Gridded data of water debt for year 2000. The water debt expresses the number of years required by the hydrological cycle to replenish the water source (soil moisture, surface water, ground water) that have been used to accomplish the annual production of nine major crops. The considered crops are: wheat, maize, rice, soybean, sugar cane, sugar beet, cotton, barley, sorghum. Full details about this dataset can be found at https://doi.org/10.5285/45cb218c-b050-4ee8-8c87-73d3895a111f

This dataset contains a range of plant, soil, plastic and environmental measurements, which was collated over a 4-year period following a repeated field experiment. The data is to investigate the effect of biodegradable and conventional plastic mulch film application on crop (maize) and soil properties. The remaining mulch film on the soil surface of each plot was incorporated into the soil after each growing season to simulate realistic plastic input. The details can be found in the lineage field and the supporting document. Full details about this dataset can be found at https://doi.org/10.5285/cf557a25-78b4-49c7-9993-b32a7ed814b5

This data set consists of various hydrological measurements taken over two years of instrumental monitoring in fields of willow and Miscanthus crops from a study as part of the NERC Rural Economy and Land Use (RELU) programme. Future policies are likely to encourage more land use under energy crops: principally willow, grown as short rotation coppice, and a tall exotic grass Miscanthus. These crops will contribute to the UK's commitment to reduce CO2 emissions. However, it is not clear how decisions about appropriate areas for growing the crops, based on climate, soil and water, should be balanced against impacts on the landscape, social acceptance, biodiversity and the rural economy. This project integrated social, economic, hydrology and biodiversity studies in an interdisciplinary approach to assessing the impact of converting land to Miscanthus grass and short-rotation coppice (SRC) willows. Two contrasting farming systems were focused on: the arable-dominated East Midlands; and grassland-dominated South West England. This data set consists of various hydrological measurements taken over two years of instrumental monitoring in fields of both crops. GIS and biodiversity survey datasets are also available. The public attidues questionnaire data from this study are available at the UK Data Archive under study number 6615 (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 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 Supplemental).

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

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 Supplemental). 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 Supplemental).