Land use, yield and quality changes of minor field crops: Is there superseded potential to be reinvented in northern Europe?

RESEARCH ARTICLE Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino Field C ops: Is The e Supe seded Po en ial o Be Rein en ed in No he n Eu ope? Pi jo Pel onen-Sainio 1 *, Lau i Jauhiainen 1 , Heikki Leh onen 2 1Na u al Resou ces Ins i u e Finland (Luke), Managemen and P oduc ion o Renewable Resou ces, FI- 31600 Jokioinen, Finland, 2Na u al Resou ces Ins i u e Finland (Luke), Economics and Socie y, FI-00790 Helsinki, Finland *pi jo.pel onen-saini[email p o ec ed] Abs ac Di e si ica ion o ag icul u e was one o he s eng hened aims o he g eening paymen o Eu opean Ag icul u al Policy (CAP) as di e si ica ion p o ides nume ous ecosys ems se - ices compa ed o ce eal-in ensi e c op o a ions. This s udy ocuses on cu en mino c ops in Finland ha ha e po en ial o expanded p oduc ion and conside s changes in hei c opping a eas, yield ends, b eeding gains, oles in c op o a ions and po en ial o imp o - ing esilience. Long- e m da ase s o Na u al Resou ces Ins i u e Finland and a me s’ land use da a om he Agency o Ru al A ai s we e used o analyze he abo e-men ioned ends and changes. The ole o mino c ops in o a ions declined when ea ly and la e CAP pe iods we e compa ed and ha o ce eal monocul u es s eng hened. Gene ic yield po en ials o mino c ops ha e inc eased as also gene ic imp o emen s in quali y ai s, al hough some ypical ade-o s wi h imp o ed yields ha e also appea ed. Howe e , he gap be ween po en ial and a ained yields has expanded, depending on he mino c op, as na ional yield ends ha e ei he s agna ed o declined. When compa ing gene ic imp o emen s o mino c ops o hose o he eme ging majo c op, sp ing whea , b eeding achie emen s in mino c ops we e lowe . I was e iden ha he cu en ag icul u al policies in he p e ailing ma ke and he p ice en i onmen ha e no encou aged cul i a ion o mino c ops bu u he s eng hened he ole o ce eal monocul u es. We sugges op imiza ion o ag icul u al land use, which is a co e elemen o sus ainable in ensi ica ion, as a u u e means o couple long- e m en i onmen al sus ainabili y wi h be e success in economic p o i abili y and social accep abili y. This calls o de elopmen o e ec i e policy ins umen s o suppo a me ’s di e si ica ion ac ions. In oduc ion In Finland, sp ing ce eals, ba ley (Ho deum ulga e L.), oa (A ena sa i a L.) and also inc eas- ingly whea (T i icum aes i um L.) domina e land use. Ce eal monocul u es a e ypical in he sou he n p ime p oduc ion egions o he coun y wi h many eco ded ad e se e ec s on c op PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 1 / 19 a11111 OPEN ACCESS Ci a ion: Pel onen-Sainio P, Jauhiainen L, Leh onen H (2016) Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino Field C ops: Is The e Supe seded Po en ial o Be Rein en ed in No he n Eu ope? PLoS ONE 11(11): e0166403. doi:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 Edi o : P. Pa dha-Sa adhi, Uni e si y o Delhi, INDIA Recei ed: Ap il 26, 2016 Accep ed: Oc obe 29, 2016 Published: No embe 21, 2016 Copy igh : ©2016 Pel onen-Sainio e al. This is an open access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License, which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal au ho and sou ce a e c edi ed. Da a A ailabili y S a emen : Some da a wi hin he pape a e no a ailable due o he ac ha hey a e owned by a hi d pa y. Unde lying da a can be accessed in he ollowing ways: 1) Da a on yield and cul i a ion a ea in Finland since 1960s a e om FAO S a is ics: h p:// aos a 3. ao.o g/b owse/Q/QC/E 2) O icial Va ie y T ial da a o Finland o di e en ime pe iods a e om Luke. i: h ps://po al.m . i/po al/page/ po al/kaspe /pel o/pel opal elu /lajikekokee and h p://juku i.luke. i/bi s eam/handle/10024/ 531720/luke-luobio_3_2016.pd and yields and he en i onmen [1]. On he o he hand, due o he s iking sou h-no h di ision o c op and dai y p oduc ion, g asslands a e common in he landscapes o he cen al and no h- e n pa s o Finland. Sp ing ce eals and g ass c ops oge he accoun o 80% o cul i a ed a ea, he eby lea ing a limi ed land a ea o only ~120.000 hec a es o he ollowing mino c ops (S1 Fig): u nip ape (B assica apa L.) and oilseed ape (B.napus L.), oge he e e ed o as apeseed, po a o (Solanum ube osum L.), pea (Pisum sa i um L.), win e ye (Secale ce - eale L.), win e whea , suga bee (Be a ulga is a . al issima) and also ecen ly aba bean (Vicia aba L.). Yield di e ence o bo h majo and mino c ops be ween Finland and coun ies like Swe- den, Denma k and F ance is appa en owing o he high la i ude condi ions coupled wi h excep ionally sho g owing season. Possible shi s in yield di e ences o e ime may e eal di e ences in egional capaci ies and economic incen i es o de elop c ops and c opping sys- ems. These a e signi ican ly a ec ed by ma ke s, p ices and ag icul u al policies as well as public esea ch and de elopmen (R&D) unding di ec ed o de elopmen o mino c ops. Con a y o he ela i ely cons an yield di e ence since he 1960s in whea and he ecen ly educed yield di e ence in ba ley be ween Finland and o he coun ies [1], yield gap has d a- ma ically expanded o apeseed, especially since he 1990s (Fig 1) [2]. The si ua ion is he same wi h win e ye and pea, hough in gene al, he yield di e ence be ween Finland and o he coun ies in pea yields a e sligh ly lowe