Search

Making a strong case for biodiversity protection is central to meeting the biodiversity targets in international agreements such as the CBD and achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Effective arguments are needed to convince diverse actors that protection is worthwhile, and can play a crucial role in closing the implementation gap between biodiversity policy targets and outcomes. Drawing on a database of arguments from 11 European case studies, along with additional interview and case study material from all 13 case studies of the BESAFE project, we analysed relationships between potential and observed effectiveness of arguments. Our results show that strong logic, robustness, and timing of arguments are necessary but not sufficient conditions for arguments to be effective. We find that use of multiple and diverse arguments can enhance effectiveness by broadening the appeal to wider audiences, especially when arguments are repeated and refined through constructive dialogue. We discuss the role of framing, bundling and tailoring arguments to audiences in increasing effectiveness. Our results provide further support for the current shift towards recognition of value pluralism in biodiversity science and decision-making. We hope our results will help to demonstrate more convincingly the value of biodiversity to stakeholders in decision processes and thus build better cases for its conservation.

Made available in DSpace on 2018-12-11T17:15:22Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2018-02-01 The ecosystem service (ES) concept is becoming mainstream in policy and planning, but operational influence on practice is seldom reported. Here, we report the practitioners’ perspectives on the practical implementation of the ES concept in 27 case studies. A standardised anonymous survey (n = 246), was used, focusing on the science-practice interaction process, perceived impact and expected use of the case study assessments. Operationalisation of the concept was shown to achieve a gradual change in practices: 13% of the case studies reported a change in action (e.g. management or policy change), and a further 40% anticipated that a change would result from the work. To a large extent the impact was attributed to a well conducted science-practice interaction process (>70%). The main reported advantages of the concept included: increased concept awareness and communication; enhanced participation and collaboration; production of comprehensive science-based knowledge; and production of spatially referenced knowledge for input to planning (91% indicated they had acquired new knowledge). The limitations were mostly case-specific and centred on methodology, data, and challenges with result implementation. The survey highlighted the crucial role of communication, participation and collaboration across different stakeholders, to implement the ES concept and enhance the democratisation of nature and landscape planning. Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Bush Estate Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Kliniekstraat 25 Social-ecological Systems Lab Department of Ecology Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Calle Darwin no. 2, Campus de Cantoblanco Finnish Environment Institute, P.O. Box 140 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Akademická 2 Department of Ecology and Environmental Sciences Constantine the Philosopher University, Trieda A. Hlinku 1 Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG Ltd.), Rómer Flóris u. 38. Department of Decision Sciences Corvinus University of Budapest, Fővám tér 8. Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Permoserstraße 15 CoKnow Consulting – Coproducing Knowledge for Sustainability, Jesewitz CENSE – Centre for Environmental and Sustainability Research Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia Universidade Nova de Lisboa, 2829-516 Caparica Institute of Ecology and Botany MTA Centre for Ecological Research, Alkotmány u. 2-4. Institute of Environmental Science and Technology (ICTA) Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB) Edifici Z (ICTA-ICP), Carrer de les Columnes s/n, Campus de la UAB Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Gaustadalléen 21 Environmental Change Institute, Dyson Perrins Building, South Parks Road Wageningen University and Research Environmental Research (Alterra), P.O. Box 47 European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, FR-75231 Paris Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford Urban Environment and Territorial Sustainability Area Energy and Environment Dividision Parque Tecnológico de Bizkaia C/Geldo, Edificio 700 University of Bucharest - Research Center in Systems Ecology and Sustainability, Splaiul Independentei 91-95 European Commission – Joint Research Centre (JRC), Via E. Fermi 2749 Institute of Landscape Ecology Slovak Academy of Sciences, Štefánikova 3 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro IRSTEA National Research Institute of Science and Technology for Environment and Agriculture UMR TETIS, 500 rue JF BRETON Centro Austral de Investigaciones Científicas (CADIC CONICET), Houssay 200 Leuphana University of Lüneburg Faculty of Sustainability Institute of Ethics and Transdisciplinary Sustainability Research, Scharnhorststraβe 1 IBRAD (Indian Institute of Bio Social Research and Development), VIP Road, Kestopur, Prafulla Kanan Department of Environmental Sciences, P.O. Box 65, FI-00014 University of Helsinki Kenya Forestry Research Institute (KEFRI), P.O. Box 20412-0200 Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria (INTA), CC 332 (9400), Río Gallegos Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia Austral (UNPA) Río Gallegos Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) INCLINE – Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Group Instituto de Astronomia e Geofísica USP – Universidade de São Paulo, R. do Matão, 1226 - Butantã Wageningen University & Research – Marine (WUR), P.O. Box 57 National Institute for Research and Development in Forestry “Marin Dracea”, Eroilor Blvd 128 Institute of Nature Conservation and Landscape Management Szent István University, Páter Károly u. 1. Norwegian University of Life Science (NMBU), Universitetstunet 3 Department of Applied Research and Agricultural Extension Madrid Institute for Rural Agricultural and Food Research and Development (IMIDRA), Ctra. Madrid-Barcelona (N-II), KM. 38.200, 28802 Alcalá De Henares Department of International Environment and Development Studies (Noragric) Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), P.O. Box 5003 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Fakkelgården VISTA Analyse A/S, Meltzers gate 4 University of Girona, Plaça de Sant Domènec, 3 Basque Centre for Climate Change, Alameda de Urquijo 4 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Postboks 5685 Sluppen De Økonomiske Råd, Amaliegade 44 UNESP – Universidade Estadual Paulista Ecology Department – LabTerra, Av. 24-A, 1515 CEP: 13506-900, Rio Claro

