Plants seek friendly environments rather than adapt

University of California - Davis

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

A specimen of a jewelflower (Streptanthus brewerii) from the John M. Tucker Herbarium at UC Davis. Species of jewelflowers are found in areas of California that are generally cooler and wetter than the southwest deserts where the group originated. But a new study based on herbarium collections shows that jewelflowers select specific areas and flowering times that allow them to live in a warmer, drier climate than their overall surroundings.

view more 

Credit: UC Davis

As jewelflowers spread into California from the desert Southwest over the past couple of million years, they settled in places that felt like home, according to a new study from the University of California, Davis. The work, published July 1 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, shows that the ability of plants and animals to adapt to changing climates might be more limited than it appears.

“I was honestly surprised,” said Sharon Strauss, Distinguished Professor emeritus in the Department of Evolution and Ecology and corresponding author on the paper. “They haven’t evolved as much as you would think.”

The study also shows the important role that herbaria — collections of pressed and dried plants — can play in ecological research.

Jewelflowers (Streptanthus) began to spread into California two to four million years ago as the climate became “Mediterranean” with a rainy season from fall to spring and a hot, dry summer. Jewelflower species are now found across the region, in areas that are much colder and wetter overall than the deserts where they originated.

Strauss, postdoctoral scholar Megan Bontrager and colleagues used about 2,000 specimens of 14 species of jewelflowers from the Consortium of California Herbaria, an online resource that draws on multiple plant collections, including UC Davis’ own herbarium.

The collections include records of when and where the specimen was collected and often other data as well.

Most jewelflowers are annual plants that germinate with the first significant rainfall of the season. By reconstructing local climate conditions for each specimen, the researchers could therefore estimate when the plant germinated from seed, and how long it had been growing before being collected. For example, a plant collected in June 1935 might have germinated in October 1934.

“We know how far they progressed on their one shot at life,” Strauss said.

Tracking the lived environment

Based on the average climate over a year, some jewelflower species live in areas much colder and wetter than others. But when the team looked at the local climate at the time the plants were growing above ground, a different picture emerged. The environments in which the growing plants spent their time were generally warmer and drier than surroundings. 

“If you look at the annual climate, you would think that they have diverged a lot, but actually the species are good at tracking hotter, drier times and areas,” Strauss said. For example, the plants might favor sunnier, south-facing slopes. At the northern end of their range, jewelflowers are found in areas with drier soils.

The research shows how the “lived” climate can be different from the annual climate when plants take advantage of microclimates or refuges, or use strategies such as changing their timing of germination or flowering.

It also shows how much herbarium specimens can contribute to ecological research.

“The beauty of herbarium specimens is that we have hundreds of years of collections under a wide range of conditions,” Strauss said.

Additional authors on the paper are: from UC Davis, Samantha Worthy, Laura Leventhal, Julin Maloof, Jennifer Gremer and Johanna Schmitt; and N. Ivalú Cacho, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Megan Bontrager is now an assistant professor at the University of Toronto.

---

Journal

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

DOI

10.1073/pnas.250367012 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

Not applicable

Article Title

Herbarium specimens reveal a constrained seasonal climate niche despite diverged annual climates across a wildflower clade

Article Publication Date

1-Jul-2025

 

Black emergency department patients less likely to be treated with opioids – and more likely to misuse them later as a result

University of California - Los Angeles Health Sciences

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

A new study examining racial disparities in unmet pain treatment finds that patients suffering from acute pain whose opioid treatment preferences were not met during an emergency department visit are at elevated risk for misusing them three months later. This was particularly true for Black patients, who were likelier than whites to be sent home without an opioid prescription. Patients who were satisfied with how their pain was managed in the emergency department were, however, less likely to misuse opioids, even if their preference for opioids was not honored.

Why it matters

The findings shed light on how disparities in pain treatment can increase the risk of future opioid misuse, especially for Black patients. The findings challenge the consensus view that lower opioid prescribing is always safer, highlighting the importance of patient experience and fairness in treatment. The study shines a light on a possibly overlooked cause for the disproportionate overdose deaths in Black communities: untreated pain and unmet expectations in the healthcare system.

