Search

The transformation of natural habitats for farming is a major driver of tropical biodiversity loss. To mitigate impacts, two alternatives are promoted: intensifying agriculture to offset protected areas (land sparing) or integrating wildlife‐friendly habitats within farmland (land sharing). In the montane and dry tropics, phylogenetic and functional diversity, which underpin evolutionary values and the provision of ecosystem functioning and services, are best protected by land sparing. A key question is how these components of biodiversity are best conserved in the more stable environments of lowland moist tropical forests.Focusing on cattle farming within the Colombian Amazon, we investigated how the occupancy of 280 bird species varies between forest and pasture spanning gradients of wildlife‐friendly features. We then simulated scenarios of land‐sparing and land‐sharing farming to predict impacts on phylogenetic and functional diversity metrics.Predicted metrics differed marginally between forest and pasture. However, community assembly varied significantly. Wildlife‐friendly pastures were inadequate for most forest‐dependent species, while phylogenetic and functional diversity indices showed minimal variation across gradients of wildlife‐friendly features.Land sparing consistently retained higher levels of Faith's phylogenetic diversity (~30%), functional richness (~20%) and evolutionarily distinct lineages (~40%) than land sharing, and did so across a range of landscape sizes. Securing forest protection through land‐sparing practices remains superior for conserving overall community phylogenetic and functional diversity than land sharing.Synthesis and applications: To minimise the loss of avian phylogenetic diversity and functional traits from farming in the Amazon, it is imperative to protect large blocks of undisturbed and regenerating forests. The intensification required within existing farmlands to make space for spared lands while meeting agricultural demand needs to be sustainable, avoiding long‐term negative impacts on soil quality and other ecosystem services. Policies need to secure the delivery of both actions simultaneously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two strategies are central to the debate regarding agricultural development: one integrates farming and conservation (land sharing), and the other separates farming and conservation, intensifying production to allow the offset of natural habitat (land sparing). The role of wildlife‐friendly habitat in the wider surrounding landscape (landscape wildlife friendliness (WF)) in promoting farmland diversity is potentially an unexplored benefit of land sharing.We sampled birds across primary forests and cattle pastures in the western Amazon, where terrestrial biodiversity peaks. We tested the hypothesis that increased landscape WF will lead to increased species richness (SR) on farmland, even at low levels of 'on‐farm' wildlife‐friendly habitat (farm WF).We show that while there is a minor increase in SR linked to increased levels of landscape WF, a large component of the avian community is functionally absent. Most forest‐dependent species are missing from pasture, even at high levels of farm WF. For these species, the preservation of blocks of contiguous forest under land sparing is vastly superior.We modelled both strategies under different levels of production. Land sparing always retained significantly higher SR than land sharing, regardless of the level of landscape WF.Synthesis and applications. Landscape wildlife friendliness (WF) provided through land sharing is of limited benefit to many tropical forest‐dependent species that are unable to move across or utilise pasture, even at high levels of farm and landscape WF. To ensure the persistence of these species, policymakers should urgently implement sustainable intensification mechanisms to increase farmland productivity while enabling the protection of large blocks of spared natural habitat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Habitat conversion is a major driver of tropical biodiversity loss, but its effects are poorly understood in montane environments. While community‐level responses to habitat loss display strong elevational dependencies, it is unclear whether these arise via elevational turnover in community composition and interspecific differences in sensitivity or elevational variation in environmental conditions and proximity to thermal thresholds. Here we assess the relative importance of inter‐ and intraspecific variation across the elevational gradient by quantifying how 243 forest‐dependent bird species vary in sensitivity to landscape‐scale forest loss across a 3000‐m elevational gradient in the Colombian Andes. We find that species that live at lower elevations are strongly affected by loss of forest in the nearby landscape, while those at higher elevations appear relatively unperturbed, an effect that is independent of phylogeny. Conversely, we find limited evidence of intraspecific elevational gradients in sensitivity, with populations displaying similar sensitivities to forest loss, regardless of where they exist in a species' elevational range. Gradients in biodiversity response to habitat loss thus appear to arise via interspecific gradients in sensitivity rather than proximity to climatically limiting conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ecologists often seek to infer patterns of species occurrence or community structure from survey data. Hierarchical models, including multi‐species occupancy models (MSOMs), can improve inference by pooling information across multiple species via random effects. Originally developed for local‐scale survey data, MSOMs are increasingly applied to larger spatial scales that transcend major abiotic gradients and dispersal barriers. At biogeographic scales, the benefits of partial pooling in MSOMs trade off against the difficulty of incorporating sufficiently complex spatial effects to account for biogeographic variation in occupancy across multiple species simultaneously. We show how this challenge can be overcome by incorporating preexisting range information into MSOMs, yielding a "biogeographic multi‐species occupancy model" (bMSOM). We illustrate the bMSOM using two published datasets: Parulid warblers in the United States Breeding Bird Survey and entire avian communities in forests and pastures of Colombia's West Andes. Compared with traditional MSOMs, the bMSOM provides dramatically better predictive performance at lower computational cost. The bMSOM avoids severe spatial biases in predictions of the traditional MSOM and provides principled species‐specific inference even for never‐observed species. Incorporating preexisting range data enables principled partial pooling of information across species in large‐scale MSOMs. Our biogeographic framework for multi‐species modeling should be broadly applicable in hierarchical models that predict species occurrences, whether or not false absences are modeled in an occupancy framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The aim was to assess the sensitivity of butterfly population dynamics to variation in weather conditions across their geographical ranges, relative to sensitivity to density dependence, and determine whether sensitivity is greater towards latitudinal range margins. Location Europe. Time period 1980-2014. Major taxa studied Butterflies. Methods We use long-term (35 years) butterfly monitoring data from > 900 sites, ranging from Finland to Spain, grouping sites into 2° latitudinal bands. For 12 univoltine butterfly species with sufficient data from at least four bands, we construct population growth rate models that include density dependence, temperature and precipitation during distinct life-cycle periods, defined to accommodate regional variation in phenology. We use partial R2 values as indicators of butterfly population dynamics' sensitivity to weather and density dependence, and assess how these vary with latitudinal position within a species' distribution. Results Population growth rates appear uniformly sensitive to density dependence across species' geographical distributions, and sensitivity to density dependence is typically greater than sensitivity to weather. Sensitivity to weather is greatest towards range edges, with symmetry in northern and southern parts of the range. This pattern is not driven by variation in the magnitude of weather variability across the range, topographic heterogeneity, latitudinal range extent or phylogeny. Significant weather variables in population growth rate models appear evenly distributed across the life cycle and across temperature and precipitation, with substantial intraspecific variation across the geographical ranges in the associations between population dynamics and specific weather variables. Main conclusions Range-edge populations appear more sensitive to changes in weather than those nearer the centre of species' distributions, but density dependence does not exhibit this pattern. Precipitation is as important as temperature in driving butterfly population dynamics. Intraspecific variation in the form and strength of sensitivity to weather suggests that there may be important geographical variation in populations' responses to climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]