For a crisis-resilient agriculture: DFG Senate Commission calls for more support for diversified cropping systems

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

How can German agriculture become more sustainable and more resilient to external pressures? In a new position paper, the DFG’s Permanent Senate Commission on the Transformation of Agricultural and Food Systems (SKAE) calls for greater political efforts to promote diversified cropping systems for arable crops. The Commission emphasises that long-term research programmes and adapted policy frameworks are essential to assess the impacts of diversified systems and to support evidence-based decision-making. Established in 2024, SKAE is the most recently initiated of the DFG’s permanent Senate commissions. The current publication represents its first official position statement.

Over recent decades, crop production in Germany has increasingly relied on highly specialised, low-diversity systems. One prominent example is monoculture, in which a single crop species is grown over large areas, either at short intervals (in the case of annual crops) or continuously over several years (in the case of perennial crops). Monocultures have contributed to substantial yield increases but are also associated with significant ecological and economic risks. These systems show limited adaptability to climate change, contribute to biodiversity loss, and depend heavily on plant protection products and global supply chains.

 

The Commission advocates diversified cropping systems as a viable alternative. One example is extended crop rotation. This is an agricultural practice in which different crops are grown on the same field over longer intervals, rather than repeatedly planting the same crop in consecutive seasons. All these practices can improve soil quality, reduce pest and disease pressure, and enhance overall system resilience.

“Climate change, declining biodiversity and increasing volatility in global markets make a fundamental transformation of agricultural systems unavoidable,” said Katja Becker, President of the DFG. “Diversified cropping systems combine established agricultural practice with innovative approaches and represent a key element for further development of agricultural and food systems in the tension between tradition and future visions.”

According to the Commission, there is a substantial need for systematic research on diversified cropping systems, particularly with regard to yield stability, technology, ecological functions, economic viability and social acceptance. Long-term, interdisciplinary studies are considered essential to adequately capture these complex effects. “Research can help overcome knowledge gaps, cultural barriers and market obstacles,” said Professor Dr. Annette Reineke of Geisenheim University, who chairs the SKAE working group responsible for the position paper.

Despite their potential benefits and existing incentives within the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy, diversified cropping systems have so far seen limited adoption in Germany.  In practise, farmers face numerous obstacles, including insufficient value chains, inadequate economic incentives, high initial investment costs, and uncertainty regarding agronomic and economic performance. Additional challenges arise from a lack of suitable machinery and the absence of region-specific implementation strategies. The researchers therefore see an urgent need for coordinated political action to improve incentive structures, develop new value chains and integrate regional specificities.

The Commission identifies six thematic areas that are central to a successful transition towards more resilient and sustainable cropping systems:

Breeding: According to the Commission, the development of new robust and site-adapted varieties is essential for alternative and mixed cropping systems. These include regionally adapted crops (such as einkorn and emmer), new cereals (such as sorghum), pseudocereals (quinoa, amaranth) and grain legumes (chickpea, lentil, soybean), which may be better adapted to climate change and for which markets already exist in Germany.

 

Integrated systems: Agroforestry, perennial crops and closer integration of arable farming with livestock production can improve soil fertility, biodiversity and yield stability.

Environmental, resource and climate protection: Diversified agriculture can also contribute significantly to ecological functions, help reduce the use of fertilisers and plant protection products, and increase climate resilience.

Resilience of agriculture: Greater regional diversity can reduce reliance on global markets, strengthens food security and stabilises regional value creation.

Technological innovation and digitalisation: Robotics, artificial intelligence and digital tools can enable precise, small-scale management and support the implementation of diverse cropping structures.

Cost-benefit analysis: Economic and ecological impacts must be evaluated on a site-specific basis, as sustainable and high-performing diversification has practical limits.

“The overarching goal is to achieve an adaptive cropping system that ensures long-term resilience in food supply while maintaining ecological sustainability,” says Professor Dr. Doris Vetterlein of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Chair of the Senate Commission. “Research, policymakers and market stakeholders are now called upon to act. Only through coordinated efforts will it be possible to achieve a transition toward a more resilient, sustainable, and future-proof agriculture.”

The Permanent Senate Commission on the Transformation of Agricultural and Food Systems

The Senate Commission was established by the DFG Senate on 1 January 2024. The focus of the Permanent Senate Commission on the Transformation of Agricultural and Food Systems (SKAE) is to advise various target groups including politics, academia and society at large on developments related to ongoing transformations in agricultural and food systems. The Commission currently comprises 18 members from different disciplines within the agricultural and food sciences and related fields, as well as permanent guests from various German research institutions.

