This dataset includes the transcript of discussion group activities on Human Wildlife conflict, conducted with ten rural communities in Marrupa District, Niassa (Northern Mozambique). It also comprises the results of semi-structured interviews conducted individually in three of the ten selected communities. The ten villages were selected from a forest cover gradient running from villages with a higher forest cover to those within degraded forest areas and consequently low cover. The villages had similar infrastructure, soils, rainfall, and vegetation types. The dataset contains information on the occurrence of conflict with both vertebrate and invertebrate wild species, mitigation strategies, conflict seasonality and trends, but also its impact on agricultural production and livestock rearing. The discussion groups were conducted with six to ten people and the presence of the leader of each village, between May and July 2015. Data were collected as part of a project funded under the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) programme. Full details about this dataset can be found at https://doi.org/10.5285/7bd2e230-c219-4017-9914-b5cfd83a4eae

This dataset comprises 259 smallholder agricultural field surveys collected from twenty-six villages across three Districts in Mozambique, Africa. Surveys were conducted in ten fields in each of six villages in Mabalane District, Gaza Province, ten villages in Marrupa District, Niassa Province, and ten villages in Gurue District, Zambezia Province. Data were collected in Mabalane between May-Sep 2014, Marrupa between May-Aug 2015, and Gurue between Sep-Dec 2015. Fields were selected based on their age, location, and status as an active field at the time of the survey (i.e. no fallow fields were sampled). Structured interviews using questionnaires were conducted with each farmer to obtain information about current management practices (e.g. use of inputs, tilling, fire and residue management), age of the field, crops planted, crop yields, fallow cycles, floods, erosion and other problems such as crop pests and wild animals. The survey also includes qualitative observations about the fields at the time of the interview, including standing live trees and cropping systems. This dataset was collected as part of the Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (ESPA) funded ACES project , which aims to understand how changing land use impacts on ecosystem services and human wellbeing of the rural poor in Mozambique. Full details about this dataset can be found at https://doi.org/10.5285/78c5dcee-61c1-44be-9c47-8e9e2d03cb63

This dataset consists in a collection of remotely sensed drought indicators time series. The data was extracted from CEH's gridded remotely sensed drought indicators product (Tanguy et al., 2016; http://doi.org/10.5285/4e0d0e50-2f9c-4647-864d-5c3b30bb5f4b), which has gridded data for Europe for three drought indicators: - the Vegetation Condition Index (VCI) based on satellite product NDVI (Normalised Difference Vegetation Index); - the Temperature Condition Index (TCI) based on remotely sensed LST (Land Surface Temperature); - the Vegetation Health Index (VHI) which is a combination of VCI and TCI. These three drought indicators have been extracted for European NUTS regions (level 0, 1, 2 and 3). These have been masked with a land use land cover map to be able to study different responses for various land cover types. A simplified LULC was created, with only four classes: forest, crop, shrub and grass. One extra time series was created for all classes together. Full details about this dataset can be found at https://doi.org/10.5285/5b3fcf9f-19d4-4ad3-a8bb-0a5ea02c857e

This dataset consists of farm management data which includes crop drilling dates and herbicide application dates. The data relate to arable fields in which a range of ecological measurements were collected, including species counts in the following areas: weed seedbank, vegetation in the crop, field edge vegetation, invertebrates. Each field was sown with a combination of genetically modified and conventional crops, either Beet, Maize, Spring-sown Oilseed Rape or Winter-sown oilseed Rape. The data were collected as part of the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs), a four-year programme of research by independent researchers aimed at studying the effect that the management practices associated with Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant (GMHT) crops might have on farmland wildlife, when compared with weed control used with non-GM crops. Data were collected by a consortium of: the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, ITE (now the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, CEH), the Institute of Arable Crop Research (now Rothamstead Research, IACR) and the Scottish Crop Research Institute, SCRI (now the James Hutton Institute, JHI). Data were collected for four crops overall (Beet, Maize, Spring-sown Oilseed Rape and Winter-sown oilseed Rape).

