Next Article in Journal
Bee Diversity Across Forest and Farm Habitats on Organic Tree Farms in Idaho: Evidence for Sustainable Farming Supporting Native Pollinators
Previous Article in Journal
Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities’ Perception and Lifestyle Compatible with Peatlands Conservation in the Lake Tumba Periphery, Équateur Province, Democratic Republic of Congo
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Ecologies
Volume 7
Issue 1
10.3390/ecologies7010005
ecologies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

The Potential of Vegetation for Assessing the Benefits and Risks of Protective Measures for the Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus L.) on Arable Land

by
Jan Winkler
1,*,
Václav Zámečník
2,3,
Amir Mugutdinov
1,
Petra Martínez Barroso
4 and
Magdalena Daria Vaverková
4,5
1
Department of Plant Biology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
2
Czech Society for Ornithology, Na Belidle 252/34, 150 00 Prague, Czech Republic
3
Department of Ecology, Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences, Kamycka 129, 165 21 Prague, Czech Republic
4
Department of Applied and Landscape Ecology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Mendel University in Brno, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Czech Republic
5
Department of Sustainable Construction and Geodesy, Institute of Civil Engineering, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, Nowoursynowska 159, 02 776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Ecologies 2026, 7(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies7010005 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 26 November 2025 / Revised: 22 December 2025 / Accepted: 24 December 2025 / Published: 1 January 2026
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Generally, all European countries have reported a decreasing number of field birds. The cause of this trend is the intensification of agriculture, including inconsiderate landscape and drainage measures. Northern Lapwings (Vanellus vanellus L.) can be protected using targeted agri-environmental climatic measures (AECMs). The goal of our research was to verify whether the vegetation composition on arable land areas intended to protect field birds creates space for the promotion of other organisms. Understanding the significance of AECMs in supporting biodiversity on arable land will help guide the development of ecosystems in agricultural landscapes. The research was conducted in two regions of the Czech Republic (CR): Southern Bohemia (six sites) and Eastern Bohemia (six sites), and 76 plant taxa were identified in areas of arable land intended for the protection of Northern Lapwing. The vegetation of arable land managed to protect the Northern Lapwing was statistically shown to exhibit a plant species richness approximately four times greater than crop land. Measures focused on the protection of one species create a living space that can be used by other species. AECMs can be used to maintain or increase biodiversity and heterogeneity in agricultural landscapes. Our findings emphasize the need for a holistic approach to conservation in agricultural settings, where the protection of one focal species can lead to cascading benefits for the entire ecosystem. This research provides valuable insights into how AECMs can be a pivotal tool in mitigating the detrimental impacts of agricultural intensification on field birds and broader biodiversity in Europe.

1. Introduction

In most European countries, the number of birds in agricultural landscapes has significantly decreased in the latest decennia [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9], caused by intensive farming [7,10,11].
Agricultural technological procedures experienced dramatic changes in the last century [12,13,14]. The former agricultural landscape of diverse structure and composition was transformed into a homogeneous and intensively exploited environment [15,16,17]. Site heterogeneity is considered the main factor affecting the biological diversity of agricultural landscape [18] and is a key feature supporting the abundance and diversity of wild animals on agricultural land [19,20]. The relation between the agricultural landscape heterogeneity, local biodiversity of beetles, butterflies and solitary wild bees has been demonstrated by many scientific studies [21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. It has also been proven that landscape heterogeneity affects the capability of birds living in agricultural landscapes [28] to obtain food and bring forth offspring [19,29,30]. Particularly the species of waders which reproduce on arable land have suffered a great drop in their populations due to changes in agriculture [31,32,33,34].
In regions with the dominance of arable land, the majority of Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus L.) populations cannot reproduce in a natural way, and the number of new offspring cannot compensate the mortality of adults [35,36]. Lapwings nest once a year, but occasionally females can produce additional, later clutches. They put the most energy into the first clutch as larger eggs give larger brood [37]. Unfortunately, a substantial share of nests is destroyed due to agricultural activities in the first nesting period [38,39]. Several methods have been developed in many European countries in order to limit the destruction of wader nests including various forms of the direct protection of nests themselves [40,41]. In terms of agricultural practice, it is convenient that the protection of wader nests but also nests of songbirds and other bird species nesting on the ground requires only a minimum of undisturbed earth around the clutch [42,43]. The most common technique is conspicuous marking of the nesting site with bamboo poles or wooden stakes, which is mostly used on grasslands and arable land where agricultural machines are deployed in spring [38,42,44]. Their drivers can thus pass by them with only a small part of land remaining untreated.
A more effective option from the long-term view is to adopt targeted agri-environmental climatic measures (AECMs) [45] which would create a site that would be optimal for the survival of lapwing. It appears essential to prohibit any agricultural activities during the nesting period. Measures of this type should preferably be applied in localities of regular nesting, the concern of local farmers and cooperation with them are equally important [7,39]. The capability of agricultural ecosystems to provide key resources for avians is primarily affected by agricultural management [46,47,48,49]. Recent research results indicate that effective protection of lapwing populations on arable land should primarily focus on safeguarding the first clutch from the destruction caused by agricultural activities [38,39], as well as on the assurance of sufficiently large areas with food offer and appropriate cover. On an area scale, it is necessary to apply effective targeted AECMs and other financial tools not within the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) [50,51,52].
Implementing AECMs, farmers have to meet a number of conditions which may be suitable by themselves but not enough to protect and regenerate populations of endangered species. Konvička et al. [53] demonstrated, for example, that the entry of the Czech Republic (CR) into the European Union (EU) and the following accession to extremely generalized AECMs had resulted in the local extinction of the strong population of globally endangered butterfly Colias myrmidone. Some authors were even sceptical about the overall contribution of AECMs to the preservation of biological diversity [53,54,55]. Effects of AECMs on the dynamics of avian populations occurring on farmlands are complicated and hardly predictable. The continual assessment of current AECMs is a vital precondition for such change in the Common Agricultural Policy that could actually support biodiversity and reverse hitherto negative development in the numbers of birds living in agricultural landscapes [56,57].
For the protection of the Northern Lapwing but also for the protection of other field birds, agricultural activities have to be curbed to relatively small areas [58,59,60]. We hypothesize that the vegetation of arable land sites intended for the protection of field birds creates enough space to support other organisms, too. Partial goals to confirm our hypothesis are as follows: (i) to determine the species composition of vegetation on sites intended for the protection of lapwing, (ii) to evaluate differences in the biological relevance of vegetation between arable land and sites intended for the protection of lapwing, (iii) to assess the impact of vegetation occurring on sites intended for the protection of lapwing on biodiversity in agricultural landscapes and (iv) the assessment of the potential of vegetation as a tool for evaluating AECMs. Understanding the significance of special measures adopted to support biodiversity on arable land will help guide the development of ecosystems in agricultural landscapes.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Sites on which the protection of Northern Lapwing is applied were situated in two regions of the CR: 6 sites in the region of Southern Bohemia and 6 sites in the region of Eastern Bohemia. Southern Bohemia falls within a mildly warm and mildly humid climatic region with an average annual temperature ranging between 7–8 °C and an average total annual precipitation amount between 550–650 mm. The sites are mostly or completely flat with the omnidirectional aspect, and soils occurring on them are mainly deep or medium-deep pseudogleys or gleys with a total skeleton content of up to 25%. Eastern Bohemia falls within a warm and mildly humid climatic region with an average annual temperature ranging between 8–9 °C and an average total annual precipitation amount between 550–650 mm. Soil types occurring on the sites include deep to medium-deep Phaeozems, rendzinas and pararendzinas, on mostly flat or completely flat terrains with the omnidirectional aspect and with a total skeleton content of up to 25% [61,62,63]. Characteristics of experimental sites are presented in Table 1.

