This data collection results from abundance surveys of 7 species of weeds in ca. 500 lowland arable fields in 49 farms over three years. Each field was divided into large grids of 20x20 metre cells, and the density of seven species was estimated three times a year. The study is part of the NERC Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme. In the context of changing external and internal pressures on UK agriculture, particularly those associated with the ongoing reform of the EU Common Agricultural Policy, it is imperative to determine whether all of the various dimensions of sustainability - including the relevant economic and environmental objectives as well as social and cultural values - can be integrated successfully at the farm and landscape levels. Although the ways in which economic, technological, and regulatory changes are likely to affect the profitability and management of farms of varying size are reasonably well understood, there is not the knowledge or understanding to predict the resulting effects on biodiversity. For example, the effect of changes in arable farming practices on field weeds and, in turn, on habitats and food supply required to sustain farm birds is a case in point. This knowledge is critical, however, if we are to understand the ecological consequences of changes in agricultural policy. Furthermore, it is also important if we are to design and justify changes in farming methods that can not only enhance nature conservation, but do this is ways that are practical and appealing from a farmer's point of view. This understanding is essential if we are to achieve an agriculture that is sustainable in both economic and environmental terms and is widely perceived to have social and cultural value. A consistent theme in all components of this research project is to understand the behaviour (of farmers, weeds or birds) and then use this information to produce predictive models. Whilst there have been a number of models of economic behaviour, weed populations and bird populations - including many by the research team here - the really novel component of this research is to integrate these within one framework. Farmer interviews on economic attitudes and preferences associated with and importance of different land-use objectives to lowland arable farmers are available at the UK Data Archive under study number 6728 (see online resources). Further 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 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 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 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 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 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 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).