Search

To link to full-text access for this article, visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.07.001 Byline: Robin M. Fuller (a), Bernard J. Devereux (a), Simon Gillings (b), Ross A. Hill (c), Gabriel S. Amable (a) Keywords: Bird; Habitat; Map; Remote sensing; Biodiversity; Landscape; Ecology; Modelling Abstract: This paper develops a comprehensive and objective picture of bird distributions relative to habitats across Britain. Bird species presence/absence data from an extensive field survey and habitat data from the remotely sensed UK Land Cover Map 2000 were analysed in 36,920 tetrads (2kmx2km) across Britain (a 65% sample of Britain's c. 240000km.sup.2). Cluster analysis linked birds to generalised landscapes based on distinctive habitat assemblages. Maps of the clusters showed strong regional patterns associated with the habitat assemblages. Cluster centroid coordinates for each bird species and each habitat were combined across clusters to derive individualised bird-habitat preference indices and examine the importance of individual habitats for each bird species. Even rare species and scarce habitats showed successful linkages. Results were assessed against published accounts of bird-habitat relations. Objective corroboration strongly supported the associations. Relatively scarce coastal and wetland habitats proved particularly important for many birds. However, extensive arable farmland and woodland habitats were also favoured by many species, despite reported declines in bird numbers in these habitats. The fact that habitat-specialists do not or cannot move habitat is perhaps a reason for declining numbers where habitats have become unsuitable. This study showed that there are unifying principles determining bird-habitat relations which apply and can be quantified at the national scale, and which corroborate and complement the cumulative knowledge of many and varied surveys and ecological studies. This 'generality' suggests that we may be able, reliably and objectively, to integrate and scale up such disparate studies to the national scale, using this generalised framework. It also suggests the potential for a landscape ecology approach to bird-habitat analyses. Such developments will be important steps in building models to develop and test the sustainable management of landscapes for birds. Author Affiliation: (a) University of Cambridge, Unit for Landscape Modelling, Sir William Hardy Building, Downing Site, Tennis Court Road, Cambridge CB2 1QB, UK (b) British Trust for Ornithology, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk IP24 2PU, UK (c) Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Monks Wood, Abbots Ripton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE28 2LS, UK Article History: Received 6 July 2005; Revised 8 May 2006; Accepted 12 July 2006

Climate change is leading to the development of land-based mitigation and adaptation strategies that are likely to have substantial impacts on global biodiversity. Of these, approaches to maintain carbon within existing natural ecosystems could have particularly large benefits for biodiversity. However, the geographical distributions of terrestrial carbon stocks and biodiversity differ. Using conservation planning analyses for the New World and Britain, we conclude that a carbon-only strategy would not be effective at conserving biodiversity, as have previous studies. Nonetheless, we find that a combined carbon-biodiversity strategy could simultaneously protect 90% of carbon stocks (relative to a carbon-only conservation strategy) and > 90% of the biodiversity (relative to a biodiversity-only strategy) in both regions. This combined approach encapsulates the principle of complementarity, whereby locations that contain different sets of species are prioritised, and hence disproportionately safeguard localised species that are not protected effectively by carbon-only strategies. It is efficient because localised species are concentrated into small parts of the terrestrial land surface, whereas carbon is somewhat more evenly distributed; and carbon stocks protected in one location are equivalent to those protected elsewhere. Efficient compromises can only be achieved when biodiversity and carbon are incorporated together within a spatial planning process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]