han ha o win e ye and pa icula ly ape- seed. All hese indings and he educ ion in a ea unde mino c ops emphasize hei po en- ially educed compe i i eness in Finland. Di e si ica ion o ag icul u al p oduc ion was one o he s eng hened aims o he g eening paymen o Eu opean Common Ag icul u al Policy (CAP), Pilla 1 [4]. Di e si ied land use is conside ed o p o ide many aluable ecosys em se ices o Eu opean ag icul u e—and is also a esponse o global conce n abou biodi e si y loss [5]. Swi ching om ce eal-in ensi e c op o a ions owa ds di e se c opping sequencing bene i s he en i onmen , e.g. h ough be e nu ien managemen , educed need o ni ogen (N) e ilize s, inc eased biodi e si y, imp o ed soil condi ions and unc ions and educed pes , disease and weed isks [6–8]. Espe- cially N ixing legumes a e app ecia ed as b eak-c ops [9–11]. Di e si ica ion is also one o he co e means o inc ease esilience o c op p oduc ion o wea he a iabili y [12]. To capi alize on he bene i s om di e si ica ion and o be e design c op o a ions, eco-e iciency ( he a io be ween en i onmen al impac and economic alue) needs o be assessed [8]. Di e si ied land use is a key elemen o sus ainable in ensi ica ion o c opping sys ems, ha need o be designed locally [13], o educe yield gaps and gain en i onmen al sus ainabili y, economic p o i abili y and social accep abili y [1]. Owing o he negligible cul i a ion a ea and limi ed ma ke s o mino c ops, plan b eeding e o s ha e been di ec ed owa ds majo c ops, while abandoning mino c ops [14]. Such a p ocess ocusing on a smalle numbe o economically impo an p ima y c ops has been u - he p omo ed o comme cial easons, as go e nmen al b eeding companies ha e been p i- a ised and also me ged [14]. This may ha e c ea ed a bo leneck whe e he cu en low cul i a ion a ea discou ages in es men in b eeding p og ams o mino c ops, while he lack o compe i i e cul i a s discou ages a me s o di e si y hei c opping sys ems and expand cul i a ion o mino c ops. To only conside he ole o b eeding in sus aining o supe seding mino c op p oduc ion is e iden ly oo one-sided. The limi ed demand o mino c ops a local ma ke s, he speci ic managemen and ma ke ing skills needed, highe labou inpu and p oduc ion cos s pe p o- duced uni , as well as he lowe o mo e unce ain p o i abili y compa ed o he main c ops, inhibi in oduc ion o mino c ops in o a ions [15,16]. This empi ical obse a ion has been con i med in economic modelling s udies as well [17,18]. Fu he mo e, bo h public and Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino C ops in No he n Eu ope PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 2 / 19 h p://www.m . i/m apo i/pd /m apo i75. pd and so on 3) Mo e de ailed O icial Va ie y T ial da a (beyond ha o icially a ailable in Luke in e ne pages wi h shown links) canno be made publicly a ailable due o legal es ic ions. Reques s ela ed o his da a can be made o Pi jo Pel onen-Sainio (pi jo.pel one[email p o ec ed]). 4) Na ional a m su ey da a on quali y o ha es ed ce eals is no a ailable o hi d pa y due o legal es ic ions. Reques s ela ed o his da a can be made o Pi jo Pel onen-Sainio (pi jo.pel onen-sainio@luke. i). Funding: The wo k was inanced by he Minis y o Ag icul u e and Fo es y and Na u al Resou ces Ins i u e Finland (Luke) as a pa o a conso ium o p ojec s en i led Imp o ing Resilience o Clima e Change and Va ia ion Induced Risks in Ag icul u e (ILMAPUSKURI) and Sus ainable In ensi ica ion o C op P oduc ion h ough Land Use Changes (Pel oOp imi). The unde s had no ole in s udy design, da a collec ion and analysis, decision o publish, o p epa a ion o he manusc ip . Compe ing In e es s: The au ho s ha e decla ed ha no compe ing in e es s exis . p i a e in es men s ha e been la gely alloca ed o he low numbe o majo global c ops, wi h a good epaymen a io [19], while mino c ops do no success well in compe i ion o esou ces o R&D [20]. One pa icula , eme ging challenge—also expe ienced by Finnish a me s—is he lowe numbe o pes icides, i any, egis e ed and he eby, a ailable o con- olling noxious diseases, pes s and weeds in mino c ops [21]. Small ma ke s and low demand o such pes icides appa en ly discou ages supplie s. On he o he hand, a m a ea paymen s decoupled om p oduc ion and occasionally low ma ke c op p ices compa ed o he p oduc- ion cos s discou age a me s om using pes icides [18]. This is c i ical o he exis ence o mino c ops in c op o a ions, as bio ic s esso s a e among he majo ac o s causing yield ins abili y and e en o al c op ailu es o mino c ops [22]. All he undamen al laws associa ed wi h unde s a ing o mino c ops pose a challenge o ind he means o expand hei cul i a ion and o inc ease hei a ac i eness o companies in es ing in he de eloping p ocesses in one way o ano he . In he case o Finland, mino c ops, e.g. pea, aba bean and apeseed as a p o ein sou ce can be inc eased in eed use and be a subs i u e o impo ed soybean meal [Glycine max (L.) Me .]