Search

Assessing how much management of agricultural landscapes, in addition to protected areas, can offset biodiversity erosion in the tropics is a central issue for conservation that still requires cross‐taxonomic and landscape‐scale studies. We measured the effects of Amazonia deforestation and subsequent land‐use intensification in 6 agricultural areas (landscape scale), where we sampled plants and 4 animal groups (birds, earthworms, fruit flies, and moths). We assessed land‐use intensification with a synthetic index based on landscape metrics (total area and relative percentages of land uses, edge density, mean patch density and diversity, and fractal structures at 5 dates from 1990 to 2007). Species richness decreased consistently as agricultural intensification increased despite slight differences in the responses of sampled groups. Globally, in moderately deforested landscapes species richness was relatively stable, and there was a clear threshold in biodiversity loss midway along the intensification gradient, mainly linked to a drop in forest cover and quality. Our results suggest anthropogenic landscapes with high‐quality forest covering >40 % of the surface area may prevent biodiversity loss in Amazonia. Article impact statement: Tropical landscapes should retain over 40% of forests and 50% of unaffected patches to efficiently conserve biodiversity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ecological intensification may reduce environmental externalities of agriculture by harnessing biodiversity to benefit regulating ecosystem services. However, to propose management options for the production of such services, there is a need to understand the spatiotemporal dynamics of net effects between ecosystem services and disservices provided by wild organisms across taxonomic groups in relation to habitat and landscape management. We studied the contribution of predatory vertebrates and invertebrates (including both carnivores and seed herbivores) to regulating ecosystem services and disservices in 16 cereal fields in response to a local habitat contrast and a landscape complexity gradient. From May to November 2016, we provided weed (predation reflects an ecosystem service) and crop (predation reflects a disservice) seeds, as well as pest (predation reflects an ecosystem service) and beneficial (predation reflects a disservice) invertebrate prey to predators. Seed predation was dominated by vertebrates, while vertebrates and invertebrates contributed equally to predation of animal prey. Before harvest, predation steadily increased from very low levels in May to high levels in July independent of the resource type. After harvest, ecosystem services declined more rapidly than disservices. The presence of adjacent seminatural grasslands promoted crop seed predation, but reduced pest prey predation. Predation on beneficial prey decreased with increasing proportions of seminatural grassland in the landscape. Predatory vertebrates and invertebrates provide important ecosystem services due to the consumption of pests. However, beneficial invertebrates and crop seeds were often consumed to a similar or even higher extent than harmful invertebrates or weed seeds. Our results therefore raise concerns that management options aimed at enhancing service providers may simultaneously increase levels of disservices. By considering positive and negative effects simultaneously, this study addresses an important knowledge gap and highlights the importance of interactions between local management, landscape composition, and service and disservice provision across taxa and over time. Considering trade‐offs between ecosystem services and disservices when evaluating the net effects of biodiversity conservation measures on ecosystem service provision is crucial. Future agri‐environment schemes that offer payments for seminatural habitats may need to provide higher compensation for farmers in cases where net effects are likely to be negative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Over nearly three decades, Suzanne Prober has played a pivotal role in shifting research in Australian agricultural landscapes to include a focus on native woodlands, and to examine ways woodland conservation can co‐exist with production, contributing to new models for conservation within multi‐use landscapes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author discusses the previous issue on New Zealand Special section and the 2016 combined conference in Hamilton, New Zealand in which the terms 'restore' and 'restorative' are given more emphasis. He states that the discussions help in ensuring the definition of restoration in the international restoration standards. He mentions the New South Wales Travelling Stock Routes and Reserves' ecological restoration, agricultural landscaping, biodiversity conservation and recovery of ecosystems.