Aim Positive regional correlations between biodiversity and human population have been detected for several taxonomic groups and geographical regions. Such correlations could have important conservation implications and have been mainly attributed to ecological factors, with little testing for an artefactual explanation: more populated regions may show higher biodiversity because they are more thoroughly surveyed. We tested the hypothesis that the correlation between people and herptile diversity in Europe is influenced by survey effort.
Location Europe.Methods Although no explicit survey effort information is available in our dataset, we can divide Europe into three nested regions that were subjected to different levels of survey coverage. We compared species-people correlations among these regions, both with and without controlling for landscape diversity and latitude (a wrapper for energy-related variables whose individual effects on species richness were weaker). We also tested for relationships between human population and the distributions of single species.Results Both mean species richness and human population density increased as we restricted the analyses towards better-surveyed regions. Whether or not accounting for ecological factors, the positive relationship between species richness and human density was significant at the lower survey coverage levels, but faded as the analysis focused on better-surveyed regions and disappeared in the best-surveyed level. Single-species analyses revealed identical patterns, for both human-avoiding and human-adapted species.Main conclusions Our findings suggest an artefactual origin for the herptilepeople correlation in Europe. More importantly, they highlight the importance of addressing sampling bias in biodiversity analyses, which may be possible even when survey effort is not recorded. We also emphasize the utility of noting survey effort along with biodiversity records and the need for better surveys of biodiversity in less populated areas. An adequate identification of conservation conflicts requires more rigorous assessments of the effects of survey effort on biodiversity data.
In Europe, agriculture represents the dominant land use and there is a substantial part of biodiversity associated with those habitats. Therefore, conservation studies should direct to agriculture fields aiming to minimize the biodiversity losses. Vineyards could play a key role in producing win-win solutions for agriculture and biodiversity conservation, as an entrance point of sustainable practices in agriculture management. This study aims to evaluate the influence of different agriculture practices on macroinvertebrate diversity and in the productivity of the vineyards. Comparing these variables, we hope to determine the most sustainable agriculture practices, to suggest conservation measures to enhance sustainability and improve biodiversity in the vineyards. We are comparing Coleoptera, Hymenoptera and Hemiptera diversity and levels of productivity in three differently managed vineyards: conventional, organic and integrated production with controlled doses of chemicals (optidose). Macroinvertebrates will be sampled by pitfalls and colour plates. Study area is Herdade dos Pinheiros of Fundação Eugénio de Almeida, in Évora (Alentejo, Portugal). We expect to find higher macroinvertebrates diversity where there is less disturbance, as in the organic vineyard. And the contrary for the conventional. Also, we are expecting to find little diversity of Hemiptera when there are higher levels of Coleoptera and Hymenoptera diversity, because that means biological control is acting. Finally, we hope to find the best agriculture measures to enhance sustainability and improve biodiversity in vineyards and surrounding areas.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.