. The main conce n, how- e e is he high p oduc ion cos compa ed o impo ed p o ein eed. Hence, go e nmen al Fig 1. Yields o win e ye, apeseed and ield pea in Finland ela i e o hose in Sweden, Denma k and F ance du ing 1961–2012 ( i e-yea mo ing a e ages) wi h whea (bo h sp ing and win e ) as a e e ence o majo c op. Da a om FAO [3]. doi:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403.g001 Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino C ops in No he n Eu ope PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 3 / 19 o ganiza ions and ag icul u al policies ha e an impo an ole in de eloping easible incen i es and means o a me s o expand cul i a ion o mino c ops. One encou aging example is ha he Na ional Eme gency Supply Agency in Finland suppo s b eeding p og ams o mino c ops un il a c op becomes economically p o i able o he na ional b eeding company. Wi h his s udy we aimed o: 1) assess he gene ic yield and quali y imp o emen s achie ed in c ops ha ing a pe manen bu mino ole in Finnish ag icul u e and o e alua e he gaps be ween mino c op po en ial and ac ual a m-yields when compa ed o hose o majo c ops, 2) o iden i y possible changes in he ole o mino c ops in c op o a ions in he case s udy egion ha is cha ac e ized as he a ea wi h he mos po en ial o cul i a ion o special c ops in Finland, and 3) o cha ac e ize he di e ences in esponsi eness o yield o a numbe o mino and majo c ops o a iable g owing condi ions and he eby, o cha ac e ize he gene al po en ial o imp o e esilience o no he n Eu opean c opping sys ems o wea he a iabili y h ough di e si ied land use wi h mino c ops. Ma e ials and Me hods Assessmen o yield and quali y ends S udy pe iod. The s udy pe iod was di ided in o a ious sub-pe iods as desc ibed by Pel- onen-Sainio e al. [1] as ag icul u e has unde gone pe iodic changes wi h likely impac s on yield ends. In he i s pe iod o 1970–1980, ag icul u e was s ongly mechanized and p e- mode n ag icul u al p ac ices we e de eloped and la gely implemen ed. Fo example, du ing his pe iod he numbe o ac o s pe uni land a ea mo e han doubled and he numbe o combine ha es e s inc eased six- old [3]. Also, use o indus ial e ilize s inc eased om ca. 20 kg N ha -1 and 40 kg P ha -1 o 80 kg o bo h N and P ha -1 and he me hod o e ilize place- men was implemen ed. The second pe iod o 1981–1994 was cha ac e ized by in oduc ion o mode n c op managemen p ac ices, chemical con ol o pes s and diseases, in oduc ion o plan g ow h egula o s, e c., which all in ensi ied p oduc ion. Howe e , use o ag o-chemicals has been modes in Finland due o lowe pes and disease ou b eak p essu e and because he ma ke and policy incen i es ha e no a ou ed hei use. The la es pe iod o 1995–2013 was cha ac e ized as he pe iod o Finland being a membe o Eu opean Union (EU) implemen ing CAP, launching he AEP (Ag i-En i onmen P og am), s uc u al aids and he eby, c ea ing la ge changes in he socio-economic en i onmen o p ac ising ag icul u e. Expe imen al a angemen s and measu emen s. Da a on na ional mean yields and p o- duc ion a eas, p o ided by S a is ical Se ices o he Na u al Resou ces Ins i u e Finland (Luke), ha e been a ailable since 1920 depending on in oduc ion o a c op in o cul i a ion in Finland a a no ewo hy scale (S1 Fig). In addi ion, da a on mul i-loca ion Luke O icial Va i- e y T ials o win e whea and ye, u nip ape, oilseed ape, ield pea and imo hy (Phleum p a ense L.) we e a ailable o 1970–2013 and o po a o o 1970–2004. The o al numbe o loca ions was 30, bu he si es depended on yea and c op. Each c op was g own in i s mos ypical egion. The expe imen s, measu emen s and analyses ollowed he p ocedu es speci ied in Laine e al. [23]. All expe imen s we e a anged as andomized comple e block designs o incomple e block designs. The numbe s o eplica es we e h ee o ou , depending on loca ion and yea . Each yea he es ed se o cul i a s and b eeding lines changed, bu long- e m check cul i a s we e used. Annual u no e o cul i a s and b eeding lines was ypically 10–40%. The selec ion o lines and cul i a s also di e ed wi hin any one yea , depending on loca ion. Only en ies ha we e ea ly enough o ma u e a each loca ion we e included in expe imen s. In addi ion o his, o a oid biased in e p e a ion o esul s, expe imen s p oducing less han 750 kg seed yield ha -1 we e excluded as hey o en esul ed om some e o s in o ganising and managing Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino C ops in No he n Eu ope PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 4 / 19 he c op s ands. In o al, he mul i-loca ion da a included 228 win e whea , 222 win e ye, 311 u nip ape, 259 oilseed ape, 262 ield pea, 431 po a o and 191 imo hy cul i a s and lines and he o al numbe s o cases (n) we e 3416, 5574, 4245, 2388, 3541, 3193 and 6590, espec i ely. Plo s we e 7–10 m ×1.25 m, depending on loca ion and yea . Seeding a e anged om 450–500 iable seeds m -2 o win e ce eals excep being 200–250 o hyb id ye, 200–350 o apeseed, 100–140 o pea and 3000 o imo hy, con o ming o he commonly used sowing a es in Finland. The numbe o seed po a oes plan ed was 4–7 m -2 . Weeds and pes s we e chemically con olled wi h he common comme cial agen s used a each ime pe iod. Fe ilize use depended on c op, c opping his o y, soil ype and e ili y. Fe ilize N applica ion a e did no change o e ime o pea (49 kg ha -1 ), bu ose sligh ly o apeseed (by 6 kg N ha -1 ) and mo e so o win e whea (by 19 kg N ha -1 ) and win e ye (by 23 kg N ha -1 ) due o ad ances in yield po en ials and quali y equi emen s. Fo imo hy he N e ilize a e was 185 kg N ha -1 bu inc eased o 220 kg N ha -1 since 2000, while o po a o he N a e emained cons an a 70 kg N ha -1 . Fo all c ops phospho us e ilize applica ion a es declined o co espond wi h he educ ions in na ional P use. G ain and seed yields we e ha