Enhancing Biodiversity in Traditional Fruit Orchards

2017

Enhancing biodiversity in traditional fruit orchards

RED APPLE: ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANCY BUREAU JELGER ELINGS, GODLOVE KIRIMBO, XUQING LI, PALASH MANDAL, TIM VAN SCHELT, JORGE VILLA

Contact details:

Commissioner Rob le Rutte

Stichting IJsselboomgaarden

p/a Kievit 16, 7423 DC Deventer

@: [email protected]

T: 570 652171 or 06 52401684.

www.ijsselboomgaarden.nl

Secretary Jelger Elings

ACT Team 1860

Droevendaalsesteeg 79 6708 PR, Wageningen

@: [email protected]

T: 06 51774115

Disclaimer

This report (product) is produced by students of Wageningen University as part of their MSc-programme. It is not an official publication of Wageningen University or Wageningen UR and the content herein does not represent any formal position or representation by Wageningen University.

Preface In front of you lays the product of 8 weeks of hard work. We started the project with 6 individuals from all over the world and ended with a real team that can not only deliver an academic report but can also have a good time with each other. We learned a lot during this project about orchards and especially the biodiversity in them. Especially the non-Dutch speaking team members have a way better view of this traditional element in Dutch cultural heritage.

We want to thank the commissioner Rob le Rutte for his trust in us a team and for his time to help us in the process. Furthermore, we would like to thank our coach Jim van Laar for all his help guiding the team process. We got a lot of useful tips and although the meetings took a bit longer than planned, they were always joyful. In addition to that we would like to thank our academic advisor Hens Runhaar for his feedback and help with content questions. Last but not least we would like to thank the experts that we have interviewed and the owners of the orchards that have filled in the survey.

We hope this report and toolkit will be useful and is the start of a biodiversity monitoring program in orchards. The biodiversity in orchards can be really something special and we care deeply about it and we hope this project is a small attribution to protect it.

iii

Executive Summary Many flora and fauna species inhabit traditional fruit orchards. Owners of this traditional landscapes often fail to realize the benefits obtained from biodiversity, and practice inadequate management activities on their land that deteriorate habitat quality, and ultimately reduces biodiversity levels. To eliminate this lack of knowledge, a toolkit was developed, by the “Red Apple: Ecological Consultancy Bureau”, to guide landowners in how to implement adequate management practices, and monitor the levels of biodiversity within traditional fruit orchards. The present document compiles the scientific background for the construction of the toolkit, as well as it describes the systematic process performed to design this ‘reference tool’.

Important scientific literature was boarded to define concepts like biodiversity, habitat quality, landscape management practices, and ecosystem services. The relation between these elements is boarded on the basis that human well-being needs a balance between human development and the environment. To reach this balance by a correct management of traditional fruit orchards, biodiversity monitoring methods are analysed as a tool that helps to achieve this goal.

Biodiversity monitoring methods are studied focusing on four subjects present in traditional fruit orchards, which are: plants, insects, mammals, and birds. The variety of methods studied were combined with the advice of experts in the field, through semi-structured interviews, to produce a useful monitoring system for traditional fruit orchards.

Good management practices are recommended in the final product. They were studied from several written sources and complemented with knowledge on the current state of management practices in traditional fruit orchards. This information was provided by landowners through elaborated questionnaires.

The conclusion states the importance of good management practices in traditional fruit orchards to maintain and improve biodiversity, and therefore the importance of biodiversity monitoring methods to measure the correct implementation of these practices and their effects in the future.

Table of Contents

Preface iii Executive Summary ...... iv 1. Introduction ...... 1 2. Methodology ...... 3 2.1 Literature review and Interviews ...... 3 2.2 Survey among owners ...... 3 3. The link between management and Ecosystem Services ...... 4 4. Review of possible monitoring systems ...... 6 4.1 Orchard Species List ...... 6 4.2 Insect monitoring ...... 6 4.2.1 Literature review ...... 6 4.2.2 Interview on insect monitoring ...... 8 4.2.3 Conclusions ...... 9 4.3 Plant monitoring ...... 9 4.3.1 Literature review ...... 9 4.3.2 Interview on plant monitoring ...... 10 4.3.3 Conclusions ...... 11 4.4 Birds monitoring ...... 12 4.4.1 Literature review ...... 12 4.4.2 Interview on bird monitoring ...... 12 4.4.3 Conclusions ...... 13 4.5 Mammal monitoring ...... 14 4.5.1 Literature review ...... 14 4.5.2 Interview on mammal monitoring ...... 15 4.5.3 Conclusions ...... 16 5. Management Practices to Increase Biodiversity...... 17 5.1 Overview on Management Activities ...... 17 5.1.1 Tree cavities ...... 17 5.1.2 Insect hotel ...... 18 5.1.3 Hedgerows ...... 18 5.1.4 Nesting boxes for birds ...... 19 5.1.5 Canopy openness ...... 20 5.1.6 Grazing ...... 20 5.1.7 Fruit species diversity ...... 20 5.1.8 Pest Control ...... 21 5.1.9 Dead wood and trees...... 21 5.1.10 Log piles ...... 22 5.1.11 Fallen fruit ...... 23 5.1.12 Beekeeping ...... 23

5.1.13 Water Bodies ...... 23 5.2 Analysis on Current Management Practices ...... 24 5.3 Conclusions on Management Practices ...... 25 6. Interpretation of monitoring data ...... 26 6.1 Geo-Information Science...... 27 7. How to use the toolkit ...... 28 8. Synthesis ...... 31 8.1 Discussion ...... 31 8.2 Conclusions ...... 32 8.3 Recommendations ...... 33 9. References ...... 34 10. Appendices ...... 41 10.1 Appendix 1. Potential Indicator Species ...... 41 10.2 Appendix 2. Recommended Vegetation for Hedgerows ...... 46 10.3 Appendix 3. Survey Results ...... 47 10.4 Appendix 4. Management Options ...... 52 10.5 Appendix 5. Stakeholder Analysis ...... 53

1. Introduction In traditional orchards, fruit trees are planted with large distance among them and managed in a less intensive way, without applying any fertilizer and chemical. In general, higher habitat heterogeneity is common in traditional orchards. Due to this the traditional orchard works as a refuge for numerous fruit species (Horak et al., 2013). Herbaceous plants are also grown surrounding the orchard trees and they are managed by mowing or grazing. Traditional orchards are composed of trees with different ages, providing a diverse age structure. This is the result of planting a new tree when an old one dies. A traditional orchard does not only supply fruit, but also supplies food and shelter for a wide range of insects, arthropods, birds, and mammal species. Different species of animals benefit through feeding, nesting, and roosting in traditional orchards. Moreover, different fruit species bloom on the different times that also ensures continuous nectar for honey bees and butterflies. In addition to biodiversity importance, a traditional orchard also has landscape and cultural significance (van Blitterswijk and Baeten, 2006).

Biodiversity refers to the diversity in living organisms in an area (Altieri, 1999). Biodiversity is known to be an important determinant of ecosystem stability and productivity (Tilman et al., 2014). Why is it so important to conserve biodiversity? It has been well proved that biodiversity increases the stability of ecosystem services in the changing environment (Loreau and Mazancourt, 2013). Humans depend to a large extent directly on biodiversity and ecosystem services (Diaz et al., 2006). Ecosystem services are the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being (de Groot et al., 2010 – TEEB D0, Ch 1) Different species can contribute to the protection of soil and water properties, recycle and store nutrients relieving from pollution and ultimately contribute to make a suitable and stable climate. The higher level of biodiversity also helps to maintain ecosystems resilience and assist them to recover from environmental stress like droughts, floods, and deforestation. These are of course general benefits of biodiversity and not specific to traditional orchards. But stable ecosystems, like an orchard, can act as refuges and keep biodiversity levels stable in an area (Simberloff and Abele, 1982). Apart from biodiversity role, traditional orchards also play an important cultural role such as aesthetic, educational and recreational roles.

Loss of biodiversity can lead to the decline of valuable resources which are important for ecosystem resilience (Dunne et al., 2002). Since orchards are usually refuges for many species it is important that these areas are resilient to changes. Therefore, loss of biodiversity is like losing ecosystem productivity, which is important for maintaining the flow of goods and services (Diaz et al., 2006). The loss of traditional orchards, through the intensification of agriculture or abandonment of traditional farming practices, has led to a decline of biodiversity at the European Union level (Benton et al., 2003). During the last decade, traditional agricultural landscapes received special attention in France, Spain, and Germany due to their role in biodiversity conservation at the international level (Mihaela et al., 2016). Recently, the maintenance of traditional orchards in Romania has been proved to be important in supporting biodiversity conservation (Loos et al., 2014). Mihaela et al., (2016) added that maintaining traditional orchards can become an important measure towards developing adaptive strategies under climate change at the global level.

Biodiversity monitoring is the measure of recording the species richness and abundance of the different species to determine whether current activities are benefiting the biodiversity over time (Mackinnon, 1998). There are a lot of monitoring methods nowadays. But they all work with different systems that are often incompatible (Pereira and Cooper, 2006). For instance, when referring to birds there is a global Breeding Bird Survey system, counting bird species and abundances worldwide. For other taxa, a system like this is non-existent and indicator species have to be used (Pereira and Cooper, 2006). The monitoring system has two things to take into consideration. Firstly, the system has to run continuously and for a long period of time. Secondly, the system needs to produce precise monitoring data for analysis (Schmeller et al., 2009). These two requirements lead to the fact that monitoring programs need a lot of manpower to be carried out effectively, which makes a monitoring system very expensive (Cornelis & Hermy, 2004; Tulloch et al., 2013). One of the solutions is to incorporate volunteers, which can reduce the costs greatly (Cohn, 2008; Cooper et al., 2007; Silvertown, 2009; Theobald et al., 2015; Tulloch et al., 2013). Involving volunteers to conduct data collection for scientific research is known as Citizen Science. A project involving Citizen Science should consider certain principles (ECSA, 2015). These principles ensure the validity of a Citizen Science project. The principles also ensure that the volunteers receive credits for their work, feedback on their collection and the results of the research.

Management practices in traditional orchards are different from normal commercial orchards because they focus more in biodiversity rather than fruit harvest. This report introduces a variety of management measures that can improve a high biodiversity status and habitat quality from different aspects. Many measures focus on improving the abiotic circumstances in order to allow for a higher species count; usually by improving habitat heterogeneity (Benton et al., 2003). Pruning, as well as the large distance between trees, are the two most common measures used in managing a traditional orchard. The increasing canopy openness can let more light reach the understory which creates a suitable condition for a species-rich grassland and the insects living in. Meanwhile, as a result of pruning, tree-cavities can be used for many insects even small mammals living on trees. Additionally, after cutting, dead branches can be left and used by insects (Bock et al., 2013). Other measures work directly for biotic factors. Grazing is also a very popular and useful way in the management of traditional orchards. By planned grazing, species richness and abundance of grassland and shrubs can be improved which can also benefit butterflies (Pöyry et al., 2005).

When writing this report we tried to answer two questions: ‘How do you monitor biodiversity in traditional orchards?’ and ‘What management practices have a positive effect on habitat quality?’. This report firstly analysed the current situation of the traditional orchards in the Netherlands. Multiple methods were used with a combination of literature review, a questionnaire on management practices and interviews with experts. Based on the conclusion of this report, a toolkit was produced as a manual instruction. This toolkit consists of step-by- step instructions on monitoring methods, and management advices on how to improve the habitat quality of the orchard. The toolkit supports adaptive management, it is recommended to measure.

2. Methodology

2.1 Literature review and Interviews The literature review was broken up into two parts: (1) monitoring, and (2) management. For the monitoring review, the monitoring subjects were divided into four ‘chapters’. Mammals, birds, insects, and plants. The commissioner asked us to focus on these as they are the most important groups in the orchard in terms of influence on biodiversity. In this review, we researched the different options for biodiversity monitoring for these subjects. This has resulted in a large list of different monitoring methods. For management, literature review was done to raise common practices on how to create, restore, enhance, manage or protect traditional fruit orchard’s habitats.

We’ve also conducted interviews with experts on biodiversity monitoring. These experts were chosen in such a way that all subjects were represented. We have interviewed some experts in different areas including plant monitoring, bird’s observation, camera-based mammal monitoring and insects research. For these interviews, we’ve used a semi-structured set-up. Beforehand we constructed a list of questions and subjects we wanted to have discussed with the expert. During the interview, we would check whether all the subjects were covered. But no rigid course of the interview was made. The conversation was allowed to flow naturally to allow new ideas to enter the conversation.

By combining the findings from the literature study with the findings from the interviews we constructed some preliminary advice for the toolkit.

2.2 Survey among owners The survey we constructed was to map the current management practices among owners of the traditional fruit orchards in the Netherlands. We wanted to get an overview of the management practices to see what the owners in reality practice in their orchard. This also gave us the possibility to identify possible improvements. We acquired contacts of the owners from Rob le Rutte and Otto Vloedgraven. These owners were sent the questionnaire and given a week to fill it in. In total, we sent the questionnaire to 11 owners, of which 9 replied.

The questionnaire we made was based on a similar questionnaire developed in France (Chaillet, 2011). Also, common management practices were taken from (van Blitterswijk and Baeten, 2006). Combining these two sources we made a questionnaire that was suitable for the Dutch traditional fruit orchards.

3. The link between management and Ecosystem Services

Figure 1, model of how management ultimately benefits ecosystem services. Management increases habitat quality, which benefits biodiversity, which stabilises the ecosystem services.

Since human society depends on ecosystem services for a large part of their well-being, it is important to safeguard these services (Loreau and Mazancourt, 2013; Diaz et al., 2006). To maintain these services it is important to keep biodiversity high, as it increases their stability (Loreau and Mazancourt, 2013). To keep biodiversity at a sufficiently high level, a good habitat quality is needed (Tews et al., 2004), for which the right management needs to be applied (Tscharntke et al., 2005). Therefore, to study the relation between management activities and ecosystem services, we propose the phase model that can be seen in figure 1.

