. They contained significant admixtures of gravel fraction, in the range of 8–38%, and their fine earth fraction represented sandy loams or silt loams (according to the USDA) and contained 1–9% clay fraction and 25–63% silt fraction. The median values of clay fraction content in soil samples from both groups (organic and conventional) were similar, i.e., about 3%, and the median content of silt fraction was in the soils of conventional farms higher than in organic ones (43% vs. 37%), but the differences between the groups were insignificant (Figure 2, Table 2). The soils under study contained 18–40% of a <0.02 mm fraction, and the mean and median values were 26 and 25%, respectively. Accordingly, almost 80% of all soils examined fell into the category of medium-heavy soils (Table S1). This is important for the assessment of soil fertility, i.e., the content of available K and Mg (Table S2).
There were no statistically significant differences in the SOC content between organic and conventional farms (Figure 3, Table 3). The soil pH values ranged from 3.96 to 5.84 (Figure 3). Most of the samples (68%) had acidic pH levels. In a smaller number of samples, the pH corresponded to slightly acidic or strongly acidic soils. Both extremely low and extremely high pH values were recorded in the group of organic farms. However, the differences in soil pH values between both groups of farms were statistically insignificant, and the median values of pH for organic and conventional farms were similar, i.e., 4.91 and 4.93, respectively (Table 3).

3.2. Plant-Available Nutrients in Soils

The soils differed in their contents of available forms of nutrients. The median contents of available P were 39 and 26 mg/kg for organic and conventional farms, respectively. The statistical test did not confirm significant differences between the organic and conventional farm groups (Figure 4, Table 4), but the average and median contents of available P were higher in soils from organic farms, and several individual samples from this group showed a very high content of available P: over 100 mg/kg. Similar trends were observed in the concentrations of available potassium in soils. The soils of organic farms were statistically significantly richer in this element (p < 0.001), and the medians were 180 and 85 mg/kg, respectively, which, for medium-heavy soils, corresponds to high (180 mg/kg) and low (85 mg/kg) fertility, respectively. The soil concentrations of available Mg were assessed as low and did not differ among the groups of farms (Figure 4).

3.3. Potentially Toxic Metals in Soils

The concentrations of toxic metals, i.e., Zn, Pb, Cu, and Cd, in all the tested samples were within the following ranges: Zn: 50–237 mg/kg, Pb: 17–230 mg/kg, Cu: 13–99 mg/kg, and Cd: 0.5–1.5 mg/kg. For Pb content, the soils of one farm (No. 6) showed significantly higher concentrations than the others, amounting to 139–230 mg/kg, which are visible as outliers in the graph (Figure 5, Table 5). The content of the fraction < 0.02 mm in these soils, which is within the range of 21–26%, and the soil pH, which is within the range of 5.1–5.2, allow for the classification of these soils into subgroup 2, for which the permissible Pb concentration is set at 250 mg/kg (Table S3). This allows us to consider these soils as free from lead contamination. The Mann–Whitney U test did not show statistically significant differences between the concentrations of potentially toxic elements in the soils of organic and conventional farms (Figure 5, Table 5).

3.4. Botanical Characteristics of the Sward

The classification analysis distinguished two groups of plant communities (Table 6). The first group (number 1) is a community that is typical of conventional meadows. The diagnostic species in this group are grasses of high fodder value (Phleum pratense, Lolium multiflorum, Lolium perenne) and rosette species (Plantago media, Poa annua) that are typical for pasture use. The dominant species are Trifolium repens and Lolium perenne. The second group (number 2) is a community that is mainly represented by organic meadows. The diagnostic species are herbs characteristic of species-rich grasslands (Galium mollugo, Crepis biennis, Achillea millefolium, and Lathyrus pratensis) and grasses (Agrostis capillaris, Cynosurus cristatus, Festuca rubra, and Holcus lanatus). The dominant species are Trifolium repens (similar to group 1) and Agrostis capillaris.

3.5. Sward Biodiversity Indices

Comparative analysis of meadow biodiversity on organic and conventionally managed grasslands indicates significant differences in overall species richness and the species richness of other plants. In those groups, the number of species was significantly higher in the organic grasslands than in the conventionally managed ones. There was no statistically significant difference in species richness calculated for the group of grasses and legumes (Figure 6, Table 7). No significant differences between the two types of farms were found in the remaining biodiversity indices, i.e., the Shannon–Wiener index and the Pielou index (Figure S1). However, conventional farms had a higher coverage of grasses and legumes and a lower coverage of other species than organic farms (Figure S2).
No significant differences between the two types of farms were found in the remaining biodiversity indices, i.e., the Shannon–Wiener index and the Pielou index (Figure S1). However, it should be stressed that conventional farms had a higher coverage of grasses and legumes and a lower coverage of other species than organic farms (Figure S2).
Analysis of the species composition of the sward in terms of its feed quality showed that the FUV values were high, with the exception of one releve (No.7), ranging from 5.6 to 9.6. In farm No.7, the FUV value was 3.9, which was mainly caused by the low cover of grasses and legumes and the high cover of ruderal species like Capsella bursa-pastoris or Chamomilla suaveolens. The results of the Mann–Whitney U test showed no significant differences (p < 0.05) in the forage utility value between conventionally managed grasslands and organic grasslands (Figure 7, Table 8), and the medians of the FUV index were 7.3 and 8.2, respectively.

