Synergies between site protection and agri‐environment schemes for the conservation of waders on lowland wet grasslands
Synergies between site protection and agri‐environment schemes for the conservation of waders on lowland wet grasslands
复制标题
低地湿草地上涉禽保护的场地保护和农业环境计划之间的协同作用
作者：
J. Smart;S. Wotton;Ian A. Dillon;A. Cooke;I. Diack;A. Drewitt;P. Grice;R. Gregory
欧洲已经实施了两项保护战略，以解决在低地潮湿草原上繁殖的涉水鸟类数量急剧下降的问题。这些是场地保护和农业环境计划（AES），很少对两者进行比较，也很少评估它们的协同作用。恢复先前广泛分布的物种种群的努力越来越多地遵循景观规模的方法，通过部分重叠的保护区管理和 AES 在关键地点进行栖息地改善。为了调查场地保护和 AES 是否改善了繁殖涉禽的保护状况以及它们如何相互作用，我们部分重复了 2002 年对保护区（自然保护区和具有特殊科学意义的地点）以及 2009 年和 2010 年英国涉禽特定 AES 选项地点的繁殖涉禽的调查。然后，我们评估了这些交付机制对田地占用、繁殖密度和四种衰退涉禽（北方）种群变化的单独和综合影响。田凫 Vanellus vanellus、普通鹬 Gallinago gallinago、欧亚杓鹬 Arquata numenius 和普通红脚鹬 Tringa totanus）。尽管杓鹬的结果与其他物种不同，但总体而言，田间占有率受到保护实施机制的积极影响，在场地保护与鸻鹬特定的 AES 选项相结合的土地上，占有率和繁殖密度最高。不同类型的 AES 之间的场地占用率有所不同，较高的占用率与场地中较高级别的选择相关，特别是自然保护区的场地。在自然保护区之外，AES管理的历史并没有影响涉禽种群，但在自然保护区内和2002年至2009-2010年期间获得AES管理的田地中，杓鹬和鹬的种群更有可能持续存在，而鹬和田凫的种群变化则更为积极。我们的结论是，当在同一块土地上将场地保护和 AES 管理结合起来时，繁殖涉禽的保护将是最有效的。使用有限的 AES 资金来支持对现有保护区网络内、周围和之间的鸻鹬繁殖管理，将保护剩余种群，同时为未来种群扩张提供机会。
Two conservation strategies have been put in place in Europe to address precipitous population declines of wading birds that breed on lowland wet grasslands. These are site protection and agri-environment schemes (AESs) and the two are rarely compared, or their synergy assessed. Increasingly, efforts to recover populations of previously widespread species follow a landscape-scale approach whereby habitat improvement takes place at key sites through partially overlapping protected area management and AESs. To investigate whether site protection and AESs improve the conservation status of breeding waders and how these interact, we partially repeated a 2002 survey of breeding waders on protected areas (nature reserves and Sites of Special Scientific Interest) and sites with wader-specific AES options in England in 2009 and 2010. We then assessed the individual and combined effects of these delivery mechanisms on field occupancy, breeding density and population change of four species of declining wader (Northern Lapwing Vanellus vanellus, Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago, Eurasian Curlew Arquata numenius and Common Redshank Tringa totanus). Although results for Curlew differed from the other species, in general field occupancy was positively influenced by conservation delivery mechanisms, with the highest occupancy and breeding densities on land where site protection was combined with wader-specific AES options. Field occupancy varied between different types of AES, with higher occupancy associated with higher-level options in fields, particularly those on nature reserves. Outside nature reserves, the history of AES management did not influence wader populations, but within nature reserves and on fields that gained AES management between 2002 and 2009–2010, populations of Curlew and Snipe were more likely to have persisted and population change in Snipe and Lapwing was more positive. We conclude that the conservation of breeding waders will be most effective when site protection and AES management are combined on the same land. Using limited AES money to support management for breeding waders on, around and between the existing network of protected sites will protect remaining populations while presenting opportunities for population expansion in future.