2.2. Measures for the Protection of Northern Lapwing

Conditions of AECM for the protection of the Northern Lapwing are defined in CR Government Regulation no. 75/2015 Sb. The minimum size of arable land area to be included into AECMs for the protection of the Northern Lapwing is 0.5 ha. On such plots, farmers are obliged to secure the nesting site areas against the travelling of farm machines or other technologies in the period from 15 April to 15 June of the calendar year, and to establish a stand of defined crop mixture earliest from 16 June to 15 July at the latest. They are further obliged to incorporate the defined crop mixture into the soil in the period from 15 November to 31 December of the calendar year.

2.3. Methodology of Vegetation Assessment

The vegetation was assessed using phytocoenological relevés. On each of twelve sites, two plots were chosen for the phytocoenological relevés. One relevé was recorded on the plot intended for the protection of the Northern Lapwing (AECM) and the other one was recorded in the crop grown on the remaining part of the site (Crop). On each area of the phytocoenological relevé sized 30 m2, all occurring plant species were listed. Then their total cover was estimated as well as the degree of coverage in percent. The phytocoenological assessment of the vegetation was made in June 2016. Scientific names of individual plant species were unified according to the Pladias database of Czech flora and vegetation [64].
The recorded plant species were classified based on the database by Tyler et al. [65] according to criteria for biological relevance (biodiversity relevance). Biological relevance is defined for each species by the number of other organisms depending on the species or which use it as a source of food, substrate, hiding place or place for reproduction. A logarithmic scale of biological relevance for the recorded plant species is presented in Table 2.
Values of the cover of individual plant species on the monitored sites were processed using the multivariate analysis of ecological data with the selection of optimum analysis being governed by the Lengths of Gradient established by segment analysis (Detrended Correspondence Analysis—DCA). Another analysis used was Canonical Correspondence Analysis (CCA). Statistical significance was determined using the Monte Carlo test with the calculation of 999 permutations. The data were processed using the Canoco 5 computer programme [66]. Statistical differences in the number of taxa between habitat types (crops and AECMs) were tested using a two-sample t-test in the R programming language environment [67].

3. Results

There were altogether 76 plant taxa found during our research. The average species richness of crop vegetation was 5.1 taxa, while the average number of taxa in AECM areas was 19.7 taxa. Vegetation in AECM areas showed a statistically significantly higher species richness, approximately four times higher than in field crop stands. The numbers of species with their biological relevance recorded on the investigated sites are presented in Figure 1. Coverage shares of the groups of taxa according to their biological relevance on the investigated plots are presented in Figure 2.
The above results show that in all 12 investigated sites, the stands of field plants exhibited fewer plant species than the AECM plots. Maximum number of plant species in the crop stands was 8. Minimum and maximum number of species on the AECM plots were 12 and 30, respectively. The differences in vegetation coverage between the stands of field crops and AECM plot are not big and are given by the character of crop stands and by phenological stages of vegetation. Nevertheless, the AECM plots exhibited a higher share of species with greater biological relevance.
The results of CCA, which was used to evaluate the coverage of plant taxa on the investigated sites, are significant at a significance level of α = 0.001 for all canonical axes. The proportion of explained variability achieved using CCA is relatively low (21.7%), which can be attributed to the high heterogeneity of the data resulting from the different characteristics of the monitored locations and different methods of agricultural management. These results are illustrated in Figure 3. Based on the CCA, the identified plant taxa can be divided into three groups. The division of taxa into groups according to the CCA is presented in Table 3.
The first group includes species with a higher coverage on the AECM plots as well as species that were intentionally sown on them. The species of this group were divided according to the recorded dominance of cover and occurrence. The second group contains plant species that can make their way through both in the field crop stands and in the AECM plots. These species may be problematic as a source of new weeds in subsequent and neighbouring stands. The third group includes only field crops sown and grown on arable land and this explains why the degree of coverage is high.

