The role of agri‐environment schemes in conservation and environmental management

Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri‐environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta‐analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta‐analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri‐environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost‐effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.     

Linking irreplaceable landforms in a self‐organizing landscape to sensitivity of population vital rates for an ecological specialist

Irreplaceable, self‐organizing landforms and the endemic and ecologically specialized biodiversity they support are threatened globally by anthropogenic disturbances. Although the outcome of disrupting landforms is somewhat understood, little information exists that documents population consequences of landform disturbance on endemic biodiversity. Conservation strategies for species dependent upon landforms have been difficult to devise because they require understanding complex feedbacks that create and maintain landforms and the consequences of landform configuration on demography of species. We characterized and quantified links between landform configuration and demography of an ecological specialist, the dunes sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus arenicolus), which occurs only in blowouts (i.e., wind‐blown sandy depressions) of Shinnery oak (Quercus havardii) sand‐dune landforms. We used matrix models to estimate vital rates from a multisite mark‐recapture study of 6 populations occupying landforms with different spatial configurations. Sensitivity and elasticity analyses demonstrated demographic rates among populations varied in sensitivity to different landform configurations. Specifically, significant relationships between blowout shape complexity and vital rate elasticities suggested direct links between S. arenicolus demography and amount of edge in Shinnery oak sand‐dune landforms. These landforms are irreplaceable, based on permanent transition of disturbed areas to alternative grassland ecosystem states. Additionally, complex feedbacks between wind, sand, and Shinnery oak maintain this landform, indicating restoration through land management practices is unlikely. Our findings that S. arenicolus population dynamics depended on landform configuration suggest that failure to consider processes of landform organization and their effects on species’ population dynamics may lead to incorrect inferences about threats to endemic species and ineffective habitat management for threatened or endangered species. As such, successful conservation of these systems and the biodiversity they support must be informed by research linking process‐oriented studies of self‐organized landforms with studies of movement, behavior, and demography of species that dwell in them.     

Reduced Density and Nest Survival of Ground‐Nesting Songbirds Relative to Earthworm Invasions in Northern Hardwood Forests

Abstract: European earthworms (Lumbricus spp.) are spreading into previously earthworm‐free forests in the United States and Canada and causing substantial changes, including homogenization of soil structure, removal of the litter layer, and reduction in arthropod abundance and species richness of understory plants. Whether these changes affect songbirds that nest and forage on the forest floor is unknown. In stands with and without earthworms in the Chequamegon‐Nicolet National Forest, Wisconsin (U.S.A.), we surveyed for, monitored nests of, and measured attributes of habitat of Ovenbirds (Seiurus aurocapillus) and Hermit Thrushes (Catharus guttatus), both ground‐dwelling songbirds, and we sampled earthworms at survey points and nests. Bird surveys indicated significantly lower densities of Ovenbirds and Hermit Thrushes in relation to Lumbricus invasions at survey point and stand extents (3.1 and 15–20 ha, respectively). Modeling of Ovenbird nest survival (i.e., the probability that nestlings successfully fledge) indicated that lower survival probabilities were associated with increased sedge cover and decreased litter depth, factors that are related to Lumbricus invasions, possibly due to reduced nest concealment or arthropod abundance. Our findings provide compelling evidence that earthworm invasions may be associated with local declines of forest songbird populations.     

Resolving future fire management conflicts using multicriteria decision making

Management strategies to reduce the risks to human life and property from wildfire commonly involve burning native vegetation. However, planned burning can conflict with other societal objectives such as human health and biodiversity conservation. These conflicts are likely to intensify as fire regimes change under future climates and as growing human populations encroach farther into fire‐prone ecosystems. Decisions about managing fire risks are therefore complex and warrant more sophisticated approaches than are typically used. We applied a multicriteria decision making approach (MCDA) with the potential to improve fire management outcomes to the case of a highly populated, biodiverse, and flammable wildland–urban interface. We considered the effects of 22 planned burning options on 8 objectives: house protection, maximizing water quality, minimizing carbon emissions and impacts on human health, and minimizing declines of 5 distinct species types. The MCDA identified a small number of management options (burning forest adjacent to houses) that performed well for most objectives, but not for one species type (arboreal mammal) or for water quality. Although MCDA made the conflict between objectives explicit, resolution of the problem depended on the weighting assigned to each objective. Additive weighting of criteria traded off the arboreal mammal and water quality objectives for other objectives. Multiplicative weighting identified scenarios that avoided poor outcomes for any objective, which is important for avoiding potentially irreversible biodiversity losses. To distinguish reliably among management options, future work should focus on reducing uncertainty in outcomes across a range of objectives. Considering management actions that have more predictable outcomes than landscape fuel management will be important. We found that, where data were adequate, an MCDA can support decision making in the complex and often conflicted area of fire management.     

Land trust evaluation of progress toward conservation goals

In the United States local land trusts preserve and conserve land to protect water quality and supply, farmlands, habitat for native plants and animals, areas of cultural or historical significance, and scenic views. We surveyed the 24 active, local land trusts in North Carolina (U.S.A.) to determine how they report progress toward attaining such conservation goals. Twenty-two land trusts responded to our survey. Of these, eight reported developing specific conservation goals for all of the properties they protect, five identified conservation targets on all properties, and two reported monitoring biological indicators on all of their protected properties. On the basis of these results, we believe most of the land trusts surveyed could not determine whether they were meeting conservation goals because most did not identify explicit, measurable goals and monitor progress toward them. Instead they reported success in terms of the amount of land protected and money raised. We think this is a lost opportunity for land trusts to build sound approaches to environmental management, engage the public, entice new donors, and attain funding for additional conservation activities. We propose conservation professionals help local land trusts adopt the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation, a framework developed by a consortium of international conservation organizations, to develop conservation goals and measure whether the goals are achieved.     

The Power of Bioenergy‐Related Standards to Protect Biodiversity

Abstract: The sustainable production of bioenergy is vital to avoiding negative impacts on environmental goods such as climate, soil, water, and especially biodiversity. We propose three key issues that should be addressed in any biodiversity risk‐mitigation strategy: conservation of areas of significant biodiversity value; mitigation of negative effects related to indirect land‐use change; and promotion of agricultural practices with few negative impacts on biodiversity. Focusing on biodiversity concerns, we compared principles and criteria set to address biodiversity and other environmental and social issues in seven standards (defined here as commodity‐based standards or roundtables, or relevant European legislation): five voluntary initiatives related to bioenergy feedstocks, the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (United Kingdom), and the European Renewable Energy Source Directive. Conservation of areas of significant biodiversity value was fairly well covered by these standards. Nevertheless, mitigation of negative impacts related to indirect land‐use change was underrepresented. Although the EU directive, with its bonus system for the use of degraded land and a subquota system for noncrop biofuels, offered the most robust standards to mitigate potential negative effects, all of the standards fell short in promoting agricultural practices with low negative impacts on biodiversity. We strongly recommend that each standard be benchmarked against related standards, as we have done here, and that efforts should be made to strengthen the elements that are weak or missing. This would be a significant step toward achieving a bioenergy industry that safeguards Earth's living heritage.     

Effect of Land Cover and Ecosystem Mapping on Ecosystem‐Risk Assessment in the Little Karoo,South Africa

Extinction‐risk assessments aim to identify biological diversity features threatened with extinction. Although largely developed at the species level, these assessments have recently been applied at the ecosystem level. In South Africa, national legislation provides for the listing and protection of threatened ecosystems. We assessed how land‐cover mapping and the detail of ecosystem classification affected the results of risk assessments that were based on extent of habitat loss. We tested 3 ecosystem classifications and 4 land‐cover data sets of the Little Karoo region, South Africa. Degraded land (in particular, overgrazed areas) was successfully mapped in just one of the land‐cover data sets. From <3% to 25% of the Little Karoo was classified as threatened, depending on the land‐cover data set and ecosystem classification applied. The full suite of threatened ecosystems on a fine‐scale map was never completely represented within the spatial boundaries of a coarse‐scale map of threatened ecosystems. Our assessments highlight the importance of land‐degradation mapping for the listing of threatened ecosystems. On the basis of our results, we recommend that when budgets are constrained priority be given to generating more‐detailed land‐cover data sets rather than more‐detailed ecosystem classifications for the assessment of threatened ecosystems. El Efecto de la Cobertura Terrestre y el Mapeo de Ecosistemas en la Valoración de Riesgos en los Ecosistemas en Little Karoo, Sudáfrica     

Identifying conservation priorities for threatened Eastern Himalayan mammals

To augment mammal conservation in the Eastern Himalayan region, we assessed the resident 255 terrestrial mammal species and identified the 50 most threatened species based on conservation status, endemism, range size, and evolutionary distinctiveness. By using the spatial analysis package letsR and the complementarity core‐area method in the conservation planning software Zonation, we assessed the current efficacy of their protection and identified priority conservation areas by comparing protected areas (PAs), land cover, and global ecoregion 2017 maps at a 100 × 100 m spatial scale. The 50 species that were most threatened, geographically restricted, and evolutionarily distinct faced a greater extinction risk than globally nonthreatened and wide‐ranging species and species with several close relatives. Small, medium‐sized, and data‐deficient species faced extinction from inadequate protection in PAs relative to wide‐ranging charismatic species. There was a mismatch between current PA distribution and priority areas for conservation of the 50 most endangered species. To protect these species, the skewed regional PA distribution would require expansion. Where possible, new PAs and transboundary reserves in the 35 priority areas we identified should be established. There are adequate remaining natural areas in which to expand current Eastern Himalayan PAs. Consolidation and expansion of PAs in the EH requires strengthening national and regional transboundary collaboration, formulating comprehensive regional land‐use plans, diversifying conservation funding, and enhancing information sharing through a consolidated regional database.     

Quantifying current and potential contributions of Australian indigenous peoples to threatened species management

Formal engagement of indigenous peoples in conservation is increasing globally and leads to multiple benefits to communities while contributing to national and international biodiversity goals and obligations. This and ongoing declines in biodiversity have led to calls to increase opportunities for indigenous people to engage in managing their estates. However, there is no overarching understanding of indigenous peoples’ involvement in conservation, which limits the identification of new opportunities. We amalgamated information across governments and large nongovernmental organizations in the megadiverse country of Australia to quantify the involvement of indigenous people in management of threatened species. We identified 153 Australian‐based projects undertaken by different indigenous groups around the nation in 2015 and 2016 that included explicit funds for management of threatened species or threatened ecosystems. Most were in remote parts of western and northern Australia. Almost one‐quarter of all threatened animals and 2% of threatened plants were the subject of some formal conservation action by indigenous people. Occurrence records for 1574 threatened species showed that 823 (89.2%) of 923 species recorded on indigenous peoples’ lands were not listed in management projects. This gap may represent new opportunities for conservation initiatives. Because at least 59.5% of Australia's threatened species occur on indigenous peoples’ lands, efforts to build appropriate and effective indigenous conservation alliances are vital. However, it is also important to recognize that threatened species are part of complex social, ecological, economic and cultural systems, and to achieve successful outcomes requires consideration of indigenous peoples’ priorities, rights, and obligations and relationships with their traditionally owned land and sea.