权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Biodiversity and associated ecosystem services in small vs. large scale agriculture

小规模农业与大规模农业中的生物多样性和相关生态系统服务

基本信息

批准号：
312807292
负责人：
Professor Dr. Teja Tscharntke, since 9/2018
金额：
--
依托单位：
Abteilung Agrarökologie
依托单位国家：
德国
项目类别：
Research Grants
财政年份：
2016
资助国家：
德国
起止时间：
2015-12-31 至 2018-12-31
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/projekt/312807292?language=en
关键词：
Biodiversity associated ecosystem services small

项目摘要

Biodiversity conservation cannot rely on protected areas alone, as sustainable conservation requires strategies for managing whole landscapes including agricultural areas. To address this challenge, a framework has been proposed that distinguishes between the integration ("land sharing") and separation ("land sparing") of conservation and production. These two conceptualisations have resulted in one of the largest controversies in current conservation biology, termed the land sparing vs. land sharing debate. Land sparing strategy argues for agricultural intensification outside natural habitats, since a high percentage of wild species cannot survive in even the most wildlife-friendly farming systems, making protection of wild land essential. Land sharing strategy argues that there might be situations, where high biodiversity can be coupled with high yield. Putting this whole debate completely in agricultural areas, such as intensive arable agriculture, flower strips (FS) implemented in edges of arable fields represent the land sparing strategy, whereas organic farming represents the land sharing strategy. Therefore, in the proposed project, I will test the idea that farmland biodiversity and associated services differ between a land-sharing vs. land-sparing strategy, which can be applied at local and landscape scales. I hypothesize that local land sharing such as the previously studied organic management is less important than local land sparing with the separation of land via a FS. However, upscaling this to farm level, organic farming will turn to be more important than conventional farming with a few FS due to its much higher cover. I also hypothesize that effectiveness of agri-environment schemes is higher under landscape-wide land sparing with large crop fields than in landscape-wide land sharing with small fields, and under decreasing landscape-wide cover of organic management. Therefore, pairs of organic and conventional farms will be selected in small to large scale agricultural landscapes and along an orthogonal gradient of organic land cover. From each organic farm two winter wheat fields will be selected, whereas from each conventional farm four winter wheat fields will be selected, two with FS and two without FS. I plan to measure the diversity of plants and arthropods and associated ecosystem services, such as insect predation, aphid parasitism and pollination. Furthermore, I plan to study how these two strategies affect to food diversity and foraging time of exposed Bombus terrestris colonies, and body size of wild bumblebees both at local and landscape scales.

生物多样性保护不能仅仅依靠保护区，因为可持续保护需要管理包括农业区在内的整个景观的战略。为了应对这一挑战，提出了一个框架，区分保护和生产的一体化（“土地共享”）和分离（“土地节约”）。这两个概念导致了当前保护生物学中最大的争议之一，称为土地节约与土地共享之争。土地节约战略主张在自然栖息地之外加强农业集约化，因为即使在对野生动物最友好的农业系统中，也有很大比例的野生物种无法生存，因此保护野生土地至关重要。土地共享战略认为，可能存在高生物多样性可以与高产量相结合的情况。将整个争论完全放在农业领域，例如集约化耕地农业，在耕地边缘实施花带（FS）代表土地节约策略，而有机农业代表土地共享策略。因此，在拟议的项目中，我将测试耕地生物多样性和相关服务在土地共享与土地节约策略之间的差异，这可以在地方和景观尺度上应用。我假设，通过FS分离土地，地方土地共享（如先前研究的有机管理）不如地方土地节约重要。然而，将其升级到农场水平，有机农业将变得比传统农业更重要，因为它的覆盖率要高得多。我还假设，在大农田的全景观土地保留下，农业环境方案的有效性高于小农田的全景观土地共享，以及有机管理的全景观覆盖减少。因此，有机农场和传统农场将沿着有机土地覆盖的正交梯度在小到大的农业景观中选择成对。从每个有机农场中选择两块冬小麦田，而从每个传统农场中选择四块冬小麦田，两块采用FS，两块不采用FS。我计划测量植物和节肢动物的多样性以及相关的生态系统服务，如昆虫捕食、蚜虫寄生和授粉。此外，我还计划在本地和景观尺度上研究这两种策略对暴露地蜂种群的食物多样性和觅食时间以及野生大黄蜂体型的影响。