Low-intensity agricultural practices increase the habitat quality of agricultural fields. most nature reserves in Europe are not pristine, and human-shaped management is needed to retain this diversity (Tscharntke et al., 2005). Since orchards are also human-shaped areas these conclusions can be used for our case. The greatest threats of agricultural landscapes are intensification on the one hand, and on the other hand succession to pristine conditions (Tscharntke et al., 2005). Management should be focussed on stopping the succession, but should not done in intensive ways.

By stopping the succession to forest or other pristine conditions the habitat quality of these systems is retained. In most cases habitat quality can be identified as the heterogeneity of the system. It has been shown that having a heterogeneous habitat leads to a high biodiversity (Johnson, 2007; MacArthur & MacArthur, 1961; Murdoch et al., 1972). This phenomenon is called the Habitat heterogeneity hypothesis (Tews et al., 2004) and has been used as early as the 1960’s. There is evidence that habitats that are structurally diverse, so different structural elements in the environment, support more species.

But what is the use of having a high biodiversity? As we stated before ecosystem services provide a lot of benefits to human society (De Groot et al., 2010). Through the ecosystem functions human society benefits from the services these functions deliver, see figure 2 for a visualisation of this process. Having an ecosystem with a high biodiversity can provide a stable flow of these services (Díaz et al., 2006)

Figure 2, cascade model of how ecosystem services benefit Figure 3, a model of how biodiversity human society (De Groot et al., 2010) and the sum of ecosystem services (ESL) are linked (De Groot et al., 2010)

Since human activities usually deplete biodiversity the key is to find a balance between using a service and maintaining biodiversity (Tews et al., 2004). For this the model of total ecosystem services and biodiversity can be used (Figure 3). As can be seen from figure 3 applying an extensive form of management leads to a very high sum of ecosystem services. This is because there is a good mix of Provisioning (P), Regulating (R), Cultural recreation (Cr), and Cultural information (Ci). Therefore, extensively managed orchards can prove to be very valuable in the scheme of ecosystem services.

4. Review of possible monitoring systems The analysis of the existing body of knowledge will provide an overview of different monitoring methods for biodiversity. A monitoring system will be proposed combining the existing information with the result of unstructured interviews to monitoring experts of different organizations.

A literature review was carried out focusing on four monitoring subjects present in the traditional orchards, which are: plants, insects, small mammals, and birds.

4.1 Orchard Species List Because it is often hard to monitor every species in the orchard we have made a list of species that are found in orchards. This list will help to identify the species in the orchard and to create focus when searching. Orchard species were searched with the focus only on the Netherlands. Generally, a red list of species in the Netherlands was used. This species is endangered and need extra protection. In some cases, the government will support this protection with money. Also, some organizations’ website was used, to get more in depth information. Then, the selection was made based on the special habitat in traditional orchards. Finally, 3 amphibians species that may occur in a standard tree orchard were selected from the website of the Ministry of Economic Affairs (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2015) and website of RAVON (RAVON, 2015). 18 mammal species were selected based on the habitat requirements from the website of “de Zoogdiervereniging” (Zoogdiervereniging, 2017). 36 bird species were selected from the website of “de Vogelbescherming” (Vogelbescherming, 2017). One selection of “Akkervogel” and “Bosvogel” was made based on birds occurring both in meadows and forests. Another selection was made based on the bird species in standard tree orchards (Vlindernet, 2017). Though the list of Amphibians is included, we did not describe the monitoring system and management practices for this group as it is not the interest of our commissioner at the moment. Insect species are very abundant in traditional orchards in the Netherlands. Totally 124 species were selected based on the various red list for the Netherlands and habitat requirement. List of insects includes bee species, butterflies, mayflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, crickets and stoneflies (Ministry of Economic Affairs, 2015). For plants, indicator species were compiled using herbaceous indicator species from two plant communities related to forested areas and three grassland associations in areas with rich soils. This is because the standard orchards are usually located on these soils and provide a forest habitat with a very well-developed grass cover for the indicator species. However, grass species were removed from the grassland plant communities since they are too difficult to identify and don’t have a very high ecological value compared to flowering plants. The communities used were Pruno-fraxinetum (Vogelkers- Essenbos) and Fraxino-ulmetum (Essen-Iepenbos) (Weeda et al., 2015b). The grassland associations used were Scirpetum sylvatici (Bosbies-associatie), Arrhenatherum eliatoris (Glanshaver-associatie), and Lolio-Cynosuretum (Kamgras-associatie) (Weeda et al., 2015a).

A list of potential indicator species was made as the result showing in the Appendix 1.

4.2 Insect monitoring 4.2.1 Literature review Most of the insect species in the traditional orchard are herbivorous insects, some are omnivores

6 and predators such as ants, wasps, hoverflies, spiders, and ladybirds (Discover your orchard wildlife - People's Trust for Endangered Species, 2017). Monitoring approaches are various depending on different insect species as they have different habitat preference and are active in a different period. According to this, we divided monitoring approaches into three types: monitoring insects in grassland, monitoring insects on trees and monitoring insects in the air. A literature review was done based on the website of “Bring the wild back to life” which have some general knowledge on observing insects and scientific papers. It needs to be noticed that all kinds of monitoring approaches should respect the rule that people need to try to reduce the harm for insects bring by monitoring. After identifying species and counting number, insects should be released to nature.

A specific case of insect monitoring is called Square-metre-project devised by an ecologist Patrick Roper (The Square Metre, 2006). A patch in the orchard needs to be set up. Then, have a look in this patch to check what kind of insects can be found. Then, record all the species and number found in this patch. Normally, the size of this patch is one-metre square but can be adjusted based on the purpose and environment in orchards.

There are three general approaches can be used for all insects which are timed survey walks, manual searching, and visual observation. Timed survey walking is useful for day butterflies, burnet moths, and flower-visiting beetles. Each survey lasted around 10 minutes with different route or direction (Horak, 2014b). Manual searching is very easy to operate as monitoring is done without any device but only eyes and hands. However, it requires a high ability in identifying species. There are some locations that where is more likely to find insects which are under the loose bark, fallen decaying wood, fallen fruit, on the ground below the grass layer and the lidded containers on flowers (Discover your orchard wildlife - People's Trust for Endangered Species, 2017). Visual observation is more suitable for insects on trees, especially for rosy apple aphid. First, sampling a number of trees and clusters on each tree. Then, check the absence or presence on the cluster (D'Yvoireet al., 2016).

Sweeping is a very useful and easy-operated approach as only a stick and canvas needed. This approach is suitable for insects in grassland and air. Sweeping the net over long grass or through the air to catch insects. Then, transfer insects into a lidded container to recognize species and count for abundant (Discover your orchard wildlife - People's Trust for Endangered Species, 2017).

Beating is used for insects on trees, especially for insects in the crown. The key to this approach is that sampling similar branches from sampled trees. It would be more accurate to choose the similar branches with same size and state. In one report, beating approach was used with a white sheet (45 X 45 cm) under the sampled branches. Then, shake the branches or hit with a stick in a similar strength. Insects living on trees will fall down into the white sheet. Check the species and the amount to calculate the abundant (D'Yvoire et al., 2016). Before doing this operation, it’s recommended to check whether there’s a bird nest in the tree.

Pitfall trapping is used for insects that are active on the ground. A beaker or bottle is everything that is needed. Bury the beakers or bottles in the ground and keep the rim equal to ground level to make sure insects can fall into the trap. For the material, smooth glass or plastic is the best

7 choice as insects cannot escape after being trapping (Discover your orchard wildlife - People's Trust for Endangered Species, 2017).

Window traps, flight interception, are used for air beetles and Hymenoptera like bees and wasps. A window trap is constituted by three transparent panels with protective top cover (Horak et al., 2013).

Light trapping and sugaring method can be used for moths and butterflies that are active during the night. Putting a bright light during the night and using a white sheet covering it. Moths will be attracted near the light. Then, take a photo of them for identifying species and abundant (Discover your orchard wildlife - People's Trust for Endangered Species, 2017).

Sampling points for insects monitoring are also based on the habit of insects. Basically, insects monitoring is carried during April till October (Bailey et al., 2010). Day-active insects prefer sunny condition and avoidance of closed forests. Beetles and bees prefer flowering vegetation (Horak, 2014b). For insects habiting on trees, trees are selected with the similar state in height, shape, and species but different distribution in orchards. After that, branches are also selected according to similar state (Bailey et al., 2010).

4.2.2 Interview on insect monitoring To get more insight in the world of insect monitoring we contacted Peter de Jong. He’s working at WUR for the Laboratory of Entomology. The first thing that was mentioned was the fact that the insect group is incredibly diverse. Where the group of plants, mammals, and birds has 150 species at most the group of insects has that number in families. This poses us with the difficulty that the owners will not have the expertise, time, and motivation to do an inventory of insect biodiversity. There is thus a first important question for this part of the monitoring system. Should we restrict the scope of the system? Or should we safeguard the scientific value of the system and maybe use experts for this part of the system? Our preference goes out to the second option. The farmers can then still set up the traps and with photographs send data to the collectives. There an expert should be appointed to identify the different species. It is less efficient than having the farmers identifying the species, but having it done by the farmers is not realistic and this way the scientific value is ensured. It might be beneficial to have contact with organizations like the ‘Vlinderstichting’ or NJN where volunteers might be willing to identify species. Otherwise, an expert has to be hired.

Then for the trapping itself. Since the group of insects is incredibly diverse, one sampling method is not going to cut it. A combination of methods is necessary. Using both pitfall and glue traps results in both the ground dwelling and flying insects to be sampled. A choice should be made on the frequency of measuring. Since these are lethal measuring methods the intensity of measuring shouldn’t be too high. The options are measuring once, but with a high density of traps. Or measuring with a lower density, but three or four times in a row. Probably once is the better option since it restricts the amount of work that has to be done by the owner. Using this method forces us to have a clear protocol on when to set the traps. It is most useful to set the traps on a cloudy day or a day when the weather is changeable. These are the moments when the flying insects are most active. The traps then have to sit for at least 24 hours. It is critical that the traps are out for the same amount of time to allow for comparison between the different

8 sites.

Since a number of different species are so large, it may be useful to construct a list of keystone species. We already have the list of species for this purpose, but nonetheless, it may be useful to run the monitoring system for a few years before starting the management advices. This way there is some kind of a baseline and keystone species can be identified for the different sites. This also allows for a calibration moment to construct a correction factor that accounts for the different catch probabilities that you’re working with when using different trapping methods.

Luckily, insects are not the most difficult to manage. If the orchard has a high heterogeneity in the landscape, the insect biodiversity will also be high. So, having a hedgerow, some structural elements like stone/wood piles, flower strips, bare soil, etc. is a perfect recipe for a high insect diversity (Latham & Knowles 2008) Furthermore, refraining from chemical use is also very beneficial.

4.2.3 Conclusions The main conclusion we came to for monitoring the insect group was that it is not feasible to have it done by the owners because it takes too much time, effort, and expertise. Therefore, we propose to have the owners set up traps, collect the insects, and send photographs to the collectives or other organizations they’re associated with for further identification. This will not result in identification to species level since it takes a very detailed look. Sometimes at the level of looking at reproductive organs to determine the species. But family or order will be doable. We chose for this because if the owners had to do the identification the monitoring would be so restricted that all scientific value would be lost.

The sampling will be done by using pitfall and glue traps. The pitfall traps will account for the ground beetles while the glue traps will sample the flying insects. This way a representative sample will be taken. Using a set protocol will allow for comparison between the different sites.

4.3 Plant monitoring 4.3.1 Literature review Traditional orchards are a combination of trees with large crowns and grassland rich in plant species. More concentration was put on the herbaceous species and some hedge species as these have the most species-rich vegetation constitution.

The main goal, when applying monitoring approaches to these vegetation species, is to measure the change in the species diversity as part of the whole ecosystem (Brakenhielm & Liu, 1995). Even when technology nowadays has brought us the capacity to use remote sensing technology to develop monitoring process of vegetation, field methods continue to be widely used for local monitoring (Godínez-Alvarez et al., 2009). Traditional orchards are permanent plots where the destruction of vegetation for a monitoring process will not be suitable. Instead, it is proposed to develop non-destructive methods to estimate the abundance of a species in an area.

Several ground-based monitoring methods were studied from the literature. A comparison between three common vegetation-monitoring methods: subplot frequency analysis (SF), point- frequency (PF), and visual estimation of percentage cover (VE) was conducted by Brakenhielm

& Liu (1995) in terms of accuracy, precision, and sensitivity. An image analysis technique was carried out with the use of photographs to assess this comparison. Results show that VE and PF are correlated and convertible methods and that VE is the most accurate, precise, and sensitive of the methods in general terms.

Carlsson et al., (2005) conducted later a comparison between two of the mentioned vegetation- monitoring methods: subplot frequency analysis (SF) and visual estimation of percentage cover (VE). A redundancy analysis was conducted to compare the methods instead of a photographic study because photographs were considered to hide the smallest individuals of the study. From this study, it was concluded that SF is a method suitable when the identification of small changes in biodiversity has a priority, and VE was more appropriate for a one-time mapping of a large area (Carlsson et al., 2005).

Both, subplot frequency analysis (SF) and visual estimation of percentage cover (VE), are analyzed as ground-based vegetation-monitoring methods that can be used in traditional fruit orchards, because they are easy to apply for a local vegetation monitoring process, and they can offer the landowners with precise data to measure the changes in biodiversity. The method’s description would be found in the toolkit and it will be based on Goldsmith and Harrison (1976).

Additionally, remote sensing technology can be incorporated to vegetation-monitoring with the use of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). The NDVI is a vegetation index that can measure the variations in vegetation health and density (Kinyanjui, 2011). The index values range from -1 to 1, where positive values represent vegetated zones, higher values indicate healthier and denser vegetation and lower values indicate less vegetation. Minus one (-1) means there is no vegetation cover at all (Yengoh et al., 2015).

The Secretariat of State of the Netherlands had invested over 1.4 million euros to provide farmers with free online satellite information for precision farming (Van Dam investeert 1,4 miljoen in satellite data voor precisielandbouw _ Nieuwsbericht _ Rijksoverheid, 2017). Among this data, farmers can get access to the NDVI of their land for free through pages like www.groenmonitor.nl and www.akkerweb.nl, which could be used by orchard’s owners to monitor the vegetation in their lands.

