15
Key words: agriculture, 
conventional farming, mowing, 
organic farming, plant diversity, 
ploughing, rose fields.
 
Ključne besede: kmetijstvo, 
konvencionalno kmetovanje, košnja, 
ekološko kmetovanje, rastlinska 
raznolikost, oranje, polja vrtnic.
Corresponding author:
Nikolay Velev
E-mail: nikolay.velev@abv.bg
Received: 9. 4. 2023
Accepted: 26. 6. 2024
Plant biodiversity of Rosa damascena 
fields from Bulgaria’s Rose Valley
Nikolay Velev1, Iva Apostolova1 & Magdalena Valcheva1
Abstract
The growing human population’s demand for food and organic materials has a 
severe impact on the environment as conventional agriculture expands, destroying 
habitats and wildlife. This highlights the need to balance provision security with 
biodiversity conservation through new agricultural practices. This study investigates 
how different agricultural practices affect the plant diversity found in rose fields 
located in Kazanlak region, Bulgaria. We compared conventional and organic 
farming methods, while also looking at how the management of spaces between 
the rose rows by mowing or ploughing affects their plant diversity. Our results 
show that mowing management, as opposed to ploughing, leads to greater plant 
diversity and a higher vegetation total cover. Additionally, organic farming practices 
combined with mowing management were found to support plant communities 
with higher diversity, compared to conventional farming under mowing. We 
conclude that organic farming combined with mowing management is the most 
beneficial practice for promoting plant diversity in Bulgarian rose fields.
Izvleček
Naraščajoče povpraševanje človeške populacije po hrani in organskih materialih 
resno vpliva na okolje, saj se konvencionalno kmetijstvo širi in uničuje habitate in 
organizme. To izpostavlja potrebo po uravnoteženju varnosti oskrbe z dobrinami 
z ohranjanjem biotske raznolikosti preko novih kmetijskih praks. Ta študija 
predstavlja, kako različne kmetijske prakse vplivajo na raznolikost rastlin na poljih 
vrtnic v regiji Kazanlak v Bolgariji. Primerjali smo konvencionalni in ekološki 
način kmetovanja, pri tem pa ugotavljali tudi, kako upravljanje prostorov med 
zasaditvami vrtnic s košnjo ali oranjem vpliva na rastlinsko pestrost. Naši rezultati 
kažejo, da košnja, v nasprotju z oranjem, vodi v večjo raznolikost rastlin in v večjo 
pokritost z vegetacijo. Poleg tega smo ugotovili, da prakse ekološkega kmetovanja 
v kombinaciji s košnjo podpirajo rastlinske združbe z večjo raznolikostjo v 
primerjavi s konvencionalnim kmetovanjem s košnjo. Ugotavljamo, da je ekološko 
kmetovanje v kombinaciji s košnjo najboljši način za spodbujanje rastlinske 
raznolikosti na bolgarskih poljih vrtnic.
1 Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Research, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria
DOI: 10.3986/hacq-2025-000224/1 • 2025, 15–24
24/1 • 2025, 15–24
16
Velev et al.
Plant biodiversity in Bulgarian rose fields
Introduction
The escalating demand for food and natural products, 
driven by the growing human population, accelerates 
the negative impact on the environment to a great ex-
tent, given that agriculture is a dominant form of land 
management globally (Kanianska, 2016). Conventional 
agricultural practices are expanding into new territories, 
leading to habitat destruction and a decline in wildlife 
populations (Reidsma et al., 2006; Haines-Young, 2009; 
Dudley & Alexander, 2017; Kumari & Deepali, 2021). 
The escalating intensity and expansion of agricultural 
land use pose a substantial threat not only to the envi-
ronment and biodiversity but also to the future of the hu-
man population, as biodiversity is essential for efficient 
food production and providing vital ecosystem services 
(Holt et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2019; Ortiz et al., 2021). 
Human well-being crucially relies on plant diversity for 
maintaining human health, supporting food production, 
providing natural resources, and contributing to cultural 
and spiritual practices (Whitton & Rajakaruna, 2001). 
Healthy ecosystems are vital for the services we depend 
on, and especially support the livelihoods of those who 
directly depend on nature (Morand, 2010). Diverse plant 
communities with various interactions between species 
are more productive and resistant to fluctuations over 
time, suggesting biodiversity strengthens ecosystems 
(Isbell et al., 2009; Hong et al., 2022). Higher plant di-
versity is increasingly considered necessary to maintain 
healthy ecosystems, so we should adjust agricultural 
practices to the need for biodiversity conservation across 
various conditions (Isbell et al., 2011; Turnbull et al., 
2016). 
Crop biodiversity is both a product of human ingenuity 
and a crucial resource for future agriculture (Hufford et 
al., 2019). As modern agriculture relies on a few high-
yield crops to feed the constantly growing human pop-
ulation, its negative impact on biodiversity could be so 
significant, that halting agricultural expansion might be 
necessary in the long run (Lanz et al., 2018). Massive in-
sect decline since WWII is linked to the spread of inten-
sive agriculture (monoculture, pesticides, etc.), which has 
taken over huge areas of land. Ongoing climate change 
additionally threatens species diversity (Raven & Wagner, 
2021), and especially those species adapted to specific en-
vironments (Muluneh, 2021). Intensive agriculture across 
Europe reduces soil biodiversity, leading to less complex 
food webs with smaller organisms and fewer functional 
groups (Tsiafouli et al., 2015), and also impacts carbon 
and nitrogen cycling, which is crucial for healthy ecosys-
tems (De Vries et al., 2013).