3.6. Sward Chemical Composition

The protein, fat, and fiber contents in the analyzed sward samples were diverse. Greater variation in the contents of fat, fiber, and protein was observed for organic farms (Figure 8), but the differences between the two farming types were not statistically significant (Table 9). The sward from all the research objects contained 11.4–23.3% protein, 1.2–6.4% fat, and 21.6–33.3% fiber. The medians of the protein, fat and fiber contents in the sward of organic grasslands were 17.5, 3.16 and 25.8%, respectively, and those of conventional grasslands were 15.0, 3.46 and 26.6%, respectively, meeting the nutritional requirements for dairy cows (Table S4).
The contents of macronutrients (P, K, Mg, and Ca) in plant material showed considerable differentiation (Figure 9). A comparison of organic and conventional farms showed that there were statistically significant differences in the content of P in the sward, while for other macronutrients, no such differences were found (Figure 9, Table 10). The P content in the sward of organic farms was in the range of 0.11–0.27%, with a median of 0.18%, and was significantly higher than in the sward of conventional farms. The ranges of K, Mg, and Ca contents in the sward of organic farms were as follows: 1.63–3.25, 0.31–0.50, and 0.23–0.52%, respectively. In the sward of conventional farms, the corresponding ranges were: 1.39–2.44, 0.27–0.58, and 0.31–0.60%, respectively.

4. Discussion

In our study, the two types of grassland (organic vs. conventional) primarily differed in terms of biodiversity. We found no significant differences regarding soil properties or sward quality.

4.1. Soil Differentiation in Organic vs. Conventionally Managed Grasslands

Our study showed no significant differences between organic and conventionally managed grasslands regarding acidification, soil texture, and organic matter content. Most of the studied soils of the Kamienna Góra commune are formed from sandy loams and silt loams with an admixture of gravel fraction [49,50]. Such soil properties can be considered beneficial regarding water conditions and sorption capacity [51,52]. However, the types of soil parent rocks and local climatic conditions, with a predominance of water infiltration over evaporation, favor the process of soil acidification [53]. This is visible in the grasslands of both organic and conventional farms. The acidic pH of soils, due to their insufficient regular liming, is a typical feature of the soils in the Sudetes and the Sudeten Foreland. The large share of the silt fraction in both types of grasslands is partly caused by the nature of the weathered rocks and partly by admixtures of aeolian material (loess) deposited in interglacial periods [54,55,56]. This feature is beneficial in terms of soil fertility, particularly if water retention capacity and nutrient content are considered [57]. All soils in our study contained relatively high levels of soil organic carbon, which is typical for the soils of permanent grasslands, especially in the mountain and foothill regions, where the precipitation is higher and the average temperatures are lower than in the Polish lowlands [58,59].
Among soil fertility parameters, statistically significant differences between organic and conventional farms only concerned the available potassium, corresponding to low contents according to Polish criteria (set as 22–44 mg/kg, depending on soil agronomic groups). Interestingly, several individual samples of the soils of organic farms showed a very high content of available P, which can be associated with uneven fertilization with natural fertilizers and animal grazing. Soil concentrations of available Mg were assessed as low and did not differ significantly among the groups of farms. This should probably be associated with the dominating parent rocks in the area under study, which are low in magnesium [58].
We did not find differences in the concentrations of Zn, Cu, and Cd in soils in organic vs. conventional grasslands. The total concentrations of four potentially toxic metals in soils were assessed based on legal regulations in Poland [60], which establish permissible levels of major pollutants in soils that are considered safe and do not pose any environmental risk [61]. Farmland soils, including meadows and pastures, depend on soil properties, i.e., texture, SOC, and pH. Three subgroups, 1, 2, and 3, are determined based on the properties corresponding to the various susceptibility of metals to mobilization. Permissible concentrations of the analyzed metals in the topsoil layer are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Table S3). The concentrations of Zn, Cu, and Cd in the soils do not exceed the permissible values, even for the least resistant soils in subgroup 1. The soils of one farm (No. 6) showed significantly higher concentrations of Pb than the others. However, the content of the fraction < 0.02 mm in these soils, along with the soil pH, allows us to consider these soils as not contaminated with lead. It would be interesting to assess what caused such high Pb concentrations in the soils of this farm, but this issue goes beyond the scope of this article. It is likely related to the geology of this area and the occurrence of local geochemical anomalies [62], particularly since this farm is located at a certain distance from others (Figure 1).

4.2. Biodiversity and Forage Value in Organic vs. Conventionally Managed Grasslands

Our research confirms that extensively used grasslands have greater biodiversity than intensively cultivated grasslands [63,64,65]. Plant diversity in organic grasslands was higher than in conventional ones. However, the conventional grasslands were characterized by a higher number and coverage of grasses and legumes. This can be explained by two factors: (1) overseeding and (2) frequency of mowing. Typically, commercial seed mixtures that are used to improve the feed value of conventional meadows contain grass and legume species with high forage value (i.e., Lolium perenne, Lolium multiflorum, and Trifolium pratense). These species can compete with herbs and decrease species richness. As a result, the species composition of intensively used grasslands may vary compared to those of extensively used grasslands. Our research also shows that organic meadows are mainly defined by forage grasses like Lolium perenne and Lolium multiflorum. In contrast, organic grasslands are defined by herbs characteristic of species-rich grasslands, i.e., Galium mollugo and Crepis biennis. Regarding the mowing regime, the extensive use of organic meadows (1–2 times a year) enables herbs to produce seeds, which promotes biodiversity. In contrast, the intensive mowing of conventional meadows (3–4 times a year) promotes grasses, stimulating them to vegetative reproduction [63,64,65].
Surprisingly, a high biodiversity of organic grassland does not reduce the feed value of the sward. Our study did not find significant differences in FUV values between organic and conventional grasslands; in both types, the quality of the sward is good. Additionally, it should be mentioned that the admixtures of herbaceous plants can perform very important health-supporting functions for animals [66,67].