4.3.2 Interview on plant monitoring We've contacted Baudewijn Odé since FLORON has a lot of experience in using Citizen Science projects for monitoring vegetation throughout the Netherlands. FLORON organizes a lot of projects where volunteers go out in the field and collect data on presence and abundance of plant species. This data is mostly collected by filling in the data in an app called NOVA. This way the data also automatically is transferred to the NDFF database where it is combined with data from other projects. Each project gets its own unique tag so data can be recovered very easily. The NDFF database also automatically checks the data for possible mistakes. If a mistake could have been made, or the reported species is very rare, a message is sent to the person that provided the data to ask for photo evidence of the individual. Then experts can evaluate the sighting. Another feature of this app to set geographic coordinates of the sighting. This can ease the future monitoring. This way one can just go back to the previous sighting place and check whether the plant is still around. It also simplifies a possible transfer between

10 monitorer. Just exchange the geodata and the new monitorer can easily find back the rarer species.

Since the orchards are very small, mostly not even 1 ha, the person doing the monitoring can just walk through the orchard and note down the different species. It is very important in this technique to clearly state the borders of the orchard. The upside to this technique is that it is very easy to do and with some basic training anyone can recognize species quite easily. FLORON organizes regular excursions so motivated orchard owners can go to one of these to expand or refresh their knowledge. Another option is to invite volunteers of FLORON to the orchards. Since these areas are not always open to the public there may be a lot of interest to organize something here. Especially since these orchards may harbour certain species that are not really found outside of the orchard since the surrounding areas may have been converted to intensive farmland. This also gives the farmers the opportunity to learn. Especially because some of these volunteers are trained better than the FLORON experts.

The monitoring should occur between half May and the end of June. In this period most of the plant's flower which makes the identification a lot easier. By walking through the orchard you can just focus on the flowering plant. When using plots or quadrants there will always be vegetative plants. These are a lot harder to identify. For this same reason, we don’t consider it necessary to identify the grass species. These species are very hard to identify for a layman. Grass species also don’t yield a very significant ecological effect. It’s nice if there are a lot of species, but it is no disaster if there are only a few. It is more effective to focus on flowering species since they provide a source of food for the pollinators when the fruit trees have blossomed. So diversity in flowering plants has a higher ecological value than the diversity in grasses. But if a farmer can identify the different grass species he/she is of course always free to do so.

Species presence can be filled in somewhere. An owner can be guided by a list of most common or certain importance species, or just left to his own devices and identify the plants himself. Another option is to construct such a list during the project and include the most occurring ones. in addition to this abundance should be noted. This can be done by using a Braun-blanquet scale, Tansley scale, or an abundance scale constructed by FLORON (Sparrius et al., 2016). These respectively use cover, relative abundance, and a number of individuals.

Since June is also generally the mowing season this should be taken into account when thinking about monitoring. It may seem obvious to do the monitoring before the mowing activities. This is because after mowing all flowers and leaves have been removed which complicates the identification. The last thing about plant monitoring is that it doesn’t have to be done annually. Things don’t change that fast and in general an inventory, every 2-3 years is sufficient to track changes.

4.3.3 Conclusions For plants, the most feasible method of monitoring is to use a visual estimation. for this method, the owner has to walk through the orchard and note down what plant species he/she sees. Since the orchards are mostly quite small this should be very doable and could even be carried out during normal management work. The measuring should be done during the end of May or

June. This is the period when most plants are blooming, which makes the identification of the plant species a lot easier. Make sure that the monitoring is done before any mowing has been done. After mowing all the flowers have gone and identification is very difficult. Using the FLORON abundance scale (Sparrius et al., 2016) we can estimate the number of individuals per species. Or using cover percentages the relative abundance per plant may be estimated. This can only be done under the assumption that the plants have roughly the same size.

4.4 Birds monitoring 4.4.1 Literature review Birds communities are very appropriate to be used as a keystone species and indicators when monitoring changes in the environment (Kajtoch, 2017).

Normally, breeding birds survey is counted during the early April and late May to include all breeders. Kajtoch (2017) used a standard point count technique. This technique is suitable for the traditional orchards in the Netherlands as their size is usually very small. By using the Kajtoch (2017) approach, a point in the centre of orchards is established. Survey is done in the 40m radius point count. Only birds in the wooded area are counted and birds flying above are not. Visiting birds should also be excluded. Bird species which have large territories and active during the night are not counted. But woodpeckers were included despite their home range because this species is very important for woodland (Kajtoch, 2017). Survey should be done in the good weather condition only, without rain or wind, half an hour to three hours after sunrise. Single males and individuals who are mating or breeding were more concerned during the survey.

Another approach for birds monitoring is called Distance Sampling methods. It requires recording the distance between survey line and each bird. This method can tell the density of birds present per hectare. A pair of binoculars and a bird-identification book are needed for observing. Also, the distance between birds and observers need to be estimated and recorded (ARGOS, 2006). Meanwhile, another survey technique called five-minute can be combined with this method, which is just simply counted all birds that are seen or heard over a five-minute period (ARGOS, 2006).

4.4.2 Interview on bird monitoring To enlarge our knowledge on bird monitoring we met with Jan Schoppers from SOVON. SOVON is a Dutch institute researching and monitoring bird populations in the Netherlands. They use a lot of Citizen Science projects to gather their data. They are also heavily involved in the construction of tuintelling.nl. This is a website where different institutes cooperate to make a large database of wildlife monitoring. The idea is that people fill in sightings they did in their backyards. The database is not linked to the NDFF, but in the future, this may happen.

As already said SOVON works a lot with Citizen Science projects and use a lot of volunteers to gather their data. They rely on the masses of data their projects produce to limit the effect of unskilled people. Since there are thousands of entries a single mistake is averaged out over the entire database and doesn’t have a large effect. So there’s no automatic algorithm that checks the data like the NDFF does. But to limit the number of mistakes courses are organized by

SOVON. During these, you get taught on bird recognition. There are also online courses on bird appearances and sounds. These are for free if you register at their site as an observer.

The observers can register their garden at tuintelling.nl, orchards can also be registered as ‘other gardens’, and immediately start filling in their data. It is really easy to find back what you’ve registered. There’s already list made with the most common species complete with pictures to ease the identification process. If an owner still doesn’t know the species he or she can post a picture on the social section of the website (like on Facebook) and ask for help with the identification. This way the network between owners can help the monitoring system and can start the discussion on management among owners.

In the talk with Jan Schoppers two methods of observation came forward as suitable for the project. Both are visual observations. The first is to apply weekly measurements. This method means that an owner records all the birds he/she sees in an entire week. This can be done every week but is not necessary. This method is really strong in mapping biodiversity. It produces a lot of data but is not really standardized since not all owners are in their orchard for equal amounts of time. This means that the data cannot be compared. If the goal is to compare between the orchards a point count is better. This method entails that the owner will be present in their orchard for a set time, for example, 30 minutes, and note down all birds they see. This produces less data, but the data can be compared. Probably a mix between monthly measures and point measures is the way to go.

We also shortly discussed management measures that are favourable to bird populations. The most obvious was the placement of nest boxes. Not only does this increase the number of nesting sites. Birds also seem to prefer these boxes over natural tree cavities. Furthermore, the use of chemicals should be avoided. The presence of hedges is very beneficial. Smaller birds can hide in it and others can search for food. Water bodies attract birds through increased insect availability, but also for bathing and drinking. If the grass cover is mowed it is advised to apply phased mowing. This way there is a mix of growing grass and mature grass with seeds. This supports a diverse insect life and provides food through seeds for the birds.

4.4.3 Conclusions For birds, a combination of point count and week count can be used. The data of the point count can be included in the week count. So by carrying out a point count an owner can also collect data for the week count. The point counts allow the owners and collectives to compare between orchards. it is also a really easy form of monitoring. The week counts can generate more data about the biodiversity, but this data cannot be compared between the orchards, because of the different people invest in week counting. Both these monitoring systems can be entered very easily in the tuintelling website. We propose to work together with tuintelling and SOVON for this part of the monitoring. Tuintelling has a really handy portal to fill in the monitoring data and can assist in monitoring and identification. The cooperation with SOVON will especially be on education. Orchard owners may be interested in the courses that SOVON offers, both the in the field and online courses can be really handy in developing the monitoring system.

This system can also be applied in the monitoring of bats. Then it is necessary to carry out the measurements in the evening when the bats are active.

4.5 Mammal monitoring 4.5.1 Literature review For observing mammalian species there are different techniques. Different techniques have different species or groups of mammals which they are most suitable to. In this part of literature overview, a variety of measuring methods will be illustrated.

Toms et al., (1999) analysed the possibilities to set up a mammal monitoring program in the UK. For this, they listed the pros and cons of different monitoring systems. They came up with 3 main systems that may be applicable to our subject: Sign transects, Mammals on nature reserves, and Garden mammal watch. The sign transects method consists of walking along a set transect and observing mammals and their traces. Benefit of using this system is that animals which are difficult to be spotted may be monitored through their traces. It also directly monitors abundance. For traces, there should be a known relation between the signs and traces, but this is still quite straightforward (Toms et al., 1999). Downsides of this system are that basic identification skills are needed. So, some form of education programs may be needed before the system can be started. Furthermore, the field signs may be difficult to separate to species and the system may be stuck at general identification because of subjectivity. In addition, the searching methods may different species and it may be difficult to combine these when running the transects (Toms et al., 1999). A possibility to ease the trace finding is to run the transects in winter (Newman et al., 2003). Traces are more visible in this period (Flowerdew et al., 2004). However, some species are hibernating and applying this technique might result in missing these animals.

Mammals on nature reserves mean that the wardens of nature reserves report animal observations. If we regard the orchards as nature reserves this system can be copied almost exactly. However, the downside is that the owners are not in their orchard as much as the wardens in their nature reserve.

The last system is the Garden mammal watch. This is a classic example of Citizen Science. Homeowners are asked to report all the species they see in their backyard. Pros of this system are that since gardens are everywhere it covers a significant part of the habitat. It also encourages scientific participation of the public. A downside of the system is that it focusses on a very specific habitat. But since we’re interested in a specific habitat, namely a standard tree orchard, this downside may be an upside for orchard mammal monitoring. Combined with the Mammals on nature reserve system, this may be a very promising system.

For the actual observation techniques, different methods focus on a different species or group of species For example, live capturing is focused on small mammals (Newman et al., 2003). This technique can only be applied if the volunteers have had some education on how to set traps and handle the animals. Most volunteers need about 3 or 4 demonstrations before they’re capable of setting traps on their own (Flowerdew et al., 2004). Another technique is to apply camera traps in the area. With a capture-recapture analysis done on the footage it can also directly estimate densities without disturbing the animals (Sanderson and Trolle, 2005). These techniques provide a very direct evidence of population numbers through capture-recapture techniques. But some animals are too large to capture or too dangerous to let it be done by

14 volunteers. So, for these animals different techniques are necessary. One of these techniques is the counting on animal droppings (Flowerdew et al., 2004). In this paper, the technique was described as counting all animal droppings in a 10mx10m quadrant. This technique can give an indirect indication of the density, but it might be difficult to identify the species. For this often an expert is required. Especially if the focus of a research is on multi-species monitoring (Flowerdew et al., 2004).

Some last findings are from Harris and Yalden (2004). They reasoned that when a habitat type could be linked to the abundance of a certain species, this habitat type could be used as an indicator of the species abundance. However, this is very sketchy, they provided the example of linking dormouse to hazel trees. People were able to link dormouse abundance to hazel tree occurrence. This led to the assumption that in areas where hazel trees were not present, dormouse should also be absent. However, this was not necessarily the case (Harris and Yalden, 2004). They also stressed the need for continuity. It is very important to keep the methods of monitoring the same over prolonged periods of time. This is to make sure that all data can be used in the analysis in order to track changes in abundance.

4.5.2 Interview on mammal monitoring This interview was conducted in the context of mammal monitoring. Yorick Liefting was contacted because of his expertise with mammal monitoring using camera traps. He is employed at Wageningen University at the Resource Ecology Group as a research technician. He also manages the agouti application, an application that automatically analyses camera trap data.

One of the first things that became apparent in this talk was that application of camera traps is the most reliable method of surveying mammals. Because most mammals are quite shy they will leave when they notice a human entering the area. This makes direct sightings very difficult, also since some mammals like mice are very small and can hide well. A way to circumvent this problem is by analysing indirect evidence like tracks, scat, and faeces. In order to accurately assign these traces is, however, a very expertized skill. Therefore it is unlikely that we can train the owners to accurately do this. And even when done by a professional the interpretation is still subjective and open to discussion. Camera footage, however, provides a very clear and direct evidence of the animal being present.

Yorick was contacted because of his work in the backyard project where people place camera traps in their backyard to monitor what animals occur there. Even though the protocol is designed for backyards we can copy the set-up almost entirely. This protocol consists of 4 steps: inventory, placement, collection, and analysis.

In the inventory, an expert visits the plot to get familiar with the surroundings. During this period he will make a first estimation of the possibly occurring species, good placement spots for the camera’s, and whether the owner will need further assistance.

The trap placement is the next step. the cameras that Yorick Liefting advised was the model Reconyx HC500. These cost around ~€500, but work for at least a decade. The cameras are placed on representative spots facing north to reduce the effect of the infrared sunlight. This is important since these traps work with infrared light. Yorick estimated that for an orchard about

2-4 cameras would be needed per hectare. These will then have to operate for 3-4 weeks. Combining a camera trap with an attractant ensures that all the mammals in the neighbourhood will have been photographed at least once. In the backyard project, a tin of sardines was used with some holes poked into it to release the scent. Using this method a presence/absence analysis can simply be done. Every animal present will be photographed, so what’s not photographed can be assumed to be absent.