The study

The researchers analyzed data on 735 participants collected from a randomized controlled trial conducted at six emergency departments at four academic medical centers. The primary outcome was opioid misuse risk as quantified by the Current Opioid Misuse Measure, or COMM, a 17-item, self-report measure of potential risk of misuse among people prescribed opioids for chronic pain that was taken 90 days after the patients’ emergency department visit.

What they found

Unmet preference for opioid treatment was more common among Black participants (21.8%) compared to white participants (15%). At low satisfaction (0/10), Black participants with unmet preferences had COMM scores nearly twice as high as their white counterparts; by high satisfaction (10/10), this gap disappeared. In contrast, among control participants, the Black/white difference in COMM scores was small and relatively stable across all satisfaction levels.

What's next

The next step is to examine why some patients feel less satisfied with their pain care than do others. Future research will explore factors shaping patients' satisfaction with pain care and their impact on opioid misuse risk, such as shared decision-making and patient-provider trust. 

From the experts

“While a great deal of studies on opioid misuse focus on overprescribing, this study flips the script by showing that under-prescribing—or more precisely, ignoring a patient’s pain treatment preferences—can also lead to harmful outcomes, especially when patients are dissatisfied with their care,” said Dr. Max Jordan Nguemeni, assistant professor-in-residence and the study’s lead author. “It’s one of the first to link racial disparities in pain treatment, patient satisfaction, and risk of opioid misuse in a single framework using longitudinal data.”

About the study

Racial Disparities in Unmet Pain Treatment Preference, Pain Treatment Satisfaction and Subsequent Opioid Misuse: A Secondary Analysis of a National Multisite RCT. Published online June 25, 2025 by the Journal of General Internal Medicine. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-025-09637-w.

About the Research Team

Study co-authors are Dr. Eden Engel-Rebitzer of Brigham & Women’s Hospital; Dr. Ari Friedman, Frances Shofer, Abby Dolan, Dr. Jeanmarie Perrone, Dr. Marilyn Schapira, and Dr. Zachary Meisel of the University of Pennsylvania, and Dr. Erik Hess of Vanderbilt University.

Funding and Disclosures

The Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (ID # CDR-1511–33496) funded the study.

---

Journal

Journal of General Internal Medicine

DOI

10.1007/s11606-025-09637-w 

Method of Research

Randomized controlled/clinical trial

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Racial Disparities in Unmet Pain Treatment Preference, Pain Treatment Satisfaction and Subsequent Opioid Misuse: A Secondary Analysis of a National Multisite RCT

 

Microplastics discovered in human reproductive fluids, new study reveals

New research reveals the presence of microplastics in human reproductive fluids, raising important questions about their potential risks to fertility and reproductive health

European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

(Paris, France, Wednesday, 2 July 2025) New research presented today at the 41st Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) reveals the presence of microplastics in human reproductive fluids, raising important questions about their potential risks to fertility and reproductive health.[1]

Researchers examined follicular fluid from 29 women and seminal fluid from 22 men, both of which play critical roles in natural conception and assisted reproduction.

A range of commonly used microplastic polymers, including polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polystyrene (PS), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyamide (PA), polypropylene (PP) and polyurethane (PU), were identified in both groups.

Microplastics were present in 69% of the follicular fluid samples analysed. Notably, the most frequently detected polymer was PTFE, found in 31% of the samples. This was followed by PP (28%), PET (17%), PA (14%), polyethylene (PE) (10%), PU (10%) and PS (7%), in descending order of prevalence.

In male seminal fluid samples, microplastics were found in 55% of those analysed. PTFE again emerged as the most prevalent polymer, identified in 41% of the samples. Other polymers detected included PS (14%), PET (9%), PA (5%), and PU (5%), though in lower concentrations.

To prevent contamination, all samples were collected and stored in glass containers and underwent chemical treatment before analysis using laser direct infrared microscopy.

Lead researcher Dr. Emilio Gomez-Sanchez commented, “Previous studies had already shown that microplastics can be found in various human organs. As a result, we weren´t entirely surprised to find microplastics in fluids of the human reproductive system, but we were struck by how common they were – found in 69% of the women and 55% of the men we studied.”

