Evaluating conservation tools in Polish grasslands: The occurrence of birds in relation to agri-environment schemes and Natura 2000 areas

Żmihorski, Michał; Kotowska, Dorota; Berg, Åke; Pärt, Tomas

doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2015.12.007

Cited by 42 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sheep numbers declined by 13% in Wales from 2005 to 2010 (Statistics for Wales, ); numbers do not distinguish farm AES status, but this reduction cannot be wholly due to AES agreements. The lack of response to AES by focal species in grass‐dominated habitats is consistent with experiences elsewhere in Europe (Breeuwer et al., ; Fuentes‐Montemayor, Goulson, & Park, ; Żmihorski, Kotowska, Berg, & Pärt, ). Despite this, AES‐funded grassland extensification can show benefits (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Have Welsh agri‐environment schemes delivered for focal species? Results from a comprehensive monitoring programme

MacDonald

Angell

Dines³

et al. 2019

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agri‐environment schemes (AES) have been criticized for being inadequately monitored and for not delivering the expected benefits to nature. Consequently, the Welsh Government funded a comprehensive programme of monitoring of AES between 2009 and 2012. The AES assessment focused on Tir Gofal (which translates as “Land in Care”) but also included the Organic Farming Scheme, and monitoring focused on a range of taxa of conservation importance: arable plants, grassland fungi, bats (six species), butterflies (three species), birds (five species), water vole and brown hare. Field surveys were carried out on matched farms and fields within and outside of AES. Response variables were spatial trends of abundance, occurrence and species richness, and were modelled against AES status. Existing data were also available for two bird species. Few differences were observed between AES and non‐AES farms and fields. Those that were observed were for species that use arable habitats (which are uncommon in Wales): arable plants, yellowhammers and brown hares. The lack of differences in non‐arable habitats may reflect the smaller contrast between AES and non‐AES management in these habitats. It may also reflect the original condition of habitat entered into AES prescriptions, as most non‐arable prescriptions were defined by mandatory management of existing habitats, rather than optional habitat creation or restoration, which is the case for most arable prescriptions. Despite the lack of differences observed, AES may help to maintain populations of species, making it more likely that they will persist in the landscape. There is evidence, from this monitoring programme and elsewhere, that AES can increase the populations of species, when well targeted and implemented. Policy implications. Our results indicate that Welsh Agri‐environment schemes (AES) have been only partly successful in achieving their stated aim of “maintaining and enhancing species abundance”. They can be used to improve AES design and management, both in Wales and more widely, by identifying and promoting effective management interventions, and by identifying ineffective management interventions and seeking alternatives. Comprehensive monitoring of AES, combined with specific targets regarding expected outcomes, is essential to determine whether AES are providing value for money.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Have Welsh agri‐environment schemes delivered for focal species? Results from a comprehensive monitoring programme

MacDonald

Angell

Dines³

et al. 2019

Journal of Applied Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To minimize possible negative effects of rural and agricultural development on farmland biodiversity and ecosystem services (e.g. pest control, seed dispersal, aesthetic inspiration; Bullock et al, ; Hiron et al, ) agri‐environmental schemes have been implemented across whole EU (Żmihorski, Kotowska, Berg, & Pärt, ). However, these schemes rarely cover villages, farmsteads and homesteads.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reduced biodiversity in modernized villages: A conflict between sustainable development goals

Rosin

Hiron

Żmihorski

et al. 2020

Journal of Applied Ecology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite large conservation efforts to halt the loss of farmland biodiversity in Europe, negative population trends are still observed, especially for common species. Old villages and human settlements are biodiversity hotspots and important breeding habitats for farmland birds, but recent requirements for energy saving measures and improved living comfort have changed their architecture and habitats. Consequently, modernization of villages may negatively affect bird diversity due to the loss of nesting and foraging sites. We investigated how the abundance and diversity of birds breeding in 104 Polish villages varied in relation to the degree of modernization as estimated by the proportion of new and renovated homesteads. Abundance of building‐nesting species, but not tree‐nesting species, declined by 50% across a gradient of old to highly modernized villages. The contribution of new versus renovated houses to the observed decline was similar. Synthesis and applications. Rural modernization may have a dramatic effect on abundance of birds nesting on buildings, thus may be an important and overlooked contributor to farmland bird population declines in Europe. Villages and rural properties fall outside of current conservation policy as they are neither protected areas nor agricultural lands (where agri‐environmental schemes can be applied). The observed conflict between sustainability goals such as increased building energy efficiency and biodiversity conservation suggests that sustainable rural development should better link modernization with conservation measures, for example, by constructing nesting sites when renovating and building new houses. The challenge is to design modern buildings that are both energy‐efficient and biodiversity‐friendly to generally improve quality of life for rural communities and to halt or reduce farmland bird declines in rural landscapes. Designers and architects can find inspiration from traditional architecture and add a variety of nest‐box types.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our findings are heavily biased toward Western European intensive pastoral and arable landscapes. In the more extensively managed grasslands of Central and Eastern Europe, different levels and types of management may be needed to increase heterogeneity and improve habitat suitability (Żmihorski, Kotowska, Berg, & Pärt, 2016 we rated "success" as an intervention having a significant positive effect; thus, studies with insufficient statistical power to detect a significant effect will rate as "unsuccessful" in our analysis, but may potentially have a positive effect. This conservative assessment may contribute to our finding that while most conservation measures are more successful than expected by chance alone, most are unlikely to succeed more than 50% of the time.…”

Section: Study Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the effectiveness of conservation measures for European grassland‐breeding waders

Franks

Roodbergen

Teunissen

et al. 2018

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farmland birds are among the most threatened bird species in Europe, largely as a result of agricultural intensification which has driven widespread biodiversity losses. Breeding waders associated with grassland and arable habitats are particularly vulnerable and a frequent focus of agri‐environment schemes (AES) designed to halt and reverse population declines. We review existing literature, providing a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of policy and management interventions used throughout Europe to improve population and demographic metrics of grassland‐breeding waders. Targeted AES and site protection measures were more likely to be effective than less targeted AES and were ten times more likely to be effective than would be expected by chance, particularly for population trend and productivity metrics. Positive effects of AES and site protection did not appear synergistic. Management interventions which had the greatest chance of increasing population growth or productivity included modification of mowing regimes, increasing wet conditions, and the use of nest protection. Success rates varied according to the species and metric being evaluated. None of the policy or management interventions we evaluated were associated with a significant risk of negative impacts on breeding waders. Our findings support the use of agri‐environment schemes, site protection, and management measures for grassland‐breeding wader conservation in Europe. Due to publication bias, our findings are most applicable to intensively managed agricultural landscapes. More studies are needed to identify measures that increase chick survival. Despite broadly effective conservation measures already in use, grassland‐breeding waders in Europe continue to decline. More research is needed to improve the likelihood and magnitude of positive outcomes, coupled with wider implementation of effective measures to substantially increase favorable land management for these species.

show abstract

Evaluating conservation tools in Polish grasslands: The occurrence of birds in relation to agri-environment schemes and Natura 2000 areas

Cited by 42 publications

References 34 publications

Have Welsh agri‐environment schemes delivered for focal species? Results from a comprehensive monitoring programme

Have Welsh agri‐environment schemes delivered for focal species? Results from a comprehensive monitoring programme

Reduced biodiversity in modernized villages: A conflict between sustainable development goals

Evaluating the effectiveness of conservation measures for European grassland‐breeding waders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About