Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife-friendly schemes.
Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife-friendly schemes.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1365-2664.12557
复制
发表时间：
2016-02
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Norris K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Hardman CJ;Harrison DP;Shaw PJ;Nevard TD;Hughes B;Potts SG;Norris K
恢复和维护栖息地多样性已被建议作为保护的优先事项，在农场景观，但这应该如何实现，并在多大规模尚不清楚。这项研究对英格兰12个农场的三种野生动物友好型农业计划的有效性进行了新的比较，以支持当地的栖息地多样性和物种丰富度。这些计划是：（i）保护等级（保护等级：一个规定性的，非有机的，以生物多样性为重点的计划），（ii）有机农业和（iii）入门级管理的基线（入门级管理：一个灵活的广泛的政府计划）。 与入门级管理农场相比，保护级农场在100米半径范围内的栖息地多样性高出四分之一。与入门级管理农场相比，保护级和有机农场在250米半径范围内的栖息地多样性都高出五分之一。100 m和250 m尺度的生境多样性显著预测了蝴蝶和植物的物种丰富度。100 m尺度的栖息地多样性也显著预测了冬季鸟类和独居蜜蜂的物种丰富度。夏季熊蜂和鸟类的栖息地多样性与物种丰富度之间没有显著的关系。与入门级管理的农场相比，有机农场的蝴蝶物种丰富度显着较高（高出50%），保护级农场略高（高出20%）。有机农场比入门级管理农场支持更多的植物物种（高出70%），但保护级农场没有（高出10%）。三种方案对熊蜂、孤蜂和鸟类的物种丰富度无显著差异。 政策影响。与规范性较低的入门级管理计划相比，包括管理、保护等级和有机的强制性变化在内的野生动物友好型农业计划在增加当地栖息地多样性和物种丰富度方面更有效。我们建议，野生动物友好型农业计划应旨在通过诸如选项包等机制来提高和保持当地栖息地的高度多样性，其中农民需要提供多种栖息地的组合。与规范性较低的入门级管理计划相比，包括管理、保护等级和有机的强制性变化在内的野生动物友好型农业计划在增加当地栖息地多样性和物种丰富度方面更有效。我们建议，野生动物友好型农业计划应旨在通过诸如选项包等机制来提高和保持当地栖息地的高度多样性，其中农民需要提供多种栖息地的组合。
Restoration and maintenance of habitat diversity have been suggested as conservation priorities in farmed landscapes, but how this should be achieved and at what scale are unclear. This study makes a novel comparison of the effectiveness of three wildlife‐friendly farming schemes for supporting local habitat diversity and species richness on 12 farms in England. The schemes were: (i) Conservation Grade (Conservation Grade: a prescriptive, non‐organic, biodiversity‐focused scheme), (ii) organic agriculture and (iii) a baseline of Entry Level Stewardship (Entry Level Stewardship: a flexible widespread government scheme). Conservation Grade farms supported a quarter higher habitat diversity at the 100‐m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Conservation Grade and organic farms both supported a fifth higher habitat diversity at the 250‐m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Habitat diversity at the 100‐m and 250‐m scales significantly predicted species richness of butterflies and plants. Habitat diversity at the 100‐m scale also significantly predicted species richness of birds in winter and solitary bees. There were no significant relationships between habitat diversity and species richness for bumblebees or birds in summer. Butterfly species richness was significantly higher on organic farms (50% higher) and marginally higher on Conservation Grade farms (20% higher), compared with farms in Entry Level Stewardship. Organic farms supported significantly more plant species than Entry Level Stewardship farms (70% higher) but Conservation Grade farms did not (10% higher). There were no significant differences between the three schemes for species richness of bumblebees, solitary bees or birds. Policy implications. The wildlife‐friendly farming schemes which included compulsory changes in management, Conservation Grade and organic, were more effective at increasing local habitat diversity and species richness compared with the less prescriptive Entry Level Stewardship scheme. We recommend that wildlife‐friendly farming schemes should aim to enhance and maintain high local habitat diversity, through mechanisms such as option packages, where farmers are required to deliver a combination of several habitats. The wildlife‐friendly farming schemes which included compulsory changes in management, Conservation Grade and organic, were more effective at increasing local habitat diversity and species richness compared with the less prescriptive Entry Level Stewardship scheme. We recommend that wildlife‐friendly farming schemes should aim to enhance and maintain high local habitat diversity, through mechanisms such as option packages, where farmers are required to deliver a combination of several habitats.