Microplastics are defined as plastic particles under 5mm in size, and there is evidence that they pose a threat to environmental and public health.[2] While this research did not directly assess how microplastics affect fertility, their detection highlights the need to explore possible implications for human reproductive health.

“What we know from animal studies is that in the tissues where microplastics accumulate, they can induce inflammation, free radical formation, DNA damage, cellular senescence, and endocrine disruptions”, continued Dr. Gomez-Sanchez. “It’s possible they could impair egg or sperm quality in humans, but we don’t yet have enough evidence to confirm that.”

The research team plans to expand their analysis to a larger cohort, alongside detailed lifestyle and environmental exposure questionnaires. Further phases of the project will also explore the potential relationship between the presence of microplastics and oocyte and sperm quality.

Dr. Gomez-Sanchez stressed that fertility is influenced by many factors, including age, health, and genetics, and that the findings should not cause alarm among those trying to conceive. “There’s no need for alarm at this point. Microplastics are just one of many elements that may play a role in fertility. However, it is sensible to consider ways of reducing our exposure to them. Simple steps, such as using glass containers to store and heat food, or limiting the amount of water we consume from plastic bottles, can help minimise our intake.”

Professor Dr. Carlos Calhaz-Jorge, Immediate Past Chair of ESHRE, commented, “Environmental factors influencing reproduction are certainly a reality, although not easy to measure objectively. The authors of this study found microplastics in over two-thirds of follicular fluids and more than 50% of semen fluids from the studied patients. Although the significance of these findings is not yet clear, they should be considered an additional argument in favour of avoiding the generalised use of plastics in our daily lives.”

The study abstract will be published today in Human Reproduction, one of the world’s leading reproductive medicine journals.

 

ENDS

 

Notes to editors:

A reference to the ESHRE Annual Meeting must be included in all coverage and/or articles associated with this study.

For more information or to arrange an expert interview, please contact the ESHRE Press Office at: press@eshre.eu

About the study author:

Dr. Emilio Gomez-Sanchez holds a degree in Biological Sciences from the University of Seville and PhD in Biology from the University of Valencia. He completed a postdoctoral fellowship at the Medical Research Council (MRC) in Edinburgh (UK), funded by the European Union’s Human Capital and Mobility Programme. Since 1996, he has served as the director of an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) laboratory. He holds certification as a Senior Embryologist from the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), and is also accredited as a Specialist in Assisted Human Reproduction by the Spanish Association for the Study of Reproductive Biology (ASEBIR). He has participated in numerous research projects funded by institutions such as CICYT, the Seneca Foundation, the Interministerial Commission for Science and Technology, the CDTi Research Programme, and the Instituto de Fomento de la Región de Murcia (INFO). He is the author of several publications in scientific journals and has been a speaker at various specialised conferences. Since 2006, he has been an Associate Professor at the University of Murcia. He is currently the director of the assisted reproduction laboratory at Next Fertility Murcia and serves as head embryologist and scientific coordinator at Gametia Gamete Bank.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/emiliogomezsanchez/?locale=en_US

About the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology

The main aim of ESHRE is to promote interest in infertility care and to aim for a holistic understanding of reproductive biology and medicine.

ESHRE collaborates world-wide and advocates universal improvements in scientific research, encourages and evaluates new developments in the field, and fosters harmonisation in clinical practice. It also provides guidance to enhance effectiveness, safety and quality assurance in clinical and laboratory procedures, psychosocial care, and promotes ethical practice. ESHRE also fosters prevention of infertility and related educational programmes and promotes reproductive rights regardless of the individual’s background. ESHRE’s activities include teaching, training, professional accreditations, mentoring and career planning for junior professionals, as well as developing and maintaining data registries. It also facilitates and disseminates research in human reproduction and embryology to the general public, scientists, clinicians, allied personnel, and patient associations.

Website: https://www.eshre.eu/

About Human Reproduction

Human Reproduction is a monthly journal of ESHRE and is one of the top three journals in the world in the field of reproductive biology, obstetrics and gynaecology. It is published by Oxford Journals, a division of Oxford University Press.