4.3. Sward Chemical Composition in Organic vs. Conventionally Managed Grasslands

The protein, fat, and fiber contents in the sward were diverse but generally remained within the ranges that are typical of Polish grasslands used as meadows or pastures [68].
The concentrations of macronutrients (P, K, Mg, and Ca) in plant material showed differentiation, due to both soil properties and the species composition of the sward. Among the parameters of soil fertility, statistically significant differences between organic and conventional farms were observed only for available potassium; however, this was not reflected in statistically significant differences in potassium content in the sward. In general, the swards of almost all organic and conventional farms contained adequate potassium concentrations, except for organic farm No. 7, where a relatively high K content is considered unfavorable because of the incorrect K/(Ca + Mg) ratio. Mineral imbalances, deficiencies, and excesses, as well as their low bio-availability, negatively impact animal health and, in extreme cases, can lead to grass tetany [69,70,71,72,73]. Jankowska-Huflejt et al. [74] highlighted the strongly diversified contents of available K in the soils of organic farms, attributing the high K contents to the frequent use of liquid manure. In the case of farm No. 7, the recommended K concentrations in the sward were exceeded by not more than 10%; therefore, a real threat does not exist. It would be advisable to enrich all the tested soils with Ca via liming, which would improve general soil properties and positively affect plant growth, as the optimal pH range for meadow plants is 5.5–6.5 [75].
In turn, the soils of organic farms contained significantly higher contents of available K than the soils of conventional farms, and the same relationship was found in the case of the sward. Particularly high contents of available K were found in the sward of grasslands on farm No. 7, located on the southwestern edge of the commune, where no fertilization has been used recently. The high K contents in the sward and its high available soil forms can probably be explained by the type of soil parent rocks, i.e., the Karkonosze granite, which is rich in K [76,77].
The Mg content in all plant samples was appropriate according to feed value, while in almost all samples, the Ca content was too low. Additionally, considering the acidic reaction of the soils, liming is recommended in most of the farms studied. Liming is permitted in organic farming, provided that the carbonate form of lime is used for this purpose.

5. Conclusions

Our analysis showed that the general properties of grassland soils in organic and conventional farms, as well as their chemical properties and nutrient content indices, did not show statistically significant differences. The only considerable difference was observed in the higher content of available potassium in organic farm soils. Still, the differences in potassium content in the sward were not statistically significant.
The identified cases of outliers, particularly those concerning the available K and Pb in soils, seem to be mainly related to the geological structure of the commune area and the occurrence of various parent rocks; therefore, similar studies should be carried out on a larger sample of farms in an area with a more homogeneous geological structure.
The most remarkable differences among grassland habitats in organic and conventional farms are related to the species composition of the sward and biodiversity indices. The grasslands of organic farms indicate much greater species richness. This study confirmed that the grasslands of organic farms under mountainous conditions are more prosperous in terms of biodiversity than the grasslands of conventional farms, and this fact has no significant adverse effect on the feed value of the sward.

Supplementary Materials

The supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agriculture15111159/s1: Figure S1: Pielou index and Shannon-Wiener index. Comparison of organic and conventional farms, based on Mann-Whitney U test. Explanations as in the Figure 2 (in the main text); Figure S2: Surface coverage with grasses, legumes, and other plant species. Comparison of organic and conventional farms, based on Mann-Whitney U test. Explanations as in Figure 2 (in the main text); Table S1: Soil agronomic categories according to Polish guidelines for agriculture; Table S2: Assessment of soil fertility, i.e., “plant-available” P, K and Mg, according to Polish guidelines for agriculture. Classes of supply with K and Mg differ depending on soil textural classes (agronomic categories); Table S3: Permissible (safe) concentrations of Pb, Zn, Cu and Cd, mg/kg, in a layer 0–25 cm of farmland soils, according to Polish legal regulations; Table S4: Crucial requirements for the chemical composition of the pasture sward, to ensure good nutritional quality of fodder for dairy cattle.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.S., A.D. and A.K; methodology, A.D. and A.K.; software, K.S.; validation, A.K. and M.C.-W.; formal analysis, K.S., A.B. and M.C.-W.; investigation, K.S., A.B. and M.C.-W.; resources, K.S.; data curation, K.S., A.D. and A.K; writing—original draft preparation, K.S., A.D., A.B., M.C.-W. and A.K; writing—review and editing, A.K. and M.C.-W.; visualization, K.S. and A.D.; supervision, A.D. and A.K.; project administration, A.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The APC was co-financed by the Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the authors upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Project

“Implementation Doctorate—5th Edition, KS”.