The semiochemical experiment data were collected from novel laboratory, semi-field- and field-scale bioassay experiments taking behavioural observations and counts of pest insects and their natural enemies in the field. Crop yields were taken. Chemical analyses were also done using air entrainment. The study is part of the NERC Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme. Despite the widespread concerns regarding the use of pesticides in food production and the availability of potentially viable biological pest control strategies in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems, the UK cereal crop production remains a bastion of pesticide use. This project aimed to understand further the reasons for this lack of adoption, using the control of summer cereal aphids as a case study. Reasons for this lack of adoption of biocontrol remain a complex interplay of both technical and economic problems. Economists highlight the potential path dependency of an industry to continue to employ a suboptimal technology, caused by past dynamics of adoption resulting in differential private cost structures of each technique. Further, risk aversion on the part of farmers regarding the perceived efficacy of a new technology may also limit up-take. This may be particularly important when IPM rests on portfolios of technologies and when little scientific understanding exists on the effect of portfolio and scale of adoption on overall efficacy. Faced with this, farmers will not adopt a socially superior IPM technology and there exists a clear need for public policy action. This action may take the form of minimising uncertainty through carefully designed research programs, government funding and dissemination of the results of large-scale research studies or direct public support for farm landscape and farm system changes that can promote biocontrol. This research looked at alternatives to the use of insecticides in arable agriculture and the difficulties facing producers in switching over to them. Two approaches were explored: habitat manipulations, to encourage predators and parasites, and using naturally occurring odours to manipulate predator distribution as model technologies. Scale and portfolio effects on biocontrol efficacy have been investigated in controlled and field scale experiments. Aim is to improve the way research and development of new products and techniques are carried out to help break the dependence on chemical pesticides. Conservation biological control experiments data investigating the effect of wild field margins on pests and predators, from this same research project, are also available. In addition, socio-economic research has been used to help direct natural science research into the development and evaluation of a combination of habitat management and semiochemical push-pull strategies of appropriate scale and complementarity to yield viable, commercially attractive and sustainable alternatives to the use of insecticides in cereal crop agriculture. These socio-economic data are available through the UK Data Archive under study number 6960 (see online resources). Further information and documentation for this study may be found through the RELU Knowledge Portal and the project's ESRC funding award web page (see online resources).

This dataset consists of a range of ecological measurements collected from a set of arable fields, each sown with a combination of genetically modified and conventional winter-sown oilseed rape crops. Measurements include species counts in the following areas: weed seedbank, vegetation in the crop, field edge vegetation, invertebrates. The data were collected as part of the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs), a four-year programme of research by independent researchers aimed at studying the effect that the management practices associated with Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant (GMHT) crops might have on farmland wildlife, when compared with weed control used with non-GM crops. Data were collected by a consortium of: the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (now the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology), the Institute of Arable Crops Research (now Rothamsted Research) and the Scottish Crop Research Institute (now the James Hutton Institute). Data were collected for four crops overall (Beet, Maize, Spring-sown Oilseed Rape and Winter-sown oilseed Rape). Full details about this dataset can be found at https://doi.org/10.5285/37a503da-d75c-4d72-8e8b-b11c2fdc7d92

This dataset consists of a range of ecological measurements collected from a set of arable fields, each sown with a combination of genetically modified and conventional maize crops. Measurements include species counts in the following areas: weed seedbank, vegetation in the crop, field edge vegetation, invertebrates. The data were collected as part of the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs), a four-year programme of research by independent researchers aimed at studying the effect that the management practices associated with Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant (GMHT) crops might have on farmland wildlife, when compared with weed control used with non-GM crops. Data were collected by a consortium of: the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (now the Centre for Ecology &Hydrology), the Institute of Arable Crops Research (now Rothamsted Research) and the Scottish Crop Research Institute (now the James Hutton Institute). Data were collected for four crops overall (Beet, Maize, Spring-sown Oilseed Rape and Winter-sown oilseed Rape). Full details about this dataset can be found at https://doi.org/10.5285/ca6752ed-3a22-4790-a86d-afadaedda082