es ed wi h a combine ha es e and weighed (kg ha -1 ) a e emo ing s aw, weed seeds and o he pa icles. G ain mois u e con en (%) was de e mined by weighing he g ain samples be o e and a e o en d ying, o mo e ecen ly using a Dickey John appa a us. Fo ce eals and pea he yield was adjus ed o 15% g ain o seed mois u e con- en , while o apeseed o 9% seed mois u e con en and o imo hy as d y ma e yields [23]. Po a o yield was measu ed as o al esh yield (kg ha -1 ). Single g ain o seed weigh (mg) o win e ce eals, apeseed and pea was measu ed om samples o 100 g ains/seeds each i e imes, dis ega ding he lowes and highes alues om he mean. Seed p o ein concen a ion (%) was analysed o he same c ops by using he Kjeldahl-me hod. Seed oil con en (%) was de e mined o apeseed wi h hep ane–alcohol ex ac ion and con e ed o d y ma e . Sha e o comme cially accep able yield (%) was measu ed o po a o o include only heal hy, mechanically o o he wise undamaged ube s o 35–70 mm in size. Also, sensi i i y o po a o o discolo a ion o aw (10 ube s pe sample) and boiled ube s (25 ube s) was measu ed by hal ing each ube and isually sco ing he colou om one o nine. S a is ical analyses. The s a is ical analysis was used o show wo ypes o yield ends acco ding o Luke O icial Va ie y T ials: gene ic yield imp o emen s ep esen ing he a ain- able po en ial yields and ha es ed yields (i.e., ealised yield po en ials). A mixed model ech- nique was used o his pu pose using he ollowing s a is ical model (1): yijkl ¼mþajþbkþgjkl þZiþεijkl ð1Þ whe e y ijkl is he obse ed seed yield o he i h cul i a cul i a ed in he j h loca ion, he k h yea (k = 1970,. . ., 2013) and he l h ial, μis he in e cep , α j is he andom e ec o he j h expe i- men al si e, β k is he ixed e ec o he k h yea , γ jkl is he andom e ec o he jkl h ial, η i is he ixed e ec o he i h cul i a and ε ijkl is he esidual e o . The assump ions o he andom e ec s we e: ajiid Nð0;d2 loca ionÞ,gjkl iid Nð0;d2 ialÞ,ε ijkl ~iid N(0,δ 2 ) and all he e ec s a e independen o each o he . Annual b eeding imp o emen s we e calcula ed compa ing he es ima ed seed yields o di e en cul i a s, ^ Zi o he yea in which each cul i a was en e ed in he ials. The pa ame e s o he models we e es ima ed using he es ic ed maximum likeli- hood (REML) me hod wi h he SAS sys em and MIXED p ocedu e [24]. The same s a is ical model was used o analyse ends in all he quali y ai s measu ed. Sca e plo s o esidual and i ed alues e ealed some ou lie s, bu because o hei small numbe , hey did no in luence Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino C ops in No he n Eu ope PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 5 / 19 he esul s. G aphical examina ion o da a also e ealed some clea ou lie eco ds, which we e emo ed be o e analysis. T end assessmen s. We applied he de ini ions o Fische [25] when cha ac e izing na ional mean yield as he ac ual yield, and po en ial yield as a measu ed yield o he bes cul i- a s cul i a ed by ollowing bes p ac ices. Changes in na ional g ain yields (±kg ha -1 ya -1 ) we e es ima ed by measu ing he change om each single p eceding yea o he nex , ans- o ming he da a o i e-yea mo ing a e ages and he ea e calcula ing he a e age change in na ional g ain yield as a mean ac oss all he yea s o each s udy pe iod. Changes in gene ic yield po en ial (±kg ha -1 ya -1 ) we e es ima ed in a simila way, bu by compa ing he gene ic yield imp o emen s in yielding capaci y o new cul i a s o hei p edecesso s. Cul i a s we e classi ied as new cul i a s in he i s yea o in oduc ion in o Luke O icial Va ie y T ials. The deg ee o ealisa ion o he gene ic yield po en ial (±% uni ya -1 ) was based on compa ison o na ional yields om Luke S a is ics Se ices wi h he gene ic yield po en ial es ima ed om Luke O icial Va ie y T ials. Di e ences among c ops in hei esponsi eness o a iable condi ions A e age yield le el was calcula ed o all c ops cul i a ed a he same expe imen al si e in he same yea . A co ela ion ma ix was c ea ed by calcula ing he co ela ion be ween each pai o c ops using a e age yields. The co ela ion ma ix was used in he ac o analysis o ind in e - co ela ion be ween yield p o iles o di e en c ops. SAS/FACTOR and CORR-p ocedu es we e used o pe o m his analysis. Changes in land use o mino and majo c ops Da a on land use om he Agency o Ru al A ai s (Ma i) consis ed o in o ma ion on ield c ops cul i a ed in each o he ield pa cels and, when app op ia e, ield pa cels we e u he di ided o ag icul u al pa cels each di e ing in c op species. We used da a om he sou h- wes e n p ima y p oduc ion egion o Finland ep esen ing an a ea ha ing he highes po en- ial o cul i a ion o special c ops and o di e si ica ion o c opping sys ems. The da a was di ided in o wo i e-yea pe iods: he i s pe iod since Finland joined he EU (1995–1999) and he second pe iod o 2007–2011. In o al, his a ea consis ed o 240 000 and 280 000 ag i- cul u al pa cels in he i s and second pe iods, espec i ely. Fo all ield pa cels he coun o occu ence o each c op was calcula ed. The calcula ion was made sepa a ely o bo h pe iods. Dis ibu ion o coun s was p esen ed as a weigh ed a e age acco ding o he a ea o he pa cel. Resul s T ends in ealized yields and gene ic yield po en ials In e annual a ia ion was la ge in na ional and expe imen al yields o mino g ain and seed c ops (Figs 2and 3). When compa ing he na ional yields o mino c ops o ha o sp ing whea , i was appa en ha he na ional yields o all mino c ops ha e ad anced less compa ed o ha o sp ing whea . Na ional yields o win e ce eals ha e ad anced mos , a e aging 1.15% ya -1 in whea and 0.93% ya -1 in ye, bu e en by 2.97 and 1.89% ya -1 du ing he pe iod o 1981– 1994 exhibi ing he highes ad ances (Table 1). 