Which interventions contribute most to the net effect of England's agri-environment schemes on pollination services?
Which interventions contribute most to the net effect of England's agri-environment schemes on pollination services?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s10980-022-01559-w
复制
发表时间：
2022-11-27
影响因子：
5.2
通讯作者：
Breeze, Tom D.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Image, Mike;Gardner, Emma;Breeze, Tom D.
农业环境计划支持有利于生物多样性、环境目标和其他公共产品的土地管理干预措施。基于过程的模型模拟表明，2016年实施的英国方案以地理异质性的方式增加了野生蜜蜂对传粉依赖作物和非作物地区的授粉服务。目的研究哪些干预措施推动了油菜、菜豆和非种植区的预测授粉服务增加。我们确定了每种干预措施的相对贡献是否与干预措施的花卉和/或筑巢资源质量、吸收面积或在景观中的位置有关。方法将干预措施按功能组进行分类，并采用线性回归方法确定预测访问量增长与10 km网格内各类别面积的关系。我们将回归系数的大小与资源质量、全国吸收面积和位置的测量进行了比较，以推断支撑这种关系的因素。结果灌木篱/林地边缘管理对传粉服务变化的正向影响最大，其资源质量较高。尽管资源质量较低，但休耕区也是强有力的驱动因素，这意味着有效的安置。由于资源物候较晚，花缘效益有限。在原有半自然栖息地较少的地方，干预措施的效果更强。结论未来的方案可以通过促进灌木篱/林地边缘管理和休耕干预来支持耕地景观中更大、更有弹性的授粉服务。增加早花种和增加吸收量可以改善花缘的效果。干预措施的空间定位应考虑景观背景和配对互补干预措施，以最大限度地提高整体方案的有效性。
Context Agri-environment schemes support land management interventions that benefit biodiversity, environmental objectives, and other public goods. Process-based model simulations suggest the English scheme, as implemented in 2016, increased wild bee pollination services to pollinator-dependent crops and non-crop areas in a geographically heterogeneous manner. Objectives We investigated which interventions drove the scheme-wide predicted pollination service increase to oilseed rape, field beans and non-cropped areas. We determined whether the relative contribution of each intervention was related to floral and/or nesting resource quality of the intervention, area of uptake, or placement in the landscape. Methods We categorised interventions into functional groups and used linear regression to determine the relationship between predicted visitation rate increase and each category's area within a 10 km grid tile. We compared the magnitude of the regression coefficients to measures of resource quality, area of uptake nationally, and placement to infer the factors underpinning this relationship. Results Hedgerow/woodland edge management had the largest positive effect on pollination service change, due to high resource quality. Fallow areas were also strong drivers, despite lower resource quality, implying effective placement. Floral margins had limited benefit due to later resource phenology. Interventions had stronger effects where there was less pre-existing semi-natural habitat. Conclusions Future schemes could support greater and more resilient pollination service in arable landscapes by promoting hedgerow/woodland edge management and fallow interventions. Including early-flowering species and increasing uptake would improve the effect of floral margins. Spatial targeting of interventions should consider landscape context and pairing complimentary interventions to maximise whole-scheme effectiveness.