References:

[1] Gomez-Sanchez, E., et al. (2025) Unveiling the Hidden Danger: Detection and characterisation of microplastics in human follicular and seminal fluids. Human Reproduction. [insert link when available]

[2] Wang, L., Yin, Y., & He, X. (2024). The hidden threat: Unraveling the impact of microplastics on reproductive health. Science of the Total Environment, 912, 173177.

 

Women 65+ still at heightened risk of cervical cancer caused by HPV

But screening usually discontinued for them if previous smear tests normal Global incidence rising in this age group; rethink of guideline recommendations needed

BMJ Group

Facebook

X
BlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Women aged 65 and above are still at heightened risk of cervical cancer caused by human papillomavirus (HPV), suggest the findings of a large observational study published in the open access journal Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine.

But most guidelines currently recommend discontinuing screening for the disease in women aged 65+ if they have had previously normal smear tests. Yet global cases of cervical cancer have been rising among women in this age group, prompting the researchers to call for a policy rethink.

Recent data from the World Health Organization indicate that there were 157,182 new cases in women in this age group and 124,269 deaths from the disease worldwide in 2022.

In light of these trends, they sought to analyse cervical cancer screening data to identify characteristics of high risk HPV infection among older women, including infection rates and genotype distribution, as well as the prevalence of cervical intraepithelial grade 2 or worse (CIN2+).

CIN2 indicates moderately abnormal cells in the cervical lining. CIN2 may clear up on its own, but it may also progress to more serious abnormalities and cervical cancer if left untreated.

The researchers retrospectively analysed cervical cancer screening data, which included HPV vaccination status, from 628 different types of healthcare facilities across Shenzhen, China, collected between 2017 and 2023. 

High risk HPV infection results were categorised as none, single, double, triple or multiple.

Any woman with abnormal test results (HPV+ smear test) on initial screening was referred for colposcopy—a procedure that enables closer examination of the cervix under a microscope. Biopsy specimens were taken if any suspicious cells were detected.

In all, 2,580,829 women were screened for cervical cancer between 2017 and 2023, and complete data were available for 2,152,766 of them.

Their average age was 40, with most aged between 25 and 54. Only just over 2% had been vaccinated against HPV. Some 17420 (just under 1%) were aged 65 and above; the remainder (2,135, 346) were younger. 

Most (92%) tested negative for high risk HPV genotypes: just over 2% tested positive for HPV16/18; and just under 6% were infected with other HPV genotypes. 

Just over 4% (89,148) of the women were referred for colposcopy, and suspicious abnormalities were identified in 42% (37,418) of them.

The prevalence of high risk HPV infections and CIN2+ were higher in women aged 65+ than they were in those who were younger 

Among the older women, nearly 14% tested positive for high risk HPV genotypes, compared with 8% of those who were younger.

Older women were also more likely (23% vs 16.5%) to be infected with several different types of HPV and more likely to have abnormalities picked up on screening (just over 7% vs just over 4%).

Similarly, the percentage of CIN2+ abnormalities picked up during colposcopy was higher in the older women: 14% vs 9%. Overall, the detection rate of CIN2+ was very low (58) in the older women compared with 3320 in those who were younger. 

And the cancer detection rate was similarly very low (16) for the over 65s, although it was much lower (205) among those who were younger.

The distribution of single and double high risk HPV infections differed in their potential to cause CIN2+, and the distribution differed from that of younger women.

Single, double, and triple high risk HPV infections were also more common among the older women: 10.5% (1839);  nearly 2.5% (404); and just over 0.5% (99), respectively, with associated CIN2+ rates of 2%, 3%, and 4%, respectively. 

The most common genotypes in older women were HPV52, HPV16, HPV58, HPV56 and HPV68,with HPV18, HPV16, and HPV33 associated primarily with CIN2+, along with frequent double infections, such as HPV52/58, HPV16/52 and HPV52/56. 

And the greater the number of high risk HPV infections, the greater was the risk of CIN2+ in the older women. It was 56 times higher for a single infection, rising to 66 times higher for double infection, and 85.5 for 3 or more. 