4. Discussion

AECMs have become the main political instrument for the solution of environmental goals within the EU Common Agricultural Policy [68]. They represent voluntary incentive measures with objectives such as to apply environment-friendly procedures [69], to enhance species diversity, and to provide ecosystem functions supporting endangered animal species (birds nesting on the ground in particular) as well as the biodiversity of agricultural land [70,71].
The vegetation of AECM plots creates conditions that are favourable for a greater number of plant species thanks to the absence of agricultural operations, competition of seeded crops, and particularly thanks to the absence of herbicides. Thanks to these conditions, there are also fewer commonly occurring species on them such as Buglossoides arvensis, Peplis portula, Veronica anagallis-aquatica and others. However, common field weeds play a dominant role in the vegetation of these plots. The colourful species composition of the vegetation on the AECM plots increases biological relevance, hence increasing the potential in the assurance of food and hiding places for other animals including the Northern Lapwing. Blaix et al. [72] claim that the weeds on arable land are exactly the providers of living space and food sources, thus having a key value for the preservation of biological diversity and for the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural ecosystems. The vegetation of weeds is an important source of flowers and seeds for various species of insects, birds, and mammals [73]. The role of weeds as the providers of long-term pollen and nectar supply is of vital importance for keeping pollinators in the agricultural landscape [74,75]. According to Yvoz et al. [76], however, weeds in cereals provide a relatively low production of resources as compared with other crops, especially if they occur in central parts of the plot. As a source of biological relevance, weeds change significantly both in space and in time.
In terms of agricultural production, the occurrence of some plant species on the AECM plots is very problematic. Plant species such as Bolboschoenus laticarpus, Cirsium arvense, Elymus repens and other are perceived negatively by farmers. They are not only problematic for neighbouring plots where they may spread but they mainly represent a problem for the future agricultural utilization of the plot. Hanusová et al. [77] maintain that AECM plots also represent a certain risk of the soil seed bank being enriched with weeds, which may later increase the weeding of crops when the plot is returned to normal use. Distribution of epilobium-type (mainly anemochory and autochory) fruits and seeds can be problematic, too. AECM plots may become sources for diaspores of these species which may spread to adjacent sites. It can be expected, therefore, that due to worrying about increased future costs of weed control, many farmers will be unwilling to introduce measures for the protection of the Northern Lapwing or other similar measures. A question for discussion remains whether targeted measures should be allowed by AECM regulations against some weed species to eliminate the risk. The implementation of this possibility is very problematic. Nevertheless, farmers would gain an efficient tool to control problematic weed species, which could increase their willingness to adopt the protective measures.
The vegetation of AECM plots without control allows a number of weed species to dominate and to infest adjacent sites. On the investigated plots, this particularly relates to the species of Tripleurospermum inodorum, Cirsium arvense, Chenopodium album, Matricaria chamomilla, Apera spica-venti, Persicaria lapathifolia and others. The abundant occurrence of weeds on AECM plots is a core argument to financially compensate farmers for losses and for increased costs due to weeds. On the other hand, weeds have also some beneficial effects. Providing trophic sources to numerous natural enemies (parasitoids, predators), they contribute to the control of agricultural pests [78,79]. These services are, however, difficult to verify and to enumerate financially.
The results of our research indicate that only a few weed species can make their way in the stands of field crops and in the AECM plots at the same time, which particularly applies to low-stature field weeds such as Geranium pusillum, Setaria pumila, Veronica persica, Veronica polita and Viola arvensis. Hanzlik and Gerowitt [80] inform that problematic weed species in oilseed rape stands are namely Geranium pusillum and Viola arvensis. The crop of oilseed rape (Brassica napus) can also weed subsequent crops as its seeds can remain viable in the soil even more than 5 years [80]. The above-mentioned species represent a certain risk for increased infestation with weeds and reduced agricultural production.
The composition of weed communities is given by the combination of environmental factors and landscape management [81,82,83]. These factors then influence probable occurrence and spatial distribution of certain weed species in the landscape [84]. This is why the AECM plots with different conditions exhibit more significant vegetation changes as compared with arable land. A very commonly used compromise is to establish AECM plots on sites that are less attractive for agricultural production (e.g., water-logged sites). The efficiency of these sites for agricultural production is low, and farmers may consider compensations for AECMs more attractive. Specific conditions of less fertile parts of sites will create specific conditions for the growth of different plant species and for increased biological diversity.
To protect the populations of the Northern Lapwing on arable land, it is important to respect their environmental requirements. Thompson et al. [85] claim that waders show high loyalty to the nesting site. According to Shrubb [86], it is important to create a mosaic of grass stands and bare ground. Bare or only sparsely vegetated ground is favourable for nesting. Chicks can be preferably raised on grasslands, provided that the bare ground and the grassland are close to each other. Lapwings, as well as other avian species nesting on the ground, are particularly sensitive to vegetation structure, namely, to stand height and frequency of plant clusters [87]. According to McCallum et al. [88], habitat humidity is important for lapwings, too. The available literature suggests that the physiological needs of the lapwing differ during the breeding season: during the laying period it prefers bare ground, while at the beginning of chick-rearing it requires connected vegetation in wetter habitats. By setting aside AECM areas in field crop stands, these conditions are met, thus creating a prerequisite for the maintenance and recovery of the lapwing population. The selection of AECM plots for lapwing protection requires a cooperation of ornithologists with local farmers. Ornithologists will determine the plots according to the actual occurrence of lapwings, and farmers who are familiar with the specifics of local habitats can ensure a suitable character of the vegetation cover.
AECMs on arable land change the living conditions for vegetation, which are subsequently reflected in the changes in the species composition of plant communities (Figure 3). Some plant species are viewed very negatively by local farmers because they are difficult weeds. The occurrence of such species may reduce farmers’ willingness to implement these measures.
On the other hand, the presence of certain plant species can contribute to an increase in food supply and improved living conditions for a number of animal species (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Measures aimed at protecting the Northern Lapwing can also have a positive impact on other species of field birds, mammals, and insects on arable land.
Assessing the vegetation in these areas makes it relatively easy to evaluate the effectiveness of the measures implemented and, if necessary, propose adjustments that will increase their attractiveness to farmers and their effectiveness in protecting target species. Vegetation is therefore an important tool for evaluating the benefits and potential risks associated with AECMs on arable land. The effectiveness of AECMs should therefore be assessed through the analysis of vegetation on areas designated for animal protection. The species composition and the character of habitat vegetation play a key role in maintaining field bird populations and can also benefit other groups of organisms.
The monitored small AECM plots established for lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) protection, together with the directly adjacent arable land, enhance landscape heterogeneity and thereby create potential nesting habitats and hiding places for lapwing chicks. However, the vegetation of these plots is typically dense and tall, making them unsuitable for lapwing nesting, as this species requires bare soil or only very sparse vegetation cover for breeding. In contrast, the neighbouring arable land with crop stands provides the necessary conditions for nesting. AECM plots, however, can be utilized by lapwing chicks after hatching, as their vegetation offers opportunities for shelter and access to food resources. Tryjanowski et al. [89] claim that the requirements of agricultural mechanization and the intensification of agricultural production particularly led to larger fields and affected landscape diversity, although this model greatly differs in different agricultural areas of the European Union. Differences in the socio-economic and political history between western and eastern European countries are responsible for their agricultural landscapes having contrastingly different landscape patterns [90,91]. The landscape character is more homogeneous namely in the eastern European countries including the CR, which is the reason why the importance of agri-environmental measures directly applicable on arable land is increasing [92]. The fragmentation of agricultural activities can promote heterogeneity and biodiversity in vegetation, which increases biological relevance for other species [93]. According to Marada et al. [94], a comprehensive evaluation of AECMs confirmed the direct positive influence on wild species on a local scale. However, AECM benefits have to be evaluated in a broader context which takes into consideration highly desirable ecosystem functions such as erosion control, soil protection and overall impact on biological diversity. According to Mahaut et al. [95], understanding the impacts of human activities on ecological and evolutionary dynamics requires a re-evaluation of ecological theories, which were originally developed exclusively for natural ecosystems and therefore provide limited explanatory power regarding the interactions between human activities and ecological as well as evolutionary processes.