After placement, the cameras are left for 3-4 weeks. When using two cameras an alternative can be to use one camera and move it after the 3-4 weeks and run the monitoring again. After this observation period, the footage is uploaded and analysed. The WUR uses the agouti application for this. This application automatically analyses the camera footage. This saves a lot of time and reduces the number of errors since this task is too tedious for humans to carry out. This application can also be used by external parties, but there is a price tag on it.

For a continuous monitoring program the way we envision it, it might be interesting to do multiple measurements a year. For example doing a measurement in every season can give very nice results in comparing fluctuations within and between years.

A last important thing to consider is the surroundings of the orchards. When an orchard is surrounded by heavily managed farmland the orchard will never reach high biodiversity levels. To correct for this it is important to create a buffer zone around the orchard and calculate the ration between suitable and unsuitable habitat. This way a correction factor can be incorporated into the analyses. When making this buffer zone it is important to consider the home ranges of the different species.

4.5.3 Conclusions For the mammal monitoring, we propose to use camera traps. This is because most mammals are very shy and visual observations will most often not occur. usage of traces could then be used, but this is very subjective and can give rise to discussions. Using a setup with camera traps and an attractant can monitor all the present mammals and a presence/absence analysis can be carried out. unfortunately determining population numbers from camera footage is expert work and may be overambitious for this system.

For the monitoring of bats, the method for the bird monitoring should be used. In the case of nest boxes, it can be checked whether these boxes are actually used.

The data from this system can also be entered in tuintelling.nl. If the agouti application is used to automatically analyses the camera footage the data will also be stored in the NDFF database where it can be requested for further analyses purposes. Camera footagefor theAgouti application can be uploaded at tuintelling.nl/wildcamera.

5. Management Practices to Increase Biodiversity

5.1 Overview on Management Activities This part provides an overview of management practices that can be applied in creating, restoring, enhancing, managing or protecting natural orchard habitats and thus contribute to enhance habitat quality and the improvement of biodiversity in the traditional orchards. Scientific literatures have been reviewed to assess the feasibility of each selected option for enhancement of the targeted species. Emphasis is given to mammals, birds, insects and plants which are the current interest of our commissioner. However, not all the measures described are specific to one kind of living organism but can create or enhance many habitats. For example, hedgerows or tree cavities that can support a wide range of invertebrates, small mammals, birds and reptiles. We chose to not discuss the management measures separately for each family of species to avoid repeating the management practices several times. Instead, we explain under each management option which families of species the particular management is suitable for and in appendix 4.

5.1.1 Tree cavities Recently a study by Bock et al., (2013) indicated that tree-cavities are important winter roost- sites for many wildlife since many animals are in woody habitats and are cavity users. Grüebler et al., (2013) reported a number of factors related to management practices of traditional orchards that can lead to cavity formation in traditional orchards which are tree age, varieties, pruning characteristics, and presence of woodpecker-cavities. Apple trees often form cavities already at their young ages with small trunk diameters compared to other fruit tree species. Traditional orchard owners might find it beneficial to include a high proportion of Apple trees with many young trees to increase chance for cavities formation in traditional orchards. Pruning characteristics are also important management in the occurrence of decay-cavities. Grüebler et al., (2013) found that the presence of decay-cavities was positively related to the number of removed main branches (i.e. primary main branches radiating from the trunk of a fruit tree). Pruning wounds between 5 and 10 cm diameter often do not lead to the occurrence of decay- cavities as discoloration is rarely induced (Dujesiefken and Stobbe, 2002). Pruning management particularly that involving larger diameters affect inoculation of heart rot because they are exposed to the environment for long time thus giving room for entrances of decay fungi and therefore influence the formation of decay-cavities (Grüebler et al., 2013). To increase biodiversity in the traditional orchards, it is not only recommended to preserve the existing cavity trees but also selective removal of large branches from fruit trees to establish high cavity densities. The presence of woodpecker-cavities was another important factor for the formation of decay tree-cavities identified by Grüebler et al., (2013), trees with woodpecker-cavities were found to have increased probability of having decay cavities compared to trees without woodpecker-cavities. Meanwhile, creating attractive environment for woodpecker birds can help to accelerate the formation of decay-cavities in traditional orchards. Grüebler et al., (2013), also found positive relationship of occurrence of the decay cavities with the age and the trunk diameter at breast height (dbh) of the fruit trees. This study also proved that removing dead or broken main branches improves the formation of large decay-cavities in the tree trunk.

5.1.2 Insect hotel Insects are an important functional community in traditional orchards to maintain biodiversity. Insects species, as well as their natural enemies, require shelter from environmental hazards like cold, rain, wind, heat and pesticide environment (Rodriguez-Saona et. al., 2012) (Figure 4). Accessibility of appropriate habitats enhances resting, foraging, and overwintering or nesting of insects. In addition, a wide variety of arthropods such as spiders, caterpillars, tree crickets, sawflies, weaver ants, trips and beetles, use plant foliage to build their domiciles, on which they live for all or a part of their life cycle. However, in traditional fruit orchards in Netherlands, there are no leaves and flowers during the winter season. So, there is a possibility to lose some species, especially winter sensitive species. Artificial shelter can be created to provide them with shelter within the orchards. The wooden structures within the insect hotel provide a suitable microclimate, thus protecting insects from extreme temperature variations (Étilé, 2011).

Figure 4. Artificial insect hotel in the traditional fruit orchard

Source: (Porcel & Swiergel, 2016)

5.1.3 Hedgerows Hedgerows growing on the sides of the orchard play an important role in biodiversity conservation and agroecosystem functioning (Miñarro & Prida, 2013). Species-rich hedgerows can offer suitable habitat for invertebrates. Hedgerows are places for alternative hosts as well as prey for natural enemies in the absence of the pest (Wratten et al., 2012). Besides that, hedgerows offer plant species that bloom and it can act as a food source for insect species. Maintaining diversity of perennial plant species in the borders provides different flower times and host areas, which is beneficial to invertebrate diversity. The flowering plants in the hedge are a source of pollen and nectar, which is very essential for survival and reproduction of many insect species such as pollinators, predators and parasitism (Holzschuh et al., 2012; Laubertie et al., 2012). In perennial crops, such as fruit orchards, there may be a continuous succession of floral resources available in the groundcover and the surrounding hedgerows throughout the growing season. In the period of pesticides application in the orchard, hedge rows support invertebrate predators. Hedgerows also protect butterflies from heavy wind speed and allow their maximum activity.

In many studies it is highlighted that the presence of hedgerows not only acts as effective ecological corridors, but they can also function as habitats for different species. Particularly for small mammals and birds. Hedgerows assist access to resources or habitat that might else be too unsafe or remote for colonization (Silva & Prince, 2008). In addition, during winter they can also provide winter cover for non-hibernator tiny mammals. Bats are known to use linear structures within the landscape to cross between their roosting spots, feeding grounds and will follow tree lines or hedgerows (Verboom, 1998). The base of the hedge offers shelter for woodland mice, bank voles and shrews, which acquires its name because of its link with hedge banks. Bigger mammals for example, stoats, badgers and hedgehogs also use hedges for food and shelter. The list of plant species suitable for hedge or border rows are given in the (Appendix 2).

5.1.4 Nesting boxes for birds Cavity nesting birds use the pre-existing cavities as their nesting sites (Figure 5). These cavities may be natural or formed as a result of excavation by other birds like woodpeckers or other animals that are primary cavity dwellers which use the cavities they make themselves for nesting. Natural cavities can occur when a tree is damaged due to diseases or harsh weather condition (Pierce, 2014). When such cavities are missing or are insufficient in the orchard it may lead to the decline of cavity nesting bird species. Habel et al., (2015) reported that biodiversity of cavity-nesting birds can be improved by simple and convenient measures like the installation of nesting boxes. The results of Habel et al., (2015) in Southwest and Central Luxembourg showed that the conservation of the nocturnal birds, Athene noctua could be supported with the installation of nesting boxes in high stem orchards where the population of A. noctua found to increase as a result of installation of nesting boxes in the study area. In the United States, providing artificial nesting site was also found to be very important in improving the biodiversity of cavity nesting birds. The research conducted by Katzner et al., (2005) indicates that the use of bird nest boxes enhanced populations of Pennsylvania birds.

Maintaining bird diversity in the fruit orchard is very important. They provide important ecosystem services, such as control of insects, dispersal of seed and nutrient deposition (Sekercioglu, 2006). They contribute greatly to reduce the frequency and amount of insecticide application in the orchards through eating insect as their food. Although an orchard already acts as a refuge for a mixture of species circumstances can always be improved. Nest boxes can contribute a lot for this. Especially in terms of breeding prospects and shelter in early winter, improving survival rates for wintering birds.

Different management practices can be used to optimize habitats of traditional orchards for birds conservation depending on the targeted species. The research conducted by Habel et al., (2015) in Southwest and Central Luxembourg gives insight on how the traditional orchards habitat can be manipulated to increase nocturnal birds. The results of Habel et al., (2015) suggest that the conservation of the nocturnal birds, A. noctua can be supported with the installation of nesting boxes in high stem orchards. The population A. noctua was found to increase as a results of installation of nesting boxes in the study area.

Figure 5. Nesting boxes for bird in the traditional orchard (La biodiversité dans les vergers haute-tige, 2011).

5.1.5 Canopy openness Horak (2014a) showed that increasing the level of canopy openness (sun exposure) of traditional orchards could increase species richness of saproxylic beetles (Eucnemis capucina, Ptinus rufipes, and Scolytus mali) while Hylesinus fraxini species was positively associated with a greater proportion of deciduous woodlands in the surroundings of the orchards. Management practices involving opening the canopy of the fruit trees like pruning, and reasonable spacing of the fruit trees may be of importance to optimize habitat for improving biodiversity of these insect species.

5.1.6 Grazing Management of grasses and shrubs in traditional orchards are important for controlling herbaceous and woody weeds. An effective grazing regime can be used as a management tool for controlling weeds in traditional orchards to improve the health of the trees and the habitats quality for increasing species biodiversity. For example, Bubová et al., (2015) found that proper grazing is one of the most effective methods known to improve the quality of habitats for many butterfly species. However, grazing should be appropriately planned, which means considering number of livestock units per area unit, grazing period and types of grazing animals (Pöyry et al., 2005). For example, a generally agreed rule is that the optimal grazing intensity should be less than that 0.5 livestock units (Konvicka et al., 2008). The method of grazing also is an important factor. Because, continuous grazing in the same place in the orchard can also destroy the ground cover and can reduce species diversity. The manure produced by grazers can increase number and activity of dung beetle in the Grazing can help with controlling the structure and composition of ground cover of orchards. (Hutton & Giller, 2003). Burgess (1999) suggested that the introduction of silvopastoral (trees and pasture) systems can lead to an increase in the diversity of invertebrates and perhaps birds on grassland farms (Burgess, 1999).

5.1.7 Fruit species diversity A traditional orchard with diversified fruit species supports a good extent of biodiversity level. Fruit blossom begins in early March with different varieties flowering throughout spring. Fruit

20 ripening time also varies between varieties, they are generally grouped into early, mid and late season varieties. Planting a diversity of trees means that orchard will be a source of nectar, pollen and fruit for longer period in one year. For example, plums will flower in March, pears in April and most of the apples flower in May. Diversified vegetation species increases abundance and activity of natural enemies like predators and parasitoids and enhances biological pest control (Brown, 2001). Besides, the longevity or fecundity of some species may also be increased (Irvin et al., 2006). In addition, distance within the trees or tree density should maintain properly. Although, the density of fruit trees varies from species to species but it is necessary to maintain because it contribute a lot to conserve biodiversity of the orchard.

5.1.8 Pest Control Use of pesticides and chemical fertilizer in the fruit orchard has an adverse effect on most of the components of orchard. Due to host-tree fixity pests and diseases may exist in the orchard all over the year (Simon et al., 2010). Pesticides causes loss of habitat and contribute to the reduction of plant and animal biodiversity in the ago system (Krebs et al., 1999). Especially within the insect community in an orchard it creates an imbalance. Due to insecticides application in the orchard, natural enemies of insect pest become affected more than the harmful insect. As a result, harmful insect community establishment becomes easier to the orchard. Besides, pesticides kill bees and other pollinating insects in the orchard. Application of chemical herbicides to control weed species in the ground cover of the orchard also detrimental for other plant species and even some invertebrates. Continuous application of chemical herbicides causes permanently disappearance of some sensitive plant species from the orchard. Finally, it ultimately breaks down the food chain of the orchard ecosystem and causes biodiversity loss of the orchard. If it is necessary to control pest in the traditional fruit orchard, the biological control is a good option to keep the harmful pest below the threshold level less or without affecting habitat quality of a traditional fruit orchard.

5.1.9 Dead wood and trees In traditional fruit orchards, the dying of trees and plantation of new trees is a continuous process. Usually the owner of the orchard removes the dead trees before planting a new fruit tree on that area to fill up the gap. In addition, during the practice of pruning, dead branches are removed from the tree. But these dead and dried tree parts can provide good shelter or habitat for some functional community. Dead wood and dry wood remaining in the fruit trees of the traditional orchard can improve the habitat quality for insects, birds, bats and mammals and improves the biodiversity (Figure 6). In the dead wood, the above ground nesting species make hole by wood-boring insects (Steffan-Dewenter & Leschke, 2003). Mainly predators and pollinators like wasp and bees take residence on dried wood. Both of them are important functional group as because bees reflect floral and wasps insect and spider diversity in the traditional fruit orchard. Some saproxylic species of invertebrates depends on dead or decayed wood with amalgamation of wood decaying fungal species (Dubois et al., 2009). The standing dead trees also provide shelter for many small mammals species. Dead trees within the orchard increases bird density because of many holes that can support as roosting sites and rich resources of food (Myczko et al., 2013). Instead of removing dead trees from the orchard, it is better to plant new trees just beside the dead trees. If the branches give too much shade to the

21 newly planted fruit sapling then some branches can be removed. This practices really can contribute a lot to improve the biodiversity of traditional fruit orchard.

