In chapter 7 of Farming with the Environment, I use a very specific example from our research at the Allerton Project to illustrate this. At one time, there were polarised views about whether restoring songbird populations could best be achieved by improving habitat or reducing predation pressure. Our intensive research demonstrated that the answer varied between species, but with both being important considerations to varying degrees.
There were interactions too. Habitat structure at the nest site influenced nest predation rates, and habitat at the scale of songbird breeding territories also had an impact. At the landscape scale, habitat heterogeneity influenced the size and composition of the predator community. And for those species which migrate, conditions in West African wintering areas were important considerations – the chapter contains the evidence base for that too.
There’s also a discussion about rewilding, a popular but much abused term, and the polarisation between farming and forestry. Our research provides examples of how integrating trees into livestock farming helps with mineral supplementation, intestinal worm control, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
And then there’s dichotomy between agricultural and domestic contributions of phosphorus to our streams and rivers. Of course it is both, but the relative contribution of each varies with catchment and scale. We are central to this as individuals, whether by buying food or flushing toilets. But water companies and national policies are falling short of what is required.
Yes, it is complicated. That is why the research is so important. And whether as individuals, businesses or policy makers, we need to act on that evidence and not on short term expediency.