5. Conclusions

The implementation of conservation measures on arable land is always a complex process, as it often involves conflicts of interest between farmers and nature conservationists. The escalation of these opposing approaches benefits neither agricultural production nor the organisms associated with arable land. Yet, in the European context, arable land represents one of the most threatened ecosystems in terms of biodiversity decline. Vegetation on areas designated for the protection of farmland birds or mammals can serve as a suitable indicator when seeking balanced solutions. Vegetation in these areas constitutes a still underutilized tool for assessing the benefits and risks associated with agri-environmental climatic measures. Its advantage lies in the existence of established and relatively simple methods for monitoring and evaluation, as well as the general availability of experts capable of applying these methods in practice.
Reforming the Common Agricultural Policy aims at a degradation of biological diversity and ecosystem services by retaining and increasing the heterogeneity of agricultural landscape [96,97]. The goal includes three management measures: diversification of crops, maintenance of perennial crops and support of ecologically beneficial elements [98,99]. The question remains how to quantify losses from farming and the need of compensation payments that would enable the farmers to introduce measures bringing favourable conditions to lapwings or other bird species [100]. It is, however, still not clear whether the proposed Common Agricultural Policy measures are effective in meeting their goals in different types and systems of agricultural land and in different regions of the European Union [99,101]. Increasing vegetation biodiversity and biological relevance of vegetation, the monitored agri-environmental climatic measure plots for the protection of lapwings contribute to greater heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.W., V.Z. and M.D.V.; methodology, V.Z. and J.W.; validation, A.M. and J.W.; formal analysis, A.M. and J.W.; investigation, J.W. and P.M.B.; resources, V.Z. and J.W.; data curation, V.Z. and J.W.; writing—original draft preparation, P.M.B. and J.W.; writing—review and editing, P.M.B. and V.Z.; visualization, V.Z. and J.W.; supervision, V.Z., M.D.V. and J.W.; project administration, J.W.; funding acquisition, J.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data are not available to the public in order to preserve the originality of the data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

AECMAgri-Environmental Climatic Measures;
BRBiological Relevance;
CAPCommon Agricultural Policy;
CCACanonical Correspondence Analysis;
CRCzech Republic;
DCADetrended Correspondence Analysis;
EUEuropean Union;
GPSGlobal Positioning System

