What explains property-level variation in avian diversity? An inter-disciplinary approach

Summary 1. Modern farmed landscapes have witnessed substantial losses in biodiversity principally driven by the ecological changes associated with agricultural intensification. The causes of declines are often well described, but current management practices seem unlikely to deliver the EU-wide policy objective of halting biodiversity losses. 2. Available evidence suggests that property-scale factors can be influential in shaping patterns of biodiversity; however, they are rarely included in studies. Using 44 upland farms in the Peak District, northern England, we investigate the roles of ecological, agricultural and socio-economic factors in determining avian species richness, for the first time incorporating information from all three influences. 3. Although we might expect that habitat quality would be the main factor affecting species richness, these variables had little influence. The landscape context of each property was unimportant in explaining any of the three measures of species richness ( Total , Upland and Conservation Concern ) used here. Within-property habitat quality did explain 42% of the variation in richness of upland specialist species, but had no influence on Total or Conservation Concern Richness. 4. Socio-economic circumstances of farms alone accounted for 24% of the variation in Total Richness, with land tenure and labour inputs important predictors of avian diversity. However, net income, rental value and the level of Agri-Environment Scheme (AES) payments did not play a role in predicting species richness. 5. Farm management variables, including many of the main prescriptions outlined in AES, accounted for 23% of the variation in the richness of species of Conservation Concern, but less than 10% for Total Richness. However, no farm management variable alone was shown to offer better predictive power of avian species richness than random. 6. Synthesis and applications. The agricultural landscape is managed by a mosaic of landowners, all of whom can influence biodiversity conservation. We demonstrate that variation at the propertyscale in habitat, management and socio-economics can feed into determining patterns of biodiversity. Currently, farmland conservation policy largely assumes that socio-economic barriers and financial costs of implementing conservation measures are constant. Incorporating a consideration of the varying circumstances of individual properties into policy design is likely to result in substantial biodiversity gains.

[1]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  The effect of decoupling on marginal agricultural systems: Implications for farm incomes, land use and upland ecology , 2010 .

[2]  S. Polasky Accounting for Nature , 2009 .

[3]  Ian J. Deary,et al.  The Role of Attitudes and Objectives in Farmer Decision Making: Business and Environmentally‐Oriented Behaviour in Scotland , 2008 .

[4]  Z. Davies,et al.  Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Predation on Animal Prey Abundance: Evidence from UK Vertebrates , 2008, PloS one.

[5]  Jason F. Shogren,et al.  Spatial incentives to coordinate contiguous habitat , 2007 .

[6]  T. Iwamura,et al.  Global-scale mapping of economic benefits from agricultural lands: Implications for conservation priorities , 2007 .

[7]  Maj Rundlöf,et al.  Local and landscape effects of organic farming on butterfly species richness and abundance , 2007 .

[8]  P. Fontana,et al.  Vascular plant and Orthoptera diversity in relation to grassland management and landscape composition in the European Alps , 2007 .

[9]  Carsten F. Dormann,et al.  Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan‐European study , 2007 .

[10]  Michael J. O. Pocock,et al.  Testing biotic indicator taxa: the sensitivity of insectivorous mammals and their prey to the intensification of lowland agriculture , 2007 .

[11]  Peter Kareiva,et al.  Domesticated Nature: Shaping Landscapes and Ecosystems for Human Welfare , 2007, Science.

[12]  J. Krebs,et al.  Should conservation strategies consider spatial generality? Farmland birds show regional not national patterns of habitat association. , 2007, Ecology letters.

[13]  H. J. Frank About the authors , 2021, Gov. Inf. Q..

[14]  Mark J. Whittingham,et al.  Will agri‐environment schemes deliver substantial biodiversity gain, and if not why not? , 2006 .

[15]  D. Elston,et al.  Low intensity, mixed livestock grazing improves the breeding abundance of a common insectivorous passerine , 2006, Biology Letters.

[16]  C. Sannier,et al.  The extent and intensity of management burning in the English uplands , 2006 .

[17]  S. Polasky,et al.  Integrating economic costs into conservation planning. , 2006, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[18]  P. Donald,et al.  Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990–2000 , 2006 .

[19]  D. Moran,et al.  The Association of Natural, Social and Economic Factors with Bird Species Richness in Rural England , 2006 .

[20]  Michael Getzner,et al.  The roles of ownership, ecology, and economics in public wetland-conservation decisions , 2006 .

[21]  F. Herzog,et al.  Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. , 2006, Ecology letters.

[22]  A. Brown,et al.  Recent changes in the abundance of British upland breeding birds , 2005 .

[23]  V. Brown,et al.  Influence of agricultural management, sward structure and food resources on grassland field use, by birds in lowland England , 2005 .

[24]  Mark J. Whittingham,et al.  Habitat selection by yellowhammers Emberiza citrinella on lowland farmland at two spatial scales: implications for conservation management , 2005 .

[25]  W. Reid,et al.  Millennium Ecosystem Assessment , 2005 .

[26]  Naeem,et al.  Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis , 2005 .

[27]  S. Harris,et al.  Conservation of European hares Lepus europaeus in Britain: is increasing habitat heterogeneity in farmland the answer? , 2004 .

[28]  Jerald B. Johnson,et al.  Model selection in ecology and evolution. , 2004, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[29]  S. Harris,et al.  Bat activity and species richness on organic and conventional farms: impact of agricultural intensification , 2003 .

[30]  William J. Sutherland,et al.  How effective are European agri‐environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? , 2003 .

[31]  J. Pearce‐Higgins,et al.  Variation in the use of pasture by breeding European Golden Plovers Pluvialis apricaria in relation to prey availability , 2003 .

[32]  L G Firbank,et al.  Changing landscapes, habitats and vegetation diversity across Great Britain. , 2003, Journal of environmental management.

[33]  Alex James,et al.  Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  D. Mehlman,et al.  The UK SPA network: Its Scope and Content , 2003 .

[35]  Wim Verbeke,et al.  Determinants of the Willingness of Belgian Farmers to Participate in Agri-environmental Measures , 2002 .

[36]  Tim G. Benton,et al.  Linking agricultural practice to insect and bird populations: a historical study over three decades , 2002 .

[37]  M. T. Ahmed Millennium ecosystem assessment , 2002, Environmental science and pollution research international.

[38]  W. Sutherland,et al.  Post‐war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain , 2002 .

[39]  S. Wotton,et al.  Countryside stewardship delivers cirl buntings (Emberiza cirlus) in Devon, UK , 2001 .

[40]  R. Green,et al.  The effect of management for red grouse shooting on the population density of breeding birds on heather‐dominated moorland , 2001 .

[41]  R. Bunce,et al.  Changes in the abundance of farmland birds in relation to the timing of agricultural intensification in England and Wales , 2000 .

[42]  S. Hinsley,et al.  The influence of hedge structure, management and landscape context on the value of hedgerows to birds: a review , 2000 .

[43]  M. Whittingham,et al.  Time budgets and foraging of breeding golden plover Pluvialis apricaria. , 2000 .

[44]  K. Gaston,et al.  Integrating Costs of Conservation into InternationalPriority Setting , 2000 .

[45]  M. K. Gillespie,et al.  Accounting for nature: assessing habitats in the UK countryside. , 2000 .

[46]  J. Lee Unintentional experiments with terrestrial ecosystems: ecological effects of sulphur and nitrogen pollutants , 1998 .

[47]  N. Hanley,et al.  Environmental Economics: In Theory and Practice , 1996 .

[48]  Richard A. Stillman,et al.  Population sizes and habitat associations of upland breeding birds in the south Pennines, England , 1994 .

[49]  Gareth Jones,et al.  The new atlas of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland 1988-1991 , 1993 .

[50]  D. Baines The effects of improvement of upland, marginal grasslands on the distribution and density of breeding wading birds (Charadriiformes) in northern England , 1988 .

[51]  Great Britain. Foreign Office.,et al.  Farm incomes in the United Kingdom , 1986 .

[52]  R. H. Myers Classical and modern regression with applications , 1986 .

[53]  J. T.R. Sharrock,et al.  The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland , 1980 .