 

Further Information

 

To the position paper

 

To the Senate Commission

 

Meerkat “sunning calls”: the social putty of gentle chit-chat

University of Konstanz

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

As the sun rises over the Kalahari Desert, meerkat groups emerge from their burrows and gather closely, turning their bodies toward the warmth of the early light. These quiet morning moments are more than a way to warm up; they offer a revealing glimpse into the social lives of these highly cooperative mammals.

A team of researchers from the University of Konstanz, the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, and the University of Zurich has investigated how meerkats use vocal exchanges to maintain social bonds and manage their complex group hierarchies. The study, which was recently published in Behavioural Ecology, explores the concept of “vocal grooming”—a form of social bonding achieved through sound rather than physical touch.

“Grooming at a distance”
Meerkats (Suricata suricatta) live in cohesive groups structured by a strict dominance hierarchy, typically led by a dominant breeding pair and supported by subordinate helpers that assist in rearing offspring, defending territory, and maintaining social stability. While physical grooming – individuals touching one another’s fur or skin to remove parasites or dirt – plays a well-established role in reinforcing social bonds, it requires close contact and time, resources that can be limited in large or spatially dispersed groups.

Vlad Demartsev, postdoctoral researcher at the “Centre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour” (CASCB) at the University of Konstanz and the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, and his colleagues showed that meerkats may use sound as an alternative, low-key way to stay socially connected and manage group hierarchies. So-called “sunning calls”—soft, tonal vocalizations produced during morning sunning sessions—allow individuals to maintain social ties without direct physical contact. Although these calls resemble submissive vocalizations typically associated with conflict reduction, their occurrence in the low-conflict context of the joint morning sunbath suggests they function as a form of remote social interaction. In effect, meerkats may use the soft-spoken sunning calls for “grooming at a distance.”

To investigate the social role of sunning calls, the research team conducted playback experiments in the Kalahari Desert, where researchers observed meerkat groups during morning sunning sessions. Sunning calls were recorded from individuals, whose social status in the group was known to the researchers by prior observations, and played back to other focal group members, whose vocal responses were recorded and measured. The results revealed clear social patterns that align with earlier work on the Meerkats‘ group dynamics and hierarchical structure.

Social Factors Influence Responsiveness
Subordinate meerkats significantly increased their calling when exposed to calls from dominant individuals, whereas dominant animals showed little change in response to subordinates. This asymmetry suggests that vocal exchanges become more intensive when directed up the hierarchy and may function as appeasement or relationship maintenance toward higher-ranking group members. Females responded more strongly to recorded sunning calls than males, indicating sex-based differences in social strategies. While social bond strength influenced calling behaviour, the effect was nuanced. Initially, the researchers expected that individuals would respond strongly to closely bonded groupmates; however, the results suggested the opposite. Subordinates tended to be more responsive to calls of dominants with whom they had weaker bonds, suggesting that vocal exchanges may help stabilize or improve important but weak social relationships.

Vocal Grooming Strengthens Social Bonds
Together, these findings support the “vocal grooming” hypothesis—the idea that vocal exchanges can fulfill social functions similar to physical grooming. Through these subtle call-and-response interactions, meerkats may reduce tension, prevent conflict, and reinforce social bonds without physical contact.

“Our findings suggest that these vocal exchanges are not random chatter, but a strategic part of meerkat social life,” said Vlad Demartsev. “Engaging in continuous reciprocal interaction can signal cooperation and commitment, which may promote tolerance and improve social affinity. For subordinate meerkats, stable relationships with dominants are crucial, and vocal exchanges might be one of the mechanisms to achieve that.”

By investigating how sound can substitute for touch in maintaining social relationships, this study adds to growing evidence that vocal communication plays a central role in social bonding across species. The findings offer new insights into how animals navigate complex social systems when physical interactions are constrained.