References

  1. Chamberlain, D.E.; Fuller, R.J.; Bunce, R.G.H.; Duckworth, J.C.; Shrubb, M. Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales. J. Appl. Ecol. 2000, 37, 771–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Donald, P.F.; Green, R.E.; Heath, M.F. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc. R. Soc. B 2001, 268, 25–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Donald, P.F.; Sanderson, F.J.; Burfield, I.J.; Bommel, F.P.J. Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990–2000. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 116, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chamberlain, D.; Vickery, J. Declining farmland birds: Evidence from large-scale monitoring studies in the UK. Br. Birds 2002, 95, 300–310. [Google Scholar]
  5. Butler, S.J.; Boccaccio, L.; Gregory, R.D.; Vorisek, P.; Norris, K. Quantifying the impact of land-use change to European farmland bird populations. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 137, 348–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. PECBMS. Population Trends of Common European Breeding Birds 2013; PECBMS: Prague, Czech Republic, 2013; p. 2. Available online: https://pecbms.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/leaflet-pecbms-2013-compressed.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  7. Calvi, G.; Campedelli, T.; Florenzano, G.T.; Rossi, P. Evaluating the benefits of agri-environment schemes on farmland bird communities through a common species monitoring programme. A case study in northern Italy. Agric. Syst. 2018, 160, 60–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. McMahon, B.J.; Doyle, S.; Mougeot, F.; Arroyo, B. The decline of ground nesting birds in Europe: Do we need to manage predation in addition to habitat? Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2024, 55, e03213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Krajíček, T.; Marada, P.; Horák, I.; Cukor, J.; Skoták, V.; Winkler, J.; Dumbrovský, M.; Jurčík, R.; Los, J. Mitigating the Negative Impact of Certain Erosion Events: Development and Verification of Innovative Agricultural Machinery. Agriculture 2025, 15, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kubelka, V.; Zámečník, V.; Šálek, M. Survey of breeding Northern Lapwings (Vanellus vanellus) in the Czech Republic in 2008: Results and effectiveness of volunteer work. Sylvia 2012, 48, 1–23. Available online: https://oldcso.birdlife.cz/www.cso.cz/wpimages/video/sylvia48_1Kubelka.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  11. Zámečník, V. A Methodological Guide for the Practical Protection of Birds in Agricultural Landscapes; Agentura Ochrany Přírody A Krajiny: Prague, Czech Republic, 2013; p. 19. Available online: http://www.forumochranyprirody.cz/sites/default/files/19.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2025). (In Czech)
  12. Delgado, J.A.; Short, N.M., Jr.; Roberts, D.P.; Vandenberg, B. Big data analysis for sustainable agriculture on a geospatial cloud framework. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2019, 3, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kassam, A.; Friedrich, T.; Derpsch, R. Global spread of conservation agriculture. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 76, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Marinoudi, V.; Sørensen, C.G.; Pearson, S.; Bochtis, D. Robotics and labour in agriculture. A context consideration. Biosyst. Eng. 2019, 184, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Šálek, M.; Hula, V.; Kipson, M.; Daňková, R.; Niedobová, J.; Gamero, A. Bringing diversity back to agriculture: Smaller fields and non-crop elements enhance biodiversity in intensively managed arable farmlands. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 90, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Harlio, A.; Kuussaari, M.; Heikkinen, R.K.; Arponen, A. Incorporating landscape heterogeneity into multi-objective spatial planning improves biodiversity conservation of semi-natural grasslands. J. Nat. Conserv. 2019, 49, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Deák, B.; Rádai, Z.; Lukács, K.; Kelemen, A.; Kiss, R.; Bátori, Z.; Kiss, P.J.; Valkó, O. Fragmented dry grasslands preserve unique components of plant species and phylogenetic diversity in agricultural landscapes. Biodivers. Conserv. 2020, 29, 4091–4110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Priyadarshana, T.S.; Martin, E.A.; Sirami, C.; Woodcock, B.A.; Goodale, E.; Martínez-Núñez, C.; Lee, M.; Pagani-Núñez, E.; Raderschall, C.A.; Brotons, L.; et al. Crop and landscape heterogeneity increase biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: A global review and meta-analysis. Ecol. Lett. 2024, 27, e14412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Benton, T.G.; Vickery, J.A.; Wilson, J.D. Farmland biodiversity: Is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2003, 18, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kumar, S.; Simonson, S.E.; Stohlgren, T.J. Effects of spatial heterogeneity on butterfly species richness in Rocky Mountain National Park, CO, USA. Biodivers. Conserv. 2009, 18, 739–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Münzenberg, U.; Bürger, C.; Thies, C.; Tscharntke, T. Scale-dependent effects of landscape structure on three pollinator guilds. Ecology 2002, 83, 1421–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Krauss, J.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Tscharntke, T. How does landscape context contribute to effects of habitat fragmentation on diversity and population density of butterflies? J. Biogeogr. 2003, 30, 889–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Thies, C.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Tscharntke, T. Effects of landscape context on herbivory and parasitism at different spatial scales. Oikos 2003, 101, 18–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Weibull, A.C.; Östman, Ö.; Granqvist, A. Species richness in agroecosystems: The effect of landscape, habitat and farm management. Biodivers. Conserv. 2003, 12, 1335–1355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Martin, A.E.; Collins, S.J.; Crowe, S.; Girard, J.; Naujokaitis-Lewis, I.; Smith, A.C.; Lindsay, K.; Mitchell, S.; Fahrig, L. Effects of farmland heterogeneity on biodiversity are similar to—Or even larger than—The effects of farming practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 288, 106698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Urrutia, A.L.; González-Gónzalez, C.; Van Cauwelaert, E.M.; Rosell, J.A.; Barrios, L.G.; Benítez, M. Landscape heterogeneity of peasant-managed agricultural matrices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 292, 106797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ockermüller, E.; Kratschmer, S.; Pascher, K.; Hainz-Renetzeder, C.; Meimberg, H.; Frank, T.; Pachinger, B. Seasonal direct and indirect effects of local habitat and landscape factors on wild bees in agroecosytems. Biodivers. Conserv. 2025, 34, 3733–3757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Lu, X.; Jia, Y.; Wang, Y. The effect of landscape composition, complexity, and heterogeneity on bird richness: A systematic review and meta-analysis on a global scale. Landsc. Ecol. 2024, 39, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Dover, J.W.; Sparks, T.; Clarke, S.; Gobbett, K.; Glossop, S. Linear features and butterflies: The importance of green lanes. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2000, 80, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wilson, J.D.; Whittingham, M.J.; Bradbury, R.B. The management of crop structure: A general approach to reversing the impacts of agricultural intensification on birds? Ibis 2005, 147, 453–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wilson, J.D.; Evans, A.D.; Grice, V.G. Bird Conservation and Agriculture; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2009; p. 394. [Google Scholar]