1981–1994 was he only pe iod when posi i e changes we e eco ded o u nip ape in na ional yields (0.86% ya -1 ). In po a o, na ional yield declines we e e iden h oughou he <40-yea s udy pe iod (Table 1,Fig 3). Inc eases in p o- duc i i y o g asslands (0.75–0.94% ya -1 ) and pea (1.47% ya -1 ) we e again a hei highes du - ing he i s s udy pe iod, 1961–1980. Since 1995 in all mino c ops, he pace o imp o emen s in he na ional yields educed (win e whea and ye) o yields declined ( u nip ape, po a o, Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino C ops in No he n Eu ope PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 6 / 19 hay and silage) compa ed o he p eceding pe iod, excep o pea which al eady ea lie expe i- enced he le elling o in na ional yield. Fo all he s udied mino c ops he po en ial yields a ainable in he ield condi ions had an inc easing end, al hough some in e annual a ia ion occu ed (Figs 2and 3). Hence, gene ic yield imp o emen s we e e iden o all he s udied ime pe iods and all c ops (Table 1). The only excep ion was win e whea , o which mino gene ic yield educ ion a e aging -14 kg ha -1 ya -1 was appa en du ing he i s pe iod (1970–1980). Fo all c ops excep po a o, he gene ic imp o emen s in yield po en ial we e a hei lowes o he i s s udy pe iod. In gen- e al, gene ic imp o emen s we e always highe o oilseed ape han u nip ape and o win e ye han win e whea . Changes in ealized gene ic yield po en ials we e posi i e i he na ional yield ad anced mo e compa ed o he change in gene ic yield po en ial o na ional yield inc eased while gene ic yield po en ial declined. Realized yield po en ial a ied ac oss yea s (Fig 4) mainly e lec ing he luc ua ions o na ional yields and being he eby, pa icula ly high o win e whea and pea (Figs 2and 3). Th oughou he s udy pe iod, a clea posi i e end was ound only o win e whea , while again a e y d ama ically declining end was seen o u nip ape, oilseed ape and po a o (Fig 4). Changes in ealized yield po en ials we e always nega i e o Fig 2. Changes in na ional yields, yields in Luke O icial Va ie y T ials and in po en ial yields o win e whea , win e ye, u nip ape and oilseed ape in 1970–2012. The numbe s shown o di e en ime pe iods (1970–1980, 1985–1995 and 2000–2010) indica e he na ional mean yield o each c op compa ed o ha o sp ing whea as a e e ence o majo c op wi h expanded cul i a ion a eas. Na ional da a om Luke S a is ics Se ices [26]. doi:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403.g002 Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino C ops in No he n Eu ope PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 7 / 19 u nip ape and po a o (Table 1). Fo pea and hay i was nega i e o he wo la e s udy pe i- ods, while o win e whea ealized yield was nega i e only in he i s s udy pe iod, while i was posi i e o ye only in he pe iod o 1981–1994. Gene ic imp o emen s in quali y ai s In gene al, he egional a ia ion in accep able quali y o mino c ops was high wi hou any e idence o sys ema ic changes (S2 Fig). Po a o was he only c op showing a end o imp o ed quali y ac oss he yea s associa ed wi h modes in e annual a ia ion. Fo apeseed and silage, he sha e o accep able quali y was high h oughou he s udy pe iod (da a no shown). The e was no e idence o ma ked di e ences in anges o a ia ion when means o accep able quali y in mino c ops we e compa ed o hose in sp ing whea , al hough win e ce eals and pea had sligh ly mo e egional a ia ion han o he c ops. In e annual a ia ion in single g ain weigh and g ain p o ein concen a ion was high in Luke’s O icial Va ie y T ials (Fig 5). None heless, single g ain weigh has imp o ed in win e whea by 0.09 mg ya -1 and in win e ye by 0.18 mg ya -1 , while g ain p o ein concen a ion has declined by 0.02 and 0.05 pe cen uni ya -1 , espec i ely. The gene ic imp o emen in single seed weigh was no appa en o u nip ape while in oilseed ape i inc eased by 0.02 mg ya -1 Fig 3. Changes in na ional yields, yields in Luke O icial Va ie y T ials and in po en ial yields o po a o, ield pea and imo hy when ha es ed o silage o hay in 1970–2012. The numbe s shown o di e en ime pe iods (1970–1980, 1985–1995 and 2000–2010) indica e he na ional mean yield o each c op compa ed o ha o sp ing whea as a e e ence o majo c op wi h expanded cul i a ion a eas. Na ional da a om Luke S a is ics Se ices [26]. doi:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403.g003 Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino C ops in No he n Eu ope PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 8 / 19 (Fig 6). Howe e , seed p o ein concen a ion has declined by 0.03 in u nip ape and 0.06 pe - cen uni ya -1 in oilseed ape. This coincided wi h signi ican gene ic imp o emen in seed oil concen a ion: a e aging 0.07 and 0.12 pe cen uni ya -1 , espec i ely. Seed p o ein concen a- ion o pea inc eased by 0.04 pe cen uni ya -1 and single seed weigh by e en 0.56 mg ya -1 . Role o mino c ops in c op o a ions Compa ison o land use du ing he ea ly CAP-pe iod o 1995–1999 o he la e CAP-pe iod