Figure 6. Supporting birds and mammals by dead trees remaining in the orchard

Source: (Pennsylvania Game Commission, 2016 & (Henry Johnson, 2010)

5.1.10 Log piles Fallen logs/deadwood retained on the orchard and piled rotting timbers offer a valuable habitat for mammals and many invertebrates (Latham & Knowles, 2008). Many mammals and all saproxylic invertebrate species use or depend on decaying or dead wood (Dubois et al., 2009). Horak (2014a) also reported that high number of saproxylic species were associated with old dead wood. Orchard owners therefore can enhance habitat quality for biodiversity improvement in their orchards by retaining the fallen and/or rotting logs resulting from dead old fruit trees. As an alternative, they can make stacking of rotting timber or cut logs to form a refuge or hibernation sites to compensate for loss in habitat area for these animals (Carlin et al., 2010). Where to locate these hibernation sites for optimal maximization of habitat potential for invertebrate and other animal? Refuges must be placed in a number of locations in the orchards targeting areas with shady spots as many species of invertebrate prefer refuges placed within shades (Carlin et al., 2010) except those specifically aimed for reptiles those must have south- facing banks to offer opportunity to bask in the sun. Moreover, the location must be sheltered to avoid frost pockets and areas vulnerable to flooding (Carlin et al., 2010). On freely draining soils, the material can be dug into a depression of about 0.5m deep (Hayes & Whitehurst, 2001). Lastly, it is advised that log piles plus other refuges should not be placed or created where there are already have good quality as there is less likely that the targeted species need to use artificial habitat sources, and thus the added value of enhancing a habitat may be lost (Carlin et al., 2010). Cuttings resulted after pruning also can be strategically placed within the orchards for the same purposes rather than burning them within the orchard. If the owner have facility to collect some big stones and can be placed in the orchard in heap to serve more or less same function as compile of wood (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Compile of wood, pruned plant part and stone

Source:(La biodiversité dans les vergers haute-tige, 2011)

5.1.11 Fallen fruit Fruit falling from the trees is a common phenomenon in a traditional fruit orchard. The owner of an traditional orchard can optimize his orchard habitat by leaving some of the fallen fruits. When fruits are left on the ground, an important autumn and winter food source are provided for a range of wildlife, which help them to survive the winter. Frugivorous birds and mammals often eat on fallen fruit in the orchard (Corlett, 1996). Fallen fruits create natural larder that attract species like butterflies, birds, moths, mammals and bees.

5.1.12 Beekeeping Bees are efficient pollinators in the fruit orchard. They can extract honey from flower of the fruit trees as well as other flowering herb in the ground. Cultivation of honey bees not only give outcomes with honey but also enhance fruit setting of the trees through enhancing pollination.

5.1.13 Water Bodies Water bodies like small lakes or ponds play an important ecological role and ecosystem services (Céréghino et al., 2014). The hedge or trees on the bank of lakes supports more suitable habitat for to birds, bats, amphibians, reptiles and terrestrial invertebrates particularly dragonflies and damselflies (Winfield, 2009). Davies et al., (2016) proposed that overgrown ponds offer higher habitat heterogeneity and this is preferred by some woodland bird species. Most of the frogs and toads are associated water bodies during breeding as well as nonbreeding periods of their life cycle. In addition, some mammals like shrews, moles, mice, rats, lemmings, and voles also get support from waterbodies (Winfield, 2009).

5.2 Analysis on Current Management Practices We developed surveys on current management practices of traditional fruit orchards and we sent to 11 orchards owners around Wageningen and IJssel region in the Netherlands. Out of these 11 owners 9 responded. The survey was conducted to know the current scenario of management practices and to compare them with reviewed scientific literature to provide an effective management advices to improve biodiversity of traditional fruit orchard. The results of this survey can be seen in Appendix 3.

Based on the survey results, we concluded that the orchard’s owners perform a number of management practices required to enhance habitats to optimize biodiversity. However, biodiversity in their orchards may still be low if these managements practices are done inappropriately. In the toolkit (the secondary product we produced to be used by the orchard owners) the management part will explain how the practices can be carried out properly and might refer the owner to a website where he can find more information about how to carry out a particular management practice appropriately.

A more detailed analysis of the results shows how some performed practices can be better applied to improve biodiversity. Mowing, for example, is a practice performed by all the interviewed owners, without the acknowledgment that it can reduce the number of plant species in the grass cover. Results on grazing showed that the activity is made with the use of different animals (pigs, cows, sheep, and horses) depending on the personal preferences of the owner, but consideration on the type of animals is important to improve biodiversity. Removing dead trees from the orchards is common among owners too, nonetheless, there is a higher opportunity to increase biodiversity when these trees are left within their land. Regarding border pants, most of the owners communicate that they don’t have flowering plants within these elements, which can support a wide range of pollinating insects, like butterflies or bumblebees, when applied. In the case of artificial structures, such as bird nests or insect hotels, orchard’s owners have communicated to use some of them individually, but a combination of these elements can provide better results for different communities. Some owners indicated that they have a wide variety of different fruit tree species within their orchards, without the acknowledgment that this practice is important for biodiversity that depends on different flowering periods.

We got a good overview of the practises that owners conduct in their orchard and if we compare it to all the possibilities that we found in the literature we can find room for improvement. But we have to keep in mind that the management in the orchards involves some personal choices and more than one solution is possible.

5.3 Conclusions on Management Practices On the previous section of this report we highlighted several management options that could potentially be applied in traditional fruit orchards, to optimize habitats and improve biodiversity of species. Emphasize has been put on the managements practices that are suitable to optimize biodiversity of mammals, plants, arthropods, and birds, which is in the current interest of the commissioner of the project. In this report, we’ve discussed each management option separately. However, it is likely that applying a group of these measures, that are appropriate to particular situations or orchards, would be the most effective approach. The management practices discussed can be implemented together and can generate heterogeneity of habitats, that is, significant for improvement of orchard biodiversity. We discussed also the creation of additional habitat features that orchards owners can apply if they think that can add advantages to the existing habitats. We is emphasize that the high heterogeneity of habitat is the better. It is common to most farmers that the practice of controlling pest and diseases using pesticides threatens biodiversity. However, in this report we do not describe how traditional orchard owners can deal with the pests and diseases without using these chemicals as we assume that there will be the balance of nature. If it is necessary, natural insecticides and organic pesticides can be applied to lower down pests and diseases. The diversity of the certain species also depends on the surrounding of the orchard. For example, orchard surrounded by a forest have a larger chance to have a higher biodiversity compared to orchard surrounded by agricultural fields.

6. Interpretation of monitoring data Biological data needs to be processed and analysed. Otherwise the use of a monitoring system is gone. This is however a very complicated manner and a question to which there are many answers. There are a couple of ways to process the data to come to a biodiversity estimation. Each with their own strong points and downsides.

The first step in the processing is to digitise and store the data. We can use apps similar to NOVA and Agouti, constructed by FLORON and the WUR respectively. NOVA sends the data to the NDFF database where an algorithm checks for anomalies. The agouti application identifies species on camera footage automatically. This step is quite easy and the only question is what the right system to use is. Since we’re working with different monitoring systems it might be nice to develop an app where you can enter the data of all the different monitoring systems into one database, or if this is too ambitious cooperate with an existing project like NDFF or tuintelling.

Then comes the difficult part. The actual interpretation of the data. When we have a big pile of data we need some way of analysing it before we can use the data in the decision making process. If we want to know the biodiversity of an orchard there are a few options to consider. The simplest way is to simply use species count. This is very straight forward, doesn’t need any difficult equations, and can be explained quite easy. At the end, it will give us information about the amount or abundance of each species present in the orchard, which is important for to acknowledge to understand the maintenance of different ecosystem services.

The second option is a bit more complicated. This option is to use some kind of a biodiversity index. There are also multiple indexes to work with, but we propose to use the Shannon-Weaver index. This is quite a simple index that’s also very well-known in the ecological community (Spellerberg and Fedor, 2003). This index also takes abundances into account. This way a system where one or two species dominate is considered less diverse than a system where the number of species is equal, but all also have comparable abundances. The more scientific approach may also give the system a bit more credibility. A downside to this system is that rarity of a species does not have an effect on the index

The third option does take rarity into account. This option is applying some form of a Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) on your biodiversity data. In this analysis every species gets a value based on its conservation status. An example can be seen in Table 1. In the MCA the amount of sightings is multiplied with the weight of the species. This way a weighted average can be made for the biodiversity in the orchard. Upside of this system is that threatened species contribute to the value more than common species. Downside is that the number of species doesn’t contribute. So, when using this system we propose to also incorporate the number of species in the orchard.

In order to effectively evaluate the biodiversity in the area we propose not only to calculate the indexes for the total biodiversity, but also the index per group. So, in the end there will be five values total, birds, plants, insects, and mammals. This way it is clear how biodiversity is distributed. For example, whether there is a high insect diversity, but mammal diversity is

26 lagging behind. This allows the orchard’s owner to effectively adapt his management to the biodiversity needs.

The end goal of the system is to set targets that the owners need to reach. For this first a baseline has to be set. This can be done by the monitoring system itself. But in order to do this the system has to run for a few years first. Then the most common species can be identified and the average number of species in an orchard can be determined. When this information has been acquired target values can be set. Targets can be set by the collectives in consultation with the owners or by the government.

Table 1. Example of assigning weights to species for an MCA.

IUCN Status Weight in MCA Least Concern 1 Conservation Dependent 2 Near Threatened 3 Vulnerable 4 Endangered 5 Critically Endangered 6

6.1 Geo-Information Science The use of Geo-Information Science (GIS) is very important in this project. Biodiversity in the orchard depends greatly on the surrounding land use. If the surrounding area consists of intensive agriculture the biodiversity will be lower in the orchards than in the grasslands and forest.

There are a few ways to incorporate GIS functionality into the monitoring. The first one is using Landsat or LGN7 (LandGebruikskaart Nederland) data. This data can be processed with ArcGIS. A buffer zone has to be constructed around the orchard. The size of this zone depends on the species we’re concerned with, but in general a radius of 3.5km can be used. His corresponds to an area of 12.25 km2. This is far larger than the home range of the fox and is the largest mammalian home range (Harris and McAllister, 1988). Making a zonal histogram for this area the proportion of suitable habitat can be estimated. In this project suitable habitat is classified as forest, nature areas, or grassland. Unsuitable habitat is intensive agriculture, urban areas, and similar low biodiversity areas. The proportion of suitable habitat can be used as a factor when estimating the potential biodiversity in the orchard.

Another application that can be used is boerenbunder.nl. This is a site showing the history of agricultural fields. Here the surrounding agricultural fields can be selected and the land use per year is shown since 2009. This can also give an indication of the possible biodiversity. If a neighbouring field has been used intensively in the past it is unlikely that it will yield high biodiversity.

7. How to use the toolkit The toolkit consists of two parts. A monitoring system, and a management advice based on the outcome of the monitoring system. These two components work together in a continuous cycle (Figure 8). This way a cycle of adaptive management can be implemented. The monitoring system shows what parts of biodiversity are lagging behind. Then management can be adapted to this and the monitoring system can be used to check whether the additional measures have any effect.

Figure 8. Components of the toolkit

The monitoring system consists of 4 parts. Plants, mammals, birds, and insects. For each group of animals we’ve written a protocol (Figure 9) to register both the number of species and the abundance per species. Using this data an index can be calculated and used to easily see where the biodiversity is lowering the average of the orchard. Then using the ‘Management Options’ table (Appendix 4), you can easily see what management measures can increase the biodiversity of that particular group. The management part consist an overview of management practices to enhance orchard habitat to improve their value to biodiversity, restore degraded orchard habitats and prevent negative impacts to orchard habitats (Figure 10). We gathered the information from different scientific published literature and we put emphasis on measures/options. The information is derived from evidence based practices measures, or options derived from evidence-based practice in European countries. Continuously running the monitoring program allows you to track the changes in biodiversity and gives you as an owner insight in the effect of your management. But please keep in mind that nature takes some time and it might take a couple of years before animals and plants react to a change in management.

Figure 9. Monitoring protocol

Figure 10. Management practices

8. Synthesis

8.1 Discussion One of the main questions we ran into during this project was on how to integrate the data from very different systems into one database. How can one compare the data acquired through different measurement techniques? We think that by using the application of tuinteling.nl this problem is solved. This application allows the owners to easily enter their sightings. It is then also stored on a safe place. The camera footage for the Agouti application can be uploaded at the tuintelling website. This centralises the entering of the data and makes the data collection a lot easier. Agouti data is also stored at the NDFF database where it can be retrieved very easily. At the moment there is no cooperation between the tuintelling and the NDFF databases. But who knows what the future holds? When these two databases would be combined it would open possibilities to enter agouti-data to tuintelling accounts automatically. This will greatly increase the usability of both applications.

If the data is stored in the same database and the data is tagged correctly it can be really easy to request the data corresponding of the standard tree orchards. This can allow the right people to get the data and analyse it for further biodiversity research.

Another concern of ours was the competence level of the owners. These are not experts, but still are expected to know about the different species and to be able to register and report the data. Luckily there are a lot of monitoring institutes in the Netherlands, each with their own speciality. They all organise classes on species recognition. Some, like SOVON, even online. These classes can be very helpful. In some cases there may also be a possibility for cooperation between the owners and the institutes, resulting in a class being given in one of these orchards.

A last concern is the time it takes for management to have an effect. It cannot be expected that when management is changed that the changes in biodiversity are clearly visible the next year or season. It takes time. That’s also the reason that for plants a monitoring every 2-3 years is enough. But how long does it actually take before management has an effect? And when can one say that the management hasn’t had an effect? Obviously it takes a few years, but it cannot be said for certain how much time it takes. This also depends on the species you’re focussing that management on. Some species will react very fast while others need a lot of time.

8.2 Conclusions Traditional fruit orchards are home to a variety of species, including birds, mammals, insects, and plants. The reduction of these historic landscapes, driven primarily by a change in land use, has led to a decline in biodiversity and a reduction in the provision of the mentioned ecosystem services. To help to increase awareness and impulse preservation of these landscapes, several management activities directed to improve the habitat for the mentioned species were analysed, and numerous monitoring methods to quantify the number of species, and the change in their diversity, were studied.