References

  1. Duelli, P.; Obrist, M.K. Regional biodiversity in an agricultural landscape: The contribution of seminatural habitat islands. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2003, 4, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bonari, G.; Fajmon, K.; Malenovský, I.; Zelený, D.; Holuša, J.; Jongepierová, I.; Kočárek, P.; Uřičář, J.; Chytrý, M. Management of semi-natural grasslands benefiting both plant and insect diversity: The importance of heterogeneity and tradition. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2017, 246, 243–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The European Green Deal; COM/2019/640 Final; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2019.
  4. European Commission. Communication: Farm to Fork Strategy for a Fair, Healthy and Environmentally-Friendly Food System; COM(2020)381; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020.
  5. Kowalska, A.; Bieniek, M. Meeting the European Green Deal objective of expanding organic farming. Equilib. Q. J. Econ. Econ. Policy 2022, 17, 607–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ziętara, W.; Mirkowska, Z. Rolnictwo ekologiczne w Polsce–uwarunkowania i kierunki rozwoju. Wieś Rol. 2024, 1, 69–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zieliński, M.; Koza, P.; Łopatka, A. Agriculture from Areas Facing Natural or Other Specific Constraints (ANCs) in Poland, Its Characteristics, Directions of Changes and Challenges in the Context of the European Green Deal. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Jankowska-Huflejt, H.; Wróbel, B.; Twardy, S. Current role of grasslands in development of agriculture and rural areas in Poland-An example of mountain voivodships małopolskie and podkarpackie. J. Water Land Dev. 2011, 15, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Reddy, B.S. Organic farming: Status, issues and prospects—A review. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev. 2010, 23, 343–358. [Google Scholar]
  10. Merrigan, K.; Giraud, E.G.; Scialabba, N.E.H.; Brook, L.; Johnson, A.; Aird, N.S. Grow organic. In The Climate, Health, and Economic Case for Expanding Organic Agriculture; Report; US Natural Resources Defense Council: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gamage, A.; Gangahagedara, R.; Gamage, J.; Jayasinghe, N.; Kodikara, N.; Suraweera, P.; Merah, O. Role of organic farming for achieving sustainability in agriculture. Farming Syst. 2023, 1, 100005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kareem, A.; Farooqi, Z.U.R.; Kalsom, A.; Mohy-Ud-Din, W.; Hussain, M.M.; Raza, M.; Khursheed, M.M. Organic farming for sustainable soil use, management, food production and climate change mitigation. In Sustainable Agriculture; Bandh, S.A., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Angerer, V.; Sabia, E.; von Borstel, U.K.; Gauly, M. Environmental and biodiversity effects of different beef production systems. J. Environ. Manag. 2021, 289, 112523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Parizad, S.; Bera, S. The effect of organic farming on water reusability, sustainable ecosystem, and food toxicity. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 71665–71676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Spoolder, H.A. Animal welfare in organic farming systems. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2007, 87, 2741–2746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Durham, T.C.; Mizik, T. Comparative economics of conventional, organic, and alternative agricultural production systems. Economies 2021, 9, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Röös, E.; Mie, A.; Wivstad, M.; Salomon, E.; Johansson, B.; Gunnarsson, S.; Watson, C.A. Risks and opportunities of increasing yields in organic farming: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2018, 38, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hajdys, D. The European Green Deal and the opportunities and risks of organic farming in Poland. Financ. Financ. Law 2024, 2, 171–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kacprzak, A.; Migoń, P.; Musielok, Ł. Using soils as indicators of past slope instability in forested terrain, Kamienne Mts., SW Poland. Geomorphology 2013, 194, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Migoń, P.; Kacprzak, A. Lateral diversity of regolith and soils under a mountain slope—Implications for interpretation of hillslope materials and processes, Central Sudetes, SW Poland. Geomorphology 2014, 221, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jankowska-Huflejt, H. The need of protecting permanent grasslands as a premise for the development of organic meadow farms. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2016, 61, 3. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sumberg, J.; Giller, K.E. What is ‘conventional’ agriculture? Glob. Food Sec. 2022, 32, 100617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tal, A. Making conventional agriculture environmentally friendly: Moving beyond the glorification of organic agriculture and the demonization of conventional agriculture. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tscharntke, T.; Grass, I.; Wanger, T.C.; Westphal, C.; Batáry, P. Beyond organic farming–harnessing biodiversity-friendly landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2021, 36, 919–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Raport Końcowy Dolnośląskiego Partnerstwa ds. Wody w Powiecie Kamiennogórskim, w Ramach Operacji “Dolnośląskie Partnerstwo ds. Wody (DPW)”. Available online: https://www.dodr.pl/wszystkie-relacje/raport-koncowy-dolnoslaskiego-partnerstwa-ds-wody-w-powiecie-kamiennogorskim-w (accessed on 5 January 2021). (In Polish).
