Search

Much of the biodiversity-related climate change impacts research has focused on the direct effects to species and ecosystems. Far less attention has been paid to the potential ecological consequences of human efforts to address the effects of climate change, which may equal or exceed the direct effects of climate change on biodiversity. One of the most significant human responses is likely to be mediated through changes in the agricultural utility of land. As farmers adapt their practices to changing climates, they may increase pressure on some areas that are important to conserve (conservation lands) whereas lessening it on others. We quantified how the agricultural utility of South African conservation lands may be altered by climate change. We assumed that the probability of an area being farmed is linked to the economic benefits of doing so, using land productivity values to represent production benefit and topographic ruggedness as a proxy for costs associated with mechanical workability. We computed current and future values of maize and wheat production in key conservation lands using the DSSAT4.5 model and 36 crop-climate response scenarios. Most conservation lands had, and were predicted to continue to have, low agricultural utility because of their location in rugged terrain. However, several areas were predicted to maintain or gain high agricultural utility and may therefore be at risk of near-term or future conversion to cropland. Conversely, some areas were predicted to decrease in agricultural utility and may therefore prove easier to protect from conversion. Our study provides an approximate but readily transferable method for incorporating potential human responses to climate change into conservation planning., (© 2013 Society for Conservation Biology.)

The consequences of biodiversity decline in intensified agricultural landscapes hinge on surviving biotic assemblages. Maintaining crucial ecosystem processes and services requires resilience to natural and anthropogenic disturbances. However, the resilience and stability of surviving biological communities remain poorly quantified. From a 10-y dataset comprising 2,880 bird censuses across a land-use gradient, we present three key findings concerning the resilience and stability of Costa Rican bird communities. First, seed dispersing, insect eating, and pollinating guilds were more resilient to low-intensity land use than high-intensity land use. Compared with forest assemblages, bird abundance, species richness, and diversity were all ~15% lower in low-intensity land use and ~50% lower in high-intensity land use. Second, patterns in species richness generally correlated with patterns in stability: guilds exhibited less variation in abundance in low-intensity land use than in high-intensity land use. Finally, interspecific differences in reaction to environmental change (response diversity) and possibly the portfolio effect, but not negative covariance of species abundances, conferred resilience and stability. These findings point to the changes needed in agricultural production practices in the tropics to better sustain bird communities and, possibly, the functional and service roles that they play.

In Europe and elsewhere, agri‐environmental schemes (AES) are designed to reduce agriculture's impacts on the environment. Designing effective schemes requires an understanding of the reasons that drive farmers' decisions whether to adopt AES.Currently, most insights come from individual case studies or structured surveys based on predefined questions. There is a paucity of studies that do not rely on rigid preconceptions about relevant behavioural factors while also offering a geographically and socio‐culturally broad perspective that can address the cultural and institutional context‐specificity of behavioural studies. Also, most studies focus on the adoption decision, while implementation decisions and their consequences for the ecological effectiveness of AES remain understudied.In this article, we present the results from semi‐structured farmer interviews conducted in five agricultural landscapes across Europe. The results are used to uncover reasons for AES adoption as well as the implications of AES implementation decisions for their ecological effectiveness.The main reason for AES adoption that was common across case study regions is the interplay of opportunity costs and payment levels, which has negative implications for the ecological effectiveness of AES as farmers prioritized marginal land or adopted non‐additional AES. Among reasons that vary across regions, tenure relations and the role of ecological reasoning stand out.We find that AES are unlikely to trigger broader shifts towards sustainable management but there is some potential for improvement, mainly by increasing the flexibility, spatial targeting and ecological ambition of the schemes. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Securing the provision of environmental public goods from agriculture is central to addressing the critical challenge of ensuring global food security while halting ecosystem degradation. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are considered to have a key role to play in supporting the transition to more sustainable ways of producing food. Existing evidence suggests that farmers are generally willing to enrol in AES for the delivery of environmental features, but robust policy support requires further exploration of land managers' preferences and how these interplay with contract features to achieve higher environmental targets. We undertook a discrete choice experiment with land managers in post-Brexit UK, with what can be considered a 'benchmark' sample of younger AES-inclined land managers. This provides a window into the future of the UK farming landscape, but also, given the revision of the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy and other international discussions, it also provides insights into land managers' preferences for new contract features more widely. Our results suggest that (such type of) land managers are likely to be receptive to a transition to result-based, collaborative schemes supporting landscape-wide interventions in alignment with net zero agendas. These interventions could be done in exchange for levels of compensation similar to current levels. While this raises promise, our results also emphasize challenges, particularly to attract those less generally AES-prone land managers. Payments levels probably need to remain close to the current ones (not lower), farmers' awareness and support for net-zero agendas need to be reinforced and more interaction between land managers and policy makers will be needed. • We examined the outlines of new English agri-environmental schemes. • Past experience with schemes, age and farming full-time influence class membership. • The new schemes are expected to marginally increase English farmers' welfare. • Prospect of losing direct payments appears to influence participation in schemes. • Allowing farmers to set their own goals in schemes makes them more likely to enrol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Agri-environment schemes (AES), introduced by the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), aim to compensate land owners for implementing environmentally-friendly practices. Whilst literature has examined their effectiveness and how farmer characteristics govern AES adoption, there is a lack of knowledge about the spatial drivers of AES, particularly structural, biophysical and landscape factors in the UK. Using the Humber region as a case study, this paper explores how the uptake of Countryside Stewardship options has varied from 2016 to 2021. It also examines 2500 farms from the field- and farm-level data of 2019 to better understand what type of land British farmers are adopting AES on. Logistic regression analysis is used to identify the factors (including farm and landscape characteristics, designated sites and land quality) that best explain overall AES adoption, as well as specific scheme adoption, at the field- and farm-level. Our analysis reveals that 'buffer strips', 'hedgerow management', 'permanent grassland', and 'winter bird food' are the most commonly adopted schemes of 2019. AES are generally adopted on larger fields and farms that feature marginalised, unproductive and vulnerable land, except for 'buffer strips' which showed a larger tendency to appear on fields with more profitable, higher quality land. This study, therefore, supports the notion that AES are generally placed on lower quality land and that large proportions of agricultural land owners are not effectively targeted. With the expected loss of direct payments to farmers in the UK as a result of the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA) post-Brexit re-evaluation of rural policy, these results call for the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) to be made more accessible and inclusive to a broader diversity of farmers. • We investigated the spatial drivers of agri-environment scheme (AES) adoption. • AES were typically adopted on larger, marginalised and unproductive land. • Buffer strip AES are more commonly implemented on profitable, higher quality fields. • The uptake of hedgerow planting schemes has been rapidly increasing. • AES policies should be adapted to target the full spectrum of land owners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]