TY - JOUR AU - Madej, Andrzej PY - 2019/09/30 Y2 - 2024/03/29 TI - Biodiversity of the cropping system in Poland’s family farms with various production strategies in terms of the requirements of the Common Agricultural Policy JF - Polish Journal of Agronomy JA - pja VL - 38 IS - 38 SE - Artykuły DO - 10.26114/pja.iung.397.2019.38.06 UR - https://redakcjapja.iung.pl/index.php/pja/article/view/56 SP - 46-51 AB - <p><span style="left: 157.429px; top: 469.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.991274);">The structure of cropland adjusted to the specialization </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 487.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.961274);">of farm production, apart from production and economic func</span><span style="left: 479.257px; top: 487.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 505.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.986117);">tions, may also be an element influencing the maintenance of bio</span><span style="left: 479.257px; top: 505.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 523.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.0003);">diversity of rural areas.</span><span style="left: 118.113px; top: 541.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.961416);">The paper presents research on the diversity and uniformi</span><span style="left: 479.257px; top: 541.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 559.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.02104);">ty of biological cropping patterns in family farms with different </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 577.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.02932);">production strategies. The three indicators: the number of plant </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 595.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.02208);">species grown on the farm, Shannon-Wiener index (</span><span style="left: 413.985px; top: 595.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.999474);">H’</span><span style="left: 429.813px; top: 595.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.05236);">) and the </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 613.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00034);">Pielou evenness index (</span><span style="left: 236.541px; top: 613.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.07585);">J’</span><span style="left: 248.194px; top: 613.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00024);">) were used. </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 631.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.06784);"> The study showed the differences of analyzed indexes. Mi</span><span style="left: 479.257px; top: 631.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 649.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00848);">xed-production farms with the highest number of cultivated spe</span><span style="left: 479.257px; top: 649.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 667.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.0399);">cies in the cropping pattern (</span><span style="left: 273.323px; top: 667.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.999474);">H’</span><span style="left: 289.15px; top: 667.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.02414);">=1.80) were the most beneficial </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 685.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.03305);">in terms of the diversity of crops (8.0). However, together with </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 703.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.0326);">cattle and dairy farms, they were characterized by the most ho</span><span style="left: 479.257px; top: 703.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 721.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00203);">mogeneous cropping pattern (</span><span style="left: 274.348px; top: 721.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.07585);">J’</span><span style="left: 286.001px; top: 721.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00334);">=0.89 and </span><span style="left: 350.088px; top: 721.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.07585);">J’</span><span style="left: 361.741px; top: 721.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00339);">=0.88). On the other </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 739.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.01616);">hand, the group of grain farms that produced the lowest average </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 757.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00428);">number of cultivated crops (4.5) was characterized by the lowest </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 775.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.04881);">diversity of crop structure (</span><span style="left: 266.584px; top: 775.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.999474);">H’</span><span style="left: 282.412px; top: 775.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.04051);">=1.16) and its lowest uniformity </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 793.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif;">(</span><span style="left: 99.4832px; top: 793.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.07585);">J’</span><span style="left: 111.136px; top: 793.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.999732);">=0.83).</span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 811.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.0249);"> Taking into account the assumptions concerning crop diversi</span><span style="left: 479.257px; top: 811.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 829.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.98735);">fication, obligatory under the framework of greening, limit values </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 847.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00624);">of diversity and uniformity of cropping structure indicators were </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 865.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00848);">determined. The comparison of the cropping structure indicators </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 883.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.988055);">obtained in the study with their limit values showed that the crop</span><span style="left: 479.257px; top: 883.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 901.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.01933);">ping structure in all groups of farms was characterized by much </span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 919.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(0.997873);">greater diversity and evenness, which resulted in its more benefi</span><span style="left: 479.257px; top: 919.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif;">-</span><span style="left: 94.4882px; top: 937.475px; font-size: 15px; font-family: serif; transform: scaleX(1.00059);">cial environmental impact.</span></p> ER -