  26. Papuga, K.; Kaszubkiewicz, J.; Wilczewski, W.; Staś, M.; BelowskiI, J.; Kawałko, D. Soil grain size analysis by the dynamometer method—A comparison to the pipette and hydrometer method. Soil Sci. Annu. 2018, 69, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Korzeniowska, J.; Stanisławska-Glubiak, E. Evaluation of the Egner–Riehm DL and Mehlich 3 Tests for the Determination of Phosphorus: The Influence of Soil Properties on Extraction Efficiency and Test Conversion. Agronomy 2024, 14, 2921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Egner, H.; Kohler, G.; Nydahl, F. Die Laktatmethode zur Bestimmung leicht-löslicher Phosphorsäure in Ackerboden. Lantbrukshögsk. Ann. 1938, 6, 1227–1234. [Google Scholar]
  29. Riehm, H. Bestimmung der laktatloslichen Phosphorsaure in karbonathaltigen Boden. Phosphorsaure 1943, 1, 167–178. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mencel, J.; Futa, B.; Mocek-Płóciniak, A.; Mendyk, Ł.; Piernik, A.; Kaczmarek, T.; Glina, B. Interplay between selected chemical and biochemical soil properties in the humus horizons of grassland soils with low water table depth. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Schachtschabel, P. Plant-available magnesium in soil and its determination. Phosphorsäure 1954, 1, 167–178. [Google Scholar]
  32. Euro+Med. The Euro+Med PlantBase—The Information Resource for Euro-Mediterranean Plant Diversity. Available online: http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/ (accessed on 10 December 2024).
  33. Matuszkiewicz, W. Przewodnik do Oznaczania Zbiorowisk Roślinnych Polski; Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe: Warszawa, Poland, 2012; 536p. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  34. Tichý, L.; Chytrý, M.; Hájek, M.; Talbot, S.S.; Botta-Dukát, Z. OptimClass: Using species-to-cluster fidelity to determine the optimal partition in classification of ecological communities. J. Veg. Sci. 2010, 21, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Tichý, L. JUICE, software for vegetation classification. J. Veg. Sci. 2002, 13, 451–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. JUICE Program for Management, Analysis and Classification of Ecological Data, Version 7.1. Available online: http://www.sci.muni.cz/botany/juice (accessed on 31 October 2023).
  37. Kącki, Z.; Michalska-Hejduk, D. Assessment of biodiversity in Molinia meadows in Kampinoski National Park based on biocenotic indicators. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2010, 19, 351–362. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wójcik, T.; Kostrakiewicz-Gierałt, K.; Makuch-Pietraś, I. The effect of accidental burning on habitat conditions and species composition of Molinion caeruleae meadows. J. Nat. Conserv. 2022, 70, 126294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Filipek, J. Projekt klasyfikacji roślin łąkowych i pastwiskowych na podstawie liczb wartości użytkowej. Postępy Nauk. Rol. 1973, 4, 59–68. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  40. Szymura, M.; Świerszcz, S.; Szymura, T.H. Restoration of ecologically valuable grassland on sites degraded by invasive Solidago: Lessons from a 6-year experiment. Land Degrad. Dev. 2022, 33, 1985–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Klapp, E.; Boeker, P.; König, F.; Stählin, A. Wertzahlen der Grünlandpflanzen. In Das Grünland; Schaper-Verlag: Alfeld, Germany, 1953; Volume 2, pp. 203–225. [Google Scholar]
  42. AOAC International. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International; No. 1–2; Oxford Academic: Oxford, UK, 2000; Volume 17, Available online: https://academic.oup.com/officialmethodsofanalysis-aoac (accessed on 1 December 2024).
  43. Katoch, R. General scheme for forage quality analysis. In Techniques in Forage Quality Analysis; Springer Nature: Singapore, 2022; pp. 39–45. [Google Scholar]
  44. Mariotti, F.; Tomé, D.; Mirand, P.P. Converting nitrogen into protein—Beyond 6.25 and Jones’ factors. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2008, 48, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Zhang, Q.; Qi, D.; Dong, X.; Li, X.; Cheng, L.; Liu, H.; Liu, G. Amino acid composition, protein content and accurate nitrogen-to-protein conversion factor for sheepgrass (Leymus chinensis). Botany 2020, 98, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Krełowska-Kułas, M. Badanie Jakości Produktów Spożywczych; PWE: Warszawa, Poland, 1993; pp. 24–146. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  47. Dradrach, A.; Karczewska, A.; Szopka, K. Arsenic accumulation by red fescue (Festuca rubra) growing in mine-affected soils—Findings from the field and greenhouse studies. Chemosphere 2020, 248, 126045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Roleček, J.; Tichý, L.; Zelený, D.; Chytrý, M. Modified TWINSPAN classification in which the hierarchy respects cluster heterogeneity. J. Veg. Sci. 2009, 20, 596–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Waroszewski, J.; Pietranik, A.; Sprafke, T.; Kabała, C.; Frechen, M.; Jary, Z.; Kochergina, Y.V.E. Provenance and paleoenvironmental context of the Late Pleistocene thin aeolian silt mantles in southwestern Poland–A widespread parent material for soils. Catena 2021, 204, 105377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stuczyński, T.; Jadczysun, J. Numeryczna Mapa Glebowo-Rolnicza w Skali 1:25 000 dla Województwa Dolnośląskiego; IUNG: Puławy, Poland, 2004. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  51. Sobik, M. Klimat; Fabiszewski, J., Ed.; Przyroda Dolnego Śląska, Polska Akademia Nauk—Oddział we Wrocławiu: Wrocław, Poland, 2005; pp. 39–57. [Google Scholar]
