Search

1.The development of ecological networks could enhance the ability of species to disperse across fragmented landscapes and could mitigate against the negative impacts of climate change. The development of such networks will require widespread ecological restoration at the landscape scale, which is likely to be costly. However, little information is available regarding the cost-effectiveness of restoration approaches. 2.We address this knowledge gap by examining the potential impact of landscape-scale habitat restoration on the value of multiple ecosystem services across the catchment of the River Frome in Dorset, England. This was achieved by mapping the market value of four ecosystem services (carbon storage, crops, livestock and timber) under three different restoration scenarios, estimating restoration costs, and calculating net benefits. 3.The non-market value of additional services (cultural, aesthetic and recreational value) was elicited from local stakeholders using an online survey tool. Flood risk was assessed using a scoring approach. Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) was conducted, incorporating both market and non-market values, to evaluate the relative benefits of restoration scenarios. These were compared with impacts of restoration on biodiversity value. 4.Multi-Criteria Analysis results consistently ranked restoration scenarios above a non-restoration comparator, reflecting the increased provision of multiple ecosystem services. Restoration scenarios also provided benefits to biodiversity, in terms of increased species richness and habitat connectivity. However, restoration costs consistently exceeded the market value of ecosystem services. 5.Synthesis and applications. Establishment of ecological networks through ecological restoration is unlikely to deliver net economic benefits in landscapes dominated by agricultural land use. This reflects the high costs of ecological restoration in such landscapes. The cost-effectiveness of ecological networks will depend on how the benefits provided to people are valued, and on how the value of non-market benefits are weighted against the costs of reduced agricultural and timber production. Future plans for ecological restoration should incorporate local stakeholder values, to ensure that benefits to people are maximised. © 2012 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology © 2012 British Ecological Society.

Summary 1 Information on the effects of wildlife predation on game and livestock is required to allow improved management of all organisms involved. Monitoring of prey, predators and predation mechanisms each suggests important methods, illustrated here by data from common buzzards Buteo buteo and ring-necked pheasants Phasianus colchicus. 2 Location data from 136 radio-tagged common buzzards, together with prey remains from 40 nest areas, records from 10 gamekeepers and vegetation surveys, were used to investigate raptor predation at 28 pens from which pheasants were released in southern England. 3 Among 20 725 juvenile pheasants released in 1994–95, gamekeepers attributed 4·3% of deaths to buzzards, 0·7% to owls, 0·6% to sparrowhawks, 3·2% to foxes and 0·5% to other mammals. 4 Fresh pheasant remains were found on 7% of 91 visits to buzzard nests, and 8% of radio-tagged buzzards had significantly more association than other buzzards with pheasant pens. 5 Predation by buzzards was most likely to be recorded at release pens with little shrub cover, deciduous canopies and a large number of released pheasants. The number of pheasants killed was greatest in large pens with extensive ground cover, and the highest proportion of released pheasants was killed in large pens where few were released. However, only 21% of 55 releases had > 2 pheasant kills per week. 6 Radio-tagged buzzards were located most often at pheasant-release pens with open, deciduous canopies. Pens were most likely to be visited by buzzards that had fledged nearby, but the proximity of buzzard nests had little influence on how much predation occurred. 7 Only a minority of buzzards associated frequently with pheasant pens, and predation was heavy at only a minority of sites, where pen characteristics and release factors probably made it easy for individual buzzards to kill pheasants. We suggest that the occasional heavy losses could be avoided by encouraging shrubs rather than ground cover in pens, by siting pens where there are few perches for buzzards, and perhaps also by high-density releases.