This paper provides an analysis of the spectrum of arguments associated with the term biodiversity, as expressed in the literature. Through sampling of the grey and peer-review literature, and testing of results through semi-structured interviews, this review presents a total of 31 different instrumental and non-instrumental premises used in arguments for biodiversity. Based on the identified premise statements, this review offers a simple classification by which to understand the complex public discourse associated with arguments for biodiversity, and outlines the current frequency of use of arguments in the literature. Although a wide range of premise statements were identified, the majority of arguments were instrumental with the most frequently used ones putting forward economic perspectives as well as emphasising the role of biodiversity in underpinning ecosystem services. Results from interviews with decision-makers emphasise the need to combine arguments in order to strengthen biodiversity conservation generally, and minimise possible risks associated with individual arguments.

This Editorial to the BESAFE special issue introduces the project and its approach and case studies. The BESAFE (EC 7th Framework programme) project investigated how the effectiveness of different types of arguments for biodiversity conservation depends on the context in which they are used. Our results show that tailoring of argumentation to audience within the course of decision processes is the main factor determining effectiveness. We consistently found arguments linked to intrinsic value (e.g. moral or ethical obligation arguments) as shared and supported widely, and thus offering common ground between parties. Economic arguments are effective as additional ones, but not as replacements. Next generation biodiversity conservation strategies can probably improve their effectiveness by emphasizing and better explaining the synergies between traditional conservation and especially regulating and cultural services.

Aim Agricultural intensification and urbanization are important drivers of biodiversity change in Europe. Different aspects of bee community diversity vary in their sensitivity to these pressures, as well as independently influencing ecosystem service provision (pollination). To obtain a more comprehensive understanding of human impacts on bee diversity across Europe, we assess multiple, complementary indices of diversity. Location One Thousand four hundred and forty six sites across Europe. Methods We collated data on bee occurrence and abundance from the published literature and supplemented them with the PREDICTS database. Using Rao's Quadratic Entropy, we assessed how species, functional and phylogenetic diversity of 1,446 bee communities respond to land‐use characteristics including land‐use class, cropland intensity, human population density and distance to roads. We combined these models with statistically downscaled estimates of land use in 2005 to estimate and map—at a scale of approximately 1 km2—the losses in diversity relative to semi‐natural/natural baseline (the predicted diversity of an uninhabited grid square, consisting only of semi‐natural/natural vegetation). Results We show that—relative to the predicted local diversity in uninhabited semi‐natural/natural habitat—half of all EU27 countries have lost over 10% of their average local species diversity and two‐thirds of countries have lost over 5% of their average local functional and phylogenetic diversity. All diversity measures were generally lower in pasture and higher‐intensity cropland than in semi‐natural/natural vegetation, but facets of diversity showed less consistent responses to human population density. These differences have led to marked spatial mismatches in losses: losses in phylogenetic diversity were in some areas almost 20 percentage points (pp.) more severe than losses in species diversity, but in other areas losses were almost 40 pp. less severe. Main conclusions These results highlight the importance of exploring multiple measures of diversity when prioritizing and evaluating conservation actions, as species‐diverse assemblages may be phylogenetically and functionally impoverished, potentially threatening pollination service provision.

