| 1. |
- Birkhofer, Klaus, et al.
(author)
-
A framework to identify indicator species for ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes
- 2018
-
In: Ecological Indicators. - : Elsevier BV. - 1470-160X .- 1872-7034. ; 91, s. 278-286
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Improving our understanding of the relationships between biodiversity and the delivery of ecosystem services is crucial for the development of sustainable agriculture. We introduce a novel framework that is based on the identification of indicator species for single or multiple ecosystem services across taxonomic groups based on indicator species analyses. We utilize multi-species community data (unlike previous single species approaches) without giving up information about the identity of species in our framework (unlike previous species richness approaches). We compiled a comprehensive community dataset including abundances of 683 invertebrate, vertebrate and plant species to identify indicator species that were either positively or negatively related to biological control, diversity of red-listed species or crop yield in agricultural landscapes in southern Sweden. Our results demonstrate that some taxonomic groups include significantly higher percentages of indicator species for these ecosystem services. Spider communities for example included a higher percentage of significant positive indicator species for biological control than ground or rove beetle communities. Bundles of indicator species for the analysed ecosystem service potentials usually included species that could be linked to the respective ecosystem service based on their functional role in local communities. Several of these species are conspicuous enough to be monitored by trained amateurs and could be used in bundles that are either crucial for the provision of individual ecosystem services or indicate agricultural landscapes with high value for red-listed species or crop yields. The use of bundles of characteristic indicator species for the simultaneous assessment of ecosystem services may reduce the amount of labour, time and cost in future assessments. In addition, future analysis using our framework in other ecosystems or with other subsets of ecosystem services and taxonomic groups will improve our understanding of service-providing species in local communities. In any case, expert knowledge is needed to select species from the identified subsets of significant indicator species and these species should be validated by existing data or additional sampling prior to being used for ecosystem service monitoring.
|
|
| 2. |
- Birkhofer, Klaus, et al.
(author)
-
Relationships between multiple biodiversity components and ecosystem services along a landscape complexity gradient
- 2018
-
In: Biological Conservation. - : Elsevier BV. - 0006-3207 .- 1873-2917. ; 218, s. 247-253
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The assessment of effects of anthropogenic disturbance on biodiversity (BD) and ecosystem services (ES) and their relationships are key priorities of the Intergovernmental Panel for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Agricultural landscapes and their associated BD provide multiple ES and it is crucial to understand how relationships between ES and BD components change along gradients of landscape complexity. In this study, we related eight ES potentials to the species richness of five invertebrate, vertebrate and plant taxonomic groups in cereal farming systems. The landscape complexity gradient ranged from areas dominated by annually tilled arable land to areas with high proportions of unfertilized, non-rotational pastures and uncultivated field borders. We show that after accounting for landscape complexity relationships between yield and bird richness or biological control became more positive, but relationships between bird richness and biological control became less positive. The relationship between bird and plant richness turned from positive to negative. Multidiversity (overall biodiversity), was positively related to landscape complexity, whereas multifunctionality (overall ES provision), was not significantly related to either one of these. Our results suggest that multidiversity can be promoted by increasing landscape complexity; however; we found no support for a simultaneous increase of several individual ES, BD components or multifunctionality. These results challenge the assumption that bio-diversity-friendly landscape management will always simultaneously promote multiple ES in agricultural landscapes. Future studies need to verify this pattern by using multi-year data, larger sets of ES and BD components and a study design that is appropriate to address larger spatial scales and relationships in several regions.
|
|
| 3. |
- Dicks, Lynn V., et al.
(author)
-
Farmland conservation
- 2015
-
In: What works in conservation. - 9781783741571 - 9781783741588 - 9781783741595 - 9781783741601 - 9781783741618 ; , s. 245-284
-
Book chapter (other academic/artistic)abstract
- This book is meant as a guide to the evidence available for different conservation interventions and as a starting point in assessing their effectiveness. The assessments are based on the available evidence for the target group of species for each intervention. The assessment may therefore refer to different species or habitat to the one(s) you are considering. Before making any decisions about implementing interventions it is vital that you read the more detailed accounts of the evidence in order to assess their relevance for your study species or system.Full details of the evidence are available at www.conservationevidence.comThere may also be significant negative side-effects on the target groups or other species or communities that have not been identified in this assessment.A lack of evidence means that we have been unable to assess whether or not an intervention is effective or has any harmful impacts.
|
|
| 4. |
- Dänhardt, Juliana, et al.
