Effect of field margins on moths depends on species mobility: Field-based evidence for landscape-scale conservation |
| |
| Authors: | Thomas Merckx Ruth E. Feber Rebecca L. Dulieu Martin C. Townsend Mark S. Parsons Nigel A.D. Bourn Philip Riordan David W. Macdonald |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, Tubney House, Abingdon Road, Tubney, Abingdon OX13 5QL, UK;2. Centre for Wildlife Assessment and Conservation, University of Reading, School of Biological Sciences, Environmental Biology, Whiteknights, Reading RG6 6AS, UK;3. Butterfly Conservation, Manor Yard, East Lulworth, Wareham BH20 5QP, UK;1. Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, LA1 4YQ, United Kingdom;2. Harper Adams University, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB United Kingdom;1. University of Koblenz-Landau, Institute of Environmental Science, Fortstraße 7, 76829 Landau, Germany;2. Agroscope, Reckenholzstr. 191, 8046 Zurich, Switzerland;3. Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Institute of Life Sciences, Via Santa Cecilia 3, 56127 Pisa, Italy;1. French National Museum of Natural History, Centre d''Ecologie et des Sciences de la Conservation (CESCO UMR7204), MNHN-CNRS-UPMC, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France;2. EDF R&D, EPI Department, Site des Renardières, Ecuelles 77818 Moret sur Loing cedex, France;1. Geomatics and Landscape Ecology Research Laboratory, Carleton University, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1S 5B6, Canada;2. National Wildlife Research Centre, Environment Canada, 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H3, Canada;3. Atlantic Food and Horticulture Research Station, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 32 Main Street, Kentville, Nova Scotia B4N 1J5, Canada;1. RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire SG19 2DL, UK;2. Natural England, Parkside Court, Hall Park Way, Telford TF3 4LR, UK;3. Natural England, Suite D, Unex House, Bourges Boulevard, Peterborough PE1 1NG, UK |
| |
| Abstract: | Agri-environment schemes (AES) are widely used policy instruments intended to combat widespread biodiversity declines across agricultural landscapes. Here, using a light trapping and mark-release-recapture study at a field-scale on nine common and widespread larger moth species, we investigate the effect of wide field margins (a popular current scheme option) and the presence of hedgerow trees (a potential scheme option in England) on moth abundance. Of these, we show that wide field margins positively affected abundances, although species did not all respond in the same way. We demonstrate that this variation can be attributed to species-specific mobility characteristics. Those species for which the effect of wide margins was strongest covered shorter distances, and were more frequently recaptured at their site of first capture. This demonstrates that the standard, field-scale uptake of AES may be effective only for less mobile species. We discuss that a landscape-scale approach, in contrast, could deliver significant biodiversity gains, as our results indicate that such an approach (perhaps delivered through targeting farmers to join AES) would be effective for the majority of wider countryside species, irrespective of their mobility level. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