Heathlands are considered biodiversity hotspots of high conservation interest. However, they are at risk of degradation and disappearance in most parts of Europe mainly due to land abandonment, degradation, and conversion to other land uses. Heathlands are semi-natural systems: their maintenance and survival depends on specific practices such as extensive grazing or burning. Traditionally they provide a wide range of goods and services to societies. In this study we used the ecosystem services (ES) framework to analyze the changes in the demand for and delivery of ES for the heathland landscapes of the Cantabrian Mountains (NW Spain), since the 1950s. Particularly, we analyzed how the social changes since the 1950s have determined changes in stakeholders' demand for provisioning, cultural and regulating services and how these changes have influenced the vegetation dynamics and conservation status of these systems. We identified a general shift from the provisioning of grazing facilities and local products for the local-regional market to the provisioning of conservation services to satisfy national-international demand. For the present situation we found a clear mismatch between the conservation demand, management practices, and land-use forms. This mismatch threatens to lead to further landscape changes and loss of biodiversity. The results of our multi-scale and -services study can help to increase awareness of the value of currently obtainable benefits from heathlands among stakeholders and managers. The ES approach can improve understanding of the functioning of the socio-ecological heathland system, and inform the development of new management strategies for heathland protection.

For the Dutch provinces it is especially a challenge to lift the contribution of private persons andbusinesses to Nature from margin to mainstream. There is interest from private parties to invest inNature, but this interest is turned into actual implementation far too little. Commissioned by theMinistry of Economic Affairs (EZ) we explored the possibilities for applying the habitat bankinginstrument, originally devised to facilitate the offset of damages to Nature, in three possible pilotareas. This explorative study was carried out between November 2015 and May 2016. Knowledgetransfer to the commissioner has meanwhile occurred, before publication date. In het kader van de uitvoering van de Rijksnatuurvisie is het met name een uitdaging om de bijdragevan particulieren en het bedrijfsleven aan natuur van marge naar mainstream te tillen. Er is bijbedrijven en particulieren wel interesse om te investeren in natuur, maar die interesse wordt nog veelte weinig omgezet in uitvoering. In opdracht van het ministerie van Economische Zaken is in driegebieden een verkenning uitgevoerd naar de mogelijke toepassing van het voor compensatie vannatuurschade ontworpen instrument habitatbanking in het bredere kader van natuurinvesteringen.Deze verkenning heeft plaatsgevonden tussen november 2015 en mei 2016. Kennisoverdracht naar deopdrachtgever heeft wel voor de publicatiedatum plaatsgevonden.

specifiek met het oog op beschermde heikikkers en rugstreeppadden

International audience; The impacts of agricultural practices and landscape composition on bee communities were investigated in 14 sites located in four Western European countries Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Switzerland). Standardized interviews with farmers assessed agricultural practices in terms of agricultural inputs (nitrogen fertilization and pesticides), livestock density and crop types. The proportion of semi-natural habitats was calculated for each site. We showed negative effects of agricultural intensification on species richness, abundance and diversity of wild bees. By contrast, bee species richness increased with the amount of semi-natural habitats in the landscape. Using a co-inertia analysis, we found an opposition between two types of agricultural specialization: towards crop production or towards animal husbandry. Species richness, abundance and diversity of wild bees were greater in sites turned towards crop production. In these sites, flowering crops provided abundant food resources for bees whereas, in the other group of sites, intensive animal husbandry led to landscapes dominated by forage crops rather than flower-rich permanent grasslands. We also showed that bumblebees seemed to be less sensitive to agricultural intensification than solitary bees.

Ecosystems are multifunctional and provide humanity with a broad array of vital services. Effective management of services requires an improved evidence base, identifying the role of ecosystems in delivering multiple services, which can assist policy-makers in maintaining them. Here, information from the literature and scientific experts was used to systematically document the importance of services and identify trends in their use and status over time for the main terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems in Europe. The results from this review show that intensively managed ecosystems contribute mostly to vital provisioning services (e.g. agro-ecosystems provide food via crops and livestock, and forests provide wood), while semi-natural ecosystems (e.g. grasslands and mountains) are key contributors of genetic resources and cultural services (e.g. aesthetic values and sense of place). The most recent European trends in human use of services show increases in demand for crops from agro-ecosystems, timber from forests, water flow regulation from rivers, wetlands and mountains, and recreation and ecotourism in most ecosystems, but decreases in livestock production, freshwater capture fisheries, wild foods and virtually all services associated with ecosystems which have considerably decreased in area (e.g. semi-natural grasslands). The condition of the majority of services show either a degraded or mixed status across Europe with the exception of recent enhancements in timber production in forests and mountains, freshwater provision, water/erosion/natural hazard regulation and recreation/ecotourism in mountains, and climate regulation in forests. Key gaps in knowledge were evident for certain services across all ecosystems, including the provision of biochemicals and natural medicines, genetic resources and the regulating services of seed dispersal, pest/disease regulation and invasion resistance.

