Search

The importance of habitat for biodiversity is well established, but the two most commonly used methods to measure habitat (field survey and remote sensing) have seldom been explicitly compared., We compare high-resolution sample-based field survey (Countryside Survey) with medium-resolution remotely sensed habitat data (the highest resolution of Land Cover Map available) for Great Britain. Variation in abundance of 60 bird species from 335 1 km squares was modelled using habitat predictors from the two methods. Model comparisons assessed the explanatory power of (i) field survey vs. remotely sensed data and (ii) coarse information on habitat areas (Broad Habitats) vs. fine-grained information on Landscape Features., Field survey data (combining Broad Habitat and Landscape Feature predictors) explained more variation in bird abundance than remotely sensed data (comprising Broad Habitat predictors only) for 57 species and had significantly higher mean explanatory power, averaged across 60 species models. The relative explanatory power of remote sensing, as a proportion of that provided by field data, was measured at 73%, averaged across 60 species models. Predictions from field survey Broad Habitat data were more accurate than those from either remotely sensed Broad Habitat data or field survey Landscape Feature data, averaged across 60 species models., High-resolution data generate more reliable models of predicted local population responses to land use change than lower resolution remotely sensed data. Collection of field data is typically costly in time, labour and resources, making use of remote sensing more feasible for assessment at larger spatial extents if data of equivalent value are produced, but the cost-benefit threshold between the two is likely to be context specific. However, integration of field survey with remotely sensed data provides accurate predictions of bird distributions, which suggests that both forms of data should be considered for future biodiversity surveys. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding and quantifying constraints to multiple ecosystem service delivery and biodiversity is vital for developing management strategies for current and future human well-being. A particular challenge is to reconcile demand for increased food production with provision of other ecosystem services and biodiversity., Using a spatially extensive data base (covering Great Britain) of co-located biophysical measurements (collected in the Countryside Survey), we explore the relationships between ecosystem service indicators and biodiversity across a temperate ecosystem productivity gradient., Each service indicator has an individual response curve demonstrating that simultaneous analysis of multiple ecosystem services is essential for optimal service management. The shape of the response curve can be used to indicate whether 'land sharing' (provision of multiple services from the same land parcel) or 'land sparing' (single service prioritization) is the most appropriate option., Soil carbon storage and above-ground net primary production indicators were found to define opposing ends of a primary gradient in service provision. Biodiversity and water quality indicators were highest at intermediate levels of both factors, consistent with a unimodal relationship along a productivity gradient., Positive relationships occurred between multiple components of biodiversity, measured as taxon richness of all plants, bee and butterfly nectar plants, soil invertebrates and freshwater macroinvertebrates, indicating potential for management measures directed at one aspect of biodiversity to deliver wider ecosystem biodiversity., We demonstrate that in temperate, human-dominated landscapes, ecosystem services are highly constrained by a fundamental productivity gradient. There are immediate trade-offs between productivity and soil carbon storage but potential synergies with services with different shaped relationships to production., Synthesis and applications. Using techniques such as response curves to analyse multiple service interactions can inform the development of Spatial Decision Support tools and landscape-scale ecosystem service management options. At intermediate productivity, 'land-sharing' would optimize multiple services, however, to deliver significant soil carbon storage 'land-sparing' is required, that is, resources focused in low productivity areas with high carbon to maximize investment return. This study emphasizes that targets for services per unit area need to be set within the context of the national gradients reported here to ensure best use of limited resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

SummaryExperimental grassland communities (turves) were exposed to supplemental levels of UV-B radiation (280–315 nm) at an outdoor facility, under treatment arrays of cellulose diacetate-filtered fluorescent lamps which also produce UV-A radiation (315–400 nm). Control treatments consisted of arrays of polyester-filtered lamps, which allowed for exposure to UV-A radiation alone, and arrays of unenergized lamps allowing for exposure to ambient levels of solar radiation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT The achievements of the Green Revolution in meeting the nutritional needs of a growing global population have been won at the expense of unintended consequences for the environment. Some of these negative impacts are now threatening the sustainability of food production through the loss of pollinators and natural enemies of crop pests, the evolution of pesticide resistance, declining soil health and vulnerability to climate change. In the search for farming systems that are sustainable both agronomically and environmentally, alternative approaches have been proposed variously called ‘agroecological’, ‘conservation agriculture’, ‘regenerative’ and ‘sustainable intensification’. While the widespread recognition of the need for more sustainable farming is to be welcomed, this has created etymological confusion that has the potential to become a barrier to transformation. There is a need, therefore, for objective criteria to evaluate alternative farming systems and to quantify farm sustainability against multiple outcomes. To help meet this challenge, we reviewed the ecological theories that explain variance in regulating and supporting ecosystem services delivered by biological communities in farmland to identify guiding principles for management change. For each theory, we identified associated system metrics that could be used as proxies for agroecosystem function. We identified five principles derived from ecological theory: (i) provide key habitats for ecosystem service providers; (ii) increase crop and non‐crop habitat diversity; (iii) increase edge density: (iv) increase nutrient‐use efficiency; and (v) avoid extremes of disturbance. By making published knowledge the foundation of the choice of associated metrics, our aim was to establish a broad consensus for their use in sustainability assessment frameworks. Further analysis of their association with farm‐scale data on biological communities and/or ecosystem service delivery would provide additional validation for their selection and support for the underpinning theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]