These risks were higher in the younger women, after accounting for potentially influential factors, such as ethnicity and vaccination status.

This is an observational study, and as such, no definitive conclusions can be drawn about causal factors. The researchers also acknowledge that the data were taken from women who had been screened, and the over 65s aren’t included in China’s screening programme for cervical cancer. The study was also confined to one region of China only. And there were only a few high risk HPV infections detected in the older women.

Nevertheless, the researchers say: “These data indicate that women [aged 65 and above] are a high-risk group for cervical cancer incidence and mortality, necessitating urgent attention from countries worldwide.”

They continue: “Most guidelines suggest stopping screening for those with adequate primary screening and no high-risk factors, particularly for women under 65. However, the situation differs for those over 65, who may not have been vaccinated or thoroughly screened. With increasing life expectancy, the risk of cervical cancer in this demographic is significantly heightened.” 

Declining immunity and postmenopausal hormonal changes  might increase susceptibility to high risk HPV infection and cervical cancer risk, especially if these women missed early screening, they add.

---

Journal

Gynecology and Obstetrics Clinical Medicine

DOI

10.1136/gocm-2025-000238 

Method of Research

Observational study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

High-risk HPV distribution and importance of continuing cervical cancer screening of women aged 65 years and older: a study based on 2 152 766 women in China

Article Publication Date

1-Jul-2025

 

Effective therapies needed to halt rise in eco-anxiety, says psychology professor

Taylor & Francis Group

Facebook

WeChatEmail

More must be done to address the growth in anxiety related to climate change, says a leading psychologist, before it becomes the next mental health crisis.

In his book Understanding Climate Anxiety, Geoff Beattie documents how climate anxiety is on the rise, especially amongst young people. Yet support is limited and sufferers face stigma because of the polarised debate around whether the climate crisis even exists, he says.

Understanding Climate Anxiety offers psychological tips and guidance on how to handle climate anxiety, especially important in the current political landscape which has seen a shift away from green targets.

“Climate anxiety is growing. It can be overwhelming and induce a form of psychological ‘eco‑paralysis’, impacting on both sleep and daily activities,” writes Professor Beattie from Edge Hill University.

Strategies outlined in the book include processing thoughts, feelings and fears about climate change by writing them down. He points out that research has demonstrated  that mental well-being  can be improved in people who are asked to write personal narratives over several days about their difficult emotional experiences.

“Reducing climate anxiety, and helping people deal more effectively with their negative emotions regarding climate change, is a pressing issue for us all. We need people to overcome their feelings of helplessness through this disinhibition of thoughts and feelings, and understand that positive action and change is possible,” Professor Beattie adds. The book is timely especially given that 2024 was the hottest year on record, and research suggests that one in five young people are afraid to bring children into a warming world.

However, climate change deniers reject the clear consensus amongst scientists that climate change is happening.

Understanding Climate Anxiety reviews the scientific evidence on climate change and discusses anxiety and other emotions triggered by this. It explains why it’s becoming so prevalent, and how it differs from other types of anxiety.

The book describes climate anxiety as a new type of anxiety shaped by the modern world and ‘the high carbon economies and industries that have flourished since the industrial revolution’.

Climate anxiety is caused by fear of environmental doom but experts disagree on how the condition should be measured and defined. Professor Beattie says this chronic form of psychological distress does not fit neatly with other clinically recognised forms of anxiety.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5), the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States and internationally, does not currently include climate anxiety and no specific support exists in national health services.

Professor Beattie points out that others forms of new trauma like ‘shell shock’ arising from the prolonged trench warfare of the First World War, were also slow to be clinically recognised. These days we refer to shell shock as ‘Post Traumatic Stress Disorder’.

The broadcaster and academic says the scepticism and hostility targeted at people with climate change anxiety is similar in some respects to that shown towards traumatised troops in WWI: “Extraordinary now, when we look back,” he says.

He points out that climate change denial is a major factor for climate anxiety being dismissed as a hysterical reaction with many high-profile global figures dismissing the climate crisis as fiction.

A high-profile figure who has talked openly about the climate crisis and her own severe climate anxiety is activist Greta Thunberg.