Vegetated strips along agricultural fields are useful 
tools for preserving native biodiversity but also serve as 
filters for pollutants from intensive agriculture, act as 
sinks for atmospheric CO2 and enhance the landscape 
beauty (Borin et al., 2009). Vegetated strips usually pre-
sent semi-natural habitats in agricultural lands and are 
associated with ecosystem services, which are not pro-
vided by the surrounding areas. Following European 
strategies, the national legislation promotes maintain-
ing buffer strips and diversifying agricultural landscapes 
(Boteva et al., 2020).
Balancing food security with biodiversity in a grow-
ing human population is a pressing issue of our time. 
Current approaches are inadequate since land-sparing 
and conventional intensification methods both fail to 
consider the complexities of real-world agriculture, par-
ticularly the role of smallholder farmers in developing 
countries, and the true value of biodiversity for food pro-
duction and ecosystem services (Tscharntke et al., 2012). 
Agrobiodiversity benefits agriculture most when it adds 
unique or complementary functions to the ecosystem, 
but simply adding more species might not be effective 
(Jackson et al., 2007). More research on agrobiodiversity 
and its ecological benefits is crucial to justify conserva-
tion and unlock the potential for sustainable agriculture. 
Complex challenges exist in understanding how differ-
ent biodiversity components are affected by the conver-
sion of natural ecosystems to farmland, how these com-
munities interact, and how to manage them effectively 
(Norris, 2008).
Roses have been cultivated since ancient times due to 
their beauty and medicinal use. The natural origin of Rosa 
damascena has been a main reason for the evolvement of 
the culture, following the history of the Mediterranean 
civilization and the Middle East. Currently oil produc-
tion is mostly localized in Bulgaria, Turkey and Morocco 
(Caissard et al., 2022). The cultivation of oil-bearing roses 
is traditional in Bulgaria (Kovacheva et al., 2010). Rosa 
damascena has intentionally been introduced in Bulgaria 
in historic times. Nowadays for cultivation purposes is 
mostly used Rosa damascena Mill. f. trigintipetala Dieck. 
(Kazanlak rose) (Chalova et al., 2017; Caissard et al., 
2022). The cultivation of roses and the production of at-
tar and rose water have formed a significant part of the 
agricultural economy of Bulgaria for years. As the con-
servation of biodiversity in agricultural lands is impor-
tant, we set out to investigate what plant species richness 
thrives in these territories. We were interested in how far 
the conventional and organic cultivation, and also how 
far ploughing and mowing management types, affect the 
plant diversity within the rose fields.
24/1 • 2025, 15–24
17
Velev et al.
Plant biodiversity in Bulgarian rose fields
Materials and Methods
The study was conducted in the Kazanlak region (Fig-
ure 1), in an area known as the “Bulgarian Rose Valley”. 
In the studied rose fields, roses are planted to form long 
hedges, usually separated by 2 m distance from each 
other. These inter-rows are managed by either mowing or 
ploughing once or twice in the year, before rose flower-
ing, as needed (Figure 2a, b). The selection of sites for data 
recording included both conventional and organic farm-
ing, with inter-row space maintenance by either mow-
ing or ploughing. Conventional farming prevails in the 
area, while only three plantations are certified as organic 
farms (Todorova et al., 2022). Within organic farming 
bio-pesticides and manure fertilization were applied to-
gether with drip irrigation, while conventional farming 
allows for mineral fertilization and common pesticide 
appliances. Data was recorded from 44 plots in total, 
32 plots in conventional and 12 plots in organic farm-
ing. Recording was carried out in two different localities 
within the studied area. In June 2019, twenty-four plots 
were recorded to test differences between conventional 
and organic farming (all with mowing management in 
the inter-rows) and, subsequently, in June 2023, twenty 
plots were additionally recorded to test differences be-
tween ploughing and mowing management (all in con-
ventional farming). The sample plots were 2 × 2 m in 
size. Recorded data contains a complete list of species 
and their abundance, estimated as a percentage cover of 
the plot area.
Species diversity was assessed using the Shannon-Wie-
ner Index and Beta diversity to demonstrate species diver-
sity changes across different environments. Beta diversity, 
as a measure of overall species turnover, was presented as 
within-cluster average Whittaker beta diversity, calculated 
using presence/absence data. Diagnostic species were de-
termined by fidelity measure, expressed as phi coefficient 
multiplied by 100 (Chytrý et al., 2002). Analysis of re-
sults includes DCA ordination and Z statistics, and was 
performed by JUICE (Tichý, 2002) and PC-ORD (Mc-
Cune & Mefford, 2006) software.
Figure 1: The region of studied localities embraced in a circle, near the 
city of Kazanlak.
Slika 1: Območje preučevanih nahajališč, v bližini mesta Kazanlak je 
označeno s krogom.
a
b
Figure 2: Rose hedges separated by 2 m distance from each other with 
two different management types applied in the inter-rows: a) mowing, 
and b) ploughing.
Slika 2: Vmesni pasovi med nasadi vrtnic s širino 2 m in z dvema 
različnima načinoma upravljanja: a) košnja in b) oranje.
Results
A total of 141 species was recorded across 44 sample plots. 
The total variance (“inertia”) of the dataset was 5.1139.
44°
43°
42°
41°
24° 26° 28°
      
     
     







       
24/1 • 2025, 15–24
18
Velev et al.