(author)
-
Collective Implementation of Ecological Focus Areas : Evaluation of the effects on ecosystem services, agriculture and administration
- 2018
-
Reports (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Ecosystem services are fundamental to the welfare of mankind, yet these services are often invisible in many social decisions. This report evaluates the effects on the ecosystem services pollination and biological pest control if Sweden were to introduce collective implementation of EFAs as part of the single payment scheme, including quality improvement measures such as establishing flowering plants.The potential environmental effects are seen in relation to the impacts on the economies of farmers and their acceptance of collective implementation, as well as the administrative costs for the authorities. This study is a step towards integrating the value of ecosystem services into decisions in society, something that is to be achieved by 2018 under the milestone targets in Sweden's environmental objectives system.The study that formed the basis of this report was carried out by the Centre for Environmental and Climate Research at Lund University. The work was carried out within the government commission Environmental effects of the CAP. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency is the primary authority responsible for this report. The Swedish Board of Agriculture, the Swedish National Heritage Board, the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management and the County administrative boards also participated in this project.
|
|
| 5. |
- Dänhardt, Juliana, et al.
(author)
-
Ecological interventions in agricultural landscapes - scale matters!
- 2016
-
Other publication (other academic/artistic)abstract
- The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) affects about half of the land area of the EU and allocates close to 40% of the EU’s budget. Consequently, CAP has great potential to guide land management decisions towards multifunctional agricultural landscapes supporting both commodity production and biodiversity. The 2015 “greening” reform was an attempt to increase the multifunctionality of agricultural landscapes, but has been heavily criticized as a failure. Among other things, there are complaints that interventions proposed to benefit public goods are of inadequate quality and the rules for their implementation lack a landscape perspective. The research done in MULTAGRI investigated how a landscape perspective could be used to develop more cost-efficient interventions and Agricultural policies.
|
|
| 6. |
- Dänhardt, Juliana, et al.
(author)
-
Ekologiska fokusarealer i samverkan : Utvärdering av effekter på ekosystemtjänster, jordbruk och administration
- 2017
-
Reports (other academic/artistic)abstract
- I den här studien utvärderar vi konsekvenserna av så kallat gemensamt genomförande av ekologiska fokusarealer enlig artikel 46:5 och 46:6 i EU:s direktstödsförordning. Genom bredare analyser beaktar vi även andra former av samverkan och justerade skötselvillkor. Att främja sammanhängande områden med ekologiskt fokus är en del av EU:s satsning på grön infrastruktur. Sverige tillämpar inte gemensamt genomförande i dagsläget. Ekologisk-ekonomisk modellering, workshop med jordbrukare och intervjuer med tjänstemän ligger till grund för studiens resultat. Fokus i våra analyser är effekter på pollinering och biologisk skadedjursbekämpning, båda ekosystemtjänster till nytta för jordbruket.Jordbrukare positiva till samverkan, tjänstemän befarar högre kostnaderGenerellt är de medverkande jordbrukarna positiva till samverkan. Tydligare och mer konkret koppling mellan godkända fokusarealer, skötselvillkor och miljönytta behövs dock för att skapa acceptans hos jordbrukarna. Tjänstemän med erfarenhet av samverkan är generellt positiva, medan personer utan erfarenhet är mer tveksamma. På svenska myndigheter befaras ökade transaktionskostnader, trots att fungerande exempel på samverkan i Europa finns. Vi rekommenderar att inspiration och kunskap hämtas från dessa lyckade exempel.Små miljöeffekter med dagens fokusarealerAtt med dagens regelverk införa gemensamt genomförande av ekologiska fokusarealer ger små miljöeffekter. Miljöeffekten förblir svag eftersom möjligheten att välja fokusarealer med låg miljöeffekt kvarstår, och eftersom generösa viktningsfaktorer minskar den faktiskt avsatta arealen av fokusarealer med högre miljönytta. Dessutom finns incitament att placera fokusarealerna på lågproduktiv mark, där behovet av fokusarealer som gynnar ekosystemtjänster är lägre. I dag godkänns också fokusarealer som ingår i det normala brukandet, vilket skapar dödvikt. Våra modeller visar att möjligheten till samverkan inte löser dessa problem.Bättre miljöeffekt med rätt fokusarealer och krav på kvalitetFör att uppnå en bättre miljöeffekt behövs en utformning av reglerna som premierar de mest miljöeffektiva fokusarealerna. Först och främst bör menyn av fokusarealer innehålla miljöeffektiva åtgärder. Dessutom bör viktningssystemet omvärderas så att den mest effektiva fokusarealen används som referens. Slutligen bör placeringen av ekologiska fokusarealer göras i ett landskapsperspektiv för att säkerställa fokusarealernas bidrag till grön infrastruktur. På gårdsnivå bör fokusarealerna genom information och rådgivning styras till platser där potentialen för miljönytta är störst, exempelvis intill grödor som gynnas av pollinering och biologisk skadedjursbekämpning. Ett effektivt sätt att gynna just dessa ekosystemtjänster vore att begränsa menyn av valbara fokusarealer till träda och obrukade fältkanter och samtidigt ha krav på att så in blommande växter.
|
|
| 7. |
- Dänhardt, Juliana, et al.
(author)
-
Mot en evidensbaserad CAP
- 2016
-
Other publication (other academic/artistic)abstract
- EU:s gemensamma jordbrukspolitik (CAP) är ett av de viktigaste styrmedlen för svenskt jordbruk, både när det gäller ekonomiska resurser och med avseende på hur stora arealer mark som påverkas. I den nuvarande CAP finns medel avsatta för miljöåtgärder såväl inom pelare 1 genom de så kallade förgröningsåtgärderna, som genom Landsbygdsprogrammet (pelare 2) via miljöstöden. Därmed skulle det kunna finnas stora möjligheter att genom CAP:s olika kanaler påverka biologisk mångfald och ekosystemtjänster i jordbrukslandskapet. För att utveckla välfungerande och kostnadseffektiva styrmedel krävs att dessa byggs på en vetenskaplig kunskapsbas, att man utvärderar om stöden uppnår sina syften och att man undersöker hur ersättningarnas effekt skulle kunna förbättras med en alternativ utformning. En generell slutsats från vår forskning är att den vetenskapliga underbyggnaden av CAP uppvisar brister och att en utvärdering och utveckling av stöden borde byggas in som en organisk del av CAP. Vi föreslår att ett sådant utvärderingssystem, inklusive insamling av ett tillräckligt dataunderlag med lämpliga metoder, integreras i CAP och täcker hela programperioden.
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Jönsson, Annelie, et al.
(author)
-
Sown flower strips in southern Sweden increase abundances of wild bees and hoverflies in the wider landscape
- 2015
-
In: Biological Conservation. - : Elsevier BV. - 1873-2917 .- 0006-3207. ; 184, s. 51-58
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Pollinator populations have suffered severe declines in many industrialised countries due to reduced floral and nesting resources, brought on by agricultural intensification. One potential method of mitigating these effects is creating flower strips. Most previous studies have shown higher pollinator abundances in flower strips, but none have been able to demonstrate increased pollinator abundances at larger spatial scales, in the surrounding agricultural landscapes. We assessed local and landscape-wide effects of flower strips on pollinator abundances, using 18 carefully selected study landscapes in southern Sweden, distributed along independent gradients of landscape heterogeneity and farming intensity. We found that flower strips were more attractive than field borders in general to bumblebees, whereas hoverflies were only attracted to flower strips from nearby field borders. Solitary bees declined with increasing distance from flower strips, but only in complex landscapes. As one of the first studies investigating effects of flower strips on pollinators across the wider landscape, we found increased abundance of bumblebees, but not solitary bees, in field borders outside the flower strips in floristically enhanced landscapes as compared with control landscapes. However, we found that higher quality and/or larger total area of flower strips within a farm was important for both bumblebees and solitary bees. Hoverfly abundance was enhanced on farms with flower strips in simple landscapes. Our results demonstrate that flower strips with rewarding plants do not only attract pollinators locally, but in addition have the potential to increase pollinator abundances across entire landscapes, and particularly in landscapes dominated by farmland. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
|
|