o 2007–2011 showed ha sp ing ce eal domina ion in ield use has s eng hened (S1 Table). One qua e o he ields in ou i e-yea ollow-up had only sp ing ce eals in hei c op o a ion, while in 20% o ields a b eak-c op was used only once in he o a ion. Abou 10% o ields had sp ing ce eal once du ing hei i e-yea o a ion. Win e whea , u nip ape and oilseed ape we e in oduced mo e equen ly o he o a ion when compa ing ea ly and la e CAP-pe iods (S1 Table). Abou 6% o ields had win e whea once and 2% wice du ing he i e-yea o a ion, while o ye he igu es we e 4% and 1%, espec i ely. Again 21% o ields had u nip ape once in o a ion and 3% wice, while he ig- u es o oilseed ape we e 5% and 0.3%, espec i ely. Po a o and pea we e e y sca cely seen in o a ions. Pe ennial g asslands had a qui e equal sha e o ields (4–5%) o all cases, om one o i e imes appea ance in c op o a ions, while in abou 77% o ield g ass c ops we e no cul- i a ed a all. Table 1. Changes in na ional mean yields, gene ic yield imp o emen s and in deg ee o ealiza ion o yield po en ials o sp ing and win e ce eals, sp ing u nip ape and oilseed ape, ield pea and hay and silage. Na ional yield imp o emen s a e gi en in kg and % yea -1 . Figu es o he highes yield imp o emen o any o he sub-pe iods a e shown in pa en heses. Pe iod Sp ing sown/plan ed c ops O e win e ing c ops Tu nip ape Oilseed ape Pea Po a o Whea Rye Hay Silage a Change in na ional yield (kg yea -1 ) 1970–1980 −230 −1460 −22 6 29 55 1981–1994 13 6−390 93 45 −4 25 1995–2013 −19 −7 11 −631 30 12 −12 −40 Whole pe iod (kg yea -1 )−414 −549 37 22 1 7 Whole pe iod (% yea -1 )−0.27 (0.86) −0.40 (−0.40) 0.65 (1.47) −1.56 (−0.98) 1.15 (2.97) 0.93 (1.89) 0.03 (0.75) 0.11 (0.94) Gene ic imp o emen (kg yea -1 ) Timo hy b 1970–1980 4 17 11 226 −14 a 9 4 1981–1994 22 28 46 51 44 49 15 1995–2013 14 52 28 301 40 72 32 Whole pe iod 17 40 31 159 31 52 22 Change in ealized yield po en ial (±% uni yea -1 ) 1970–1980 −1.65 3.79 −5.21 −0.79 a −0.50 6.41 0.24 1981–1994 −0.41 ‒0.77 −1.30 1.43 0.44 −0.12 0.17 1995–2013 −1.45 −1.53 ‒0.16 −2.83 0.22 −0.35 −0.40 −0.87 Whole pe iod −1.04 ‒0.07 −1.96 0.45 −0.10 0.96 −0.33 a Only o win e whea , gene ic yield po en ials ha e declined hough only o he pe iod 1970–1980 and he e o e, change in ealized yield po en ial is nega i e b Realiza ion o po en ial yield o hay and silage yields is based on compa ison wi h gene ic yield imp o emen s o imo hy (one o he p ime g ass c ops g own in Finland), silage yield is calcula ed by di iding he o al annual silage yield by h ee, he expec ed numbe o indi idual cu s. doi:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403. 001 Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino C ops in No he n Eu ope PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 9 / 19 u he inc ease he yield gaps and limi hei closu e [42]. Howe e , compa ison o sha e o yields ha ing accep able quali y (S2 Fig) indica ed ha e en hough he egional di e ences we e high o some c ops compa ed o sp ing whea , by alloca ing mo e land o mino c ops in a eas wi h only easonable yield a ia ion, is a means o imp o e yield s abili y o mino c ops and inc ease esilience o c opping sys ems as a whole [12,28]. Di e se c opping sys ems, especially when compa ed o ce eal monocul u es, ha e also po en ial o mi iga e nu ien loads ha a e inc eased a high la i udes by clima e change [43]. In addi ion o main aining he b eeding p og ams o mino c ops and he eby, enhancing po en ial yields, quali y and s abili y, as well as making ag onomic ad ancemen s, i is essen ial o suppo expansion o mino c ops in land use and c op o a ions by suppo i e ma ke de elopmen s and e ec i e policy ins umen s in Eu ope [44]. Conclusions The AEP, an impo an componen o CAP, has been success ul in e ms o educing nu ien use and dec easing nu ien balances. Howe e , ou esul s wi h neglec ed mino c ops ques- ion whe he he en i onmen al sus ainabili y goals a e a ained only pa ly and in he sho e m, bu no necessa ily in he long e m. This p o ed o be a jus i ied conce n wi h majo c ops as ecen assessmen indica ed s agna ion in yields and declines in quali y ai s. How- e e , his s udy u he deepens he conce n o achie ing ad ances in sus ainabili y, as i indi- ca es how he ag icul u al policies in he p e ailing ma ke and p ice en i onmen ha e led o he s eng hened ole o only a couple majo c ops, neglec ing la ge-scale di e si ica ion ac i i ies al hough hey a e o u mos impo ance when aiming o imp o e biodi e si y in ag i- cul u e and u al landscapes. The e o e, op imiza ion o ag icul u al land use, as a cen al ele- men o sus ainable in ensi ica ion ac ions in high la i ude c opping sys ems, is a he co e o ou cu en esea ch ac i i ies ha aim o de elop ag icul u e no only owa ds be e en i on- men al sus ainabili y, bu coupling success in ha wi h be e economic p o i abili y and social accep abili y. Suppo ing In o ma ion S1 Fig. Changes in ield a ea de o ed o mino c ops c ops (symbol o each c op g oup in he igh ma gin) since 1920 in Finland wi h sp ing whea (in he uppe panel wi h open ci cle) as a e e ence o majo c op. Da a om Luke S a is ics Se ices [26]. (TIF) S2 Fig. In e annual a ia ions in p opo ion o yield wi h accep able quali y in Finland in win e ce eals, po a o, pea and hay o 1988–2006. Sp ing whea is shown as a e e ence o majo c op. The black squa e is he na ional mean while he line indica