Cargando…

Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife‐friendly schemes

1. Restoration and maintenance of habitat diversity have been suggested as conservation priorities in farmed landscapes, but how this should be achieved and at what scale are unclear. This study makes a novel comparison of the effectiveness of three wildlife‐friendly farming schemes for supporting l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hardman, Chloe J., Harrison, Dominic P.G., Shaw, Pete J., Nevard, Tim D., Hughes, Brin, Potts, Simon G., Norris, Ken
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4982055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27570258
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12557
_version_ 1782447703260659712
author Hardman, Chloe J.
Harrison, Dominic P.G.
Shaw, Pete J.
Nevard, Tim D.
Hughes, Brin
Potts, Simon G.
Norris, Ken
author_facet Hardman, Chloe J.
Harrison, Dominic P.G.
Shaw, Pete J.
Nevard, Tim D.
Hughes, Brin
Potts, Simon G.
Norris, Ken
author_sort Hardman, Chloe J.
collection PubMed
description 1. Restoration and maintenance of habitat diversity have been suggested as conservation priorities in farmed landscapes, but how this should be achieved and at what scale are unclear. This study makes a novel comparison of the effectiveness of three wildlife‐friendly farming schemes for supporting local habitat diversity and species richness on 12 farms in England. 2. The schemes were: (i) Conservation Grade (Conservation Grade: a prescriptive, non‐organic, biodiversity‐focused scheme), (ii) organic agriculture and (iii) a baseline of Entry Level Stewardship (Entry Level Stewardship: a flexible widespread government scheme). 3. Conservation Grade farms supported a quarter higher habitat diversity at the 100‐m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Conservation Grade and organic farms both supported a fifth higher habitat diversity at the 250‐m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Habitat diversity at the 100‐m and 250‐m scales significantly predicted species richness of butterflies and plants. Habitat diversity at the 100‐m scale also significantly predicted species richness of birds in winter and solitary bees. There were no significant relationships between habitat diversity and species richness for bumblebees or birds in summer. 4. Butterfly species richness was significantly higher on organic farms (50% higher) and marginally higher on Conservation Grade farms (20% higher), compared with farms in Entry Level Stewardship. Organic farms supported significantly more plant species than Entry Level Stewardship farms (70% higher) but Conservation Grade farms did not (10% higher). There were no significant differences between the three schemes for species richness of bumblebees, solitary bees or birds. 5. Policy implications. The wildlife‐friendly farming schemes which included compulsory changes in management, Conservation Grade and organic, were more effective at increasing local habitat diversity and species richness compared with the less prescriptive Entry Level Stewardship scheme. We recommend that wildlife‐friendly farming schemes should aim to enhance and maintain high local habitat diversity, through mechanisms such as option packages, where farmers are required to deliver a combination of several habitats.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4982055
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49820552016-08-26 Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife‐friendly schemes Hardman, Chloe J. Harrison, Dominic P.G. Shaw, Pete J. Nevard, Tim D. Hughes, Brin Potts, Simon G. Norris, Ken J Appl Ecol Agricultural Landscapes 1. Restoration and maintenance of habitat diversity have been suggested as conservation priorities in farmed landscapes, but how this should be achieved and at what scale are unclear. This study makes a novel comparison of the effectiveness of three wildlife‐friendly farming schemes for supporting local habitat diversity and species richness on 12 farms in England. 2. The schemes were: (i) Conservation Grade (Conservation Grade: a prescriptive, non‐organic, biodiversity‐focused scheme), (ii) organic agriculture and (iii) a baseline of Entry Level Stewardship (Entry Level Stewardship: a flexible widespread government scheme). 3. Conservation Grade farms supported a quarter higher habitat diversity at the 100‐m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Conservation Grade and organic farms both supported a fifth higher habitat diversity at the 250‐m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Habitat diversity at the 100‐m and 250‐m scales significantly predicted species richness of butterflies and plants. Habitat diversity at the 100‐m scale also significantly predicted species richness of birds in winter and solitary bees. There were no significant relationships between habitat diversity and species richness for bumblebees or birds in summer. 4. Butterfly species richness was significantly higher on organic farms (50% higher) and marginally higher on Conservation Grade farms (20% higher), compared with farms in Entry Level Stewardship. Organic farms supported significantly more plant species than Entry Level Stewardship farms (70% higher) but Conservation Grade farms did not (10% higher). There were no significant differences between the three schemes for species richness of bumblebees, solitary bees or birds. 5. Policy implications. The wildlife‐friendly farming schemes which included compulsory changes in management, Conservation Grade and organic, were more effective at increasing local habitat diversity and species richness compared with the less prescriptive Entry Level Stewardship scheme. We recommend that wildlife‐friendly farming schemes should aim to enhance and maintain high local habitat diversity, through mechanisms such as option packages, where farmers are required to deliver a combination of several habitats. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-02 2015-11-18 /pmc/articles/PMC4982055/ /pubmed/27570258 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12557 Text en © 2015 The Authors. Journal of Applied Ecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Agricultural Landscapes
Hardman, Chloe J.
Harrison, Dominic P.G.
Shaw, Pete J.
Nevard, Tim D.
Hughes, Brin
Potts, Simon G.
Norris, Ken
Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife‐friendly schemes
title Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife‐friendly schemes
title_full Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife‐friendly schemes
title_fullStr Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife‐friendly schemes
title_full_unstemmed Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife‐friendly schemes
title_short Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife‐friendly schemes
title_sort supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife‐friendly schemes
topic Agricultural Landscapes
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4982055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27570258
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12557
work_keys_str_mv AT hardmanchloej supportinglocaldiversityofhabitatsandspeciesonfarmlandacomparisonofthreewildlifefriendlyschemes
AT harrisondominicpg supportinglocaldiversityofhabitatsandspeciesonfarmlandacomparisonofthreewildlifefriendlyschemes
AT shawpetej supportinglocaldiversityofhabitatsandspeciesonfarmlandacomparisonofthreewildlifefriendlyschemes
AT nevardtimd supportinglocaldiversityofhabitatsandspeciesonfarmlandacomparisonofthreewildlifefriendlyschemes
AT hughesbrin supportinglocaldiversityofhabitatsandspeciesonfarmlandacomparisonofthreewildlifefriendlyschemes
AT pottssimong supportinglocaldiversityofhabitatsandspeciesonfarmlandacomparisonofthreewildlifefriendlyschemes
AT norrisken supportinglocaldiversityofhabitatsandspeciesonfarmlandacomparisonofthreewildlifefriendlyschemes