Search

Your search keyword '"Center for Ecosystem Studies"' showing total 3 results
Start Over Author "Center for Ecosystem Studies" Topic conservation of natural resources
3 results on '"Center for Ecosystem Studies"'

1. Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation.

Author

Kleijn D, Winfree R, Bartomeus I, Carvalheiro LG, Henry M, Isaacs R, Klein AM, Kremen C, M'Gonigle LK, Rader R, Ricketts TH, Williams NM, Lee Adamson N, Ascher JS, Báldi A, Batáry P, Benjamin F, Biesmeijer JC, Blitzer EJ, Bommarco R, Brand MR, Bretagnolle V, Button L, Cariveau DP, Chifflet R, Colville JF, Danforth BN, Elle E, Garratt MPD, Herzog F, Holzschuh A, Howlett BG, Jauker F, Jha S, Knop E, Krewenka KM, Le Féon V, Mandelik Y, May EA, Park MG, Pisanty G, Reemer M, Riedinger V, Rollin O, Rundlöf M, Sardiñas HS, Scheper J, Sciligo AR, Smith HG, Steffan-Dewenter I, Thorp R, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J, Viana BF, Vaissière BE, Veldtman R, Ward KL, Westphal C, and Potts SG

Subjects
Animals, Bees, Biodiversity, Conservation of Natural Resources, Crops, Agricultural economics, Pollination
Abstract

There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. The Han River watershed management initiative for the South-to-North Water Transfer project (Middle Route) of China.

Author

Zhang Q, Xu Z, Shen Z, Li S, and Wang S

Subjects
China, Environmental Monitoring, Geographic Information Systems, Geologic Sediments chemistry, Humans, Satellite Communications, Wetlands, Conservation of Natural Resources, Ecosystem, Rivers chemistry, Water Movements, Water Supply analysis
Abstract

The South-to-North Water Transfer (SNWT) Project of China is the largest of its kind ever implemented. Of its three routes (i.e., East, Middle and West), the middle one will transfer 14 billion m(3) of water annually from the Han River, a tributary of the Yangtze and the water supplying area, to Beijing by 2030. Thus water quality in the 95,000 km(2) upper Han River basin is of great concern. A watershed management initiative has been implemented in the basin, and the ultimate objectives are to quantify basin's ecosystem functioning and to develop an integrated management system with respect to water resources conservation. Specifically, the program includes five activities: characterization of riparian ecosystems, detection of land use and land cover change, quantification of nutrient cycling of representative ecosystems, determination of spatial and temporal variations of water quality, and finally development of a watershed management system for water conservation. This article provides the justifications of the watershed management initiative and the initial results are comprehended with respect to the water conservation in the Han River basin.

Published
2009
Full Text
View/download PDF

3. Delivery of crop pollination services is an insufficient argument for wild pollinator conservation

Author

Felix Herzog, Frank Jauker, Teja Tscharntke, Claire Kremen, Jonathan F. Colville, Rémy Chifflet, Gideon Pisanty, Maj Rundlöf, Mariëtte R. Brand, András Báldi, Romina Rader, Vincent Bretagnolle, Violette Le Féon, Menno Reemer, Alexandra-Maria Klein, Henrik G. Smith, Ruan Veldtman, Riccardo Bommarco, Daniel P. Cariveau, Shalene Jha, Péter Batáry, Simon G. Potts, Jort Verhulst, Michael P.D. Garratt, Taylor H. Ricketts, Robbin W. Thorp, Kristin M. Krewenka, Orianne Rollin, Catrin Westphal, Luísa G. Carvalheiro, Verena Riedinger, Eleanor J. Blitzer, Blandina Felipe Viana, Leithen K. M'Gonigle, Neal M. Williams, David Kleijn, Mia G. Park, John S. Ascher, Rachael Winfree, Mickaël Henry, Elizabeth Elle, Ignasi Bartomeus, Bryan N. Danforth, Brad G. Howlett, Ingolf Steffan-Dewenter, Bernard E. Vaissière, Nancy Lee Adamson, Jacobus C. Biesmeijer, Andrea Holzschuh, Emily A. May, Faye Benjamin, Yael Mandelik, Lindsey Button, Hillary S. Sardiñas, Jeroen Scheper, Eva Knop, Amber R. Sciligo, Rufus Isaacs, Wageningen University and Research Centre (WUR), Resource Ecology Group, Wageningen University and Research [Wageningen] (WUR), Rutgers University [Camden], Rutgers University System (Rutgers), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas [Madrid] (CSIC), School of Biology, University of Leeds, Department of Terrestrial Zoology, NCB Naturalis, Abeilles & Environnement (UR 406 ), Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement (INRAE), Department of Entomology, University of Arkansas [Fayetteville], University of Freiburg [Freiburg], Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England (UNE), University of Vermont [Burlington], University of California [Davis] (UC Davis), PO Box 20653, Partenaires INRAE, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore (NUS), Institute of Ecology and Botany, MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Georg-August-University [Göttingen], Michigan State University [East Lansing], Michigan State University System-Michigan State University System, Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), Kirstenbosch Research Center, National Botanical Institute, Stellenbosch University, Iziko South African Museum, Centre d'Études Biologiques de Chizé - UMR 7372 (CEBC), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)-Université de La Rochelle (ULR)-Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Dartmouth College [Hanover], Plateforme Regionale d'Innovation 'Agriculture Biologique et Périurbaine Durable', Kirstenbosch Research Centre, South African National Biodiversity Institute, University of Reading (UOR), Agroscope, Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biocenter, Julius-Maximilians-Universität Würzburg [Wurtzbourg, Allemagne] (JMU), Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand (HortResearch), Department of Animal Ecology, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (JLU), University of Texas at Austin, Universität Bern- University of Bern [Bern], Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Naturalis Biodiversity Center, Institut Technique et Scientifique de l'Apiculture et de la Pollinisation (ITSAP-Institut de l'Abeille), Department of Biology, Northern Arizona University [Flagstaff], Center for Ecosystem Studies, Lund University [Lund], Department of Entomology and Nematology, University of California-University of California, Biology Institute, University of Arizona, and Naturalis Biodiversity Center [Leiden]

Subjects
Pollination, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], Biodiversity, General Physics and Astronomy, habitat naturel, decline, Ecosystem services, biodiversité, Common species, Pollinator, 2. Zero hunger, abundance, Multidisciplinary, Ecology, native bees, food and beverages, Bees, PE&RC, Pollinator decline, Ecosystems Research, pollen, [SDE]Environmental Sciences, Plantenecologie en Natuurbeheer, Conservation of Natural Resources, productivity, Life on Land, Plant Ecology and Nature Conservation, Crops, conservation de la population, Biology, Article, General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology, Animals, fruit-set, ddc:578, Agricultural, pollinisateur, business.industry, pollination, wild pollinator, conservation, fungi, abeille sauvage, butinage, conservation du paysage, General Chemistry, 15. Life on land, plant diversity, european countries, Agriculture, Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Threatened species, 570 Life sciences, biology, biodiversity conservation, business, ecosystem services
Abstract

© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved. There is compelling evidence that more diverse ecosystems deliver greater benefits to people, and these ecosystem services have become a key argument for biodiversity conservation. However, it is unclear how much biodiversity is needed to deliver ecosystem services in a cost-effective way. Here we show that, while the contribution of wild bees to crop production is significant, service delivery is restricted to a limited subset of all known bee species. Across crops, years and biogeographical regions, crop-visiting wild bee communities are dominated by a small number of common species, and threatened species are rarely observed on crops. Dominant crop pollinators persist under agricultural expansion and many are easily enhanced by simple conservation measures, suggesting that cost-effective management strategies to promote crop pollination should target a different set of species than management strategies to promote threatened bees. Conserving the biological diversity of bees therefore requires more than just ecosystem-service-based arguments.

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results