Agroecological Farming Boosts Soil and Biodiversity – But Economic Barriers Remain

2 July, 2025

A major four-year study across English farms has found that nature-friendly agroecological practices can enhance biodiversity and boost some crop yields, but high costs and land-use trade-offs mean most approaches remain financially unviable without government support.

The research, conducted on 17 commercial arable farms in England, tested how far farmers could reduce their reliance on agrochemicals by using ecological interventions such as wildflower margins, cover crops, and soil enrichment to restore nature’s regulating services—like pollination and pest control.

Farms trialled three systems: standard "business-as-usual" (BAU) methods; an "Enhancing Ecosystem Services" (Enhancing-ES) approach using margins and cover crops; and a more ambitious "Maximising-ES" model that added soil organic matter and in-field strips to attract beneficial insects directly into crop zones.

The results were striking. Soils under the Maximising-ES system showed the greatest carbon gains, and both ecological systems saw increases in earthworm populations and beneficial predatory and pollinating insects. Pollination and pest control services improved significantly, and pest snail biomass dropped in the ecologically managed plots.

Cereals and oilseed rape yields also rose under these nature-based systems. However, the financial picture was less positive. The higher yields failed to compensate for the land taken out of production and the upfront costs of ecological enhancements. Only the moderate Enhancing-ES system broke even—and only with agri-environmental subsidy support.

UKCEH ecologist Dr Ben Woodcock, who led the study, published in the Journal of Applied Ecology, explained, “Without the introduction of new financial incentives, many farmers will be deterred from adopting agroecological farming practices and systems. This could leave them locked into high input, intensive farming systems and more exposed to the impacts of pesticide resistance, declining soil health and climate change.

Trialling agroecological methods

Scientists at UKCEH and Rothamsted worked with farmers to co-develop the trials using simple management practices within three different agricultural systems on each of the farms:  

1) Business-as-usual – typical intensive agriculture and no nature-friendly farming. 

2) An 'enhanced' ecological farming system which involved planting wildflower field margins to provide habitat for bees, beetles and spiders, and sowing overwinter cover crops to capture carbon and retain nutrients in the soil. 

3) A ‘maximised' ecological system which added to the enhanced system  by also planting in-field strips of wildflowers – ‘stripey fields’ – to provide ‘runways’ for beneficial insects to get further into crops, and the addition of organic matter in the form of farmyard manure to  improve soil health. 

Benefits for farmers and nature 

The study found that in the enhanced and maximised ecological systems, there were increased populations of earthworms, pollinators such as bees and hoverflies, as well as natural predators of crop pests such as ladybirds, lacewings and spiders. This reduced populations of pest aphids and snails, and increased the seed numbers and thereby yield of flowering crops like oilseed rape. 

There was also higher soil carbon and overall increased crop yields on the farmed area due to healthier soils, greater pollination and natural pest control. The study also found the enhanced ecological system was as profitable as intensive farming, but only due to agri-environmental subsidies. 

While the various benefits for biodiversity, soil carbon and yield were greater in the maximised ecological system – which included planting in-field wildflower strips and buying in farmyard manure – the study found that the average farm would require increased subsidies to make it as profitable as intensive farming. Though the additional cost can be offset in certain situations because, for example, mixed farms already have free and easy access to manure. 

Our analysis has shown that realising these benefits will require additional support for farm businesses that currently operate on very narrow profit margins

“While farmers run businesses that need to be profitable, there is an increasing awareness that more sustainable systems can help ‘future-proof’ their farms in terms of soil health, less reliance on pesticides  and climate change, said Woodcock.

“Agroecological methods are good for biodiversity, food security and, in the long-term, provide more secure farm incomes but habitats can take several years to establish, so agri-environment subsidies are essential to helping farmers transition to these more sustainable systems.”

The study authors say demonstrating the effectiveness of agroecological practices to farmers could be a critical step breaking farmers free from 'intensification traps'.

Rothamsted's Professor Jonathan Storkey, one of the co-authors, said: “This study confirmed that managing land on farms for wildlife is not in direct conflict with food security but can support sustainable production by increasing yields and reducing pest pressure. These ‘ecosystem services’ could potentially substitute for chemical fertilisers and pesticides which negatively impact the environment. 

“However, our analysis has shown that realising these benefits will require additional support for farm businesses that currently operate on very narrow profit margins. As input costs increase, however, these agroecological approaches may become more attractive.”