Plant biodiversity in Bulgarian rose fields
Conventional Agriculture: ploughing 
vs. mowing management
We found a total of 65 species within 20 sample plots 
– 10 recorded under ploughing and 10 under mowing 
management. The vegetation under ploughing manage-
ment had 31 species in total. Its group was characterized 
by five diagnostic species (phi ≥ 30), three of which with 
high fidelity values (phi  ≥  50) – Amaranthus hybridus, 
Anthemis ruthenica and Sinapis arvensis. Species of high 
frequency (constancy ≥ 50%) were Chenopodium album, 
Bilderdykia convolvulus, Amaranthus hybridus, Bromus 
sterilis, Polygonum aviculare, Lolium perenne, Convolvu-
lus arvensis, Lamium amplexicaule and Fumaria rostel-
lata. Dominant species with cover above 25% among the 
sample plots were Chenopodium album and Amaranthus 
hybridus. The average species number per sample plot 
was 10.3 and the average total cover was 52.5% (Table 1, 
 Appendix 1).
For the vegetation under mowing management, a total 
of 51 species were registered. It was characterized by 26 
diagnostic species (phi  ≥  30), seven of them with high 
fidelity values (phi ≥ 50) – Galium aparine, Cynodon dac-
tylon, Chamomilla recutita, Viola arvensis, Stellaria media, 
Elymus repens and Daucus carota. Highly frequent species 
(≥ 50%) were Chenopodium album, Polygonum aviculare, 
Convolvulus arvensis, Bilderdykia convolvulus, Lamium 
amplexicaule, Galium aparine, Bromus sterillis and Viola 
arvensis. As dominant species (cover ≥ 25%) among the 
sample plots acted Lolium perenne, Bromus sterilis and Ely-
mus repens. The average species number was 16.2 and the 
average total cover was 68.5%.
The analyzed plots did not make mixed groups and 
form separate ones under different management types 
(Figure 3).
The species composition and abundance differed sig-
nificantly so the two groups had a difference of 56.97% 
(Z statistics: 70.67, p=<0.0001). Under mowing manage-
ment species diversity and vegetation cover had higher 
values, reflected respectively by higher Shannon-Wiener 
Index and Beta diversity also (Table 1).
Group 
no.
Agriculture 
type
Management 
type
Total species 
number
Average number 
of species
Average total 
cover
Average Shannon-
Wiener Index
Average Whittaker 
Beta diversity
Recorded in 2023
1 Conventional 
[n=10]
Ploughed 31 10.3 52.5 1.3317 2.0097
2 Conventional 
[n=10]
Mowed 51 16.2 68.5 1.5185 2.1481
Recorded in 2019
3 Conventional 
[n=12]
Mowed 55 17.5 94.25 1.4421 2.1429
4 Organic 
[n=12]
Mowed 78 21.08 82.08 1.7098 2.6996
Figure 3: DCA graph of the plots recorded under different 
management types. Total variance (“inertia”) in the species data: 
5.1139. Gradient length of Axis 1: 4.208; Gradient length of Axis 
2: 3.299. Variables Total cover, No. of species and Beta diversity are 
passively projected onto the ordination space.
Slika 3: DCA diagram ploskev, popisanih pri različnih načinih 
upravljanja. Skupna varianca (“inercija”) v podatkih o vrstah: 5,1139. 
Dolžina gradienta na osi 1: 4,208; dolžina gradienta na osi 2: 3,299. 
Spremenljivke skupna pokrovnost, število vrst in beta raznolikost, so 
pasivno projicirane na ordinacijski prostor.
Table 1: Vegetation parameters and results from Shannon-Wiener Index and Beta diversity from the studied rose fields. Recording 
of data was performed in two different localities within the research area.
Tabela 1: Vegetacijski parametri, Shannon-Wienerjev indeks in beta raznolikost preučevanih polj vrtnic. Pridobivanje podatkov je 
potekalo na dveh različnih lokacijah znotraj raziskovanega območja.










	

	





24/1 • 2025, 15–24
19
Velev et al.
Plant biodiversity in Bulgarian rose fields
Conventional vs. organic Agriculture: 
Mowing management
We found a total of 102 species within the 24 sample 
plots – 12 recorded in conventional and 12 in organic 
farming. The plots in inter-rows under conventional 
farming harbored 55 species in total. The species group 
was characterized by 22 diagnostic species (phi  ≥  30), 
nine of them with high fidelity values (phi ≥ 50) – Tarax-
acum sp., Geranium rotundifolium, Hordeum murinum, 
Poa annua, Galinsoga parviflora, Atriplex sp., Malva sylves-
tris, Papaver rhoeas and Mentha longifolia. Species of high 
frequency (constancy ≥ 50%) were Taraxacum sp., Lolium 
perenne, Hordeum murinum, Convolvulus arvensis, Gera-
nium rotundifolium, Veronica polita, Poa annua, Galinsoga 
parvifolia, Trifolium repens, Rumex patientia and Malva 
sylvestris. Dominant species with cover above 25% among 
the sample plots were Taraxacum sp., Hordeum murinum, 
Trifolium repens, Poa sylvicola, Malva sylvestris, Lolium per-
enne and Artemisia alba. The average species number was 
17.5 and the average total cover was 94.25% (Table 1, 
Appendix 2).