The results of the studies for monitoring methods showed that traditional fruit orchards are relative small landscapes where local monitoring processes led by the landowners can be performed. Conventional tools can be used in the assessment and the results can be noted manually in simple field sheets and uploaded to central online databases built for this propose. In rare cases, and when it is totally necessary, specific methods required for the acquisition of more precise tools, as camera traps for mammals monitoring. Monitoring the different species of plants, mammals, insects or birds requires some knowledge on basic ecology; knowledge that can be easily shared by volunteer monitoring groups, or Citizen Science. Special attention regarding monitoring biodiversity should be given to the periods of time when the activity is high, not all species can be found during the entire year.

Complementary to the measurement of biodiversity, the optimization of the habitat for these species is very important, and therefore the analysis of the management activities was held. These management practices aim to improve abiotic and biotic conditions in the orchards for species to proliferate. Most of the management practices are related to the proper utilization of resources within the orchard and some of them are artificial practices such as bird nests and insect hotels. All management practices are clearly described in the toolkit for owners to use. Although, single management practices support many functional communities, only the combination of several practices and the mutual effort of landowners will improve biodiversity in traditional fruit orchards in the Netherlands, and could contribute to the maintenance of ecosystem services.

8.3 Recommendations The term “Biodiversity” may not be familiar to the owners. They will probably not have enough knowledge about the importance of it. In that case we them recommend to do some study on it. Here there's also a role for the institutes, NGO's, and collectives to set up education initiatives. Having more background information may help the owner to get more interest on biodiversity. Finally this can increase the motivation to carry out the monitoring and adapt the management.

In our report, we mainly focused on a way of monitoring and management options for the traditional fruit orchard. Both of these activities are quite correlated with each other. First the owner should monitor, and can then focus on adapting the management practices. For the monitoring care should be taken on selecting appropriate timeframes for executing the monitoring. Usually, it is better to monitor an individual category when possibility of their presence is optimal in the orchard. In the toolkit we described more precisely and the easiest way of the monitoring per group. We gave an overview of the most common ways of monitoring and came up with what we thought most suitable for this project.

Management practices to increase biodiversity or the orchard depend on the current composition of different component of the orchard. Besides, the owners may not have facilities to follow all recommended management practices. For example, owner of the orchard may not have enough space to create a pond. But in such cases the owner can give more attention to other management practices that support biodiversity as single practices sometimes serve multiple functions. The landscape surrounding the orchard also needs to be taken into consideration. If your orchard is located just besides a large lake it is not necessary to create a pond in your orchard. After all, the selection of management practices and facilities of the owners can vary from orchard to orchard. But owners should not neglect common practices such as growing different species of fruit trees. Finally, it is more essential for owners to have a good basic knowledge about their orchard and biodiversity to improve habitat quality in the orchard.

Although monitoring methods have been proposed and the gap of knowledge between management activities and biodiversity has been reduced, uncertainty remains regarding specific effects of a management activity in the distribution and abundance of specific communities within a traditional fruit orchard. To continue reducing this uncertainty we recommend performing monitoring methods in the long-term. Additionally, when possible, we propose to implement more detailed measurements to capture further information about species of interest.

9. References

Altieri, M. A. (1999). The ecological role of biodiversity in agroecosystems. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 74(1), 19-31.

Antofie, M. M., Barbu, I., Sand, C. S., & Blaj, R. (2016). Traditional orchards in Romania: case study Fântânele, Sibiu County. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 63(6), 1035-1048.

ARGOS. (2006). Bird Sampling Methods.

Bailey, D., Schmidt-Entling, M. H., Eberhart, P., Herrmann, J. D., Hofer, G., Kormann, U., & Herzog, F. (2010). Effects of habitat amount and isolation on biodiversity in fragmented traditional orchards. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47(5), 1003-1013. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01858.

Benton, T. G., Vickery, J. A., & Wilson, J. D. (2003). Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key?. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 18(4), 182-188.

Bock, A., Naef?Daenzer, B., Keil, H., Korner?Nievergelt, F., Perrig, M., & Grüebler, M. U. (2013). Roost site selection by Little Owls Athene noctua in relation to environmental conditions and life?history stages. Ibis, 155(4), 847-856.

Brakenhielm, S., & Liu, Q. H. (1995). Comparison of field methods in vegetation monitoring. Water Air and Soil Pollution, 79, 75-87.

Brown, M. W. (2001). Functional biodiversity and agro-ecosystems management: 2. role in integrated fruit production. IOBC WPRS BULLETIN, 24(5), 5-12.

Bubová, T., Vrabec, V., Kulma, M., & Nowicki, P. (2015). Land management impacts on European butterflies of conservation concern: a review. Journal of insect conservation, 19(5).

Burgess, P. J. (1999). Effects of agroforestry on farm biodiversity in the UK. Cranfield University

Carlin, C., Finn, J.A., Ó hUallacháin, D. and Gormally, M. (2010). Overview of methods to create and enhance farmland habitats in Ireland. Fisheries (Bethesda), (January).

Carlsson, A. L. M., Bergfur, J., & Milberg, P. (2005). Comparison of data from two vegetation monitoring methods in semi-natural grasslands. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 100(1-3), 235-248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-005-6510-8

Céréghino, R., Boix, D., Cauchie, H. M., Martens, K., & Oertli, B. (2014). The ecological role of ponds in a changing world. Hydrobiologia, 723(1), 1-6.

Chaillet, A. (2011). "La biodiversité dans les vergers haute-tige." Retrieved 13-06-2017.

Cohn, J. P. (2008). Citizen Science: Can volunteers do real research? BioScience, 58(3), 192- 197.

Cooper, C., Dickinson, J., Phillips, T., & Bonney, R. (2007). Citizen Science as a tool for conservation in residential ecosystems. Ecology and Society, 12(2).

Corlett, R.T. 1(996). Characteristics of vertebrate-dispersed fruits in Hong Kong. J. Trop. Ecol. 12, 819-833.

Cornelis, J., & Hermy, M. (2004). Biodiversity relationships in urban and suburban parks in Flanders. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(4), 385-401.

Davies, S. R., Sayer, C. D., Greaves, H., Siriwardena, G. M., & Axmacher, J. C. (2016). A new role for pond management in farmland bird conservation. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 233, 179-191.

De Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological complexity, 7(3), 260-272.

Díaz, S., Fargione, J., Chapin III, F. S., & Tilman, D. (2006). Biodiversity loss threatens human well-being. PLoS biology, 4(8), e277.

Discover your orchard wildlife - Peoples Trust for Endangered Species, (2017), Retrieved 15- 06-2017, from https://ptes.org/campaigns/traditional-orchard-project/orchard- biodiversity/discover-your-orchard-wildlife/

Dubois, G. F., Vignon, V., Delettre, Y. R., Rantier, Y., Vernon, P., & Burel, F. (2009). Factors affecting the occurrence of the endangered saproxylic beetle Osmoderma eremita (Scopoli, 1763)(Coleoptera: Cetoniidae) in an agricultural landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(3), 152-159.

Dujesiefken, D., & Stobbe, H. (2002). The Hamburg Tree Pruning System-A framework for pruning of individual trees. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 1(2), 75-82.

Dunne, J. A., Williams, R. J., & Martinez, N. D. (2002). Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecology letters, 5(4), 558-567.

D'Yvoire, C., WARLOP, F., Świergiel, W., Sigsgaard, L., & Porcel, M. (2016). Booklet of simplified methods for the monitoring of functional biodiversity in organic orchards.

ECSA. (2015). Ten principles of Citizen Science. England.

Étilé, E. (2011). Agricultural Practices that Promote Crop Pest Suppression by Natural Predators. Contract, 0257.

Flowerdew, J. R., Shore, R. F., Poulton, S. M., & Sparks, T. H. (2004). Live trapping to monitor small mammals in Britain. Mammar Review, 31-50.

Godínez-Alvarez, H., Herrick, J. E., Mattocks, M., Toledo, D., & Van Zee, J. (2009). Comparison of three vegetation monitoring methods: Their relative utility for ecological assessment and monitoring. Ecological Indicators, 9(5), 1001-1008.

35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2008.11.011

Goldsmith, F. B., and Carolyn M. Harrison. "Description and analysis of vegetation." Methods in Plant Ecology. SB Chapman, ed (1976).

Grüebler, M. U., Schaller, S., Keil, H., & Naef-Daenzer, B. (2013). The occurrence of cavities in fruit trees: effects of tree age and management on biodiversity in traditional European orchards. Biodiversity and conservation, 22(13-14), 3233-3246.

Habel, J. C., Braun, J., Fischer, C., Weisser, W. W., & Gossner, M. M. (2015). Population restoration of the nocturnal bird Athene noctua in Western Europe: an example of evidence based species conservation. Biodiversity and conservation, 24(7), 1743-1753.

Harris, S., Yalden, D. W. (2004). An integrated monitoring programme for terrestrial mammals in Britain. Mammal Review, 157-167.

Harris, T. W. J. and McAllister, F. E. (1988). Dispersal distance, home-range size and population density in the red fox (Vulpes vulpes): a quantitative analysis. Journal of Applied Ecology, 423-434.

Hayes, C., Whitehurst, J. (2001). Great crested newt mitigation guidelines working today for nature tomorrow. English Nature.

Holzschuh, A., Dudenhöffer, J. H., & Tscharntke, T. (2012). Landscapes with wild bee habitats enhance pollination, fruit set and yield of sweet cherry. Biological Conservation, 153, 101-107.

Horak, J. (2014a). Fragmented habitats of traditional fruit orchards are important for dead wood-dependent beetles associated with open canopy deciduous woodlands. Naturwissenschaften, 101(6), 499-504.

Horak, J. (2014b). Insect taxa with similar habitat requirements may differ in response to the environment in heterogeneous patches of traditional fruit orchards. Journal of Insect Conservation, 18(4), 637-642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10841-014-9667-z

Horak, J., Peltanova, A., Podavkova, A., Safarova, L., Bogusch, P., Romportl, D., & Zasadil, P. (2013). Biodiversity responses to land use in traditional fruit orchards of a rural agricultural landscape. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 178(June), 71-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.06.020

Hutton, S. A., & Giller, P. S. (2003). The effects of the intensification of agriculture on northern temperate dung beetle communities. Journal of Applied Ecology, 40(6), 994-1007.

Irvin, N. A., Scarratt, S. L., Wratten, S. D., Frampton, C. M., Chapman, R. B., & Tylianakis, J. M. (2006). The effects of floral understoreys on parasitism of leafrollers (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) on apples in New Zealand. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 8(1), 25-34.

Johnson, H. (2010, July 3). Dead wood. Retrieved June 27, 2017, from http://charingworthorchardtrust.blogspot.nl/search/label/dead%20wood CHARINGWORTH ORCHARD TRUST

Johnson, M. D. (2007). Measuring habitat quality: a review. The Condor, 109(3), 489-504.

Kajtoch, Ł. (2017). The importance of traditional orchards for breeding birds: The preliminary study on Central European example. Acta Oecologica, 78, 53-60.

Katzner, T., Robertson, S., Robertson, B., Klucsarits, J., McCarty, K., & Bildstein, K. L. (2005). Results from a long-term nest-box program for American Kestrels: implications for improved population monitoring and conservation. Journal of Field Ornithology, 76(3), 217-226.

Kinyanjui, M. J. (2011). NDVI-based vegetation monitoring in Mau forest complex, Kenya. African Journal of Ecology, 49(2), 165-174. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2028.2010.01251.x

Konvicka, M., Benes, J., Cizek, O., Kopecek, F., Konvicka, O., & Vitaz, L. (2008). How too much care kills species: Grassland reserves, agri-environmental schemes and extinction of Colias myrmidone (Lepidoptera: Pieridae) from its former stronghold. Journal of insect Conservation, 12(5), 519-525.

Krebs, J. R., Wilson, J. D., Bradbury, R. B., & Siriwardena, G. M. (1999). The second silent spring?. Nature, 400(6745), 611-612.

La biodiversité dans les vergers haute-tige. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.vergers- vivants.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/fiche_technique4_web.pdf

Latham, D., & Knowles, M. (2008). Assessing the use of artificial hibernacula by great crested newts Triturus cristatus and other amphibians for habitat enhancement, Northumberland, England. Conservation Evidence, 5, 74-79.

Laubertie, E. A., Wratten, S. D., & Hemptinne, J. L. (2012). The contribution of potential beneficial insectary plant species to adult hoverfly (Diptera: Syrphidae) fitness. Biological Control, 61(1), 1-6.

Loos, J., Dorresteijn, I., Hanspach, J., Fust, P., Rakosy, L., & Fischer, J. (2014). Low-intensity agricultural landscapes in Transylvania support high butterfly diversity: implications for conservation. PloS one, 9(7), e103256. MacArthur, R. H., & MacArthur, J. W. (1961). On bird species diversity. Ecology, 42(3), 594- 598.

Mackinnon, K. (1998). Guidelines for Monitoring and Evaluation for Biodiversity Projects. Environmental Department Paper, The World Bank Group. URL.

Miñarro, M., & Prida, E. (2013). Hedgerows surrounding organic apple orchards in north?west Spain: potential to conserve beneficial insects. Agricultural and Forest Entomology, 15(4), 382- 390.

Ministry of Economic Affairs (2015). Rode lijsten. Retrieved 15-06-2017, from http://minez.nederlandsesoorten.nl/content/rode-lijsten

Murdoch, W. W., Evans, F. C., & Peterson, C. H. (1972). Diversity and pattern in plants and insects. Ecology, 53(5), 819-829.

Myczko, Ł., Rosin, Z. M., Skorka, P., Wylegała, P., Tobolka, M., Fliszkiewicz, M., ... & Tryjanowski, P. (2013). Effects of management intensity and orchard features on bird communities in winter. Ecological research, 28(3), 503-512.

Newman, C., Buesching, C. D., & Macdonald, D. W. (2003). Validating mammal monitoring methods and assessing the performance of volunteers in wildlife conservation-"Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies? Biological Conservation, 189-197.