es he spa ial a ia ion depending on yea . Da a om Luke S a is ics Se ices [26]. (TIF) S3 Fig. Changes in land use o ce eal c ops, g assland and allow since 1920 in Finland. Symbol indica ing each c op g oup is shown in he igh ma gin nex o he end- ail o each end. Da a om Luke S a is ics Se ices [26]. (TIF) S4 Fig. Gene ic imp o emen s in sensi i i y o da kening as aw and boiled o win e po a o in 1970–2005 as i e-yea mo ing a e ages (g ey line). Black ci cles indica e he in e annual a ia ions o expe imen al means ac oss all he cul i a s o Luke O icial Va ie y T ials. The igu e wi hin he panel indica es he mean gene ic change in quali y ai s. (TIF) Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino C ops in No he n Eu ope PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 16 / 19 S1 Table. The sha e o ields ha ing none o one o i e imes di e en mino c ops in hei o a ions wi hin wo i e-yea s pe iods compa ed o he domina ing c op, sp ing ce eals. The da a co e s 70 000 ields ha a e loca ed on he p ime c op p oduc ion egion o Finland ha ing he eby he highes po en ial o cul i a ion o mino c ops. Da a om Ma i. (DOCX) Acknowledgmen s The wo k was inanced by he Minis y o Ag icul u e and Fo es y and Na u al Resou ces Ins i u e Finland (Luke) as a pa o a conso ium o p ojec s en i led Imp o ing Resilience o Clima e Change and Va ia ion Induced Risks in Ag icul u e (ILMAPUSKURI) and Sus ain- able In ensi ica ion o C op P oduc ion h ough Land Use Changes (Pel oOp imi). Au ho Con ibu ions Concep ualiza ion: PPS. Da a cu a ion: LJ PPS. Fo mal analysis: LJ. Funding acquisi ion: PPS HL. In es iga ion: LJ PPS HL. Me hodology: LJ. P ojec adminis a ion: PPS. Resou ces: PPS LJ HL. So wa e: LJ. Valida ion: PPS LJ HL. Visualiza ion: PPS LJ. W i ing – o iginal d a : PPS. W i ing – e iew & edi ing: PPS LJ HL. Re e ences 1. Pel onen-Sainio P, Salo T, Jauhiainen L, Leh onen H, Sie ilainen E. S a ic yields and quali y issues: Is he ag i-en i onmen p og am he p ima y d i e ? Ambio. 2015; 44: 544–556. doi: 10.1007/s13280- 015-0637-9 PMID: 25663562 2. Pel onen-Sainio P, Jauhainen L, Hannukkala A. Declining apeseed yields in Finland: how, why and wha nex ? Jou nal o Ag icul u al Science. 2007; 145: 587–598. 3. FAO. Ag i-En i onmen al S a is ics. 2016. A ailable a : h p:// aos a . ao.o g/si e/339/de aul .aspx. Accessed 1/11, 2016. 4. Eu opean Comission. O e iew o CAP Re o m 2014–2020. Ag icul u al Policy Pe spec i es B ie No5. 2013. A ailable a : h p://ec.eu opa.eu/ag icul u e/policy-pe spec i es/policy-b ie s/05_en.pd . Accessed 4/26, 2016. 5. Rocks o ¨m J, S e en W, Noone K, Pe sson Å, S ua IC, Lambin E, e al. Plane a y bounda ies: Explo - ing he sa e ope a ing space o humani y. Ecology & Socie y. 2009; 14: 1–33. 6. Ki kegaa d J, Ch is en O, K upinsky J, Layzell D. B eak c op bene i s in empe a e whea p oduc ion. Field C ops Resea ch. 2008; 107: 185–195. 7. Wezel A, Casag ande M, Cele e F, Vian J, Fe e A, Peigne ´J. Ag oecological p ac ices o sus ainable ag icul u e. A e iew. Ag onomy o Sus ainable De elopmen . 2014; 34: 1–20. Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino C ops in No he n Eu ope PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 17 / 19 8. Nemecek T, Haye F, Bonnin E, Ca oue ´e B, Schneide A, Vi ie C. Designing eco-e icien c op o a- ions using li e cycle assessmen o c op combina ions. Eu opean Jou nal o Ag onomy. 2015; 65: 40– 51. 9. Nemecek T, on Rich ho en J, Dubois G, Cas a P, Cha les R, Pahl H. En i onmen al impac s o in o- ducing g ain legumes in o Eu opean c op o a ions. Eu opean Jou nal o Ag onomy. 2008; 28: 380– 393. 10. Jensen E, Peoples M, Boddey R, G essho P, Hauggaa d-Nielsen H, Al es B, e al. Legumes o mi i- ga ion o clima e change and he p o ision o eeds ock o bio uels and bio e ine ies. A e iew. Ag on- omy o Sus ainable De elopmen . 2012; 32: 329–364. 11. Voisin A, Gue ´guen J, Huyghe C, Jeu oy M, Mag ini M, Meyna d J, e al. Legumes o eed, ood, bio- ma e ials and bioene gy in Eu ope: a e iew. Ag onomy o Sus ainable De elopmen . 2014; 34: 361– 380. 12. Gaudin ACM, Tolhu s TN, Ke AP, Jano icek K, To o a C, Ma in RC, e al. Inc easing c op di e si y mi iga es wea he a ia ions and imp o es yield s abili y. PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0113261. doi: 10.1371/ jou nal.pone.0113261 PMID: 25658914 13. P adhan P, Fische G, an Vel huizen H, Reusse DE, K opp JP. Closing yield gaps: How sus ainable can we be? PLoS One. 2015; 10: e0129487. doi: 10.1371/jou nal.pone.0129487 PMID: 26083456 14. Solbe g SO, B eian L. Comme cial cul i a s and a me s’ access o c op di e si y: A case om he No - dic egion. Ag icul u al and Food Science. 2015; 24: 150. 15. Pie ila ¨A. Kuuden uoden iljelykie o. Maa ilan Pi kka. 2008. A ailable a : h p://www.pelle o. i/ maa ila/mp4_08/kie o6 .h m. Accessed 4/26, 2016. 16. Paananen I. Vilja iloilla a i aan iljelykie on monipuolis amis a. Suomalainen Maaseu u. 2014. A ail- able a : h p://www.suomalainenmaaseu u. i/uu ise / ilja iloilla- a i aan- iljelykie on- monipuolis amis a-1.55078. Accessed 4/26, 2016. 17. Leh onen H, Liu X, Pu ola T. Balancing clima e change mi iga ion and adap a ion wi h socio-economy goals a a ms in no he n Eu ope. In: Palo ii a A, Ja ¨ ela ¨M, edi o s. Clima e Change Adap a ion and Food Supply Chain Managemen . Rou ledge, Taylo & F ancis G oup; 2016. pp. 132–146. 