This dataset consists of a range of ecological measurements collected from a set of arable fields, each sown with a combination of genetically modified and conventional beet crops. Measurements include species counts in the following areas: weed seedbank, vegetation in the crop, field edge vegetation, invertebrates. The data were collected as part of the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs), a four-year programme of research by independent researchers aimed at studying the effect that the management practices associated with Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant (GMHT) crops might have on farmland wildlife, when compared with weed control used with non-GM crops. Data were collected by a consortium of: the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (now the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology), the Institute of Arable Crops Research (now Rothamsted Research) and the Scottish Crop Research Institute, SCRI (now the James Hutton Institute). Data were collected for four crops overall (Beet, Maize, Spring-sown Oilseed Rape and Winter-sown oilseed Rape). Full details about this dataset can be found at https://doi.org/10.5285/86cd1a60-64f1-4087-a9f1-a3d8a9f8f535

This dataset consists of a range of ecological measurements collected from a set of arable fields, each sown with a combination of genetically modified and conventional spring-sown oilseed rape crops. Measurements include species counts in the following areas: weed seedbank, vegetation in the crop, field edge vegetation, invertebrates. The data were collected as part of the Farm Scale Evaluations (FSEs), a four-year programme of research by independent researchers aimed at studying the effect that the management practices associated with Genetically Modified Herbicide Tolerant (GMHT) crops might have on farmland wildlife, when compared with weed control used with non-GM crops. Data were collected by a consortium of: the Institute of Terrestrial Ecology (now the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology), the Institute of Arable Crops Research (now Rothamsted Research) and the Scottish Crop Research Institute (now the James Hutton Institute). Data were collected for four crops overall (Beet, Maize, Spring-sown Oilseed Rape and Winter-sown oilseed Rape). Full details about this dataset can be found at https://doi.org/10.5285/0023bd6e-4dd7-462c-aacf-f13083b054ab

This set of conservation biological control experiments data was collected as part of five field experiments investigating agricultural biological control techniques, particularly the effect of wild field margins on pests and predators. The study is part of the NERC Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme. Despite the widespread concerns regarding the use of pesticides in food production and the availability of potentially viable biological pest control strategies in Integrated Pest Management (IPM) systems, the UK cereal crop production remains a bastion of pesticide use. This project aimed to understand further the reasons for this lack of adoption, using the control of summer cereal aphids as a case study. Reasons for this lack of adoption of biocontrol remain a complex interplay of both technical and economic problems. Economists highlight the potential path dependency of an industry to continue to employ a suboptimal technology, caused by past dynamics of adoption resulting in differential private cost structures of each technique. Further, risk aversion on the part of farmers regarding the perceived efficacy of a new technology may also limit up-take. This may be particularly important when IPM rests on portfolios of technologies and when little scientific understanding exists on the effect of portfolio and scale of adoption on overall efficacy. Faced with this, farmers will not adopt a socially superior IPM technology and there exists a clear need for public policy action. This action may take the form of minimising uncertainty through carefully designed research programs, government funding and dissemination of the results of large-scale research studies or direct public support for farm landscape and farm system changes that can promote biocontrol. This research looked at alternatives to the use of insecticides in arable agriculture and the difficulties facing producers in switching over to them. Two approaches were explored: habitat manipulations, to encourage predators and parasites, and using naturally occurring odours to manipulate predator distribution as model technologies. Scale and portfolio effects on biocontrol efficacy have been investigated in controlled and field scale experiments. Aim is to improve the way research and development of new products and techniques are carried out to help break the dependence on chemical pesticides. 'Semiochemical experiment data, 2005-2009 - RELU Re-bugging the system: promoting adoption of alternative pest management strategies in field crop systems' from this same research project are also available. In addition, socio-economic research has been used to help direct natural science research into the development and evaluation of a combination of habitat management and semiochemical push-pull strategies of appropriate scale and complementarity to yield viable, commercially attractive and sustainable alternatives to the use of insecticides in cereal crop agriculture. These socio-economic data are available through the UK Data Archive under study number 6960 (see online resources). Further information and documentation for this study may be found through the RELU Knowledge Portal and the project's ESRC funding award web page (see online resources).