P. (2016, February 08). Dead Trees are Important to Wildlife. Retrieved June 27, 2017, from https://pagamecommission.wordpress.com/2016/02/08/dead-trees-are-important-to-wildlife/ Pennsylvania Game Commission

Pereira, H. M., & Cooper, H. D. (2006). Towards the global monitoring of biodiversity change. Trends in ecology & evolution, 21(3), 123-129.

Pierce, R (2014). "Attracting Bluebirds to Your Property

Porcel, M., & Swiergel, W. (2016). Flower habitats to benefit natural enemies in apple orchards. Retrieved from http://www.slu.se/globalassets/ew/org/centrb/epok/aldre-bilder-och- dokument/mario-habitat-manipulation-and- ecoorchard.pdf?si=4194A435D46F9F78D875486316EBFD68&rid=1107094096&sn=sluEPi 6-prodSearchIndex

Pöyry, J., Lindgren, S., Salminen, J., & Kuussaari, M. (2005). Responses of butterfly and moth species to restored cattle grazing in semi-natural grasslands. Biological Conservation, 122(3), 465-478.

RAVON. (2015). Amfibieën. Retrieved 15-06-2017, from http://www.ravon.nl/Infotheek/Soortinformatie/Amfibieën/tabid/1358/Default.aspx

Rodriguez-Saona, C., Blaauw, B. R., & Isaacs, R. (2012). Manipulation of natural enemies in agroecosystems: habitat and semiochemicals for sustainable insect pest control. Integrated Pest Management and Pest Control-Current and Future Tactics, 89-126.

Sanderson, J. G., & Trolle, M. (2005). Monitoring elusive mammals. American Scientist, 148- 155.

Schmeller, D. S., HENRY, P. Y., Julliard, R., Gruber, B., Clobert, J., Dziock, F., . . . Budrys, E. (2009). Advantages of volunteer?based biodiversity monitoring in Europe. Conservation Biology, 23(2), 307-316.

Sekercioglu, C. H. (2006). Increasing awareness of avian ecological function. Trends in ecology & evolution, 21(8), 464-471.

Silva, M., & Prince, M. E. (2008). The conservation value of hedgerows for small mammals in Prince Edward Island, Canada. The American Midland Naturalist, 159(1), 110-124.

Silvertown, J. (2009). A new dawn for Citizen Science. Trends in ecology & evolution, 24(9), 467-471.

Simberloff, D., Abele, L. G. (1982). Refuge design and island biogeographic theory: effects of fragmentation. The American Naturalist, 120(1), 41-50.

Simon, S., Bouvier, J. C., Debras, J. F., & Sauphanor, B. (2010). Biodiversity and pest management in orchard systems. A review. Agronomy for sustainable development, 30(1), 139- 152.

Sparrius, L., Tijsma, L., Odé, B. (2016). Handleiding inventarisatieprojecten. FLORON.

Spellerberg, I. F., & Fedor, P. J. (2003). A tribute to Claude Shannon (1916-2001) and a plea for more rigorous use of species richness, species diversity and the 'Shannon-Wiener' Index. Global ecology and biogeography, 12(3), 177-179.

Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Leschke, K. (2003). Effects of habitat management on vegetation and above-ground nesting bees and wasps of orchard meadows in Central Europe. Biodiversity and Conservation, 12(9), 1953-1968.

Tews, J., Brose, U., Grimm, V., Tielbörger, K., Wichmann, M., Schwager, M., & Jeltsch, F. (2004). Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. Journal of biogeography, 31(1), 79-92. The Square Metre at TQ 78286 18846. (2006). Retrieved 15-06-2017, from http://squaremetre1.blogspot.nl/2006/03/introduction-to-project.html

Theobald, E. J., Ettinger, A. K., Burgess, H. K., DeBey, L. B., Schmidt, N. R., Froehlich, H. E., Harsch, M. (2015). Global change and local solutions: Tapping the unrealized potential of Citizen Science for biodiversity research. Biological Conservation, 181, 236-244.

Tilman, D., Isbell, F., & Cowles, J. M. (2014). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 45, 471-493. Toms, M. P., Siriwardena, G. M., & Greenwood, J. J. D. (1999). Developing a mammal monitoring programme for the UK. BTO Research …. Retrieved from http://btoweb01.bto.org/sites/default/files/u196/downloads/rr223.pdf

Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan‐Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005). Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity–ecosystem service management. Ecology letters, 8(8), 857-874.

Tulloch, A. I., Possingham, H. P., Joseph, L. N., Szabo, J., & Martin, T. G. (2013). Realising the full potential of Citizen Science monitoring programs. Biological Conservation, 165, 128- 138. van Blitterswijk, H. and J. Baeten (2006). De hoogstamboomgaard natuurlijk: een oriënterend onderzoek naar natuurvriendelijk beheer en inrichting van hoogstamboomgaarden, Wetenschapswinkel.

Van Dam investeert 1,4 miljoen in satellietdata voor precisielandbouw _ Nieuwsbericht _ Rijksoverheid. (2017). Retrieved 15-6-2017, from https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2017/03/14/van-dam-investeert-14-miljoen-in-

39 satellietdata-voor-precisielandbouw

Verboom, B. (1998). The use of edge habitats by commuting and foraging bats (No. 10). IBN- DLO.

Vlindernet. (2017). Vlinderfamilies. Retrieved 15-6-2017, from https://www.vlinderstichting.nl/vlinders/vlinders-herkennen

Vogelbescherming. (2017). Vogelgids. Retrieved 15-6-2017, from https://www.vogelbescherming.nl/ontdek-vogels/kennis-over-vogels/vogelgids

Weeda, E. J., Schaminee, J., & van Duuren, L. (2015a). Atlas van Plantengemeenschappen in Nederland deel 2. Graslanden, zomen en droge heiden. Utrecht: KNNV.

Weeda, E. J., Schaminee, J., & van Duuren, L. (2015b). Atlas van Plantengemeenschappen in Nederland deel 4. Bossen, struwelen en ruigten. Utrecht: KNNV.

Winfield, I. J. (2009). Vertebrates: Fish, Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds, Mammals.439-505.

Wratten, S. D., Gillespie, M., Decourtye, A., Mader, E., & Desneux, N. (2012). Pollinator habitat enhancement: benefits to other ecosystem services. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 159, 112-122.

Yengoh, G. T., Dent, D., Olsson, L., Tengberg, A. E., & Tucker III, C. J. (2015). Use of the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) to Assess Land Degradation at Multiple Scales: current status, future trends, and practical considerations. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-24112-8

Zoogdiervereniging. (2017). Zoogdieren A-Z. Retrieved 15-6-2017, from http://www.zoogdiervereniging.nl/Zoogdieren A-Z

10. Appendices

10.1 Appendix 1. Potential Indicator Species Potential target species Amphibians Dutch name English Scientific Europese boomkikker European tree frog Hyla arborea Knoflookpad Garlic toad Pelobates fuscus Vinpootsalamander Palmate newt Lissotriton helveticus

Mammals Mice Eikelmuis Garden dormouse Eliomys quercinus Grote bosmuis Yellow-necked mouse Apodemus flavicollis Noordse woelmuis Tundra vole Microtus oeconomus Ondergrondse woelmuis European pine vole Microtus subterraneus Waterspitsmuis Eurasian water shrew Neomys fodiens Bats Grijze grootoorvleermuis Grey long-eared bat Plecotus austriacus Rosse vleermuis Common noctule Nyctalus noctula Tweekleurige vleermuis Parti-coloured bat Vespertilio murinus Vale vleermuis Greater mouse-eared bat Myotis myotis Ingekorven vleermuis Geoffroy's bat Myotis emarginatus Kleine hoefijzerneus Lesser horseshoe bat Rhinolophus hipposideros Laatvlieger Serotine bat Eptesicus serotinus Predator Boommarter European pine marten Martes martes Bunzing European pole cat Mustela putorius Wezel Least weazel Mustela nivalis Hermelijn Stoat Mustela erminea Rodents Haas European hare Lepus europaeus Konijnwoodpeckers and Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus Others Egel European hedgehog Erinaceus europaeus

Birds Sparrows and finches Ringmus Eurasian tree sparrow Passer montanus Grasmus Common whitethroat Sylvia communis Koolmees Great tit Parus major Pimpelmees Eurasian blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus Geelgors Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella Groenling European greenfinch Chloris chloris

Heggenmus Dunnock Prunella modularis Boompieper Tree pipit Anthus trivialis Fitis Willow warbler Phylloscopus trochilus Winterkoning Winter wren Troglodytes troglodytes Vink Common chaffinch Fringilla coelebs Grauwe vliegenvanger Spotted flycatcher Muscicapa striata Kneu Common linnet Carduelis cannabina Putter European goldfinch Carduelis carduelis

Thrushes and Starlings Spreeuw Common starling Sturnus vulgaris Zanglijster Song thrush Turdus philomelos Merel Black bird Turdus merula

Corvids Kauw Western jackaw Corvus monedula Zwarte kraai Carrion crow Corvus corone vlaanse gaai Jay Garrulus glandarius

Birds of prey Boomvalk Eurasian hobby Falco subbuteo Sperwer Eurasian sparrow hawk Accipiter nisus Smelleken Merlin Falco columbarius Torenvalk Common kestrel Falco tinnunculus Steenuil Little owl Athene vidalii Ransuil Long-eared owl Asio otus Bosuil Tawny owl Strix aluco

Swallows Boerenzwaluw Barn swallow Hirundo rustica Gierzwaluw Common swift Apus Apus Huiszwaluw House martin Delichon urbicum

Doves Houtduif Common wood pigeon Columba palumbus Turkse tortel Eurasian collared dove Streptopelia decaocto Holenduif Stock dove Columba oenas

Woodpeckers Groene specht Eurasian green oodpecker Picus viridis Kleine bonte specht Lesser spotted woodpecker Dendrocopos minor

Galliforms Fazant Common pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Insects Bees Bijen en hommels - Apidae Zandbijen Mining bees Andrenidae - Plasterer bees Colletidae - Dasypodainae - Sweat bees Halictidae Behangersbijen Mason bees Megachilidae - - Meganomiidae - - Melittidae - - Stenotritidae

Butterflies Bont dikkopje Chequered skipper Carterocephalus palaemon Groot dikkopje Large skipper Ochlodes faunus Groot koolwitje Large white Pieris brassicae Grote vos Large tortoiseshell Nymphalis polychloros Grote weerschijnvlinder Purple emperor Apatura iris Keizersmantel Silver-washed fritillary Argynnis paphia klein geaderd witje Green-veined white Pieris napi Klein koolwitje Small white Pieris rapae Koninginnenpage Old World swallowtail Papilio machaon Sleedoornpage Brown hairstreak Thecla betulae Oranje luzernevlinder dark clouded yellow Colias croceus Citroenvlinder Common brimstone Gonepteryx rhamni Oranjetipje Orange tip Anthocharis cardamines kleine vuurvlinder Small copper Lycaena phlaeas eikenpage Purple hairstreak Favonius quercus Groentje Green hairstreak Callophrys rubi Boomblauwtje Holly blue Celastrina argiolus Bruin blauwtje Brown argus Aricia agestis icarusblauwtje Common blue Polyonmmatus icarus Bont zandoogje Speckled wood Pargarge aegeria Atalanta Red admiral Vanessa atalanta Dagpauwoog European peacock Aglais io Kleine vos Small tortoiseshell Aglais urticae Gehakkelde aurelia Comma Polygonia c-album Landkaartje Map Araschina levana Gestippelde houtvlinder Leopard moth Zeuzera pyrina Dutch name English Scientific Appelglasvlinder Apple clearwing moth Synanthedon myopaeformis Kersenspinner Odonestis pruni Houtspaander Flame Axylia putris Haarbos Flame shoulder Ochropleura plecta Huismoeder Large yellow underwing Noctua pronuba

Volgeling Lesser yellow underwing Noctua comes Driehoekuil Double square-spot Xestia triangulum

Dragonflies --> Only when (flowing) water is around Beekjuffers Broad-winged damselflies Calopterygidae Pantserjuffers Spread-winged damselflies Lestidae Waterjuffers Narrow-winged damselflies Coenagrionidae Breedscheenjuffers White-legged damselflies Platycnemididae Glazenmakers Hawker dragonfly Aeshnidae Rombouten Clubtail dragonfly Gomphidae Bronlibellen Spiketails Cordulegastridae Glanslibellen Emerald dragonflies Corduliidae Korenbouten Skimmers Libellulidae

Grasshoppers Gouden sprinkhaan Small Gold Grasshopper Chrysochraon dispar Locomotiefje - Chorthippus apricarius Rosse sprinkhaan Rufous grasshopper Gomphocerippus rufus Veenmol European mole cricket Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa Weidesprinkhaan Steppe grashopper Chorthippus dorsatus Zadelsprinkhaan - Ephippiger ephippiger

Beetles Aaskevers Carrion beetles Silphidae Boktorren Longhorn beetle Cerambycidae Kortschildkevers Rove beetle Staphylinidae Snuittorren Weevils Curculionidae Bladkevers Leaf beetles Chrysomelidae Lieveheersbeestjes Ladybugs Coccinellidae Bladsprietkevers Scarabs Scarabaeidae Loopkevers Ground beetle Carabidae

Plants Klimop Ivy Hedera helix Wilde kamperfoelie Common honeysuckle Lonicera periclymenum Hop Hop Humulus lupulus Bosandoorn Hedge woundhort Stachys sylvatica Knopig helmkruid Common figwort Scropularia nodosa Dutch name English Scientific Ruwe smele Tufted hair-grass Deschampsia cespitosa Groot heksenkruid Enchanter's nightshade Circaea lutetiana Geel nagelkruid Wood avens Geum urbanum Speenkruid Pilewort Ficaria verna subsp. bulbilifer Grote brandnetel Stinging nettle Urtica dioica

