Habitat connectivity and matrix restoration: the wider implications of agri-environment schemes

作者: PAUL F. DONALD , ANDY D. EVANS

DOI: 10.1111/J.1365-2664.2006.01146.X

关键词: BiodiversityAgricultural policyMetapopulationAgricultural landNatural resource economicsProtected areaWildlifeWildlife conservationGeographyLandscape connectivityEnvironmental protection

摘要: Summary 1 The spread and intensification of agriculture are recognized as two the most important global threats to wildlife. There clear links between agricultural change declines in biodiversity across a wide range systems, convincing evidence that reversing these changes leads recovery wildlife populations. 2 Nearly 4 billion euros now paid annually through agri-environment schemes (AES) farmers Europe North America make environmental improvements their land. Where appropriately designed targeted, have proved successful farmland populations. 3 We argue insights gained from island biogeography metapopulation theory, theoretical empirical assessments landscape connectivity suggest AES may carry substantial wider benefits, which so far not been considered design deployment such schemes. ‘Softening’ land could offset some negative impacts on loss fragmentation non-agricultural habitats; allow species adapt climate change; slow alien invasive species; contribute positively coherence key protected area networks. Indeed, might represent only viable way counter threats. 4 We outline number ways benefits be taken account characteristics likely benefit them. 5 Synthesis applications. Agri-environment bring significant habitats other than by restoring matrix separates them. Theoretical research suggests restoration improves ecosystem functions. they available, therefore mechanism for addressing pandemic problems change. Little consideration has given conservation applications design, monitoring AES.

参考文章(120)
T.L. Shaffer, R.E. Reynolds, J.R. Sauer, B.G. Peterjohn, Conservation reserve program: benefit for grassland birds in the northern plains Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. ,vol. 59, pp. 328- 336 ,(1994)
Robert M. May, Islands biogeography and the design of wildlife preserves Nature. ,vol. 254, pp. 177- 178 ,(1975) , 10.1038/254177A0
David Kleijn, Frank Berendse, Ruben Smit, Niels Gilissen, Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes Nature. ,vol. 413, pp. 723- 725 ,(2001) , 10.1038/35099540
Paul Opdam, John A. Wiens, Fragmentation, habitat loss and landscape management Conserving bird biodiversity; general principles and their application. pp. 202- 223 ,(2002) , 10.1017/CBO9780511606304.011
RICHARD B. BRADBURY, STEPHEN J. BROWNE, DANAË K. STEVENS, NICHOLAS J. AEBISCHER, Five-year evaluation of the impact of the Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme on birds Ibis. ,vol. 146, pp. 171- 180 ,(2004) , 10.1111/J.1474-919X.2004.00348.X
Mary Ann Cunningham, A Comparison of Public Lands and Farmlands for Grassland Bird Conservation The Professional Geographer. ,vol. 57, pp. 51- 65 ,(2008) , 10.1111/J.0033-0124.2005.00459.X
Jacques Baudry, Françoise Burel, Stéphanie Aviron, Manuel Martin, Annie Ouin, Guillaume Pain, Claudine Thenail, Temporal variability of connectivity in agricultural landscapes: do farming activities help? Landscape Ecology. ,vol. 18, pp. 303- 314 ,(2003) , 10.1023/A:1024465200284