 

Key facts:

• Original publication: Vlad Demartsev, Gabriella Gall, Ariana Strandburg-Peshkin, Marta B Manser, Dominance asymmetries shape vocal exchanges in meerkats, Behavioral Ecology, 2026.
  Link: https://academic.oup.com/beheco/advance-article/doi/10.1093/beheco/araf156/8443226?login=false&utm_source=authortollfreelink&utm_campaign=beheco&utm_medium=email
  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/araf156
• Dr Vlad Demartsev and Dr Gabriella Gall are postdoctoral researchers at the “Centre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour” and members of the „Communication & Collective Movement“ group.
• Dr. Ariana Strandburg-Peshkin is the leader of the research group „Communication & Collective Movement“, jointly affiliated with the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior and the University of Konstanz Biology Department. Her group studies the mechanisms and consequences of collective behaviour in social animals.
• Professor Marta D Manser is professor of Animal Behaviour at the University of Zurich. Her research focuses on animal behaviour, behavioural ecology and communication in social mammal systems.
• The Centre for the Advanced Study of Collective Behaviour at the University of Konstanz is an interdisciplinary research centre investigating the principles of collective behaviour in animals and other systems. The Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior is a world-leading research institute dedicated to an integrative understanding of animal behaviour across all levels of organization.
• Funding: This work was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) under Germany's Excellence Strategy, the Minerva Foundation, the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, the Young Scholars Fund at the University of Konstanz, the Human Frontier Science Program, the Gips-Schüle Foundation, the Max Planck Society and the University of Zurich.

Note to editors:
Watch our video here: https://youtu.be/wLuIYID4sSE
Caption: Meerkats in the Kalahari Desert—sunbathing, calling and grooming behaviour
Copyright: Vlad Demartsev

You can download a photo here: https://www.uni-konstanz.de/fileadmin/pi/fileserver/2026/geplauder_in_der_sonne.jpg
Caption: A Meerkat group during their morning sunbath.
Copyright: Vlad Demartsev

---

Journal

Behavioral Ecology

Article Title

Dominance asymmetries shape vocal exchanges in meerkats

 

Truth hurts: Prosocial liars perceived as more moral

SWPS University

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

While most of us value honesty, we consider those who skew reality to avoid hurting others to be more moral. Despite that, we prefer to hear the harsh truth when the feedback concerns us, according to a study conducted by psychologists from SWPS University and the University of Wrocław.

Honesty is a universally valued trait, and we typically prefer honest feedback providers, perceiving them as reliable and predictable. Furthermore, we tend to attribute a higher level of morality to people who behave predictably than to those who lack consistency. However, in some situations, flexible behaviour may be perceived as more moral than rigid honesty. 

In a new study, researchers - social psychologist Katarzyna Cantarero, PhD, a professor at the SWPS University (Institute of Psychology, SWPS University) and psychologist Michał Białek, PhD, a professor at the University of Wrocław (Institute of Psychology, University of Wrocław) - decided to investigate how we judge and select feedback providers: from those who are always honest to those who lie to avoid hurting the recipient. They published their results in the British Journal of Social Psychology.

Truth or prosocial dishonesty?

Nearly 900 participants from the United States, recruited via the online research platform Prolific, took part in the study. They were presented with the stories of four people evaluating two cooks who had unsuccessfully prepared their dishes. One cook was described as responding well to criticism, while the other was described as struggling with negative feedback. 

In the first study, the researchers examined how people evaluate the morality, predictability, and trustworthiness of feedback providers. Some told the truth, some lied, and depending on the condition, some adjusted their feedback to the cooks' sensitivities, while others did not. The second study examined preferences for the types of feedback providers when participants were choosing for themselves or for others (including individuals known to be vulnerable and less able to handle criticism).

Sensitive, and therefore more moral

It turned out that people who resorted to prosocial lies (those intended to spare someone distress) were evaluated as more moral than those who told the truth directly. "Prosocial liars" who provided overly optimistic feedback, were perceived positively, likely because they demonstrated sensitivity to the needs of the other party. 

People described as "socially sensitive", able to tailor their feedback to the recipient, were evaluated similarly. People in this group told the truth to those who are able to face it, while softening their feedback (and even lying) for those who might be hurt by criticism. This inconsistency did not lower their moral assessment; the study participants accepted a flexible approach to truth, assuming it served others.  

Interestingly, a socially sensitive feedback provider was not considered less moral than an honest one, suggesting that such an attitude is tolerated when it aligns with social needs. This indicates that people strategically adjust their preferences for honesty based on social cues, explains Katarzyna Cantarero from the Institute of Psychology at the SWPS University, co-author of the study. 

I choose honesty for myself but protect others

Although we tend to give higher moral ratings to prosocial liars, the study shows that most of us do not want to receive such feedback. When it comes to selecting a person to evaluate our own performance, we definitely prefer someone who will be honest. This is what 70% of participants indicated in the study. The same applies when selecting a feedback provider for someone else. 