Kleefkruid Cleavers Galium aparine Hondsdraf Ground-ivy Glechoma hederacea Ruw beemdgras Rough meadow-grass Poa trivialis Look-zonder-look Garlic mustard Alliaria petiolata Zevenblad Ground elder Aegopodium podagraria Fluitenkruid Cow parsley Anthriscus sylvestris Gele morgenster Goat's-beard Tragopogon pratensis subsp. pratensis Glad walstro Hedge bedstraw Galium mollugo Groot streepzaad Rough hawk's-beard Crepis biennis Grote bevernel Greater burnet-saxifrage Pimpinella major Karwijvarkenskervel Milk parsley Peucedanim carvifola Oosterse morgenster Oriental salsify Tragopogon pratensis subsp. orientalis Beemdkroon Field scabious Knautia arvensis Gewone margriet Oxeye daisy Leucanthemum vulgare Witte klaver White clover Trifolium repens Madeliefje Daisy Bellis perennis Gewone paardenbloem Dandelion Taraxacum vulgaria Gewone hoornbloem Common mouse-ear Cerastium fontanum subsp. vulgare Scherpe boterbloem Meadow buttercup Ranunculus acris Kruipende boterbloem Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens Rode klaver Red clover Trifolium pratense Vertakte leeuwentand Autumnal hawkbit Leontodon autumnalis Ruige leeuwentand Rough hawkbit Leontodon hispidus Pinksterbloem Cuckoo-flower Cardamine pratensis Echte koekoeksbloem Ragged robin Lychnis flos-cuculi

10.2 Appendix 2. Recommended Vegetation for Hedgerows Shrub/Tree Characteristics Wildlife benefits species Hawthorn Tolerant of a wide-range of soils, Excellent wildlife value – its blossoms (Crataegus fast growing and hardy. Excellent are a favorite of bees and its berries are monogyna) as a stock proof barrier. eaten by birds and mammals Blackthorn Tolerant of a wide-range of soils Early flowering so important for (Prunus spinosa) and hardy although does not like emerging insects. Good nesting cover. acid soils. Hornbeam Woodlands and hedgerows on flowers are monoecious that attract wide (Carpinus sandy or clay loams, preferring range of insects - Trees are wind betulus) heavier soils and hardy and will pollinated so flowers don’t attract insects tolerate windy sites Hazel (Corylus Prefers free-draining soils that are Valuable for insects and its nuts are a avellana) fertile. Can be slow to establish good food source for birds and mammals. although responds well to cutting. Holly A shrub that tolerates most soils Holly berries are eaten by a wide variety (Illex other than water-logged. It’s of birds. aquifolium) quite tough and grows best in shade. Willow (Salix Prefers damp or wet ground and The catkins which appear in March/April sp.) is very tolerant of water-logging. are a good food source for insects that Willows are rapid-growing. appear early in the year. Guelder rose Prefers wet soil while it dislikes Its spring blossoms are beneficial for (Viburnum very acid or very dry conditions. insects and its red autumn berries are a opulus) favourite of birds. Dutch wikipedia says that birds actually hate the fruit and leave it Beech (Fagus A native tree that is also used in Relatively low wildlife interest although sylvatica) hedging. Translink should only its nuts are a food source for birds and use this species in urban locations mammals. where it fits in with the character of the local area or where thorny species may not suit. Crab apple A small-sized tree growing only Its flowers and fruit are attractive for a (Malus to 10m in height and suitable for variety of wildlife including insects. Wild sylvestris) network planting. variety of the apple. Maybe the added ecological value is not that high Honeysuckle A deciduous woody climber that Flowers from June to October, its nectar (Lonicera twines itself through hedgerows. is sought after by bees and moths. periclymenum) Plant a few years after the hedgerow has established

10.3 Appendix 3. Survey Results Hoe vaak snoeit u de fruitbomen? (bv. 1 keer per jaar)? 1 x per jaar 1keer per jaar 1 x per jaar 1 keer in de 1 a 2 jaar. 1 x per jaar 1x per jaar 1x 1 keer per jaar Wie snoeit de fruitbomen?

uzelf uzelf Externe partij uzelf Externe partij Externe partij uzelf Externe partij Externe partij Wat doet u met het snoeiafval? (bv. verbranden, opstapelen in de boomgaard of het maken van takkenrillen, op laten halen etc.) takkenrillen maken takkenrillen, verbranden van ziek hout paarden kluiven bast af; rest wordt aanmaakhout Versnipperen Maken takkenrillen Op de houtwal aan de rand van ons perceel verbranden Op laten halen verbranden en/of afvoer naar gemeentelijke vuilstortplaats Hoe bestrijd u insectenplagen?

Ik heb geen last van plagen in mijn boomgaard Niet Ik heb geen last van plagen in mijn boomgaard Niet Niet Niet Niet Niet Niet

Hoe bestrijdt u onkruid? (meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)

Begrazing/maaien Begrazing/maaien Begrazing/maaien Niet Onkruid bestaat niet. Ik wil een zo gevarieerd mogelijke vegetatie Begrazing/maaien Begrazing/maaien Begrazing/maaien Niet Maait u het gras in boomgaard of gebruikt u grazers om het bij te houden? (meerdere antwoorden mogelijk)

Maaien;Graze rs Maaien Maaien;Graze rs Maaien Maaien;Graze rs Maaien Maaien;Graze rs Maaien;Graze rs Maaien

Als u grazers houdt in de boomgaard, welke en hoeveel per hectare?

2 kuni-kuni varkens en 1 shetland pony per 0,4 ha.

paarden 2

2 koeien en 2 kalveren per hectare

schapen en ossen resp. 15 en 2 op totaal 4 ha Schapen, jongvee

Zijn er heggen of bomenrijen rondom de boomgaard? Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Deels beplante strook, ook het huis vormt aan een zijde een afscheiding met de boomgaard en een houtwal en een wei Ja Ja 48 Ja

Zijn er bloemrijke stroken rondom de boomgaard? Nee Ja grote siertuin Nee Ja Ja Nee Nee Nee Wat gebeurt er met het gevallen fruit in de boomgaard? (bv. verzamelen of laten liggen)

goed fruit gaat naar de appelpers, rot fruit blijft liggen, indien er te veel rotfruit ligt weghalen. composthoop verzamelen voor de paarden Beide, in jaren met veel fruit blijft er meer onder de bomen liggen. Ook afhankelijk of onze donateurs het fruit rapen wat onder hun boom ligt. Wordt verzameld en verwerkt tot sap Deels oprapen en verwerken tot sap indien niet te slecht. Deels laten liggen. verzamelen Eten de koeien op verzamelen

Wat doet u met dode takken in de fruitbomen? (bv. laten zitten, afzagen, etc.) afzagen afzagen tijdens snoeibeurt afzagen afzagen Bij gevaar afzagen, anders laten zitten Afzagen en op houtwal leggen afzagen Weghalen afzagen

Wat doet u met dode bomen in de boomgaard? (bv. laten staan, omhalen etc.)

staan er niet, maar mocht het voorkomen dan omhalen en nieuwe aanplanten omzagen omhalen omhalen en vervangen Bij gevaar omhalen, anders laten staan Afzagen omzagen Weg halen omhalen

Plant u nieuwe fruitbomen aan? Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja Nee Ja

Heeft u 1 of meerder van de volgende voorwerpen in uw fruitboomgaard? (meerdere antwoorden mogelijk) Vogelhuisje;Stapel stenen;Stapel takken;Insectenhotel Vogelhuisje;Stapel stenen;Stapel takken;Insectenhotel Vogelhuisje;Stapel takken Vogelhuisje Vogelhuisje;Stapel takken;Er is een poel aanwezig en knotwilgen Vogelhuisje;Stapel stenen;Stapel takken;Bijenkasten, poel in de naastgelegen wei, kippenhok Geen Geen Geen Is er een permanente vijver of stroompje aanwezig in of in de buurt (<200m) van de boomgaard? Ja Ja Ja Ja Welke soorten fruitbomen staan er in uw boomgaard? (meerder antwoorden Ja mogelijk) Ja Appel;Peer;Kers;pruim, mispel, walnoot Ja Appel;Peer;Kers;pruim Nee Appel;Peer;pruim Nee Appel

Appel;Peer;Kweepeer, pruim, walnoot Appel;Peer;Kers;Perzik, pruim, walnoot, braam, bessen, hazelnoot, Appel;Peer;Kers;pruim Appel;Peer;Kers;Pruimen Appel;Peer;Pruim

Welke rassen Fruitbomen staan er in de boomgaard? (bv. elstar, conference etc.) Groninger Kroon, Notaris, Tydeman, Schone van Boskoop, Zwijndrechtse wijnpeer, Gravenstein, Conference, Saint Remy, Karmijn, Sterappel, Lombard, Jonathan, Laxton, Opal 20 soorten, niet allemaal bekend.. goudrenet-valse ijsbout-kruidenierspeer-Zwijndrechtse wijnpeer-Ingrid Marie-Bloemee zoet-stoofpeer Saint RÃ©my-notarisappel-zoete Brederode-clapps favorite-lemoen- jasappel-gieser wildeman en nog enkele andere BramleySeedling, Topaz, Rode Boskoop, Zoete Ermgaard, Ingrid Marie, Notarisappel, Dubbele Bellefleur, Santana, Lena Er staan 70 bomen in de boomgaard en elk boom is van een ander ras. Eventueel is een rassenlijst beschikbaar, maar die is niet volledig Vele, deels onbekend. O.a. goudreinet, Jan Steen, Burre Hardy, Conference, kleipeertje, winterjan, notaris appel, lunterse pippeling notaris, bellefleur, goudreinet, winterriet en nog vele andere Notaris, goudrenet ,bloemee, giese wildemans, reinefikke, Gelderse blauwe, lelipom, kersen Saint Remy, Gravenstein, Bloemeezoet ,Betuwese Kwets, Koningszuur, Beurre Hardy, Schone van Boskoop, Monsieur Hatif, Bramley's Smeding,Triomphe de Vienne, Rode Boskoop, Stark Earliest, Charneux, Notarisappel, Reine Claude Verte, Winterietpeer, Princesse Noble, Kruidensiierpeer, Opal, Jacques Lebel en Clapps Favourite

10.4 Appendix 4. Management Options S/N Management Provision of/Role Biodiversity target Practice 1 Pruning i. Allow sun exposure in the ● Variety of orchards invertebrates ii. accelerates formation of tree- ● Small cavities mammals iii. lengthens lifespan of fruit trees 2 Hedgerows and i. habitats for different species ● Small border plants ii. Flowering parts offer food mammals e.g. (pollen and nectar) for mice, shrews, different insect species stoats, badgers iii. Windbreakers ● birds. ● Plants 3 Grazing i. Help to control stronger plant ● Different plant species from dominating the species orchard ● Soil dwelling ii. Add manure in the orchard invertebrates

4 Dead Trees and Shelter for many arthropods, ● Insects e.g. Branches amphibians and reptiles. beetles ● Small mammals 5 Compile of Provide microclimate (hot and cool ● Insects Wood or Stone and dry and wet) for a wide range of ● Small species mammals and ● Ferns and mosses plants 6 Different Ensure continue supply of food ● Insects Species and (nectar, pollen and fruit) for insects, ● Birds Variety of Fruit birds and other animals ● Small Trees mammals Bird Nest Breeding site for birds ● Birds 7 Water Bodies i. Habitats for a wide of aquatic ● Insects 8 invertebrates/animals. ● Birds ii. Hunting site for bird, reptiles Insect Hotel Shelter for insects during Insects 9 unfavourable condition like winter

10.5 Appendix 5. Stakeholder Analysis We made a stakeholder analysis to understand the relations between the stakeholders and the power that they have. If we want to create a monitoring system we have to understand the flow of information. Who is going to measure and who is going to analyse the data.

Stakeholders were analysed based on the information we got from the first meeting with the commissioner. There are three different stakeholder sectors were recognized in this project (Figure 11). Currently, traditional orchards in the Netherlands are run by owners and agricultural collectives who have straightforward interest relationship with orchards. They run and benefit from traditional orchards directly. So, what kind of financial benefits can be brought by improving biodiversity should be considered more for them. Recently, foundations care more about the ecological terms in orchards. For now, they provide technical supports for owners in management. They hold a lot of experience and knowledge in orchard management. However, they are facing a knowledge gap between management and its ecological effects in the orchard. In other words, it is not clear that what kind of effects do these management practices have on the ecological value in traditional orchards. For the government, both local government and EU, who subsidize the orchards also want an efficient monitoring system to evaluate the ecological status. Instead of subsidizing based on the number of trees, a monitoring system can be the new standard for subsidizing and more efficient. Owners and their agricultural collectives are expected to be supported better, and be more positive about biodiversity.

Figure 11. Stakeholder’s sectors and their interactions

Table 2. Stakeholders Analysis Matrix, Adapted from Raybould, S. (2009). Stakeholders Stakeholder Interests Assessment of Impact Power of Stakeholders Owners of orchards ▪ More economic benefits. ▪ More benefits from orchards. ▪ Participating the ▪ More work and cost need to be done for management of changing management strategies. orchards. Agricultural ▪ More economic benefits ▪ Efficient subsidizing to owners. ▪ Subsidizing owners collective ▪ Efficient subsidizing. ▪ Potential more economic benefits. directly. Influencing. Foundations ▪ To improve the biodiversity and the ▪ Be known more ▪ Providing technical (IJsselboomgaarden quality of landscape in traditional ▪ Good for running as more activities will be support and guiding & Landscape orchards organized owners on management. Overijssel) ▪ Making people aware. Local government ▪ The good ecological environment in ▪ Better environment and landscape. ▪ Subsidizing agricultural orchards. ▪ Possible more job opportunities. collective directly. ▪ More efficient in subsidizing ▪ Policy makers may enforce the law to owners. support orchards. ▪ Economic benefits from tourist. The EU ▪ The good ecological environment in ▪ More expenses on subsidy ▪ Subsidizing agriculture orchards. ▪ Efficient subsidizing to the agricultural collective directly. ▪ More efficient in subsidizing collective. owners Research Institutions ▪ The research value of biodiversity ▪ Good for carrying researching. ▪ Providing technical in orchards. support. Locals ▪ High biodiversity ▪ Good biodiversity environment for visiting. ▪ Giving opinion about the ▪ Good environment for leisure. ▪ More choices of different orchards landscape of orchards. production.