A conceptual model for site-specific agricultural land-use

Wiggering, Hubert; Steinhardt, Uta

doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.011

Cited by 15 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…) within flexible multicriterion methods (Smith & Theberge ). Our study shows how some of the most important decisions may lie in optimizing the geometry of habitat networks in a scale‐sensitive way and with the needs of particular types of organisms in view (Wiggering & Steinhardt ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multicriterion trade‐offs and synergies for spatial conservation planning

Gunton

Marsh

Moulherat

et al. 2016

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Nature conservation policies need to deliver on multiple criteria, including genetic diversity, population viability and species richness as well as ecosystem services. The challenge of integrating these may be addressed by simulation modelling. We used four models (MetaConnect, SPOMSIM, a community model and InVEST) to assess a variety of spatial habitat patterns with two levels of total habitat cover and realised at two spatial scales, exploring which landscape structures performed best according to five different conservation criteria assessed for four functional types of organisms (approximately representing trees, butterflies, small mammals and birds). The results display both synergies and trade‐offs: population size and pollination services generally benefitted more from fragmentation than did genetic heterozygosity, and species richness more than allelic richness, although the latter two varied considerably among the functional types. No single landscape performed best across all conservation criteria, but averaging over criteria and functional types, overall performance improved with greater levels of habitat cover and intermediate fragmentation (or less fragmentation in cases with lower habitat cover). Policy implications. Using four simulation models, we show that different conservation objectives must be traded off in spatial conservation planning, and that considering only a single taxon or criterion may result in suboptimal choices when planning reserve networks. Nevertheless, heterogeneous spatial patterns of habitat can provide reasonable compromises for multiple criteria.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multicriterion trade‐offs and synergies for spatial conservation planning

Gunton

Marsh

Moulherat

et al. 2016

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They found out, that depending on a landscape's hemeroby, either of the two should be implemented. Wiggering and Steinhardt (2015) elaborated on a conceptual model for future site-specific agricultural land-use. They argue for a systemic approach including landscape laboratories, new monitoring approaches, site-specific land use scenarios and modelling tools as alternatives to existing agricultural land use practices.…”

Section: A: New Concepts and Reviews Of Indicator-model Linkagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of ecological indicators in models

Burkhard

Fath

Jørgensen³

et al. 2015

Ecological Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…At the beginning of the production cycle, farmers must decide which crops they are going to plant in each one of their parcels (Cid-Garcia et al, 2014). And the second it is highlighted by the governments how can a more systemic approach are established as an alternative to addressing particular land-use problems and how can modelling tools be used to support decision-making for future-oriented land-use/future land-use schemes (Wiggering and Steinhardt, 2015) takes into account geographical, environmental and landscape factors as variables interacting among themselves and with social and economic aspects. Over recent years different systems have been developed with the aim of providing support to policy makers in the field of agricultural development (Tortora et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%