  52. Musielok, Ł.; Kacprzak, A.; Opyrchat, J. Właściwości i pozycja systematyczna gleb rozwiniętych na ryolitach w Górach Kamiennych. Pr. Geogr. 2013, 135, 21–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Lai, R. Soil organic matter and water retention. Agron. J. 2020, 112, 3265–3277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Holuša, J.; Hanáček, M.; Nývlt, D.; Woronko, B.; Stuchlík, R. Evolution of Weichselian aeolian strata on a coarse-grained substrate in a rugged piedmont topography: A case study from the foothills of the eastern Sudetes Mts., Czechia. Aeolian Res. 2024, 67, 100927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kabała, C. (Ed.) Soils of Lower Silesia: Origins, Diversity and Protection; Polish Society of Soil Science: Wrocław, Poland, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  56. Loba, A.; Sykuła, M.; Kierczak, J.; Łabaz, b.; Bogacz, A.; Waroszewski, J. In Situ weathering of rocks or aeolian silt deposition: Key parameters for verifying parent material and pedogenesis in the Opawskie Mountains—A case study from SW Poland. J. Soils Sediments 2020, 20, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Czyż, E.; Kukier, U. The effects of soil bulk density and water content on soil aeration, nitrogen form and spring barley yield. Bibl. Fragm. Agron. 1997, 2, 163–166. [Google Scholar]
  58. Błaś, M.; Ojrzyńska, H. The climate of Poland. In Landscapes and Landforms of Poland; Migoń, P., Jancewicz, K., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Latawiec, A.E.; Peake, L.; Baxter, H.; Cornelissen, G.; Grotkiewicz, K.; Hale, S.; Królczyk, J.B.; Kubon, M.; Łopatka, A.; Medynska-Juraszek, A.; et al. A reconnaissance-scale GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis to support sustainable biochar use: Poland as a case study. J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2017, 25, 208–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Regulation of the Minister for the Environment of 1 September 2016 on the method how to carry out the assessment of soil contamination. Pol. J. Laws 2016, 1395. Available online: https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=wdu20160001395 (accessed on 26 May 2025). (In Polish).
  61. Karczewska, A.; Kabała, C. Environmental risk assessment as a new basis for evaluation of soil contamination in Polish law. Soil Sci. Annu. 2017, 68, 67–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Karczewska, A.; Bogda, A.; Gałka, B.; Szulc, A.; Czwarkiel, D.; Duszyńska, D. Natural and anthropogenic soil enrichment in heavy metals in areas of former metallic ore mining in the Sudety Mts. Pol. J. Soil Sci. 2006, 39, 131–142. [Google Scholar]
  63. Mueller, C.; de Baan, L.; Koellner, T. Comparing direct land use impacts on biodiversity of conventional and organic milk—Based on a Swedish case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 2014, 19, 52–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Pornaro, C.; Spigarelli, C.; Pasut, D.; Ramanzin, M.; Bovolenta, S.; Sturaro, E.; Macolino, S. Plant biodiversity of mountain grasslands as influenced by dairy farm management in the Eastern Alps. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021, 320, 107583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Vogl, C.R.; Vogl-Lukasser, B.; Walkenhorst, M. Local knowledge held by farmers in Eastern Tyrol (Austria) about the use of plants to maintain and improve animal health and welfare. J. Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 2016, 12, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sowiński, J.; Adamczewska-Sowińska, K. Forage legumes for human, animals, and environment. In Advances in Legumes for Sustainable Intensification; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2022; pp. 205–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kotowski, M.; Kotowska, D.; Biró, M.; Babai, D.; Sharifian, A.; Szentes, S.; Łuczaj, Ł.; Molnár, Z. Change in European forage and fodder plant indicator sets over the past 250 years. Rangeland Ecol. Manag. 2023, 88, 159–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kulik, M. Effect of different factors on chemical composition of grass-legumes sward. J. Elementol. 2009, 14, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Martens, H. Diseases of dairy animals: Non-infectious diseases: Grass tetany. In Reference Module in Food Science; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  70. Rahman, M.H.; Islam, K.R.; Chiba, S.; Komuro, A.; Kawakami, T.; Tsuiki, M.; Saiga, S. Forage nutrient variability associated with hypomagnesemia and hypocalcemia. Open Access Libr. J. 2022, 9, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kozłowski, S. Trawy–Właściwości, Występowanie i Wykorzystanie; Powszechne Wydawnictwo Rolnicze i Leśne: Poznań, Poland, 2012. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  72. Van, S.; Peter, J. Nutritional Ecology of the Ruminant; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  73. Mayland, H.F.; Hankins, J.L. Mineral imbalances and animal health: A management puzzle. In Anti-Quality Factors in Rangeland and Pastureland Forages, Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station; University of Idaho: Moscow, Russia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  74. Jankowska-Huflejt, H.; Wróbel, B.; Barszczewski, J. Evaluation of nutritive value of forages from grasslands on the background of soil richness and N, P, K balances in chosen organic farms. J. Res. Appl. Agric. Eng. 2009, 54, 95–102. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  75. Smith, J.; Wolfe, M.; Woodward, L.; Pearce, B.; Lampkin, N.; Marshall, H. Organic Farming and Biodiversity: A Review of the Literature; Organic Center Wales, Aberystwyth: Ceredigion, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  76. Horbowy, K.; Gawlikowska, E.; Sobol, L.; Ordzik, K.; Lis, J.; Kóźma, J.; Pasieczna, A.; Wołkowicz, S. Objaśnienia do Mapy Geośrodowiskowej Polski 1:50 000, Arkusz Kamienna Góra (833); Państwowy Instytut Geologiczny: Warszawa, Poland, 2024; pp. 7–11. (In Polish) [Google Scholar]
  77. Fang, K.; Kou, D.; Wang, G.; Chen, L.; Ding, J.; Li, F.; Yang, Y. Decreased Soil Cation Exchange Capacity Across Northern China’s Grassland Over the Last Three Decades. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeosci. 2017, 122, 3088–3097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 15 01159 g001