  32. Lislevand, T.; Byrkjedal, I.; Heggøy, O.; Kålås, J.A. Population status, trends and conservation of meadow-breeding waders in Norway. Wader Study 2021, 128, 6–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pálsdóttir, A.E.; Þórisson, B.; Gunnarsson, T.G. Recent population changes of common waders and passerines in Iceland’s largest lowland region. Bird Study 2025, 72, 204–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Jellesmark, S.; Ausden, M.; Blackburn, T.M.; Hoffmann, M.; McRae, L.; Visconti, P.; Gregory, R.D. The effect of conservation interventions on the abundance of breeding waders within nature reserves in the United Kingdom. Ibis 2023, 165, 69–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. French, P.; Insley, H.; Siriwardena, G.; Buxton, N. The breeding success of a population of Lapwings in part of Strathspey 1996–1998. Scot. Birds 2000, 21, 98–108. [Google Scholar]
  36. Roodbergen, M.; van der Werf, B.; Hötker, H. Revealing the contributions of reproduction and survival to the Europe-wide decline in meadow birds: Review and metaanalysis. J. Ornithol. 2012, 153, 53–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kubelka, V.; Sládeček, M.; Zámečník, V.; Vozabulová, E.; Šálek, M. Seasonality predicts egg size better than nesting habitat in a precocial shorebird. Ardea 2019, 107, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Kragten, S.; Nagel, J.C.; de Snoo, G.R. The effectiveness of volunteer nest protection on the nest success of Northern Lapwings Vanellus vanellus on Dutch arable farms. Ibis 2008, 150, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zámečník, V.; Kubelka, V.; Šálek, M. Visible marking of wader nests to avoid damage by farmers does not increase nest predation. Bird Conserv. Int. 2018, 28, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Isaksson, D.; Wallander, J.; Larsson, M. Managing predation on ground-nesting birds: The effectiveness of nest exclosures. Biol. Conserv. 2007, 136, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Grüebler, M.U.; Schuler, H.; Horch, P.; Spaar, R. The effectiveness of conservation measures to enhance nest survival in a meadow bird suffering from anthropogenic nest loss. Biol. Conserv. 2012, 146, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Schifferli, L.; Spaar, R.; Koller, A. Fence and plough for Lapwings: Nest protection to improve nest and chick survival in Swiss farmland. Osnabrücker Naturwissenschaftliche Mitteilungen 2006, 32, 123–129. [Google Scholar]
  43. Kentie, R.; Both, C.; Hooijmeijer, J.C.E.W.; Piersma, T. Management of modern agricultural landscapes increases nest predation rates in Black-tailed Godwits (Limosa limosa). Ibis 2015, 157, 614–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Schifferli, L.; Rickenbach, O.; Koller, A.; Grüebler, M. Massnahmen zur Förderung des Kiebitzes Vanellus vanellus im Wauwilermoos (Kanton Luzern): Schutz der Nester vor Landwirtschaft und Prädation. Ornithol. Beob. 2009, 106, 311–326. Available online: https://www.ala-schweiz.ch/images/stories/pdf/ob/2009_106/OrnitholBeob_2009_106_311_Schifferli.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  45. SZIF. Information for Applicants—Cap 2016 Agri-Environmental—Climate Measures (AECM); SZIF: Prague, Czech Republic, 2016. Available online: https://szif.gov.cz/cs/CmDocument?rid=%2Fapa_anon%2Fcs%2Fzpravy%2Fprv2014%2Faktuality%2F1460097102056.pdf (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  46. Evans, D.M.; Pocock, M.J.O.; Brooks, J.; Memmott, J. Seeds in farmland food-webs: Resource importance, distribution and the impacts of farm management. Biol. Cons. 2011, 144, 2941–2950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pejchar, L.; Clough, Y.; Ekroos, J.; Nicholas, K.A.; Olsson, O.L.A.; Ram, D.; Tschumi, M.; Smith, H.G. Net effects of birds in agroecosystems. BioScience 2018, 68, 896–904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Olimpi, E.M.; Garcia, K.; Gonthier, D.J.; De Master, K.T.; Echeverri, A.; Kremen, C.; Sciligo, A.R.; Snyder, W.E.; Wilson-Rankin, E.E.; Karp, D.S. Shifts in species interactions and farming contexts mediate net effects of birds in agroecosystems. Ecol. Appl. 2020, 30, e02115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Winkler, J.; Martinová, L.; Kotlánová, B.; Děkanovský, I.; Vaverková, M.D. Biological Relevance and Ecosystem Functions of Sugar Beet Weeds. Listy Cukrov. A Reparske 2025, 141, 98–103. Available online: http://www.cukr-listy.cz/on_line/2025/PDF/98-103.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  50. Eglington, S.M.; Bolton, M.; Smart, M.A.; Sutherland, W.J.; Watkinson, A.R.; Gill, J.A. Managing water levels on wet grasslands to improve foraging conditions for breeding northern lapwing Vanellus vanellus. J. Appl. Ecol. 2010, 47, 451–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Smart, J.; Wotton, S.R.; Dillon, I.A.; Cooke, A.I.; Diack, I.; Drewitt, A.L.; Grice, P.V.; Gregory, R.D. Synergies between site protection and agri-environment schemes for the conservation of waders on lowland wet grasslands. Ibis 2014, 156, 576–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schmidt, J.U.; Eilers, A.; Schimkat, M.; Krause-Heiber, J.; Timm, A.; Siegel, S.; Nachtigall, W.; Kleber, A. Factors influencing the success of within-field AES fallow plots as key sites for the Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus in an industrialised agricultural landscape of Central Europe. J. Nat. Conserv. 2017, 35, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Konvicka, M.; Benes, J.; Cizek, O.; Kopecek, F.; Konvicka, O.; Vitaz, L. How too much care kills species: Grassland reserves, agri-environmental schemes and extinction of Colias myrmidone (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) from its former stronghold. J. Insect Conserv. 2008, 12, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Kleijn, D.; Baquero, R.A.; Clough, Y.; Díaz, M.; De Esteban, J.; Fernández, F.; Gabriel, D.; Herzog, F.; Holzschuh, A.; Jöhl, R.; et al. Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. Ecol. Lett. 2006, 9, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Whittingham, M.J. Will agri-environment schemes deliver substantial biodiversity gain, and if not why not? J. Appl. Ecol. 2007, 44, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Breeuwer, A.; Berendse, F.; Willems, F.; Foppen, R.; Teunissen, W.; Schekkerman, H.; Goedhart, P. Do meadow birds profit from agri-environment schemes in Dutch agricultural landscapes? Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 2949–2953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Pe’er, G.; Finn, J.; Díaz, M.; Birkenstock, M.; Lakner, S.; Röder, N.; Kazakova, Y.; Šumrada, T.; Bezák, P.; Concepción, E.D.; et al. How can the European Common Agricultural Policy help halt biodiversity loss? Recommendations by over 300 experts. Conserv. Lett. 2022, 15, e12901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hawkes, R.W.; Mason, L.R.; Conway, G.J.; Siriwardena, G.M.; Grice, P.V.; Cole, A.J.; Peach, W.J. Landscape context influences efficacy of protected areas and agri-environment scheme delivery for breeding waders. J. Appl. Ecol. 2025, 62, 1114–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Korner, P.; Hohl, S.; Horch, P. Brood protection is essential but not sufficient for population survival of lapwings Vanellus vanellus in central Switzerland. Wildl. Biol. 2024, 4, e01175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cevenini, D.; Cecere, J.G.; De Pascalis, F.; Tinarelli, R.; Kubelka, V.; Serra, L.; Pilastro, A.; Assandri, G. Habitat selection of the threatened northern lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) breeding in an intensive agroecosystem. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 2025, 71, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Czech Geological Society. Geological Map of the Czech Republic, 1: 50,000; CGS: Prague, Czech Republic, 2018; Available online: https://mapy.geology.cz/geocr50 (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  62. Czech Geological Society. Map of Soil Types of the Czech Republic, 1: 50,000; CGS: Prague, Czech Republic, 2017; Available online: https://mapy.geology.cz/pudy (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  63. Culek, M. (Ed.) Biogeographical Division of the Czech Republic (Biogeografické Členění České Republiky), 1st ed.; Enigma: Prague, Czech Republic, 1996; p. 347. (In Czech) [Google Scholar]