This led to her ‘our house is on fire’ speech to the World Economic Forum in 2019. Professor Beattie says millions disregarded her message because it instilled too much fear without simultaneously telling them what they could do to change things. He writes: “Greta Thunberg was trying to remove all doubt with her simple message, with no ambiguity and no window dressing. But the problem is that too much fear in any message without addressing the issues of self-efficacy is also not an effective way of gaining compliance.”

Instead, Professor Beattie says people need to feel strong and empowered that they have ‘agency’ to change the future of the Earth in a positive way through their individual, societal and political actions. There is hope, but change begins with us.”

---

DOI

10.4324/9781032631882 

 

Nature-friendly farming boosts biodiversity and yields but may require new subsidies

Comprehensive on-farm trials investigated financial viability of agroecological methods

UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology

Facebook

XMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

An in-field wildflower strip planted as part of the trials.

view more 

Credit: UKCEH

Farming methods that support nature improve both biodiversity and crop yields but more extensive measures may require increased government subsidies to become as profitable as conventional intensive agriculture. That is the finding of the first comprehensive on-farm trials of their kind in the UK, which were led by the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (UKCEH) and Rothamsted Research.

This four-year study across 17 conventional, commercial farms in southern England not only trialled various agroecological methods but also – for the first time – the financial viability for businesses.

It showed that incorporating nature-friendly practices within farming – agroecology – increases biodiversity, pollination by bees, natural pest control and numbers of earthworms. This boosted crop yield, but the cost of creating the habitats and the loss of some productive land on which to create these habitats affected the profitability of these systems. New subsidies may therefore be required to support farms’ transition to sustainable agriculture.

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 nature and farmers

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.

Future-proofing farms

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.

“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.

“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'.

Professor Jonathan Storkey, an ecologist at Rothamsted Research, 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.”

Training improves habitat quality

Furthermore, training and increasing experience will enable farmers to get the most out of measures that support nature like wildflower field margins, for the types of habitats needed to support beneficial insects have very different requirements to crops.

Previous UKCEH research has shown that training farmers in the establishment and management of wildlife habitats improves their quality and effectiveness in supporting beneficial insects like bees.

The agroecological trials (2018-2021) were part of a long-term collaboration involving UKCEH and Rothamsted, partners in research, government and industry, and farmers to develop sustainable, resilient agricultural systems that boost biodiversity and crop production. Work has been funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and the Biotechnology & Biological Sciences Research Council.

You can find out more about the research from scientists at UKCEH’s stand (DF C36) at the Groundswell regenerative agriculture festival in Hertfordshire on 2 and 3 July 2025.

- Ends -

Media enquiries

For interviews with one of the scientists or Julian Gold, farm manager of the East Hendred estate, which took part in the trials, or further information, please contact Simon Williams, Media Relations Officer at UKCEH, via simwil@ceh.ac.uk or +44 (0)7920 295384

Alternatively, please come along to the UKCEH stand at Groundswell. Dr Ben Woodcock will be there Thursday 3 July.

Notes to Editors

Woodcock et al. 2025. Agroecological farming promotes yield and biodiversity but may require subsidy to be profitable. Journal of Applied Ecology. DOI: 10.1111/1365-2664.70079. Open access.

The study involved scientists from UKCEH, Rothamsted Research, the Czech Academy of Sciences, the National Trust and the Wildlife Farming Company. It was part of the former ASSIST programme, since succeeded by the AgZero+ programme.

About the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (UKCEH)

The UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology (UKCEH) is a leading independent research institute dedicated to understanding and transforming how we interact with the natural world. 

With over 600 researchers, we tackle the urgent environmental challenges of our time, such as climate change and biodiversity loss. Our evidence-based insights empower governments, businesses and communities to make informed decisions, shaping a future where both nature and people thrive.

ceh.ac.uk / BlueSky: @ukceh.bsky.social / LinkedIn: UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology

---

Journal

Journal of Applied Ecology

DOI

10.1111/1365-2664.70079 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Article Title

Agroecological farming promotes yield and biodiversity but may require subsidy to be profitable

Article Publication Date

1-Jul-2025