Figure 1. Location of study sites. (a) Kamienna Góra on a map of Europe; (b) Study sites 1–11 in the Kamienna Góra commune.
Figure 1. Location of study sites. (a) Kamienna Góra on a map of Europe; (b) Study sites 1–11 in the Kamienna Góra commune.
Agriculture 15 01159 g001
Agriculture 15 01159 g002
Figure 2. Comparison of the content (%) of clay and silt fractions in grassland soils in the organic and conventional farms studied, in the light of the Mann–Whitney U test. Explanations: the line—median, the box—the interquartile range, the whiskers—the range of non-outlying values, and the dots—the outliers.
Figure 2. Comparison of the content (%) of clay and silt fractions in grassland soils in the organic and conventional farms studied, in the light of the Mann–Whitney U test. Explanations: the line—median, the box—the interquartile range, the whiskers—the range of non-outlying values, and the dots—the outliers.
Agriculture 15 01159 g002
Agriculture 15 01159 g003
Figure 3. Comparison of soil organic carbon content SOC (%) and pH values in grassland soils in organic and conventional farms, according to the Mann–Whitney U test. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 3. Comparison of soil organic carbon content SOC (%) and pH values in grassland soils in organic and conventional farms, according to the Mann–Whitney U test. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Agriculture 15 01159 g003
Agriculture 15 01159 g004
Figure 4. Comparison of the contents of “available” forms of macronutrients (K, Mg, and P, mg/kg) in soils of the organic and conventional farms studied, according to the Mann–Whitney U test. Statistically significant differences: “***” p < 0.001. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 4. Comparison of the contents of “available” forms of macronutrients (K, Mg, and P, mg/kg) in soils of the organic and conventional farms studied, according to the Mann–Whitney U test. Statistically significant differences: “***” p < 0.001. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Agriculture 15 01159 g004
Agriculture 15 01159 g005
Figure 5. Total concentrations of potentially toxic metals, including Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn, mg/kg, in pasture soils on the organic and conventional farms studied, according to the Mann–Whitney U test. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 5. Total concentrations of potentially toxic metals, including Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn, mg/kg, in pasture soils on the organic and conventional farms studied, according to the Mann–Whitney U test. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Agriculture 15 01159 g005
Agriculture 15 01159 g006
Figure 6. Comparative analysis of species richness (SR), i.e., the crucial biodiversity index, between organic and conventional farms: overall species richness, SR of grasses, SR of legumes, and SR of other species. Statistically significant differences: “*”: p < 0.05. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 6. Comparative analysis of species richness (SR), i.e., the crucial biodiversity index, between organic and conventional farms: overall species richness, SR of grasses, SR of legumes, and SR of other species. Statistically significant differences: “*”: p < 0.05. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Agriculture 15 01159 g006
Agriculture 15 01159 g007
Figure 7. Comparative analysis of forage utility value (FUV) between organic and conventional farms, according to the Mann–Whitney U test. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 7. Comparative analysis of forage utility value (FUV) between organic and conventional farms, according to the Mann–Whitney U test. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Agriculture 15 01159 g007
Agriculture 15 01159 g008
Figure 8. Comparison of crude fat, crude fiber, and crude protein, contents, %, in the sward of grasslands in organic and conventional farms, according to the Mann–Whitney U test. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 8. Comparison of crude fat, crude fiber, and crude protein, contents, %, in the sward of grasslands in organic and conventional farms, according to the Mann–Whitney U test. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Agriculture 15 01159 g008
Agriculture 15 01159 g009
Figure 9. Macronutrients, including Ca, K, Mg, and P, %, in the sward of grasslands in organic and conventional farms, according to the Mann–Whitney U test. Statistically significant differences: “***” p < 0.001. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Figure 9. Macronutrients, including Ca, K, Mg, and P, %, in the sward of grasslands in organic and conventional farms, according to the Mann–Whitney U test. Statistically significant differences: “***” p < 0.001. Explanations can be found in Figure 2.
Agriculture 15 01159 g009
Table 1. Location and characteristics of farms.
Table 1. Location and characteristics of farms.
No.Farming
System 		Village and Local Farm NumberAltitude,
m asl		Soil Quality ClassSlope, %ExpositionGrazing
Period		FertilizersDuration of the Farming System
1OrganicŚwidnik, 270460average11WDaytime Manuresince 2020
2OrganicCzarnów, 188 665poor30NEDaytimeManuresince 1995
3OrganicRaszów, 145/1506average3SW24 hManuresince 2005
4OrganicKrzeszów, 816466average2EDaytimeManuresince 1980
5OrganicKochanów, 3/12 567average15SE24 hManure, PGPB *since 1996
6OrganicGolińsk, 217/2 454average1SE24 hNonesince 2021
7OrganicNiedamirów, 289/1 625average10SEDaytime Nonesince 1987
8ConventionalCiechanowice, 423 428average10SWDaytime Manure + mineral
fertilizers 		since 2005
9ConventionalMarciszów, 540/3 422average1NEDaytime Mineral
fertilizers		since 2005
10ConventionalPisarzowice, 693 512average5NEDaytime N mineral
fertilizers		since 1997
11ConventionalLubawka, 125 517good6NWDaytime N + Ca mineral fertilizerssince 2019
* PGPB: plant growth promoting bacteria.
