|
| ||
|
|
||
Biodiversity Benefits (biodiversity + benefit)
Selected AbstractsCacao boom and bust: sustainability of agroforests and opportunities for biodiversity conservationCONSERVATION LETTERS, Issue 5 2009Yann Clough Abstract Cacao cultivation holds a sweet promise, not only for chocolate consumers and cacao farmers but also for conservationists who argue that diverse cacao agroforests may be used to sustain both livelihoods of smallholders and ecological benefits such as the conservation of biodiversity within human-dominated tropical landscapes. However, regional boom-and-bust cycles are the rule in global cacao production: after initial forest conversion to cacao agroforests, sustaining production is difficult due to dwindling yields as trees age and pest and disease pressure increases. The failure to revitalize plantations often leads to a shift of cacao production to other regions. Shade removal dynamics within these cycles substantially reduce most of the biodiversity benefits. We investigate the conservation implications of these processes. Using examples from the current cacao crisis in Indonesia, we show that until now commitments to sustainability by the cacao-chocolate sector have not been successful, which endangers remaining forests. Conservation can be combined with smallholder cacao production, but if this is to be achieved, greater quantitative and qualitative efforts to halt cacao cycles are needed on the part of the industry by making use of existing opportunities to combine sustainability, carbon storage, and biodiversity conservation. [source] Predicting the biodiversity benefits of the Saltshaker Project, Boorowa, NSWECOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT & RESTORATION, Issue 1 2004David Freudenberger Did the 2-year Saltshaker Project nudge the Boorowa Catchment along a new pathway towards improved biodiversity? [source] Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countriesECOLOGY LETTERS, Issue 3 2006D. Kleijn Abstract Agri-environment schemes are an increasingly important tool for the maintenance and restoration of farmland biodiversity in Europe but their ecological effects are poorly known. Scheme design is partly based on non-ecological considerations and poses important restrictions on evaluation studies. We describe a robust approach to evaluate agri-environment schemes and use it to evaluate the biodiversity effects of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. We compared species density of vascular plants, birds, bees, grasshoppers and crickets, and spiders on 202 paired fields, one with an agri-environment scheme, the other conventionally managed. In all countries, agri-environment schemes had marginal to moderately positive effects on biodiversity. However, uncommon species benefited in only two of five countries and species listed in Red Data Books rarely benefited from agri-environment schemes. Scheme objectives may need to differentiate between biodiversity of common species that can be enhanced with relatively simple modifications in farming practices and diversity or abundance of endangered species which require more elaborate conservation measures. [source] Can bird research clarify the biodiversity benefits and drawbacks of biofuels?IBIS, Issue 3 2008JÖRN P. W. SCHARLEMANN No abstract is available for this article. [source] Plant diversity and land use under organic and conventional agriculture: a whole-farm approachJOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, Issue 4 2007R. H. GIBSON Summary 1Organic farming is thought to lead to increased biodiversity and greater sustainability than higher-yielding conventional farming systems. It is usually assumed that organic farms have both larger and higher quality areas of semi-natural habitats, although this assumption has not been unequivocally tested. 2Here we test the hypothesis that in comparison to conventional farms, organic farms have larger areas of semi-natural and boundary vegetation, and organic farms support higher levels of plant abundance, richness and diversity within cropped and semi-natural areas. 3Our study compared whole-farms: 10 organic farms were paired with 10 conventional farms in a complex landscape in the south-west of England. On average, organic farms were 7·3 years post conversion. Plant abundance, species richness and diversity were measured in all crop and non-crop landscape elements on each farm. 4Organic farms had greater total areas of semi-natural habitat (woodland, field margins and hedgerows combined). Woodland area on it's own was also significantly greater. Organic farms had more continuous blocks of woodland (with simpler perimeters than similarly sized patches on conventional farms), whereas woodland on conventional farms often consisted of more linear patches. 5Semi-natural habitats on organic farms did not have higher plant abundance, richness or diversity than their conventional counterparts. The only landscape element that showed a significant increase in plant abundance, richness or diversity was arable fields. 6Synthesis and applications. Even within a complex agricultural landscape differences do exist between organic and conventional farms, these differences being larger areas of semi-natural habitats on organic farms. However, with the exception of arable fields, no habitats on organic farms were yet of a better quality than their conventional counterparts in terms of plant abundance and diversity. Conventional farmers may be able to achieve an increase in plant diversity within arable fields by adopting some organic management practices at the field scale (e.g. exclusion of synthetic herbicides), and whole-farm conversion to organic practice might not be required. However, further work is needed to determine any biodiversity benefits of larger areas of semi-natural habitat on conventional farmland. [source] Ecologically justified charisma: preservation of top predators delivers biodiversity conservationJOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY, Issue 6 2006FABRIZIO SERGIO Summary 1Because of their popular appeal, top vertebrate predators have frequently been used as flagship or umbrella species to acquire financial support, raise environmental awareness and plan systems of protected areas. However, some have claimed that the utilization of charismatic predators may divert a disproportionate amount of funding to a few glamorous species without delivering broader biodiversity benefits, an accusation aggravated by the fact that the conservation of top predators is often complex, difficult and expensive. Therefore, tests are needed of whether apex predators may be employed to achieve ecosystem-level targets. 2To test such a hypothesis, we compared the biodiversity values recorded at the breeding sites of six raptor species, differing widely in diet and habitat associations, with those observed at three types of control locations, (i) sites randomly chosen in comparable habitat, (ii) breeding sites of a randomly selected bird species of lower trophic level and (iii) breeding sites of a lower trophic level species with specialized ecological requirements. Biodiversity was measured as the richness and evenness of bird, butterfly and tree species. 3Biodiversity levels were consistently higher at sites occupied by top predators than at any of the three types of control sites. Furthermore, sites occupied by top predators also held greater densities of individual birds and butterflies (all species combined) than control sites. 4In a reserve-selection simulation exercise, networks of protected sites constructed on the basis of top predators were more efficient than networks based on lower trophic level species, enabling higher biodiversity coverage to be achieved with a smaller number of reserves. 5Synthesis and applications. Our results provide evidence of a link between the strategic utilization of top predatory species and ecosystem-level conservation. We suggest that, at least in some biological systems, conservation plans based on apex predators could be implemented to deliver broader biodiversity benefits. [source] | ||||||||||