The plots in inter-rows under organic farming harbored 
the highest number of species – 78. Its group had 32 diag-
nostic species (phi ≥ 30) in total, incl. 11 species of high 
fidelity (phi ≥ 50) – Potentilla argentea, Achillea millefo-
lium, Salvia nemorosa, Cichorium intybus, Cynodon dac-
tylon, Trifolium campestre, Dasypyrum villosum, Trifolium 
scabrum, Potentilla recta gr., Berteroa incana and Verbena 
officinalis. Highly frequent species (≥ 50%) were Lolium 
perenne, Achillea millefolium, Potentilla argentea, Plantago 
lanceolata, Verbena officinalis, Salvia nemorosa, Cichorium 
intybus, Cynodon dactylon, Convolvulus arvensis, Trifolium 
campestre, Medicago minima and Dasypyrum villosum. As 
dominant species (cover ≥ 25%) among the sample plots 
were Achillea millefolium, Plantago lanceolata, Trifolium 
repens, Salvia nemorosa, Potentilla recta gr., Lolium per-
enne, Dasypyrum villosum, Cynodon dactylon and Bromus 
tectorum. The average species number per plot was 21.08 
and the average total cover was 82.08%.
The species composition and abundance differ signifi-
cantly so the two groups show a difference of 82.53% 
(Z statistics: 101.08, p= <0.0001).
Discussion
Obtained results show that the management type of veg-
etated strips in agricultural areas does affect the vegeta-
tion, and plant biodiversity in particular, which supports 
statements in other studies (e.g. Tscharntke et al., 2021; 
Schütz et al., 2022). As far as plant biodiversity is con-
cerned, mowing management is more sustainable and 
supports higher vegetation cover and species diversity 
(Smith et al., 2018). In the inter-row strips of the studied 
rose fields, besides some weeds and ruderal plants, we 
registered a considerable number of species from the au-
tochthonous herbaceous flora in the area. Some of them 
attract pollinators and act as a refuge for other insects. 
Herbaceous vegetation prevents the spreading of fertiliz-
ers and pesticides in the surrounding pastures and also 
buffers against soil erosion (Bengtsson et al., 2019). The 
biomass collected when mowing management is imple-
mented could be used as fodder or manure which en-
hances the effectiveness of agriculture. There is also an 
aesthetic value of the mown inter-rows that adds to the 
beauty of the landscape. The frequency and timing of 
the mowing most probably influence the species compo-
sition. Tillage ploughing is less favorable for the whole 
ecosystem, as it allows degradation and erosion of the 
soil and the unhindered passage of fertilizers and pesti-
cides into the surrounding areas (Lal, 2013; Hopwood et 
al., 2021). Our observations show that weeds and rud-
eral species with weak competitive capabilities, many of 
which cannot find a place in already vegetated areas, pre-
dominantly take over in the ploughed inter-rows.
Different types of farming practices also affect veg-
etation and plant biodiversity in inter-row strips. The 
analyzed plots have not made mixed groups and form 
separate ones under different management regimes (Fig-
ure 3), which helps to conclude that the vegetation forms 
distinct types. The rose fields’ inter-rows under organic 
farming harbored the highest species richness confirmed 
by the Shannon-Wiener Index and observed differences 
between plots tested by Beta diversity (Table 1). Inter-
row species diversity in organic farming maintains spe-
cies common for the surrounding semi-natural pastures 
and meadows, while conventional farming frequently al-
lows for common weeds or ruderal plant species. Many 
studies (e.g. Bengtsson et al., 2005; Tuck et al., 2014; 
Tschrantke et al., 2021) confirm that organic farming 
typically supports higher species richness and biodi-
versity, compared to conventional farming. Rose fields 
require long-lasting agricultural practice and restricted 
chemical influence is a biodiversity-friendly land use 
practice. Organic farming contributes to sustainability 
by not using chemicals to contaminate also the air and 
water around, and thus usually adds value to the prod-
ucts that increase human welfare (Cidón et al., 2021). 
Fertilizers enhance plant growth and hence vegetation 
cover but also promote ruderal species. The manure fer-
tilization in organic farming is probably a reason for the 
lower values of the total vegetation cover as compared 
24/1 • 2025, 15–24
20
Velev et al.
Plant biodiversity in Bulgarian rose fields
to the conventional farming, where mineral fertilizers 
applied (Table 1). A higher percentage of free spaces of-
fers favorable condition for the propagule establishment 
from the surrounding areas, including ruderal species. 
The latter are outcompeted and displaced over time by 
species having competitive advantage through better ad-
aptations.
Recording of rose inter-row vegetation across different 
years can influence species richness and composition to 
some extent regardless of the agriculture and manage-
ment type. To reduce the effect of year-to-year variation 
of vegetation we applied standardized data recording – 
multiple sample plots of equal size and same timing (both 
years recorded in June). All sample plots are recorded in a 
relatively small area, which implies similar ecological con-
ditions. The high overall variation in species composition 
that we found (total variance 5.1139) suggests a strong 
influence of the agriculture and management type on the 
inter-row vegetation.
Production of organic oil-bearing roses was assessed 
as one of the fastest growing agriculture in Bulgaria, also 
supported by higher prices of pure rose oil (Chalova et 
al., 2017). However, not all farmers are willing to turn 
to organic farming due to higher production costs. The 
increasing demand for organic rose oil, and the necessity 
to maintain biodiversity in the area of their cultivation, 
determine the need for a more nature-friendly and sus-
tainable way of rose fields management.
Conclusion
Farming Rosa damascena is and will continue to be an es-
sential part of the Bulgarian economy. Sustainable farm-
ing which supports the local biodiversity is, now more 
than ever, important for the future of our environment. 
The results presented in this study show that organic 
rose fields managed by mowing support the richest plant 
communities, and with a higher number of native species 
common for the surrounding semi-natural grasslands. 