  64. Chytrý, M.; Danihelka, J.; Kaplan, Z.; Wild, J.; Holubová, D.; Novotný, P.; Řezníčková, M.; Rohn, M.; Dřevojan, P.; Grulich, V.; et al. Pladias Database of the Czech Flora and Vegetation. Preslia 2021, 93, 1–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tyler, T.; Herbertsson, L.; Olofsson, J.; Olsson, P.A. Ecological indicator and traits values for Swedish vascular plants. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 120, 106923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Braak, C.J.F.; Šmilauer, P. Canoco Reference Manual and User’s Guide: Software for Ordination (Version 5.0); Microcomputer Power: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  67. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2022; Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 14 December 2025).
  68. Bartolini, F.; Vergamini, D. Understanding the spatial agglomeration of participation in agri-environmental schemes: The case of the Tuscany Region. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gatto, P.; Mozzato, D.; Defrancesco, E. Analysing the role of factors affecting farmers’ decisions to continue with agri-environmental schemes from a temporal perspective. Environ. Sci. Policy 2019, 92, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Boetzl, F.A.; Krimmer, E.; Krauss, J.; Steffan-Dewenter, I. Agri-environmental schemes promote ground-dwelling predators in adjacent oilseed rape fields: Diversity, species traits and distance-decay functions. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 56, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Opdenbosch, H.; Brady, M.V.; Bimbilovski, I.; Swärd, R.; Manevska-Tasevska, G. Farm-level acceptability of contract attributes in agri-environment-climate measures for biodiversity conservation. J. Rural Stud. 2024, 112, 103448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Blaix, C.; Moonen, A.C.; Dostatny, D.F.; Izquierdo, J.; Le Corff, J.; Morrison, J.; Von Redwitz, C.; Schumacher, M.; Westerman, P.R. Quantification of regulating ecosystem services provided by weeds in annual cropping systems using a systematic map approach. Weed Res. 2018, 58, 151–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Petit, S.; Boursault, A.; Le Guilloux, M.; Munier-Jolain, N.; Reboud, X. Weeds in agricultural landscapes: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2011, 31, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Requier, F.; Odoux, J.F.; Tamic, T.; Moreau, N.; Henry, M.; Decourtye, A.; Bretagnolle, V. Honey bee diet in intensive farmland habitats reveals an unexpectedly high flower richness and a major role of weeds. Ecol. Appl. 2015, 25, 881–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Bretagnolle, V.; Gaba, S. Weeds for bees? A review. Agron. Sustain. 2015, 35, 891–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Yvoz, S.; Cordeau, S.; Zuccolo, C.; Petit, S. Crop type and within-field location as sources of intraspecific variations in the phenology and the production of floral and fruit resources by weeds. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2020, 302, 107082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Hanusová, H.; Juřenová, K.; Hurajová, E.; Vaveková, M.D.; Winkler, J. Vegetation structure of bio-belts as agro-environmentally-climatic measures to support biodiversity on arable land: A case study. AIMS Agric. Food 2022, 7, 883–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Tylianakis, J.M.; Didham, R.K.; Wratten, S.D. Improved fitness of aphid parasitoids receiving resource subsidies. Ecology 2004, 85, 658–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Di Tommaso, A.; Averill, K.M.; Hoffmann, M.P.; Fuchsberg, J.R.; Losey, J.E. Integrating insect resistance and floral resource management in weed control decision-making. Weed Sci. 2016, 64, 743–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Hanzlik, K.; Gerowitt, B. Verändern pfluglose Bodenbearbeitung und Frühsaaten die Unkrautvegetation im Winterraps? Gesunde Pflanz 2021, 62, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Fried, G.; Norton, L.R.; Reboud, X. Environmental and management factors determining weed species composition and diversity in France. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2008, 128, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Petit, S.; Gaba, S.; Grison, A.L.; Meiss, H.; Simmoneau, B.; Munier-Jolain, N.; Bretagnolle, V. Landscape scale management affects weed richness but not weed abundance in winter wheat fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2016, 223, 41–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Winkler, J.; Tomaník, M.; Martínez Barroso, P.; Děkanovský, I.; Sitek, W.; Vaverková, M.D. The Importance of Municipal Waste Landfill Vegetation for Biological Relevance: A Case Study. Environments 2025, 12, 401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Alignier, A.; Ricci, B.; Biju-Duval, L.; Petit, S. Identifying the relevant spatial and temporal scales in plant species occurrence models: The case of arable weeds in landscape mosaic of crops. Ecol. Complex. 2013, 15, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Thompson, P.S.; Baines, D.; Coulson, J.C.; Longrigg, G. Age at first breeding, philopatry and breeding site-fidelity in the Lapwing Vanellus vanellus. Ibis 1994, 136, 474–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Shrubb, M. The Lapwing; T & A D Poyser: London, UK, 2007; p. 232. [Google Scholar]
  87. Milsom, T.P.; Langton, S.D.; Parkin, W.K.; Peel, S.; Bishop, J.D.; Hart, J.D.; Moore, N.P. Habitat models of bird species’ distribution: An aid to the management of coastal grazing marshes. J. Appl. Ecol. 2000, 37, 706–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. McCallum, H.M.; Park, K.J.; O’Brien, M.G.; Gimona, A.; Poggio, L.; Wilson, J.D. Soil pH and organic matter content add explanatory power to Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus distribution models and suggest soil amendment as a conservation measure on upland farmland. Ibis 2015, 157, 677–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Tryjanowski, P.; Hartel, T.; Báldi, A.; Szymański, P.; Tobółka, M.; Herzon, I.; Oławski, A.; Konvička, M.; Hromada, M.; Jerzak, L.; et al. Conservation of farmland birds faces different challenges in Western and Central-Eastern Europe. Acta Ornithol. 2011, 46, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sklenička, P.; Šímová, P.; Hrdinová, K.; Šálek, M. Changing rural landscapes along the border of Austria and the Czech Republic between 1952 and 2009: Roles of political, socioeconomic and environmental factors. Appl. Geogr. 2014, 47, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Koleček, J.; Reif, J.; Weidinger, K. The abundance of a farmland specialist bird, the skylark, in three European regions with contrasting agricultural management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 212, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hanusová, H.; Jirout, M.; Winkler, J. Development of Land Use and Ecological Stability in Selected Traditional Sugar Beet-Growing Cadastral Areas in Olomouc District. Listy Cukrov. A Reparske 2018, 134, 106–111. [Google Scholar]