18. Liu X, Leh onen H, Pu ola T, Pa lo a Y, Ro ¨ e R, Palosuo T. Dynamic economic modelling o c op o a- ions wi h a m managemen p ac ices unde u u e pes p essu e. Ag icul u al Sys ems. 2016; 144: 65– 76. 19. The Wo ld Bank. The ag icul u e o de elopmen . The Wo ld De elopmen Repo 2008. 2008. 20. Als on JM, Pa dey PG. Public unding o esea ch in o special y c ops. Ho Science. 2008; 43: 1461– 1470. 21. Lamichhane JR, A endse W, Dachb od -Saaydeh S, Kudsk P, Roman JC, an Bijs e eld -Gels JEM, e al. Re iew: Challenges and oppo uni ies o in eg a ed pes managemen in Eu ope: A elling exam- ple o mino uses. C op P o ec ion. 2015; 74: 42–47. 22. Pel onen-Sainio P, Vena ¨la ¨inen A, Ma ¨kela ¨HM, Pi inen P, Laapas M, Jauhiainen L, e al. Ha m ulness o wea he e en s and he adap i e capaci y o a me s a high la i udes o Eu ope. Clima e Resea ch. 2016; 67: 221–240. 23. Laine A, Ho ¨gna ¨sbacka M, Kujala M, Niskanen M, Jauhiainen L, Nikande H. Resul s o O icial Va ie y T ials 2006–2014. Luonnon a a ja bio alouden u kimus. 2015;3/2015. 24. Li ell RC, Milliken GA, S oup WW, Wol inge RD, Schabenbe ge O. SAS o Mixed Models. 2 h ed; 2006. 25. Fische RA. De ini ions and de e mina ion o c op yield, yield gaps, and o a es o change. Field C ops Resea ch. 2015; 182: 9–18. 26. Luke S a is ics Se ices. 2016. A ailable a : h p://s a .luke. i/en/. Accessed 4/26, 2016. 27. Howieson JG O’Ha a GW, Ca SJ. Changing oles o legumes in Medi e anean ag icul u e: de elop- men s om an Aus alian pe spec i e. Field C ops Resea ch. 2000; 65: 107–122. 28. Pel onen-Sainio P, Hakala K, Jauhiainen L, Ruos eenoja K. Compa ing egional isks in p oducing u - nip ape and oilseed ape—Impac s o clima e change and b eeding. Ac a Ag icul u ae Scandina ica: Sec ion B, Soil & Plan Science. 2009; 59: 129–138. 29. Ras as M, La ala S, Hannukkala A. Good c op o a ion p ac ice p e en s club oo bu no ungal oo and s em base diseases in u nip and oilseed ape. Ac a Phy opa hologica Sinica. 2013; 43: 530. 30. Seymou M, Ki kegaa d JA, Peoples MB, Whi e PF, F ench RJ. B eak-c op bene i s o whea in Wes - e n Aus alia—insigh s om o e h ee decades o esea ch. C op and Pas u e Science. 2012; 63: 1– 16. 31. Ma ¨kinen H, Kase a J, Vi kaja ¨ i P, Kahiluo o H. Managing esilience o o age c ops o clima e change h ough esponse di e si y. Field C ops Resea ch. 2015; 183: 23–30. Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino C ops in No he n Eu ope PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 18 / 19 32. Laidig F, Piepho H, D obek T, Meye U. Gene ic and non-gene ic long- e m ends o 12 di e en c ops in Ge man o icial a ie y pe o mance ials and on- a m yield ends. Theo e ical and Applied Gene ics. 2014; 127: 2599–2617. doi: 10.1007/s00122-014-2402-z PMID: 25307935 33. Mackay I, Ho well A, Ga ne J, Whi e J, McKee J, Philpo H. Reanalyses o he his o ical se ies o UK a ie y ials o quan i y he con ibu ions o gene ic and en i onmen al ac o s o ends and a iabili y in yield o e ime. Theo e ical and Applied Gene ics. 2011; 122: 225–238. doi: 10.1007/s00122-010-1438- yPMID: 20835813 34. T iboi E, T iboi-Blondel A. P oduc i i y and g ain o seed composi ion: a new app oach o an old p ob- lem—in i ed pape . Eu opean Jou nal o Ag onomy. 2002; 16: 163–186. 35. Pel onen-Sainio P, Jauhiainen L, Hyo ¨ ela ¨M, Nissila ¨E. T ade-o be ween oil and p o ein in apeseed a high la i udes: Means o consolida e p o ein c op s a us? Field C ops Resea ch. 2011; 121: 248–255. 36. Myy a ¨S, Ke oja E, Yli-Halla M, Pie ola K. Land imp o emen s unde land enu e insecu i y: The case o pH and phospha e in Finland. Land Economics. 2005; 81: 557–569. 37. Jalli M, Lai inen P, La ala S. The eme gence o ce eal ungal diseases and he incidence o lea spo diseases in Finland. Ag icul u al and Food Science. 2011; 20: 62–73. 38. Ka ¨nka ¨nen H, Alakukku L, Salo Y, Pi ka ¨nen T. G ow h and yield o sp ing ce eals du ing ansi ion o ze o illage on clay soils. Eu opean Jou nal o Ag onomy. 2011; 34: 35–45. 39. Pou a E, Myy a ¨S, Pie ola K. Landowne esponse o policies egula ing land imp o emen s in Finland: Lease o sea ch o o he op ions? Land Use Policy. 2012; 29: 367–376. 40. Pel onen-Sainio P, Jauhiainen L. Cul i a imp o emen and en i onmen al a iabili y in yield emo ed ni ogen o sp ing ce eals and apeseed in no he n g owing condi ions acco ding o a long- e m da a- se . Ag icul u al and Food Science. 2010; 19: 341–353. 41. Pel onen-Sainio P, Jauhiainen L, Lai inen P, Salopel o J, Saas amoinen M, Hannukkala A. Iden i ying di icul ies in apeseed oo pene a ion in a me s’ ields in no he n Eu opean condi ions. Soil Use & Managemen . 2011; 27: 229–237. 42. Monja dino M, McBea h T, Ouzman J, Llewellyn R, Jones B. Fa me isk-a e sion limi s closu e o yield and p o i gaps: A s udy o ni ogen managemen in he sou he n Aus alian whea bel . Ag icul u al Sys- ems. 2015; 137: 108–118. 43. Rankinen K, Pel onen-Sainio P, G anlund K, Ojanen H, Laapas M, Hakala K, e al. Clima e change adap a ion in a able land use, and impac on ni ogen load a ca chmen scale in no he n ag icul u e. Ag icul u al and Food Science. 2013; 22: 342–355. 44. P eissel S, Reckling M, Schla¨ ke N, Zande P. Magni ude and a m-economic alue o g ain legume p e-c op bene i s in Eu ope: A e iew. Field C ops Resea ch. 2015; 175: 64–79. Land Use, Yield and Quali y Changes o Mino C ops in No he n Eu ope PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/jou nal.pone.0166403 No embe 21, 2016 19 / 19