Our study suggests that organic farming combined with 
mowing is the most beneficial practice for promoting 
plant diversity in Bulgarian rose fields. This approach not 
only supports a greater plant diversity but is also likely 
to contribute to healthier agricultural ecosystems that 
provide ecosystem services, such as biodiversity conser-
vation, habitat connectivity, pollination, buffer function 
and landscape aesthetics. Financial resources provided 
by the Common Agricultural Policy are necessary meas-
ures for the future sustainability and maintenance of this 
important industry for the local community.
Acknowledgements
The study was supported by the Bulgarian Ministry of 
Education and Science, National Research Programme 
“Healthy Foods for a Strong Bio-Economy and Quality 
of Life” DCM # 577/17.08.2018.
ORCID iDs
Nikolay Velev  https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6812-3670
Iva Apostolova  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2701-175X
Magdalena Valcheva  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4327-6501
References
Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J., & Weibull, A. C. (2005). The effects of 
organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta‐analysis. 
Journal of applied ecology, 42(2), 261–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1365-2664.2005.01005.x
Bengtsson, J., Bullock, J. M., Egoh, B., Everson, C., Everson, T., 
O’Connor, T., O’Farrell, P., Smith, H. G., & Lindborg, R. (2019). 
Grasslands—more important for ecosystem services than you might 
think. Ecosphere, 10(2), e02582. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.2582
Borin, M., Passoni, M., Thiene, M., & Tempesta, T. (2010). Multiple 
functions of buffer strips in farming areas. European Journal of 
Agronomy, 32(1), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eja.2009.05.003
Boteva, S., Kenarova, A., Tzonev, R., & Bogoev, V. (2020). 
Agricultural landscapes development and its subsequent impact in 
terms of common agricultural policy–the case of South Western 
planning region in Bulgaria. Bulgarian Journal of Agricultural Science, 
26(6), 1209–1216.
Chalova, V. I., Manolov, I. G., & Manolova, V. S. (2017). Challenges 
for commercial organic production of oil-bearing rose in Bulgaria. 
Biological Agriculture & Horticulture, 33(3), 183–194. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/01448765.2017.1315613
Chytrý, M., Tichý, L., Holt, J., & Botta-Dukát, Z. (2002). 
Determination of diagnostic species with statistical fidelity 
measures. Journal of Vegetation Science, 13(1), 79–90. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2002.tb02025.x
Cidón, C. F., Figueiró, P. S., & Schreiber, D. (2021). Benefits of 
Organic Agriculture under the Perspective of the Bioeconomy: A 
Systematic Review. Sustainability, 13(12), Article 6852. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su13126852
Caissard, J. C., Adrar, I., Conart, C., Paramita, S. N., & Baudino, S., 
(2023). Do we really know the scent of roses? Botany Letters, 170(1), 
77–88.
De Vries, F. T., Thébault, E., Liiri, M., Birkhofer, K., Tsiafouli, M. 
A., Bjørnlund, L., Jørgensen, H. B., Brady, M. V., Christensen, S., de 
Ruiter, P. C., d’Hertefeldt, T., Frouz, J., Hedlund, K., Hemerik, L., 
Gera Hol, W. H., Hotes, S., Mortimer, S. R., Setälä, H., Sgardelis, 
S. P., Uteseny, K., van der Putten, W. H., Wolters, V., & Bardgett, 
R. D. (2013). Soil food web properties explain ecosystem services 
across European land use systems. Proceedings of the National Academy 
of Sciences, 110(35), 14296–14301. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1305198110
24/1 • 2025, 15–24
21
Velev et al.
Plant biodiversity in Bulgarian rose fields
Dudley, N., & Alexander, S. (2017). Agriculture and biodiversity: a 
review. Biodiversity, 18(2–3), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/148883
86.2017.1351892
Haines-Young, R. (2009). Land use and biodiversity relationships. 
Land Use Policy, 26(1), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2009.08.009
Holt, A. R., Alix, A., Thompson, A., & Maltby, L. (2016). Food 
production, ecosystem services and biodiversity: We can’t have it all 
everywhere. Science of the Total Environment, 573, 1422–1429. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.07.139
Hong, P., Schmid, B., De Laender, F., Eisenhauer, N., Zhang, X., 
Chen, H., Craven, D., De Boeck, H. J., Hautier, Y., Petchey, O. 
L., Reich, P. B., Steudel, B., Striebel, M., Thakur, M. P., & Wang, 
S. (2022). Biodiversity promotes ecosystem functioning despite 
environmental change. Ecology Letters, 25(2), 555–569. https://doi.
org/10.1111/ele.13936
Hopwood, J. L., Frischie, S., May, E., & Lee-Mäder, E. (2021). 
Farming with Soil Life: A Handbook for Supporting Soil Invertebrates and 
Soil Health on Farms. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
Hufford, M. B., Berny Mier y Teran, J. C., & Gepts, P. (2019). Crop 
biodiversity: an unfinished magnum opus of nature. Annual review 
of plant biology, 70, 727–751. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
arplant-042817-040240
Isbell, F. I., Polley, H. W., & Wilsey, B. J. (2009). Biodiversity, 
productivity and the temporal stability of productivity: patterns and 
processes. Ecology letters, 12(5), 443–451. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1461-0248.2009.01299.x
Isbell, F., Calcagno, V., Hector, A., Connolly, J., Harpole, W. S., Reich, 
P. B., Scherer-Lorenzen, M., Schmid, B., Tilman, D., van Ruijven, 
J., Weigelt, A., Wilsey, B. J., Zavaleta, E. S., & Loreau, M. (2011). 