However, the situation changes when it concerns a person known to struggle with negative feedback. For emotionally sensitive people, we prefer to choose a feedback provider who will comfort them and keep them motivated.

The study showed that when participants were selecting a feedback provider for themselves, those who provided honest feedback were more likely to be considered, as opposed to those who used prosocial lies. However, when making this choice for people who do not handle criticism well, participants more often preferred feedback tailored to that person's level of sensitivity, as compared to choosing a feedback provider for those who did not exhibit excessive sensitivity to criticism, Cantarero says. 

According to the authors, research findings suggest that we often believe that there is no universal, ideal feedback strategy in interpersonal relationships. People value the ability to respond to another person's emotional needs and tailor the communication to them depending on the social context. 

The paper "Selective (dis)honesty: Choosing overly positive feedback only when the truth hurts” was published in the British Journal of Social Psychology.

---

Journal

British Journal of Social Psychology

DOI

10.1111/bjso.70020 

Method of Research

Experimental study

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Selective (dis)honesty: Choosing overly positive feedback only when the truth hurts

 

Girls are happiest at school – for good reasons

Biology makes a difference why girls are happiest at school: Girls get more dopamine through social relationships. Boys get more dopamine through self-focused behaviour. Boys also have higher testosterone levels so they need more activity

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

FacebookXLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

 

image: 

Hermundur Sigmundsson. 

view more 

Credit: Photo: NTNU

A new survey shows that there is a clear difference between girls and boys when it comes to well-being at school.

"Girls are happier than boys. This applies both in class and at school in general," says Professor Hermundur Sigmundsson at the Department of Psychology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology  (NTNU).

The researchers questioned 1620 children aged 6 to 9 years in Norway. The average age was 7.5 years old, meaning these were youngest children in primary school.

The gender differences are clear.

Safety and well-being

The researchers examined factors such as:

• Do the students have friends at school?
• Do they feel safe at school, in class and at recess?

The researchers find a clear correlation between well-being and feeling safe.

"We find a significant correlation between well-being and all the questions we asked. Enjoying school and feeling safe at school are strongly connected," says Sigmundsson.

Enjoying school and feeling safe at school are strongly connected.

The correlation is strongest between the question of whether you are safe in school and safe during recess.

The lowest correlation is between whether you have friends to be with at school and how much you like your class.

Well-being and safety were measured by the researchers on a new scale that they developed themselves. They call the scale "Well-being and perceived safety in school scale".

School suits girls better

"It can be said that school is better suited for girls. This may have biological causes, among other things," says Sigmundsson.

Dopamine is a hormone that is somewhat inaccurately called the "happiness hormone". It is secreted by the body when we feel good.

"We know that girls get more dopamine activity through social relationships, being together. Boys get more dopamine through self-centred behaviour. Boys also have higher testosterone levels so they have more need for activity. Long school days, sitting still, does not suit boys," he said.

Change really good for everyone

In a previous article, Hermundur described a project in Iceland where the researchers included extra physical activity in addition to a passion project to improve well-being in the classroom.

"My advice is more physical activity and passion class every day in school," says Sigmundsson.

That will increase the well-being of all students, he says.

Have different perceptions of their strengths

There are also gender differences in how much the students like subjects and how well they think they perform.

Reading and science: Girls generally score higher than boys, both in how much they like the subjects and how well they think they perform.

Mathematics: There is no difference in how much boys and girls like the subject.  But boys think they are best.

Physical education: Boys like the subject best, but there is no difference in how well girls and boys think they perform.

Students who like reading and those who like physical education otherwise seem to be completely different groups of children.

"We only find a weak correlation between feeling good about reading and physical education," Sigmundsson said.

We found a strong connection between liking subjects and doing well.

Students often become good at the subjects they like

In addition, the researchers talked to the children about how much they liked the subjects and compared the answer to how the students actually performed in these subjects. The researchers had a questionnaire for this, while the school conducted the survey.

"Here we found a strong connection between liking subjects and doing well. This was true for in reading, maths, science and physical education," says Sigmundsson.

This was not about how they feel they are doing, but how good their results were.

Reference: Sigmundsson, H., Litlabø, V. R., Matos, M., & Haga, M. (2025). Robust children: exploring engagement with academic subjects, well-being and psychological safety in schoolchildren aged 6–9 years in Norway. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2025.2586675

---

Journal

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal

DOI

10.1080/1350293X.2025.2586675 

Method of Research

Survey

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

Robust children: exploring engagement with academic subjects, well-being and psychological safety in schoolchildren aged 6–9 years in Norway