The management of crop structure: a general approach to reversing the impacts of agricultural intensification on birds?

Wilson, Jeremy D.; Whittingham, Mark J.; Bradbury, Richard B.

doi:10.1111/j.1474-919x.2005.00440.x

Cited by 177 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 82 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

144

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This could be due to improved food and nesting resource availability in low-intensity management fields (Stephens et al 2003) and more diverse and complex field margins (e.g., hedgerows, woodland), stressing the importance of physical heterogeneity on the field as an important determinant of bird diversity (Wilson et al 2005). Granivorous birds especially could be affected through the loss of food and nesting resources through weed control at higher AI (Newton 2004).…”

Section: Effects Of Ai On Species Richness Across Different Taxamentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds

Flohre

Fischer

Aavik

et al. 2011

Ecological Applications

236

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Effects of agricultural intensification (AI) on biodiversity are often assessed on the plot scale, although processes determining diversity also operate on larger spatial scales. Here, we analyzed the diversity of vascular plants, carabid beetles, and birds in agricultural landscapes in cereal crop fields at the field (n ¼ 1350), farm (n ¼ 270), and European-region (n ¼ 9) scale. We partitioned diversity into its additive components a, b, and c, and assessed the relative contribution of b diversity to total species richness at each spatial scale. AI was determined using pesticide and fertilizer inputs, as well as tillage operations and categorized into low, medium, and high levels. As AI was not significantly related to landscape complexity, we could disentangle potential AI effects on local vs. landscape community homogenization. AI negatively affected the species richness of plants and birds, but not carabid beetles, at all spatial scales. Hence, local AI was closely correlated to b diversity on larger scales up to the farm and region level, and thereby was an indicator of farm-and region-wide biodiversity losses. At the scale of farms (12.83-20.52%) and regions (68.34-80.18%), b diversity accounted for the major part of the total species richness for all three taxa, indicating great dissimilarity in environmental conditions on larger spatial scales. For plants, relative importance of a diversity decreased with AI, while relative importance of b diversity on the farm scale increased with AI for carabids and birds. Hence, and in contrast to our expectations, AI does not necessarily homogenize local communities, presumably due to the heterogeneity of farming practices. In conclusion, a more detailed understanding of AI effects on diversity patterns of various taxa and at multiple spatial scales would contribute to more efficient agrienvironmental schemes in agroecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Ai On Species Richness Across Different Taxamentioning

confidence: 99%

Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds

Flohre

Fischer

Aavik

et al. 2011

Ecological Applications

236

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The height of crops was also not statistically significant, although lower vegetation might ease hunting for food (Wilson et al 2005). In addition, the lack of height preferences is further reflected by similar proportions of winter and summer crops in populated and unpopulated areas.…”

Section: Comparison Of Environmental Variables In Ortolan Bunting Termentioning

confidence: 79%

What are the important landscape components for habitat selection of the ortolan bunting Emberiza hortulana in northern limit of range?

Elts¹,

Tätte²,

Marja³

2015

European Journal of Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ortolan buntings Emberiza hotulana have undergone one of the most severe population declines of any European farmland bird over the last thirty years. The aim of this study was to find out which habitat features, including crop characteristics, ortolan bunting prefers in Estonia in breeding areas. This study compared currently occupied and unoccupied ortolan bunting territories. Occupied areas contained significantly more tall broadleaf trees, crop types, structural elements (trees, bushes, roads, overhead power lines and buildings) and spring wheat, but also had lower crop drilling densities. Ortolan bunting territories were best described by a logistic regression model containing six variables: amount of structural point elements, length of power lines, amount of tall broadleaf trees and number of different crops had a positive effect, whereas crop density and area of autumn-sown crops had a negative effect. Based on the findings of this study, the following conservation measures can be recommended: lower crop densities; spring rather than autumn-sown crops; small-field systems containing a variety of crops; scattered scrub preserved or planted; habitat patches of permanent grasslands, hedges and tall broadleaf trees retained within the agricultural landscape.

show abstract

“…A változásokat, mint például túlzott vegyszer-és műtrágyahasználat, egyszerűsödő vetésforgók, nagymértékű gépesítés, nagytáblás kultúrák (1. ábra), a homogenizáció, a korábban nem használt földek termelésbe vonása (STOATE et al, 2001;ROBINSON & SUTHERLAND, 2002;NEWTON, 2004;WILSON et al, 2005) csak tovább erősítette az 1957-ben bevezetett Közös Agrárpolitika -KAP (Common Agricultural Policy -CAP) (STOATE et al, 2001), ami komoly természeti károkat okozott NO -Norway, CH -Switzerland, KKE -Mid-and Central Europe) Egyik eredménye, hogy a kontinens országaiban az agrártájhoz kötődő madárfajok állománya az 1970-es évektől drasztikus csökkenésnek indult (POTTS, 1986;SVENSSON, 1995;SIRIWARDENA et al, 1998). Ezen időszak alatt Közép-és Kelet-Európában (egykori szocialista országok) is megváltoztak a mezőgazdaság viszonyai (például kis családi gazdaságok helyett termelőszövetkezetek, nagytáblás művelés térhódítása), majd az 1960-70-es évektől megkezdett nagyfokú vegyszer-és műtrágyahasználat tovább erősítette az ágazat intezifikációját (ÁNGYÁN et al, 2003).…”

Section: Az Európai Agrárintenzifikáció Rövid áTtekintéseunclassified

Agrártájhoz kötődő madárfajok („farmland birds”) állományának változása, helyzete Európában

Németh¹

2017

MAvK

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present review aimed to summarize the available evidence on farmland bird populations and their changes over the past decades in Europe. Firstly, a short historical background of the European agricultural intensity is presented. Secondly, the European Farmland Bird Index, published papers and grey literatures were searched and studied to show the recent population trends and population sizes of farmland bird species (37 species selected for monitoring by the EU and more specifically focusing on 10 bird species breeding in Hungary). Finally, a short summary and a conclusion are given.

show abstract

The management of crop structure: a general approach to reversing the impacts of agricultural intensification on birds?

Cited by 177 publications

References 82 publications

Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds

Agricultural intensification and biodiversity partitioning in European landscapes comparing plants, carabids, and birds

What are the important landscape components for habitat selection of the ortolan bunting Emberiza hortulana in northern limit of range?

Agrártájhoz kötődő madárfajok („farmland birds”) állományának változása, helyzete Európában

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About