High plant diversity is needed to maintain ecosystem services. Nature, 
477(7363), 199–202. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature10282
Jackson, L. E., Pascual, U., & Hodgkin, T. (2007). Utilizing and 
conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Agriculture, 
Ecosystems & Environment, 121(3), 196–210. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agee.2006.12.017
Kumari, R., & Deepali, B. (2021). Biodiversity Loss: Threats and 
Conservation Strategies. International Journal of Pharmaceutical 
Sciences Review and Research, 68(1), 242–254. http://dx.doi.
org/10.47583/ijpsrr.2021.v68i01.037
Kanianska, R. (2016). Agriculture and its impact on land-use, 
environment, and ecosystem services. In A. Almusaed (Ed.), Landscape 
ecology-The influences of land use and anthropogenic impacts of landscape 
creation (pp.1–26). InTech. http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/61905
Kovacheva, N., Rusanov, K., & Atanassov, I. (2010). Industrial 
Cultivation of Oil Bearing Rose and Rose Oil Production in Bulgaria 
During 21ST Century, Directions and Challenges. Biotechnology 
& Biotechnological Equipment, 24(2), 1793–1798. https://doi.
org/10.2478/V10133-010-0032-4
Lal, R. (2013). Enhancing ecosystem services with no-till. Renewable 
agriculture and food systems, 28(2), 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1742170512000452
Lanz, B., Dietz, S., & Swanson, T. (2018). The expansion of modern 
agriculture and global biodiversity decline: an integrated assessment. 
Ecological Economics, 144, 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2017.07.018
McCune, B., & Mefford, M. (2006). PC-ORD. Multivariate Analysis 
of Ecological Data. Version 5.32. MjM Software. Gleneden Beach, 
Oregon, U.S.A.
Morand S. (2010). Biodiversity: An international perspective. Revue 
scientifique et technique, 29(1), 65–72.
Muluneh, M. G. (2021). Impact of climate change on biodiversity and 
food security: a global perspective – a review article. Agriculture & Food 
Security, 10(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-021-00318-5
Norris, K. (2008). Agriculture and biodiversity conservation: 
opportunity knocks. Conservation letters, 1(1), 2–11. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2008.00007.x
Ortiz, A. M. D., Outhwaite, C. L., Dalin, C., & Newbold, T. (2021). 
A review of the interactions between biodiversity, agriculture, climate 
change, and international trade: research and policy priorities. One 
Earth, 4(1), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.008
Raven, P. H., & Wagner, D. L. (2021). Agricultural intensification and 
climate change are rapidly decreasing insect biodiversity. Proceedings of 
the National Academy of Sciences, 118(2), e2002548117. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.2002548117
Reidsma, P., Tekelenburg, T., Van den Berg, M., & Alkemade, R. 
(2006). Impacts of land-use change on biodiversity: An assessment 
of agricultural biodiversity in the European Union. Agriculture, 
ecosystems & environment, 114(1), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
agee.2005.11.026
Schütz, L., Wenzel, B., Rottstock, T., Dachbrodt‐Saaydeh, S., Golla, 
B., & Kehlenbeck, H., (2022). How to promote multifunctionality of 
vegetated strips in arable farming: A qualitative approach for Germany. 
Ecosphere, 13(9), Article e4229. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecs2.4229
Smith, A. L., Barrett, R. L., & Milner, R. N. (2018). Annual 
mowing maintains plant diversity in threatened temperate grasslands. 
Applied Vegetation Science, 21(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/
avsc.12365
Tichý, L. (2002). JUICE, software for vegetation classification. 
Journal of Vegetation Science, 13(3), 451–453. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1654-1103.2002.tb02069.x
Todorova, M., Dobreva, A., Petkova, N., Grozeva, N., Gerdzhikova, 
M., & Veleva, P., (2022). Organic vs conventional farming of oil-
bearing rose: Effect on essential oil and antioxidant activity. BioRisk, 
17, 271–285.
Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T. C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., 
Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J., & Whitbread, A. (2012). Global food 
security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural 
intensification. Biological Conservation, 151(1), 53–59. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.01.068
Tscharntke, T., Grass, I., Wanger, T.C., Westphal, C. & Batáry, P. 
(2021). Beyond organic farming–harnessing biodiversity-friendly 
landscapes. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 36(10), 919–930. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2021.06.010
Tsiafouli, M. A., Thébault, E., Sgardelis, S. P., De Ruiter, P. C., 
Van Der Putten, W. H., Birkhofer, K., Hemerik, L., de Vries, F. 
T., Bardgett, R. D., Brady, M. V., Bjornlund, L., Jørgensen, H. B., 
Christensen, S., D’ Hertefeldt, T., Hotes, S., Gera Hol, W. H., Frouz, 
J., Liiri, M., Mortimer, S. R., Setälä, H., Tzanopoulos, J., Uteseny, 
K., Pižl, V., Stary, J., Wolters, V., & Hedlund, K. (2015). Intensive 
agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across Europe. Global Change 
Biology, 21(2), 973–985. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12752
24/1 • 2025, 15–24
22
Velev et al.
Plant biodiversity in Bulgarian rose fields
Tuck, S. L., Winqvist, C., Mota, F., Ahnström, J., Turnbull, L. A., 
& Bengtsson, J. (2014). Landuse intensity and the effects of organic 
farming on biodiversity: a hierarchical metaanalysis. Journal of Applied 
Ecology, 51(3), 746–755. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12219
Turnbull, L. A., Isbell, F., Purves, D. W., Loreau, M., & Hector, A. 