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, common indicators are needed to monitor the loss of biodiversity and the implications for the sustainable provision of ecosystem services. However, a variety of indicators are already being used resulting in many, mostly incompatible, monitoring systems. In order to synthesise the different indicator approaches and to detect gaps in the development of common indicator systems, we examined 531 indicators that have been reported in 617 peer-reviewed journal articles between 1997 and 2007. Special emphasis was placed on comparing indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem services across ecosystems (forests, grass- and shrublands, wetlands, rivers, lakes, soils and agro-ecosystems) and spatial scales (from patch to global scale). The application of biological indicators was found most often focused on regional and finer spatial scales with few indicators applied across ecosystem types. Abiotic indicators, such as physico-chemical parameters and measures of area and fragmentation, are most frequently used at broader (regional to continental) scales. Despite its multiple dimensions, biodiversity is usually equated with species richness only. The functional, structural and genetic components of biodiversity are poorly addressed despite their potential value across habitats and scales. Ecosystem service indicators are mostly used to estimate regulating and supporting services but generally differ between ecosystem types as they reflect ecosystem-specific services. Despite great effort to develop indicator systems over the past decade, there is still a considerable gap in the widespread use of indicators for many of the multiple components of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and a need to develop common monitoring schemes within and across habitats. Filling these gaps is a prerequisite for linking biodiversity dynamics with ecosystem service delivery and to achieving the goals of global and sub-global initiatives to halt the loss of biodiversity.

FR2116; International audience; Observed patterns of species richness at landscape scale (gamma diversity) cannot always be attributed to a specific set of explanatory variables, but rather different alternative explanatory statistical models of similar quality may exist. Therefore predictions of the effects of environmental change (such as in climate or land cover) on biodiversity may differ considerably, depending on the chosen set of explanatory variables. Here we use multimodel prediction to evaluate effects of climate, land-use intensity and landscape structure on species richness in each of seven groups of organisms (plants, birds, spiders, wild bees, ground beetles, true bugs and hoverflies) in temperate Europe. We contrast this approach with traditional best-model predictions, which we show, using cross-validation, to have inferior prediction accuracy. Multimodel inference changed the importance of some environmental variables in comparison with the best model, and accordingly gave deviating predictions for environmental change effects. Overall, prediction uncertainty for the multimodel approach was only slightly higher than that of the best model, and absolute changes in predicted species richness were also comparable. Richness predictions varied generally more for the impact of climate change than for land-use change at the coarse scale of our study. Overall, our study indicates that the uncertainty introduced to environmental change predictions through uncertainty in model selection both qualitatively and quantitatively affects species richness projections.

