New agri-environmental measures have a direct effect on wildlife and economy on conventional agricultural land.

The objective of this article is to evaluate economic profits along with return on investment and also the impact of newly designed agri-environmental measures (AEM) on the presence of bioindicator species-European hare and roe deer-in comparison to conventionally cultivated agricultural land. The abundance of European hare was, on average, 4.5-6.7 times higher on AEM compared to the standard agricultural regime and 3.5-6.4 times higher in the case of roe deer in 2020 and 2021. From an economic point of view, the highest incomes were found for extensive orchard alleys and standard conventional crops-wheat and rapeseed rotation. The cash flow from extensive orchard was 4.3 times larger and wheat and rapeseed were 3.5 times larger than from the clover grass mixture. Moreover, the lowest value of operational expenses was found in the case of extensive orchard alleys. The payback period ranged from 16.02 years (wheat and rapeseed rotation) to 53.6 years (clover grass mixture). It is crucial not to assess the economic parameters separately but optimize them with sustainable wildlife management and other benefits that provide ecological and efficient directions of AEM for future generations. However, the performed economic analysis highlights the significantly lower incomes of most components of AEM. We see a principal issue of AEMs usage in the lack of strong incentives for farmers to maximize conservation outcomes. Therefore, the AEMs are often placed in locations with presumed low agriculture profit, which is often related to insignificant conservation effects. Thus, the incomparable AEMs profitability compared to conventional agriculture has to be reflected by the agricultural policy at the European Union level and subsidy policy of particular member states.

Different patterns of human activities in nature during Covid-19 pandemic and African swine fever outbreak confirm direct impact on wildlife disruption.

Implementation of various restrictions to eradicate viral diseases has globally affected human activity and subsequently nature. But how can the altered routines of human activity (restrictions, lockdowns) affect wildlife behaviour? This study compared the differences between human and wildlife occurrences in the study forest area with acreage of 5430.6 ha in 2018 (African swine fever outbreak, complete entrance ban), 2019 (standard pattern) and 2020 (COVID-19 restrictions) during the breeding season. The number of visitors was lower by 64% in 2018 (non-respecting of the entry ban by forest visitors) compared to standard 2019, while in 2020, the number of visitors increased to 151%. In the COVID-19 period, distinct peaks in the number of visitors were observed between 8-11 AM and 4-7 PM. The peaks of wildlife activity were recorded between 4-7 AM and 9-12 PM. Animals avoided the localities that were visited by humans during the people-influenced time (24 h after people visit), which confirmed the direct negative impact of human activities on wildlife.