(2016). Understanding the value of plant diversity for ecosystem 
functioning through niche theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 
Biological Sciences, 283(1844), 20160536. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspb.2016.0536
Whitton, J., & Rajakaruna, N. (2001). Plant biodiversity, overview. In 
S. A. Levin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Biodiversity (pp. 621–630). Elsevier. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-226865-2/00341-2
Zhang, W., Dulloo, E., Kennedy, G., Bailey, A., Sandhu, H., & 
Nkonya, E. (2019). Biodiversity and ecosystem services. In C. 
Campanhola, & S. Pandey (Eds.), Sustainable Food and Agriculture 
(pp. 137–152). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
812134-4.00008-X
Appendix 1
Fidelity (phi-coefficient values) and percentage constancy 
synoptic table of Conventional agriculture. Ploughing vs. 
Mowing management. Data was recorded in June 2023 
by I. Apostolova and N. Velev from the rose fields located 
between Gabarevo and Sheynovo villages, and the vicinity 
of Buzovgrad village.
Dodatek 1
Navezanost (vrednosti koeficienta phi) in sinoptična tabe-
la stalnosti v odstotkih pri konvencionalnem kmetovanju. 
Upravljanje z oranjem in košnjo. Podatke sta junija 2023 
pridobila I. Apostolova in N. Velev s polj vrtnic, ki se 
nahajajo med vasema Gabarevo in Sheynovo ter v bližini 
vasi Buzovgrad.
Group № 1 2
Number of relevés 10 10
Management type Ploughed Mowed
Fidelity / Constancy phi % phi %
Amaranthus hybridus 90.5 90 --- 0
Anthemis ruthenica 57.7 20 --- 0
Sinapis arvensis 50 100 --- 90
Cirsium arvense 33.3 60 --- 70
Cardaria draba 33.3 60 --- 40
Galium aparine --- 80 73.4 70
Chamomilla recutita --- 70 57.7 50
Cynodon dactylon --- 90 57.7 80
Viola arvensis --- 70 52.4 80
Elymus repens --- 70 50 80
Stellaria media --- 20 50 0
Daucus carota --- 10 50 0
Geranium dissectum --- 10 43.6 0
Cerastium dubium --- 10 42 0
Orlaya grandiflora --- 10 42 0
Group № 1 2
Arenaria serpyllifolia --- 10 42 0
Cichorium intybus --- 10 42 0
Lactuca serriola --- 10 42 30
Veronica hederifolia --- 50 34.6 0
Senecio vernalis --- 10 34.6 40
Pimpinella sp. --- 40 33.3 30
Ranunculus sardous --- 40 33.3 0
Lathyrus latifolius --- 10 33.3 10
Hordeum murinum --- 10 33.3 40
Linaria genistifolia --- 10 33.3 10
Papaver rhoeas --- 10 33.3 0
Myosotis arvensis --- 10 33.3 60
Rumex acetosella --- 10 33.3 10
Leontodon hispidus --- 10 33.3 0
Plantago major --- 10 33.3 0
Legousia speculum-veneris --- 10 33.3 50
Rumex crispus --- 0 25 10
Cuscuta europaea --- 0 22.9 10
Taraxacum sp. --- 0 22.9 10
Rumex cristatus --- 0 22.9 50
Ranunculus arvensis --- 0 22.9 20
Onopordum acanthium --- 0 22.9 40
Rorippa sp. --- 0 22.9 20
Capsella bursa-pastoris --- 0 22.9 70
Cirsium vulgare --- 0 22.9 20
Medicago minima --- 0 22.9 10
Chondrilla juncea --- 0 22.9 20
Torilis arvensis --- 0 22.9 30
Medicago sativa --- 0 22.9 10
Convolvulus arvensis --- 0 11.5 20
Polygonum aviculare --- 0 11.5 20
Lamium amplexicaule --- 0 10.5 10
Amaranthus hybridus 22.9 0 --- 30
Chenopodium album 22.9 0 --- 30
Sonchus oleraceus 22.9 0 --- 10
Sisymbrium loeselii 22.9 0 --- 40
Lolium perenne 22.9 0 --- 20
Buglossoides arvensis 22.9 0 --- 20
Centaurea solstitialis 22.9 0 --- 20
Convolvulus arvensis 22.9 0 --- 10
Cardaria draba 22.9 0 --- 10
Fumaria rostellata 22.9 0 --- 10
Lolium perenne 20.4 0 --- 10
Fumaria rostellata 20 0 --- 20
Bilderdykia convolvulus 14 0 --- 10
Bromus sterilis 11.5 0 --- 20
Xanthium italicum 10.5 0 --- 40
Malva sylvestris --- 0 --- 50
Raphanus raphanistrum --- 0 --- 30
Erodium cicutarium --- 0 --- 30
24/1 • 2025, 15–24
23
Velev et al.
Plant biodiversity in Bulgarian rose fields
Appendix 2
Fidelity (phi-coefficient values) and percentage constancy 
synoptic table of Mowing management. Conventional vs. 
Organic agriculture. Data was recorded in June 2019 by 
I. Apostolova and M. Valcheva from the rose fields lo-
cated between Gabarevo and Sheynovo villages.
Dodatek 2
Navezanot (vrednosti koeficienta phi) in sinoptična tabela 
stalnosti v odstotkih pri upravljanju s košnjo. Pri konven-
cionalem in ekološkem kmetovanju. Podatke sta junija 
2019 pridobili I. Apostolova in M. Valcheva s polj vrtnic, 
ki se nahajajo med vasema Gabarevo in Sheynovo.
Group № 3 4
Number of relevés 12 12
Agriculture type Conventional Organic
Fidelity / Constancy phi % phi %
Geranium rotundifolium 84.5 83 --- 0
Taraxacum sp. 84.5 100 --- 17
Hordeum murinum 83.3 92 --- 8
Galinsoga parviflora 70.7 67 --- 0
Poa annua 70.7 67 --- 0
Atriplex sp. 57.7 50 --- 0
Malva sylvestris 53 58 --- 8
Papaver rhoeas 51.3 42 --- 0
Mentha longifolia 51.3 42 --- 0
Bromus arvensis 38.5 42 --- 8
Poa sylvicola 37.8 25 --- 0
Rumex acetosa 37.8 25 --- 0
Bromus sterilis 35.4 50 --- 17
Stellaria media 30.8 33 --- 8
Convolvulus arvensis 30.8 92 --- 67
Geranium molle 30.8 33 --- 8
Dactylis glomerata 30.2 17 --- 0
Persicaria lapathifolia 30.2 17 --- 0
Plantago major 30.2 17 --- 0
Apera spica-venti 30.2 17 --- 0
Cirsium arvense 30.2 17 --- 0
Urtica dioica 30.2 17 --- 0
Potentilla argentea --- 0 84.5 83
Achillea millefolium --- 8 83.3 92
Cichorium intybus --- 0 77.5 75
Salvia nemorosa --- 0 77.5 75
Cynodon dactylon --- 0 70.7 67
Trifolium campestre --- 0 64.2 58
Dasypyrum villosum --- 0 64.2 58
Trifolium scabrum --- 0 57.7 50
Potentilla recta gr. --- 0 57.7 50
Berteroa incana --- 0 51.3 42
Group № 3 4
Verbena officinalis --- 25 50 75
Arenaria leptoclados --- 0 44.7 33
Orlaya grandiflora --- 0 44.7 33
Erodium cicutarium --- 0 44.7 33
Plantago lanceolata --- 42 43 83
Vicia grandiflora --- 8 38.5 42
Chondrilla juncea --- 0 37.8 25
Bromus tectorum --- 0 37.8 25
Vulpia myuros --- 0 37.8 25
Leontodon autumnalis --- 0 37.8 25
Medicago minima --- 25 33.8 58
Viola arvensis --- 8 30.8 33
Trifolium angustifolium --- 0 30.2 17
Erigeron annuus --- 0 30.2 17
Hypericum perforatum --- 0 30.2 17
Ajuga reptans --- 0 30.2 17
Sanguisorba minor --- 0 30.2 17
Cynosurus echinatus --- 0 30.2 17
Centaurea solstitialis --- 0 30.2 17
Crepis foetida --- 0 30.2 17
Phleum phleoides --- 0 30.2 17
Cerastium dubium --- 0 30.2 17
Elymus repens --- 8 22.4 25
Veronica arvensis --- 8 22.4 25
Agrimonia eupatoria --- 0 20.9 8
Leucanthemum vulgare --- 0 20.9 8
Scleranthus neglectus --- 0 20.9 8
Legousia speculum-veneris --- 0 20.9 8
Poa compressa --- 0 20.9 8
Sherardia arvensis --- 0 20.9 8
Clinopodium vulgare --- 0 20.9 8
Herniaria incana --- 0 20.9 8
Holcus lanatus --- 0 20.9 8
Cynosurus cristatus --- 0 20.9 8
Poa trivialis --- 0 20.9 8
Veronica officinalis --- 0 20.9 8
Medicago marina --- 0 20.9 8
Vicia cracca --- 0 20.9 8
Trifolium arvense --- 0 20.9 8
Origanum vulgare --- 0 20.9 8
Lathyrus aphaca --- 0 20.9 8
Bromus mollis --- 0 20.9 8
Cuscuta campestris --- 0 20.9 8
Tragopogon dubius --- 0 20.9 8
Centaurea cyanus --- 0 20.9 8
Viola tricolor --- 8 12.6 17
Rumex acetosella --- 8 12.6 17
Rumex patientia 25.1 58 --- 33
Malva pusilla 20.9 8 --- 0
Artemisia alba 20.9 8 --- 0
24/1 • 2025, 15–24
24
Velev et al.
Plant biodiversity in Bulgarian rose fields
Group № 3 4
Prunella vulgaris 20.9 8 --- 0
Lamium purpureum 20.9 8 --- 0
Anchusa officinalis 20.9 8 --- 0
Festuca valesiaca 20.9 8 --- 0
Amaranthus hybridus 20.9 8 --- 0
Carthamus lanatus 20.9 8 --- 0
Poa angustifolia 20.9 8 --- 0
Melilotus officinalis 20.9 8 --- 0
Sonchus oleraceus 17.7 42 --- 25
Lactuca serriola 16.9 50 --- 33
Veronica polita 16.9 67 --- 50
Conyza canadensis 12.6 17 --- 8
Anagallis arvensis 12.6 17 --- 8
Capsella bursa-pastoris 12.6 17 --- 8
Veronica verna 10.3 25 --- 17
Trifolium repens 8.4 58 --- 50
Lolium perenne --- 92 --- 92
Veronica chamaedrys --- 17 --- 17
Crepis biennis --- 8 --- 8
Bilderdykia convolvulus --- 50 --- 50