Search

A common practice used to restore and maintain biodiversity in grasslands is to stop or decrease the use of fertilizers as they are a major cause of biodiversity loss. This practice is problematic for farmers who need fertilizers to increase forage and meet the nutritional needs of livestock. Evidence is needed that helps identify optimal fertilizer regimes that could benefit biodiversity and livestock production simultaneously over the long-term. Here, we evaluated the impact of different fertilizer regimes on indicators related to both biodiversity (plant, pollinator, leaf miners and parasitoid Shannon-Weiner diversity, bumblebee abundance, nectar productivity and forb species richness), and forage production (ash, crude protein, ruminant metabolizable energy and dry matter). To this end, we used data from a grassland restoration experiment managed under four nutrient inputs schemes for 27 years: farmyard manure (FYM; 72 kg N ha-1 yr-1), artificial nitrogen-phosphorus and potassium (NPK; 25 kg N ha-1 yr-1), FYM + NPK (97 kg N ha-1 yr-1) and no-fertilizer. Results showed strong trade-offs between biodiversity and forage production under all treatments even in applications lower than the critical load in the EU. Overall, farmyard manure was the fertilizer that optimized production and biodiversity while 97 kg N ha-1 yr-1 of fertilizer addition (FYM+NPK) had the most negative impact on biodiversity. Finally, forage from places where no fertilizer has been added for 27 years did not meet the nutritional requirements of cattle, but it did for sheep. Rethinking typical approaches of nutrient addition could lead to land management solutions suitable for biological conservation and agriculture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Volunteer-based plant monitoring in the UK has focused mainly on distribution mapping; there has been less emphasis on the collection of data on plant communities and habitats. Abundance data provide different insights into ecological pattern and allow for more powerful inference when considering environmental change. Abundance monitoring for other groups of organisms is well-established in the UK, e.g. for birds and butterflies, and conservation agencies have long desired comparable schemes for plants. We describe a new citizen science scheme for the UK (the ‘National Plant Monitoring Scheme’; NPMS), with the primary aim of monitoring the abundance of plants at small scales. Scheme development emphasised volunteer flexibility through scheme co-creation and feedback, whilst retaining a rigorous approach to design. Sampling frameworks, target habitats and species, field methods and power are all described. We also evaluate several outcomes of the scheme design process, including: (i) landscape-context bias in the first two years of the scheme; (ii) the ability of different sets of indicator species to capture the main ecological gradients of UK vegetation; and, (iii) species richness bias in returns relative to a professional survey. Survey rates have been promising (over 60% of squares released have been surveyed), although upland squares are under-represented. Ecological gradients present in an ordination of an independent, unbiased, national survey were well-represented by NPMS indicator species, although further filtering to an entry-level set of easily identifiable species degraded signal in an ordination axis representing succession and disturbance. Comparison with another professional survey indicated that different biases might be present at different levels of participation within the scheme. Understanding the strengths and limitations of the NPMS will guide development, increase trust in outputs, and direct efforts for maintaining volunteer interest, as well as providing a set of ideas for other countries to experiment with. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atmospheric nitrogen (N) deposition has had detrimental effects on species composition in a range of sensitive habitats, although N deposition can also increase agricultural productivity and carbon storage, and favours a few species considered of importance for conservation. Conservation targets are multiple, and increasingly incorporate services derived from nature as well as concepts of intrinsic value. Priorities vary. How then should changes in a set of species caused by drivers such as N deposition be assessed? We used a novel combination of qualitative semi-structured interviews and quantitative ranking to elucidate the views of conservation professionals specialising in grasslands, heathlands and mires. Although conservation management goals are varied, terrestrial habitat quality is mainly assessed by these specialists on the basis of plant species, since these are readily observed. The presence and abundance of plant species that are scarce, or have important functional roles, emerged as important criteria for judging overall habitat quality. However, species defined as ‘positive indicator-species’ (not particularly scarce, but distinctive for the habitat) were considered particularly important. Scarce species are by definition not always found, and the presence of functionally important species is not a sufficient indicator of site quality. Habitat quality as assessed by the key informants was rank-correlated with the number of positive indicator-species present at a site for seven of the nine habitat classes assessed. Other metrics such as species-richness or a metric of scarcity were inconsistently or not correlated with the specialists’ assessments. We recommend that metrics of habitat quality used to assess N pollution impacts are based on the occurrence of, or habitat-suitability for, distinctive species. Metrics of this type are likely to be widely applicable for assessing habitat change in response to different drivers. The novel combined qualitative and quantitative approach taken to elucidate the priorities of conservation professionals could be usefully applied in other contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]