  93. Hurajová, E.; Martínez Barroso, P.; Děkanovský, I.; Lumbantobing, Y.R.; Jiroušek, M.; Mugutdinov, A.; Havel, L.; Winkler, J. Biodiversity and Vegetation Succession in Vineyards, Moravia (Czech Republic). Agriculture 2024, 14, 1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Marada, P.; Cukor, J.; Kuběnka, M.; Linda, R.; Vacek, Z.; Vacek, S. New agri-environmental measures have a direct effect on wildlife and economy on conventional agricultural land. PeerJ 2023, 11, e15000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Mahaut, L.; Cheptou, P.O.; Fried, G.; Munoz, F.; Storkey, J.; Vasseur, F.; Violle, C.; Bretagnolle, F. Weeds: Against the Rules? Trends Plant Sci. 2020, 25, 1107–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Hristov, J.; Clough, Y.; Sahlin, U.; Smith, H.G.; Stjernman, M.; Olsson, O.; Sahrbacher, A.; Brady, M.V. Impacts of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy “Greening” reform on agricultural development, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Policy 2020, 42, 716–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Heyl, K.; Döring, T.; Garske, B.; Stubenrauch, J.; Ekardt, F. The Common Agricultural Policy beyond 2020: A critical review in light of global environmental goals. Rev. Eur. Comp. Int. Environ. Law 2021, 30, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Plaas, E.; Meyer-Wolfarth, F.; Banse, M.; Bengtsson, J.; Bergmann, H.; Faber, J.; Potthoff, M.; Runge, T.; Schrader, S.; Taylor, A. Towards valuation of biodiversity in agricultural soils: A case for earthworms. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 159, 291–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Pe’er, G.; Bonn, A.; Bruelheide, H.; Dieker, P.; Eisenhauer, N.; Feindt, P.H.; Hagedorn, G.; Hansjürgens, B.; Herzon, I.; Lomba, Â.; et al. Action needed for the EU Common Agricultural Policy to address sustainability challenges. People Nat. 2020, 2, 305–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. McCallum, H.M.; Wilson, J.D.; O’Brien, M.G.; Beaumont, D.; Sheldon, R.; Park, K.J. Fodder crop management benefits Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus) outside agri-environment schemes. Agric. Ecosyst. Env. 2018, 265, 470–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Pe’er, G.; Dicks, L.V.; Visconti, P.; Arlettaz, R.; Báldi, A.; Benton, T.G.; Collins, S.; Dieterich, M.; Gregory, R.D.; Hartig, F.; et al. EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science 2014, 344, 1090–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ecologies 07 00005 g001
Figure 1. Numbers of plant species recorded on the AECM plots and in the crop.
Figure 1. Numbers of plant species recorded on the AECM plots and in the crop.
Ecologies 07 00005 g001
Ecologies 07 00005 g002
Figure 2. The coverage shares of plant species recorded on the AECM plots and in the crop.
Figure 2. The coverage shares of plant species recorded on the AECM plots and in the crop.
Ecologies 07 00005 g002
Ecologies 07 00005 g003
Figure 3. The occurrence of recorded plant taxa on the AECM plots and in the crop. (Result of CCA; total explained variance = 21.7%; F-ratio = 6.1; p-value = 0.001) Legend: Crop—field crop stands; AECM—plots for the protection of the Northern Lapwing. Different font colors indicate biologically relevant groups of species.
Figure 3. The occurrence of recorded plant taxa on the AECM plots and in the crop. (Result of CCA; total explained variance = 21.7%; F-ratio = 6.1; p-value = 0.001) Legend: Crop—field crop stands; AECM—plots for the protection of the Northern Lapwing. Different font colors indicate biologically relevant groups of species.
Ecologies 07 00005 g003
Table 1. Characteristics of experimental sites.
Table 1. Characteristics of experimental sites.
No.Municipal Cadastral Area ofRegionArea Size (ha)GPS
1ČakovSouthern Bohemia2.2548.9859236 N, 14.3099069 E
2Čejkovice Southern Bohemia2.7449.0105178 N, 14.4120239 E
3Dražkov n. L. (1)Eastern Bohemia3.9050.0948322 N, 15.8388806 E
4Dražkov n. L. (2)Eastern Bohemia4.1850.0973789 N, 15.8321642 E
5DubnéSouthern Bohemia2.1548.9769689 N, 14.3674617 E
6JaroniceSouthern Bohemia2.0148.9945128 N, 14.3611639 E
7Křenovice u DubnéhoSouthern Bohemia9.0348.9869675 N, 14.3736478 E
8Nové Město n. C.Eastern Bohemia1.6950.1534492 N, 15.4858564 E
9KratokonohyEastern Bohemia4.8150.1754392 N, 15.6114636 E
10MžanyEastern Bohemia2.3050.2803731 N, 15.6714786 E
11OlešniceEastern Bohemia2.1550.1432319 N, 15.4583497 E
12PlástoviceSouthern Bohemia6.1949.0572258 N, 14.3007386 E
Table 2. The scale of biological relevance for the recorded plant species.
Table 2. The scale of biological relevance for the recorded plant species.
DesignationNumber of Species Depending on the Plants
BR1<6
BR26–12
BR313–24
BR425–50
BR551–100
BR6101–200
Table 3. Groups of plant species according to CCA.
Table 3. Groups of plant species according to CCA.
SiteSpecies
AECM-preferring
species		Dominant occurrence: Cirsium arvense (CirArve), Elymus repens (ElyRepe), Chenopodium album (CheAlbu), Matricaria chamomilla (MatCham), Phacelia tanacetifolia (PhaTana), Tripleurospermum inodorum (TriInod).
Subdominant occurrence: Amaranthus retroflexus (AmaRetr), Anagallis arvensis (AnaArve), Apera spica-venti (ApeSpic), Atriplex patula (AtrPatu), Atriplex sagittata (AtrSagi), Bolboschoenus laticarpus (BolLati), Capsella bursa-pastoris (CapBurs), Consolida regalis (ConRega), Echinochloa crus-galli (EchCrus), Equisetum arvense (EquArve), Euphorbia helioscopia (EupHeli), Fallopia convolvulus (FalConv), Fumaria officinalis (FumOffi), Chenopodium polyspermum (ChePoly), Melilotus officinalis (MelOffi), Myosotis arvensis (MyoArve), Persicaria amphibia (PerAmph), Persicaria lapathifolia (PerLapa), Phragmites australis (PhrAust), Plantago major (PlaMajo), Poa annua (PoaAnnu), Polygonum aviculare (PolAvic), Rorippa sylvestris (RorSylv), Rumex crispus (RumCris), Rumex obtusifolius (RumObti), Sinapis arvensis (SinArve), Sonchus arvensis (SonArve), Stellaria media (SteMedi), Thlaspi arvense (ThlArve), Trifolium hybridum (TriHybr), Trifolium repens (TriRepe).
Low occurrence: Alopecurus aequalis (AloAequ), Artemisia vulgaris (ArtVulg), Buglossoides arvensis (BugArve), Carduus acanthoides (CarAcan), Conyza canadensis (ConCana), Descurainia Sophia (DesSoph), Erysimum cheiranthoides (EryChei), Galium aparine (GalApar), Glechoma hederacea (GleHede), Gnaphalium uliginosum (GnaUlig), Chenopodium hybridum (CheHybr), Lactuca serriola (LacSerr), Lamium amplexicaule (LamAmle), Lamium purpureum (LamPurp), Medicago lupulina (MedLupu), Mentha arvensis (MenArve), Papaver rhoeas (PapRhoe), Peplis portula (PepPort), Persicaria maculosa (PerMacu), Ranunculus sceleratus (RanScel), Sonchus oleraceus (SonOler), Symphytum officinale (SymOffi), Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum (TarSect), Tussilago farfara (TusFarf), Urtica dioica (UrtDioi), Veronica anagallis-aquatica (VerAnag), Veronica arvensis (VerArve), Veronica hederifolia (VerHede).
Species with no AECM/Crop preference Brassica napus (BraNapu), Geranium pusillum (GerPusi), Setaria pumila (SetPumi), Veronica persica (VerPers), Veronica polita (VerPoli), Viola arvensis (VioArve).
Species preferring arable land with crop (Crop)Lolium multiflorum (LolMult), Secale cereale (SecCere), Triticum aestivum (TriAest), Trifolium pratense (TriPrat), Zea mays (ZeaMays).
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

Winkler, J.; Zámečník, V.; Mugutdinov, A.; Martínez Barroso, P.; Vaverková, M.D. The Potential of Vegetation for Assessing the Benefits and Risks of Protective Measures for the Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus L.) on Arable Land. Ecologies 2026, 7, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies7010005

AMA Style

Winkler J, Zámečník V, Mugutdinov A, Martínez Barroso P, Vaverková MD. The Potential of Vegetation for Assessing the Benefits and Risks of Protective Measures for the Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus L.) on Arable Land. Ecologies. 2026; 7(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies7010005

Chicago/Turabian Style

Winkler, Jan, Václav Zámečník, Amir Mugutdinov, Petra Martínez Barroso, and Magdalena Daria Vaverková. 2026. "The Potential of Vegetation for Assessing the Benefits and Risks of Protective Measures for the Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus L.) on Arable Land" Ecologies 7, no. 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies7010005

APA Style

Winkler, J., Zámečník, V., Mugutdinov, A., Martínez Barroso, P., & Vaverková, M. D. (2026). The Potential of Vegetation for Assessing the Benefits and Risks of Protective Measures for the Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus L.) on Arable Land. Ecologies, 7(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/ecologies7010005

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop