The eider conservation paradox in Tautra—a new contribution to the multidimensionality of the agricultural landscapes in Europe

Olsson, E. Gunilla A.; Thorvaldsen, Pål

doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2006.02.001

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, these studies simply confirm earlier knowledge that many species are highly forest‐dependent and require maintenance of primary or advanced secondary habitats for their survival . These studies also confirm earlier findings that substantial numbers of species thrive in agricultural habitats in some cases; indeed some species in ancient agricultural landscapes depend on traditional agricultural management practices . Even in cases where substantial biodiversity occurs in agronatural landscape mosaics and sharing is likely to be a viable option, authors conclude that forests and other habitats will need to be protected to maintain certain species and the maintenance of phylogenetic diversity .…”

Section: Do Ecological Field Studies Resolve the Sparing–sharing Debate?supporting

confidence: 83%

“…18,19,22,83 These studies also confirm earlier findings [84][85][86] that substantial numbers of species thrive in agricultural habitats in some cases; indeed some species in ancient agricultural landscapes depend on traditional agricultural management practices. 66,87 Even in cases where substantial biodiversity occurs in agronatural landscape mosaics and sharing is likely to be a viable option, authors conclude that forests and other habitats will need to be protected to maintain certain species 25,66,88 and the maintenance of phylogenetic diversity. 89 One utility of these studies is to determine which management systems have no potential at all for promoting biodiversity.…”

Section: Applicability To Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reframing the land‐sparing/land‐sharing debate for biodiversity conservation

Kremen

2015

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

343

302

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation biologists are devoting an increasing amount of energy to debating whether land sparing (highyielding agriculture on a small land footprint) or land sharing (low-yielding, wildlife-friendly agriculture on a larger land footprint) will promote better outcomes for local and global biodiversity. In turn, concerns are mounting about how to feed the world, given increasing demands for food. In this review, I evaluate the land-sparing/landsharing framework-does the framework stimulate research and policy that can reconcile agricultural land use with biodiversity conservation, or is a revised framing needed? I review (1) the ecological evidence in favor of sparing versus sharing; (2) the evidence from land-use change studies that assesses whether a relationship exists between agricultural intensification and land sparing; and (3) how that relationship may be affected by socioeconomic and political factors. To address the trade-off between biodiversity conservation and food production, I then ask which forms of agricultural intensification can best feed the world now and in the future. On the basis of my review, I suggest that the dichotomy of the land-sparing/land-sharing framework limits the realm of future possibilities to two, largely undesirable, options for conservation. Both large, protected regions and favorable surrounding matrices are needed to promote biodiversity conservation; they work synergistically and are not mutually exclusive. A "bothand" framing of large protected areas surrounded by a wildlife-friendly matrix suggests different research priorities from the "either-or" framing of sparing versus sharing. Furthermore, wildlife-friendly farming methods such as agroecology may be best adapted to provide food for the world's hungry people.

show abstract

Section: Do Ecological Field Studies Resolve the Sparing–sharing Debate?supporting

confidence: 83%

Section: Applicability To Conservationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing the land‐sparing/land‐sharing debate for biodiversity conservation

Kremen

2015

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

343

302

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The common eider remains husbanded for eiderdown in Iceland (Jónsson 2001, Bédard et al 2008, in contrast to the diminishing eider husbandry in other parts of the species range (Olsson & Thorvaldsen 2006). We obtained nest counts from eider farmers in northwest Iceland: (1) on the island of Bíldsey (65°07' N, 22°43' W), where nests were counted yearly from 1978-2009; and (2) Laekur (65°55' N, 23°34' W), where nests were counted yearly from 1953-2007.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Seasonal weather effects on the common eider, a subarctic capital breeder, in Iceland over 55 years

Jónsson¹,

Gardarsson²,

Gill³

et al. 2009

Clim. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changes in bird populations and their phenology (i.e. timing of nesting and migration) are increasingly linked to global climatic changes, particularly at temperate and Arctic latitudes. These patterns arise from local-and regional-scale effects of weather on demography but long-term time-series data necessary to explore these relationships are rarely available. Colonies of the common eider Somateria mollissima are often monitored annually for nest-down harvesting. We use long-term data from 2 nesting colonies in northwest Iceland (Bíldsey, Brei7afjör7ur: 29 yr and Laekur, Dýrafjör7ur: 55 yr) to examine the effects of weather conditions in each season on breeding numbers, arrival dates and clutch sizes. Numbers of nests in Bíldsey increased following warm, wet winters and first nests were produced later following windy and wet winters at Laekur. In spring, windy conditions tended to be followed by earlier female arrivals at Bíldsey. Warm, wet springs were positively correlated with larger clutch sizes at Laekur, and clutch sizes at Laekur decreased following especially wet and warm autumns. The overall population trends vary among sites and are likely to be influenced by both climatic and management conditions. These findings indicate that the effects of global climatic changes will depend on the details of changes in local weather conditions within each season. The strong effects on nesting dates and clutch sizes suggest that accumulation of body reserves, which sustain females during incubation and into brood rearing, is a key mechanism that could determine how altered distribution and frequencies of depressions within each season will affect future numbers of this species.KEY WORDS: Climate · Phenology · Temperature · Winter harshness · Breeding · Arctic · Waterfowl · Capital breeder Resale or republication not permitted without written consent of the publisherClim Res 38: [237][238][239][240][241][242][243][244][245][246][247][248] 2009 Arctic latitudes (66°N and higher), the short summer predisposes birds to complete breeding in a particularly short time (Poussart et al. 2000). A number of studies have shown how initiation of breeding is related to trends in climatic change, particularly through earlier spring migration and subsequent initiation of breeding (Durant et al. 2004, Frederiksen et al. 2004, Sparks et al. 2005, Jonzen et al. 2006, see also Robinson et al. 2007 and citations therein).Early nesters are generally individuals in relatively good body condition, which often consequently lay the largest clutches and attain the highest breeding success (Erikstad et al. 1993, Arnold et al. 2004, Bêty et al. 2004. Clutch size correlates with body condition in Arctic-breeding geese (genera Anser, Chen and Branta) and in ducks such as the common eider Somateria mollissima (Ankney & MacInnes 1978, Erikstad et al. 1993, Öst et al. 2008. Many birds exhibit a seasonal decline in clutch size (Arnold et al. 2004) and chick survival may decrease with advanced hatching date (Traylor & Alisauskas 2006)...

show abstract