Table 2. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for clay and silt content (%) in organic and conventionally managed grasslands. See Figure 2.
Table 2. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for clay and silt content (%) in organic and conventionally managed grasslands. See Figure 2.
FeatureMedianWp
OrgConv
clay32.51410.59
silt3743.21090.54
Table 3. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for SOC (%) content and pH in organic and conventionally managed grasslands. See Figure 3.
Table 3. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for SOC (%) content and pH in organic and conventionally managed grasslands. See Figure 3.
FeatureMedianWp
OrgConv
SOC3.413.161500.385
pH4.914.931340.793
Table 4. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for contents of “available nutrients”, mg/kg, in organic and conventionally managed grasslands. Statistically significant differences are marked in bold. See Figure 4.
Table 4. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for contents of “available nutrients”, mg/kg, in organic and conventionally managed grasslands. Statistically significant differences are marked in bold. See Figure 4.
FeatureMedianWp
OrgConv
K180852230.0003
Mg17.414.71430.3987
P39.325.61560.2741
Table 5. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for potentially toxic metal concentrations, mg/kg, in organic and conventionally managed grasslands. See Figure 5.
Table 5. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for potentially toxic metal concentrations, mg/kg, in organic and conventionally managed grasslands. See Figure 5.
FeatureMedianWp
OrgConv
Cd0.920.801230.911
Cu28.624.81470.455
Pb26.528.91160.733
Zn97.392.61500.384
Table 6. Synoptic table with percentage values of the F-fidelity index in the communities examined. Only species with F-fidelity index values above 30 are listed.
Table 6. Synoptic table with percentage values of the F-fidelity index in the communities examined. Only species with F-fidelity index values above 30 are listed.
Group Number12
Releve number2013
Plant speciesF-fidelity index values
Phleum pratense63.9---
Poa annua53.9---
Veronica serpyllifolia46.1---
Lolium multiflorum37.8---
Lolium perenne35.1---
Plantago media33.3---
Agrostis capillaris---77.5
Cirsium arvense---48.8
Chaerophyllum aromaticum---48.8
Galium mollugo---48.8
Aegopodium podagraria---48.8
Vicia sepium---48.8
Crepis biennis---47.9
Cynosurus cristatus---47.9
Festuca rubra---47
Achillea millefolium---46
Hypericum maculatum---42.6
Lathyrus pratensis---42.6
Anthriscus sylvestris---42.6
Holcus lanatus---40.9
Hypochoeris radicata---36.1
Symphytum officinale---36.1
Urtica dioica---36.1
Campanula patula---36.1
Rumex crispus---33.2
Trifolium pratense---32.3
Ranunculus acris---31.7
Table 7. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for species richness in organic and conventionally managed grasslands. Statistically significant differences are marked in bold. See Figure 6.
Table 7. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for species richness in organic and conventionally managed grasslands. Statistically significant differences are marked in bold. See Figure 6.
FeatureMedianWp
OrgConv
richness of all species20151910.01
richness of grasses65.51480.40
richness of legumes221740.06
richness of others127.51780.05
Table 8. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for FUV in organic and conventionally managed grasslands. See Figure 7.
Table 8. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for FUV in organic and conventionally managed grasslands. See Figure 7.
FeatureMedianWp
OrgConv
FUV7.338.24740.53
Table 9. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for fat, fiber, and protein, %, contents in sward samples from organic and conventionally managed grasslands. See Figure 8.
Table 9. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for fat, fiber, and protein, %, contents in sward samples from organic and conventionally managed grasslands. See Figure 8.
ComponentMedianWp
EcoConv
protein17.515.01490.405
fat3.163.46760.063
fiber25.826.61300.909
Table 10. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for macronutrients, %, in the sward of organic and conventionally managed grasslands. Statistically significant differences are marked in bold. See Figure 9.
Table 10. Detailed results of the Mann–Whitney U test (W, p) for macronutrients, %, in the sward of organic and conventionally managed grasslands. Statistically significant differences are marked in bold. See Figure 9.
ComponentMedianWp
OrgConv
Ca0.340.38850.1715
K1.891.791780.0537
Mg0.400.401220.8956
P0.180.132280.0001
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Solarz, K.; Dradrach, A.; Czarniecka-Wiera, M.; Bogacz, A.; Karczewska, A. Properties of Grassland Habitats in Organic and Conventional Farms Located in Mountainous Areas—A Case Study from the Western Sudetes. Agriculture 2025, 15, 1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111159

AMA Style

Solarz K, Dradrach A, Czarniecka-Wiera M, Bogacz A, Karczewska A. Properties of Grassland Habitats in Organic and Conventional Farms Located in Mountainous Areas—A Case Study from the Western Sudetes. Agriculture. 2025; 15(11):1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111159

Chicago/Turabian Style

Solarz, Krzysztof, Agnieszka Dradrach, Marta Czarniecka-Wiera, Adam Bogacz, and Anna Karczewska. 2025. "Properties of Grassland Habitats in Organic and Conventional Farms Located in Mountainous Areas—A Case Study from the Western Sudetes" Agriculture 15, no. 11: 1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111159

APA Style

Solarz, K., Dradrach, A., Czarniecka-Wiera, M., Bogacz, A., & Karczewska, A. (2025). Properties of Grassland Habitats in Organic and Conventional Farms Located in Mountainous Areas—A Case Study from the Western Sudetes. Agriculture, 15(11), 1159. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15111159

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop