Search

[EN] Urban growth seriously threatens biodiversity worldwide. I present an exhaustive review of the impacts of urban sprawl on biodiversity. In particular, I focus on the relative contributions of distinct components of urban sprawl (i.e., urban area, dispersion degree and land use intensity) to the impacts on biodiversity for different taxonomic and ecological groups classified according to species characteristics and functional traits that are expected to be sensitive to urbanization. I also show how functional structure and assembly patterns of biological communities respond to urbanization at broad spatial scales. Urban sprawl mostly relates to the homogenization of species assemblages. Urban area has the strongest impacts, but the intensity of urban land use and the degree of dispersion of urban areas significantly contributes to these impacts. Responses to urbanization are greatly affected by species mobility, specialization degree and their interaction. Urbanization modifies community assembly patterns and drives marked trait-dependent compositional changes in species assemblages. This results in biotic homogenization, low functional redundancy and diversity levels, and potentially reduces ecological resilience. Impacts of urban sprawl impacts are expected to be especially harmful when it reaches sites of high conservation value due to the species and habitats they host, such as protected areas. I present an analysis of the degree of urbanization in Natura 2000 protected sites over the recent past, which shows an incipient urban sprawl into this protection network., [ES] Urban growth seriously threatens biodiversity worldwide. I present an exhaustive review of the impacts of urban sprawl on biodiversity. In particular, I focus on the relative contributions of distinct components of urban sprawl (i.e., urban area, dispersion degree and land use intensity) to the impacts on biodiversity for different taxonomic and ecological groups classified according to species characteristics and functional traits that are expected to be sensitive to urbanization. I also show how functional structure and assembly patterns of biological communities respond to urbanization at broad spatial scales. Urban sprawl mostly relates to the homogenization of species assemblages. Urban area has the strongest impacts, but the intensity of urban land use and the degree of dispersion of urban areas significantly contributes to these impacts. Responses to urbanization are greatly affected by species mobility, specialization degree and their interaction. Urbanization modifies community assembly patterns and drives marked trait-dependent compositional changes in species assemblages. This results in biotic homogenization, low functional redundancy and diversity levels, and potentially reduces ecological resilience. Impacts of urban sprawl impacts are expected to be especially harmful when it reaches sites of high conservation value due to the species and habitats they host, such as protected areas. I present an analysis of the degree of urbanization in Natura 2000 protected sites over the recent past, which shows an incipient urban sprawl into this protection network., La autora ha sido beneficiaria de una Ayuda Juan de la Cierva –Incorporación (IJCI-2016-30964) de la Agencia Estatal de Investigación.

[EN] Urban growth is a major threat to biodiversity conservation at the global scale. Its impacts are expected to be especially detrimental when it sprawls into the landscape and reaches sites of high conservation value due to the species and ecosystems they host, such as protected areas. I analyzed the degree of urbanization (i.e., urban cover and growth rate) from 2006 to 2015 in protected sites in the Natura 2000 network, which, according to the Habitats and Birds Directives, harbor species and habitats of high conservation concern in Europe. I used data on the degree of land imperviousness from COPERNICUS to calculate and compare urban covers and growth rates inside and outside Natura 2000. I also analyzed the relationships of urban cover and growth rates with a set of characteristics of Natura sites. Urban cover inside Natura 2000 was 10 times lower than outside (0.4% vs. 4%) throughout the European Union. However, the rates of urban growth were slightly higher inside than outside Natura 2000 (4.8% vs. 3.9%), which indicates an incipient urban sprawl inside the network. In general, Natura sites affected most by urbanization were those surrounded by densely populated areas (i.e., urban clusters) that had a low number of species or habitats of conservation concern, albeit some member states had high urban cover or growth rate or both in protected sites with a large number of species or habitats of high conservation value. Small Natura sites had more urban cover than large sites, but urban growth rates were highest in large Natura sites. Natura 2000 is protected against urbanization to some extent, but there is room for improvement. Member states must enact stricter legal protection and control law enforcement to halt urban sprawl into protected areas under the greatest pressure from urban sprawl (i.e., close to urban clusters). Such actions are particularly needed in Natura sites with high urban cover and growth rates and areas where urbanization is affecting small Natura sites of high conservation value, which are especially vulnerable and concentrated in the Mediterranean region., [ES] El crecimiento urbano es una amenaza importante para la conservación de la biodiversidad a escala global. Se espera que los impactos de este crecimiento sean especialmente perjudiciales cuando se expande por el paisaje y alcanza sitios de alto valor para la conservación por las especies y ecosistemas que albergan, como lo son las áreas protegidas. Analicé el grado de urbanización (cobertura urbana y tasa de crecimiento) entre 2006 y 2015 dentro de los sitios protegidos de la red Natura 2000, la cual, de acuerdo con las Directivas de Aves y Hábitats, alberga especies y hábitats de alto interés para la conservación en Europa. Usé información sobre el grado de impermeabilidad del suelo tomados de COPERNICUS para calcular y comparar coberturas urbanas y tasas de crecimiento dentro y fuera de la red Natura 2000. También analicé las relaciones de la cobertura urbana y las tasas de crecimiento con un conjunto de características de los sitios Natura. La cobertura urbana dentro de la red Natura 2000 fue diez veces más baja que afuera (0.4% vs. 4%) a lo largo de la Unión Europea. Sin embargo, las tasas de crecimiento urbano fueron ligeramente más altas dentro de la red Natura 2000 que fuera (4.8% vs. 3.8%), lo cual indica una expansión urbana incipiente dentro de la red. En general, los sitios Natura más afectados por la urbanización fueron aquellos rodeados por áreas densamente pobladas (es decir, conglomerados urbanos) que tenían un número bajo de especies o hábitats de interés para la conservación, aunque algunos estados miembros de la UE tuvieron una cobertura urbana o una tasa de crecimiento alta o ambas en sitios protegidos con un número elevado de especies o hábitats de alto valor para la conservación. Los sitios Natura pequeños tuvieron mayor cobertura urbana que los sitios más grandes, pero las tasas de crecimiento urbano fueron más altas en los sitios Natura grandes. La red Natura 2000 está protegida contra la urbanización hasta cierto punto, pero todavía se puede mejorar mucho más. Los estados miembros de la UE deben promulgar una protección legal más estricta y controlar la aplicación de la ley para detener la expansión urbana hacia las áreas protegidas más cercanas a los conglomerados urbanos. Dichas acciones son necesarias en sitios Natura con una cobertura urbana extensa y tasas de crecimiento altas y en áreas en donde la urbanización está afectando a espacios Natura pequeños con un valor alto de conservación, los cuales son especialmente vulnerables y se encuentran concentrados en la región mediterránea., I am a recipient of a Juan de la Cierva - Incorporación postdoctoral fellowship (IJCI-2016-30964) from the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation.

Agri-environmental schemes (AES) of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) aims at reversing the negative effects of agricultural intensification on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Landscape context may modulate, and even constraint, AES effectiveness. We evaluate AES effectiveness on ant abundance, diversity and community composition. Ants are an ecologically dominant group whose response to conservation efforts in farmland has been rarely evaluated, despite its role in weed control, particularly in Mediterranean farmland., Ants were sampled in the edge and in the centre of paired cereal fields, managed with and without AES in three study areas along a landscape complexity gradient. AES application had no significant effects on ant species richness or ant community composition. Richness increased in fields and landscapes with higher amounts of complex edges and decreased towards the centre of the fields. Specialist granivorous ants (harvester ants, Messor spp.) were the most abundant. Abundance of foraging ants increased with the amount of complex edges around fields and in the landscape. AES application increased ant abundance close to field edges but not in field centers. AES fields had less specialist granivorous foraging in their centers than in control field centers., Ant communities in Mediterranean cereal cropland were mostly constrained by the availability of complex edges, needed for nest building. AES increased the abundance of foraging ants, mostly specialist harvester ants, and its potential service of weed control, but close to field edges mainly. Measures promoting the abundance of stable edges rather than of ephemeral headlands in the landscape are essential to enhance the potential of AES for increasing ant-mediated ecosystem services of weed control., This paper is a contribution to the EU Project QLK5-CT-2002–1495 ‘Evaluating current European Agri-environment Schemes to quantify and improve Nature Conservation efforts in agricultural landscapes (EASY)’. EDC is recipient of a Juan de la Cierva - Incorporación postdoctoral fellowship (IJCI-2016-30964).

[EN]: The next reform ofthe EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for the period 2021-2027 (currently extended to 2023-2030) requires the approval by the European Commission of a Strategic Plan with environmental objectives for each Member State. Here we use the best available scientific evidence on the relationships between agricultural practices and biodiversity to delineate specific recommendations for the development of the Spanish Strategic Plan. Scientific evidence shows that Spain should (1) identify clear regional biodiversity targets and the landscape-level measures needed to achieve them; (2) define ambitious and complementary criteria across the three environmental instruments (enhanced conditionality, eco-schemes, and agri-environmental and climate measures) of the CAP’s Green Architecture, especially in simple and complex landscapes; (3) ensure that other CAP instruments (areas of nature constraints, organic farming and protection of endangered livestock breeds and crop varieties) really support biodiversity; (4) improve farmers’ knowledge and adjust measures to real world constraints; and (5) invest in biodiversity and ecosystem service monitoring in order to evaluate how the Plan achieves regional and national targets andto improve measures if targets are not met. We conclude that direct assessments of environmental objectives are technically and economi- cally feasible, can be attractive to farmers, and are socially fair and of great interest for improving the environmental effectiveness of CAP measures. The explicit and rigorous association of assessments and monitoring, relating specific environmental indicators to regional objectives, should be the main criterion for the approval of the Strategic Plan in an environmentally-focused CAP2023-2030., [ES]: La reforma de la Política Agraria Común (PAC) para el periodo 2021-2027 (extendido en la actualidad a 2023-2030) exige que la Comisión Europea apruebe un Plan Estratégico por cada Estado Miembro con claros objetivos ambientales. En este trabajo desarrollamos recomendaciones específicas para la elaboración del Plan Estratégico para los sistemas agrícolas españoles, basadas en la mejor evidencia científica disponible sobre las relaciones entre la gestión agrícola y los componentes de la biodiversidad. La evidencia científica muestra que España debe 1) identificar objetivos regionales claros relativos a la biodiversidad de los medios agrarios y las medidas a nivel paisajístico necesarias para alcanzarlas; 2) definir criterios ambiciosos y complementarios para los tres instrumentos ambientales (condicionalidad extendida, eco-esquemas y medidas agroambientales y climáticas) de la Arquitectura Verde de la PAC, especialmente en paisajes sencillos y complejos; 3) garantizar que otros instrumentos de la PAC (zonas desfavorecidas, agricultura ecológica y protección de razas ganaderas y variedades de cultivos en peligro de extinción) favorecen realmente la diversidad biológica; 4) mejorar el conocimiento de los agricultores y ajustar las medidas a las limitaciones del mundo real; y 5) invertir en seguimiento de la biodiversidad y sus servicios ecosistémicos asociados con el fin de evaluar si el Plan alcanza los objetivos regionales y nacionales y mejorarlos adaptativamente si no lo consigue. Concluimos que la evaluación directa de los objetivos ambientales es técnica y económicamente viable, puede ser atractiva para los agricultores, es socialmente justa y de gran utilidad en la mejora de la efectividad de las medidas de la PAC. Una combinación rigurosa de seguimiento y evaluación de medidas y objetivos adaptados regionalmente mediante indicadores ambientales directos y claros debería ser el criterio que guíe la aprobación del Plan Estratégico para una PAC 2023-2030 centrada en el medio ambiente y orientada a la conservación de la biodiversidad.

Agricultural intensification continues to threaten habitat and biological diversity in farmland. In Europe, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has established several measures to support biodiversity-fostering elements such as landscape features, semi-natural habitats and extensive land uses, together referred to as Green and Blue Infrastructure (GBI). However, CAP measures’ effectiveness to support GBI has not been accurately evaluated yet. We assess GBI occurrence across a variety of European agricultural systems covering a gradient of farming intensity and analyse to what extent the CAP is supporting their presence by enhancing farmer's awareness and the uptake of measures that foster GBI. We carried out habitat surveys in 115 Landscape Test Squares (LTS) of 500m × 500m in six case study areas, including arable land, pastures and mixed farming systems in Spain, Germany and Bulgaria. We mapped GBI including small landscape elements, in-field elements (both semi-natural and productive) and connectivity features. We used historical imagery to map changes on GBI occurrence in LTS from 2012 to 2018. We also used questionnaires with farmers and stakeholders on their GBI awareness and compared their answers to elements mapped. Results showed that landscape and in-field GBI occurrence was higher in extensive than in intensive farming systems regardless of the region, whereas the opposite was found for connectivity features (e.g. grassy strips). The analysis of habitat changes showed a small increase of certain biodiversity-fostering in-field GBI, but no substantial change in connectivity features or landscape elements. Moreover, a significant reduction of valuable GBI like grasslands was observed. There were several mismatches between the patterns of GBI identified by farmers and stakeholders and their mapped abundances. Our results indicate that the CAP has not substantially increased the availability of biodiversity-fostering GBI in these regions and that adopted features were mostly related to neutral or negative effects on biodiversity. Farmers’ perception of GBI features seems driven by production management decisions rather than by biodiversity concerns., This work is a contribution to the projects BIOGEA ’Testing BIOdi-versity Gain of European Agriculture with CAP greening’ (BiodivERsA3- 2015-180), funded by the Spanish National Research Agency, the Bulgarian Science Fund, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and the European Commission within the ERA-Net Bio-divERsA Co-Fund scheme, and REMEDINAL TE-CM (S2018/EMT-4338). A.P. is recipient of a postdoctoral fellowship funded by the Regional Government of Extremadura (PO17006) and co-funded by the European Social Fund (ESF) of the European Union. V.R. was supported by Regional Government of Extremadura (TA18022). E.D.C. is recipient of a Juan de la Cierva-Incorporación postdoctoral fellowship (IJCI-2016- 30964) from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities.

[EN] We human beings are becoming urban citizens. More and more people spend their lives in urban environments, so that the conservation and improvement of urban biodiversity is an increasingly hot topic. On the one hand, as cities grow bigger and more populated they can become more hostile for some birds, but cities can also be safer than the surrounding rural environment for others. On the other hand, factors affecting ne- gatively or positively wild birds may also influence human’s health, either directly (e.g. pollution) or indirectly (enjoying wildlife diversity could contribute to improve our wellbeing). We review current state of knowledge on factors determining the abundance, diversity and health of urban birds, and derive methods for diagnosing what factors are acting in each particular case. Diagnoses are essential to design effective and efficient ways to manage urban bird diversity and improve it adaptively. We also address whether factors affecting birds could affect citizenship directly, so that urban birds can be used as indicators for healthy urban environments. Investigating and improving urban bird life can also improve human wellbeing through people’s involvement on citizen science programs. Monitoring approaches taken by both authorities and NGOs are still too general and badly designed, but collaboration among scientist, volunteers and authorities will contribute to make them effective. Improving citizen involvement will in turn contribute to improve urban bird diversity, closing a win-win loop for both people and wildlife wellbeing., [ES] Los seres humanos nos estamos volviendo urbanitas, con lo que la conservación de la biodiversidad urbana es un tema cada vez más candente. A medida que las ciudades crecen, se vuelven más hostiles para algunas aves, mientras que para otras pueden resultar más seguras que los medios rurales periféricos. Por otro lado, los factores negativos o positivos para la avifauna pueden también serlo para la salud humana, ya sea directa (ej. contaminación) o indirectamente (el disfrute de la biodiversidad puede mejorar nuestro bienestar). Revisamos el conocimiento actual sobre los factores que determinan la abundancia, diversidad y salud de las aves urbanas, planteando métodos para diagnosticar cuáles de ellos actúan en cada caso particular. Dicho diagnóstico es esencial para un manejo efectivo y eficiente de la diversidad aviar urbana, y de su manejo adaptativo. Abordamos también si los factores que afectan a las aves podrían afectar directamente a la ciudadanía, en cuyo caso las aves podrían ser indicadoras de ambientes urbanos saludables. Aunque no ocurra ésto, la investigación y mejora de la vida de las aves podrían mejorar nuestro bienestar a través de la participación en programas de ciencia ciudadana. La colaboración entre científicos, voluntarios y autoridades mejoraría en gran medida las acciones de manejo y seguimiento realizadas por autoridades y ONGs, en la actualidad bastante preliminares, fomentando así la diversidad de las aves urbanas y, con ella, el bienestar de la gente y la vida salvaje en las ciudades., This paper is a contribution to the project URBILAND (PID2019-107423GA-I00), funded by the Spanish Research Agency. A. Ramos was supported by a JAE intro contract form the Spanish CSIC, and E.D. Concepción by a Juan de la Cierva contract of the Spanish Research Agency (IJCI-2016-30964).

Agri-environment schemes (AES) are a major conservation tool for protecting declining farmland birds in Europe. Most studies evaluate AES effectiveness on taxonomic diversity but there is a knowledge gap about how AES affect functional responses. We evaluate the effects of different AES on taxonomic and functional responses of open-land and overall farmland birds in extensive cereal croplands of Spain. Specifically, we analyse how the proportion of food to shelter prescriptions and landscape features (length of field boundaries and proportion of herbaceous crops) influence AES effectiveness by comparing the response of bird diversity in AES-managed and paired control fields. We found that increased proportion of food prescriptions increased species richness and Shannon diversity of birds whereas balanced AES (similar proportion of food and shelter prescriptions) increased their abundance. AES with more food prescriptions also led to increased functional diversity of diet plasticity and wingspan for open-land birds. The functional diversity of diet plasticity in all bird species and of habitat specialisation in all and open-land birds increased with balanced AES in control fields but remained unaltered in focal fields with variation in the proportion of food to shelter prescription. This suggests that AES application reached maximum effects for these traits in focal fields independently of prescription types and further landscape-level benefits of the promotion of shelter in AES-managed fields. Overall, the length of field boundaries increased taxonomic and functional diversity of birds while the proportion of herbaceous crops decreased them. Both landscape variables showed non-linear relationships, fitting predictions from the landscape complexity-local diversity hypothesis. Our findings indicate ways to improve AES effectiveness for both traditional and new relevant conservation goals and encourage the evaluation of functional diversity in AES monitoring., RT was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship funded by REMEDINAL 3CM [S2013/MAE-2719] project and a Juan de la Cierva – Formación [FJCI-2016-28540] fellowship. EDC was recipient of a Juan de la Cierva – Incorporación fellowship [IJCI-2016-30964]. Field work was funded by a pilot project (ARM/1288/2009) granted to SEO/BirdLife.

Agricultural intensification continues being a major threat for biodiversity worldwide. Despite the incorporation of diverse conservation tools in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) since the 1990s, European agriculture continues intensifying. The last CAP reform introduced compulsory greening, including measures to support semi-natural habitats across the wider countryside (referred to in this paper as Green and Blue Infrastructure, GBI), and by these means biodiversity. However, the actual benefits of greening implementation have not been evaluated formally through field studies, and its effectiveness is questioned. We assess the capacity of a variety of GBI features that can be supported by CAP greening to promote biodiversity across a variety of agricultural systems. We analyze the relationships between diversity (birds and plants) and a set of habitat indicators linked to distinct greening options in 115 plots from six case study areas, including arable land, pastures and mixed farming systems in Spain, Germany and Bulgaria. Relationships between biodiversity and the different GBI elements varied considerably between regions, systems and organisms' groups. Some of these relationships were non-linear. Although most GBI elements showed potential for promoting biodiversity, they should be adapted to specific conservation targets and landscape constraints regionally. The next CAP reform could include compulsory measures that support connectivity, heterogeneity and small-landscape elements characteristic in each region (e.g. field margins and trees or preventing field size enlargement), combined with more regionally-orientated voluntary measures (e.g., promoting grassland and fallow). Performance evaluation and adaptation ought to accompany the implementation of these measures to ensure their ecological success., This work is a contribution to the projects BIOGEA ‘Testing BIOdiversity Gain of European Agriculture with CAP greening’ (BiodivERsA3-2015-180), funded by the Spanish State Research Agency, the Bulgarian Science Fund, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and the European Commission within the ERA-Net BiodivERsA Co-Fund scheme, and REMEDINAL TE-CM (S2018/EMT-4338). E.D.C. and V.R. are each recipient of a Juan de la Cierva - Incorporación postdoctoral fellowship (IJCI-2016-30964 and IJCI-2015-24733, respectively) from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities.

Agri-environment schemes (AES) and greening of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are crucial tools for biodiversity conservation in Europe. However, they have not been associated formally to any performance monitoring program that supports their actual benefits for biodiversity, and their effectiveness is recurrently questioned. We present an extensive evaluation of the potential of CAP conservation tools to support farmland bird diversity throughout the most representative cereal regions in Spain. We explore bird diversity responses to AES application in pairs of cereal plots with and without AES. We also explore bird responses to a set of habitat indicators, both of productive (farmed) and semi-natural components (i.e., field margins and natural vegetation remnants), within plots and in the surrounding landscape. We use these habitat indicators as proxies of distinct greening measures (e.g., hedges, fallow, crop diversification). Our results point at the prospective success of measures focused on promoting, particularly at landscape scales, certain productive habitats (e.g., fallow land and legume crops), mainly but not exclusively for open land birds. Promoting semi-natural habitats (both areal and linear elements) also resulted positive, primarily for forest and ecotone birds, but also open land birds. Our results evince high variability in the capacity of AES and distinct greening measures to support bird diversity among regions and groups of birds. More regionally-targeted conservation measures (i.e., focused on specific requirements of targets, considering explicitly regional species pools and landscape constraints) are thus required. These measures could be assembled in the new CAP by means of compulsory measures applied throughout the agricultural landscape (i.e., advanced environmental conditionality likely replacing cross-compliance and greening) and voluntary instruments (i.e., eco-schemes and AES) with enough farmers' uptake that ensures its impact at landscape scale. Performance evaluation and subsequent adaptation based on the results obtained ought to accompany the implementation of conservation tools., This work is a contribution to the projects BIOGEA ‘Testing BIOdiversity Gain of European Agriculture with CAP greening’ (BiodivERsA3-2015-180), funded by the Spanish National Research Agency, the Bulgarian Science Fund, the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and the European Commission within the ERA-Net BiodivERsA Co-Fund scheme, and REMEDINAL TE-CM (S2018/EMT-4338). This work was also supported by the GANGA project (funded by SEO/BirdLife). E.D.C. is recipient of a Juan de la Cierva - Incorporación postdoctoral fellowship (IJCI-2016-30964) from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities.

Human-driven environmental changes can induce marked shifts in the functional structure of biological communities with possible repercussion on important ecosystem functions and services. At the same time it remains unclear to which extent these changes may differently affect various types of organisms. We investigated species richness and community functional structure of species assemblages at the landscape scale (1 km2 plots) for two contrasting model taxa, i.e. plants (producers and sessile organisms) and birds (consumers and mobile organisms), along topography, climate, landscape heterogeneity, and land-use (agriculture and urbanization) gradients in a densely populated region of Switzerland. Our study revealed that agricultural and urban land uses drove marked shifts in the functional structure of biological communities compared to changes along climate and topography gradients, especially for plants, while for birds these changes were comparable. Agricultural and urban land uses enhanced divergence in traits related to resource use for birds (diet and nesting), growth forms, dispersal, and reproductive traits for plants, while it induced convergence in vegetative plant traits (plant height and leaf dry matter content). These results suggest that contrasting assembly patterns may arise within and across taxonomic groups along the same environmental gradients as result of distinct underlying processes and ‘organism-specific’ environmental perceptions. Our results further suggest a potential homogenization of biological communities, as well as low functional diversity and redundancy levels of bird assemblages in our human-dominated study region. This might potentially compromise the maintenance of key ecological processes under future environmental changes.

19 Pags.- 5 Figs.- 5 Tabls. © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Under a Creative Commons license Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)., National accounting either ignores or fails to give due values to the ecosystem services, products, incomes and environmental assets of a country. To overcome these shortcomings, we apply spatially-explicit extended accounts that incorporate a novel environmental income indicator, which we test in the forests of Andalusia (Spain). Extended accounts incorporate nine farmer activities (timber, cork, firewood, nuts, livestock grazing, conservation forestry, hunting, residential services and private amenity) and seven government activities (fire services, free access recreation, free access mushroom, carbon, landscape conservation, threatened biodiversity and water yield). To make sure the valuation remains consistent with standard accounts, we simulate exchange values for non-market final forest product consumption in order to measure individual ecosystem services and environmental income indicators. Manufactured capital and environmental assets are also integrated. When comparing extended to standard accounts, our results are 3.6 times higher for gross value added. These differences are explained primarily by the omission in the standard accounts of carbon activities and undervaluation of private amenity, free access recreation, landscape and threatened biodiversity ecosystem services. Extended accounts measure a value of Andalusian forest ecosystem services 5.4 times higher than that measured using the valuation criteria of standard accounts., This RECAMAN project research has received financial support from Agency of Environment and Water (AMAYA); Department of Environment and Territory Planning (CMAYOT) (contract No NET165602).

Urbanisation has an important impact on biodiversity, mostly driving changes in species assemblages, through the replacement of specialist with generalist species, thus leading to biotic homogenisation. Mobility is also assumed to greatly affect species’ ability to cope in urban environments. Moreover, specialisation, mobility and their interaction are expected to greatly influence ecological processes such as metacommunity dynamics and assembly processes, and consequently the way and the spatial scale at which organisms respond to urbanisation. Here we investigate urbanisation impacts on distinct characteristics of species assemblages – namely specialisation degree in resource use, mobility and number of species, classified according to both characteristics and their combination – for vascular plants, butterflies and birds, across a range of spatial scales (from 1 × 1 km plots to 5 km-radius buffers around them). We found that the degree of specialisation, mobility and their interaction, greatly influenced species’ responses to urbanisation, with highly mobile specialist species of all taxonomic groups being affected most. Two different patterns were found: for plants, urbanisation induced trait divergence by favouring highly mobile species with narrow habitat ranges. For birds and butterflies, however, it reduced the number of highly mobile specialist species, thus driving trait convergence. Mobile organisms, across and within taxonomic groups, tended to respond at larger spatial scales than those that are poorly mobile. These findings emphasize the need to take into consideration species’ ecological aspects, as well as a wide range of spatial scales when evaluating the impact of urbanisation on biodiversity. Our results also highlight the harmful impact of widespread urban expansion on organisms such as butterflies, especially highly mobile specialists, which were negatively affected by urban areas even at great distances.

The EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has tried to counteract negative impacts of intensive agriculture on biodiversity and associated ecosystem services mostly by means of voluntary agri-environment schemes (AES). More recently, direct payments to farmers have been linked to the application of greening measures derived from previous AES experiences. AES and greening measures (CAP greening hereafter) have become the main farmland conservation tools in Europe due to large budgets and extensive application. Effectiveness of greening measures (i.e. differences in biodiversity or ecosystem service measurements that can be attributed to the application of such measures) has not yet been evaluated thoroughly, whereas evaluations of AES effectiveness—although still not systematically incorporated into policy design—have lead to the conclusion that AES generally increase farmland biodiversity at the field scale with effect sizes that depend on the surrounding landscape. On the basis of knowledge gaps derived from available AES evaluations, we develop a five-stage hierarchical decision-making proposal to improve the effectiveness of CAP greening. Effectiveness is difficult to predict because non-linear relationships between diversity and land-use intensity at both field and landscape scales constrain and modulate it. Besides, relationships vary regionally and among target species, species groups and ecosystem services. Hence, regional targeting, landscape-scale thinking, and learning processes linked to systematic evaluations are key elements in any decision-making procedure aimed at improving this effectiveness. Ideas and guidelines developed here will help to develop regionally adapted measures aimed at overcoming constraints to CAP greening effectiveness and improving farmland conservation policies., This work is still a direct consequence of the creative environment generated by the EU’s EASY project lead by David Kleijn in 2003–2006 (QLK5-CT-2002-01495). Interactions with Spanish and Portuguese colleagues along the last 10 years, especially Ana Carricondo, Irene Guerrero, Manuel Morales, Juan Oñate, Lluis Brotons, Pablo Campos, Gerardo Moreno and Francisco Moreira, have improved a great deal our views on the topic. This paper is a contribution to the Spanish projects REMEDINAL3-CM (S2013/MAE-2719) and GANGA, and to the European BiodivERsA project BIOGEA (testing BIOdiversity Gain of European Agriculture with CAP greening).

Agricultural intensification is a major cause for biodiversity loss. It occurs at field scales through increased inputs and outputs, and at landscape scales through landscape simplification. Agri-environment schemes (AES) of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) aim at reducing biodiversity loss by promoting extensification of agricultural practises mostly at field scales. We present a conceptual model for the relationship between landscape complexity and ecological effectiveness of AES based on (a) non-linear relationships between landscape complexity and abundance and diversity at field scales and (b) four possible interactive scenarios between landscape- and field scale effects on abundance and diversity. We then evaluated whether and how effectiveness of AES interacted with landscape-scale effects of intensification along a landscape complexity gradient established in central Spain. Pairs of cereal fields with and without AES but with the same landscape context were selected in three regions differing in landscape complexity. Effectiveness of AES was measured as differences between paired fields in species richness and abundance of five target groups (birds, grasshoppers and crickets, spiders, bees and plants). Landscape metrics were measured in 500–m radius circular plots around field centres. Positive, negative and no effects of landscape complexity on effectiveness of AES were found, suggesting that effects of complexity on effectiveness of AES changes from positive to negative along gradients of landscape complexity. Effectiveness of AES for improving biodiversity was then constrained by landscape. Compulsory measures aimed at enhancing or maintaining landscape complexity would enhance the effectiveness of AES for preserving biodiversity in farmed landscapes.

Farmland biodiversity is affected by factors acting at various spatial scales. However, most studies to date have focused on the field or farm scales that only account for local (alpha) diversity, and these may underestimate the contribution of other diversity components (beta diversity) to total (gamma) farmland diversity. In this work, we aimed to identify the most suitable management options and the scale at which they should be implemented to maximize benefits for diversity. We used a multi-scale additive partitioning approach, with data on plant diversity from 640 plots in 32 cereal crop fields from three agricultural regions of central Spain that differed in landscape configuration. We analyzed the relative contribution to overall plant diversity of different diversity components at various spatial scales and how these diversity components responded to a set of local (application of agri-environment schemes [AES] and position within the field) and landscape (field size and landscape connectivity and composition) factors. Differences in species composition among regions and then among fields within regions contributed most to overall plant diversity. Positive edge effects were found on all diversity components at both the field- and regional scales, whereas application of AES benefited all diversity components only at the field scale. Landscape factors had strong influences on plant diversity, especially length of seminatural boundaries, which increased species richness at both the field and the regional scales. In addition, positive effects of percentage of nonproductive land-uses in the landscape were found on all diversity components at the regional scale. Results showed that components that contributed most to overall plant diversity were not benefited by current AES. We conclude that agri-environmental policies should incorporate and prioritize measures aimed at the maintenance of seminatural boundaries and patches of nonproductive habitats within agricultural landscapes, through landscape planning, cross-compliance, or high nature-value farmland programs. These options will help to conserve overall plant diversity at regional scales, as well as the spillover of plant species from such seminatural elements into crops, especially in Mediterranean areas that still harbor extensive farming and relatively complex landscapes.

summary 1. Ecological theory predicts that the effectiveness of local agri-environmental management to enhance species richness at field scales will be the highest at intermediate levels of landscape complexity because of nonlinear effects of landscape context on field-scale diversity. 2. We examined how landscape complexity determined effectiveness of local agri-environmental management in terms of effects on species richness of birds, plants, spiders and bees in 232 extensive and intensive paired fields (112 arable fields and 120 grasslands) from 18 regions located in six European countries. 3. As predicted, landscape complexity enhanced field-scale species richness in a mostly nonlinear (sigmoidal) way, with earlier species richness increases in extensive than in intensive fields along landscape complexity gradients. Length of semi-natural boundaries (for arable fields) and proportion of unfarmed habitat (for grasslands) were the landscape features influencing species richness. 4. The relationships between effectiveness of local management and landscape complexity for all taxa were best described with hump-shaped curves, indicating the highest effectiveness at intermediate landscape complexities. 5. Synthesis and applications. We used models to investigate how and why effects of local management intensity on species richness vary along wide gradients of landscape complexity. We conclude that landscape-scale management options should take priority over local extensification measures within agri-environmental programmes. These programmes should follow a hierarchical multi-scale approach directed to address landscape-scale constraints on local diversity.

Farmland birds have suffered significant declines in the last decades due to agricultural intensification. Agri-environment schemes (AES) aim to reverse this process by promoting “nature friendly” practises at the field-scale. AES based on the habitat requirements of target species have usually been successful, but the concurrence of species groups with contrasting habitat requirements (guilds) makes the design of successful measures for the whole bird community difficult. The effectiveness of AES is also constrained by landscape and regional effects not addressed by its field-scale application. Effects acting at different spatial scales could differ among bird species depending on basic life-history traits such home range size and landscape perception, which should covary with body size. We are not aware, however, of any study which investigates whether relative effects at different spatial scales could vary predictably within bird guilds. We analyse whether relative effects of within-field (including AES application), landscape and regional factors on open-land birds differ according to body size. Large birds were mostly affected by regional and landscape factors, whereas for small birds landscape and within-field factors were important. Hence, relative effects at changing spatial scales showed predictable variation according to bird size within this endangered and specialised farmland guild. These size-dependent effects should be taken into account for the design of more effective, integrated multi-scale strategies for the conservation of farmland birds., This work was partly funded by the EU Project QLK5-CT-2002–1495 ‘Evaluating current European Agri-environment Schemes to quantify and improve Nature Conservation efforts in agricultural landscapes (EASY)

Worldwide agriculture is one of the main drivers of biodiversity decline. Effective conservation strategies depend on the type of relationship between biodiversity and land-use intensity, but to date the shape of this relationship is unknown. We linked plant species richness with nitrogen (N) input as an indicator of land-use intensity on 130 grasslands and 141 arable fields in six European countries. Using Poisson regression, we found that plant species richness was significantly negatively related to N input on both field types after the effects of confounding environmental factors had been accounted for. Subsequent analyses showed that exponentially declining relationships provided a better fit than linear or unimodal relationships and that this was largely the result of the response of rare species (relative cover less than 1%). Our results indicate that conservation benefits are disproportionally more costly on high-intensity than on low-intensity farmland. For example, reducing N inputs from 75 to 0 and 400 to 60 kg ha −1 yr −1 resulted in about the same estimated species gain for arable plants. Conservation initiatives are most (cost-)effective if they are preferentially implemented in extensively farmed areas that still support high levels of biodiversity.