Land-use change and intensification threaten bee populations worldwide, imperilling pollination services. Global models are needed to better characterise, project, and mitigate bees' responses to these human impacts. The available data are, however, geographically and taxonomically unrepresentative; most data are from North America and Western Europe, overrepresenting bumblebees and raising concerns that model results may not be generalizable to other regions and taxa. To assess whether the geographic and taxonomic biases of data could undermine effectiveness of models for conservation policy, we have collated from the published literature a global dataset of bee diversity at sites facing land-use change and intensification, and assess whether bee responses to these pressures vary across 11 regions (Western, Northern, Eastern and Southern Europe; North, Central and South America; Australia and New Zealand; South East Asia; Middle and Southern Africa) and between bumblebees and other bees. Our analyses highlight strong regionally-based responses of total abundance, species richness and Simpson's diversity to land use, caused by variation in the sensitivity of species and potentially in the nature of threats. These results suggest that global extrapolation of models based on geographically and taxonomically restricted data may underestimate the true uncertainty, increasing the risk of ecological surprises. Fil: De Palma, Adriana. Natural History Museum; Reino Unido. Imperial College London; Reino Unido Fil: Abrahamczyk, Stefan. Universitat Bonn; Alemania Fil: Aizen, Marcelo Adrian. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina Fil: Albrecht, Matthias. Institute for Sustainability Sciences; Suiza Fil: Basset, Yves. Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute; Panamá Fil: Bates, Adam. Nottingham Trent University; Reino Unido Fil: Blake, Robin J.. University of Reading; Reino Unido Fil: Boutin, Céline. Carleton University; Canadá Fil: Bugter, Rob. Wageningen University and Research; Países Bajos Fil: Connop, Stuart. University of East London; Reino Unido Fil: Cruz López, Leopoldo. El Colegio de la Frontera del Sur; México Fil: Cunningham, Saul A.. CSIRO Exploration and Mining; Australia Fil: Darvill, Ben. University of Stirling; Reino Unido Fil: Diekötter, Tim. Geomar-Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel; Alemania. University Marburg; Alemania. Institute of Integrative Biology; Suiza Fil: Dorn, Silvia. ETH Zurich; Suiza Fil: Downing, Nicola. Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; Reino Unido Fil: Entling, Martin H.. Universitat Koblenz; Alemania Fil: Farwig, Nina. Universitat Phillips; Alemania Fil: Felicioli, Antonio. Università degli Studi di Pisa; Italia Fil: Fonte, Steven J.. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados Unidos Fil: Fowler, Robert. University of Sussex; Reino Unido Fil: Franzén, Markus. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania Fil: Goulson, Dave. Universität Göttingen; Alemania Fil: Grass, Ingo. Universität Göttingen; Alemania Fil: Hanley, Mick E.. University of Iowa; Estados Unidos Fil: Hendrix, Stephen D.. University of Iowa; Estados Unidos Fil: Herrmann, Farina. Universität Würzburg; Alemania Fil: Herzog, Felix. Institut for Sustainability Sciences; Suiza Fil: Holzschuh, Andrea. Universität Würzburg; Alemania Fil: Jauker, Birgit. Justus-Liebig University; Alemania Fil: Kessler, Michael. Institut für Systematische und Evolutionäre Botanik; Suiza Fil: Knight, M.E.. Plymouth University; Reino Unido Fil: Kruess, Andreas. Federal Agency for Nature Conservation; Alemania Fil: Lavelle, Patrick. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Institut de Recherche pour le Développement; Francia. Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical; Colombia Fil: Le Féon, Violette Alice Marie. Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique; Francia Fil: Lentini, Pia. University of Melbourne; Australia Fil: Malone, Louise A.. New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Ltd; Nueva Zelanda Fil: Marshall, Jon. Marshall Agroecology Ltd; Reino Unido Fil: Pachón, Eliana Martínez. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Colombia Fil: McFrederick, Quinn S.. University of California; Estados Unidos Fil: Morales, Carolina Laura. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina Fil: Mudri Stojnic, Sonja. University of Novi Sad; Serbia Fil: Nates Parra, Guiomar. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Colombia Fil: Nilsson, Sven G.. Lund University; Suecia Fil: Öckinger, Erik. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences; Suecia Fil: Osgathorpe, Lynne. RSPB; Reino Unido Fil: Parra-H, Alejandro. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Colombia. Corporación para la Gestión de Servicios Ecosistémicos, Polinización y Abejas; Colombia Fil: Peres, Carlos A.. University of East Anglia; Reino Unido Fil: Persson, Anna S.. Lund University; Suecia Fil: Petanidou, Theodora. University of the Aegean; Grecia Fil: Poveda, Katja. Cornell University; Estados Unidos Fil: Power, Eileen F.. Trinity College Dublin; Irlanda Fil: Quaranta, Marino. Consiglio per la Ricerca in Agricoltura e l'Analisi del l'Economía Agraria; Italia Fil: Quintero, Carolina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Patagonia Norte. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente. Universidad Nacional del Comahue. Centro Regional Universidad Bariloche. Instituto de Investigaciones en Biodiversidad y Medioambiente; Argentina Fil: Rader, Romina. University of New England; Australia Fil: Richards, Miriam H.. Brock University; Canadá Fil: Roulston, Tai. University of Virginia; Estados Unidos Fil: Rousseau, Laurent. Université du Québec a Montreal; Canadá Fil: Sadler, Jonathan P.. University of Birmingham; Reino Unido Fil: Samnegård, Ulrika. University of Birmingham; Reino Unido Fil: Schellhorn, Nancy A.. CSIRO Exploration and Mining; Australia Fil: Schüepp, Christof. University of Bern; Suiza Fil: Schweiger, Oliver. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania Fil: Smith Pardo, Allan H.. United States Department of Agriculture; Estados Unidos. Universidad Nacional de Colombia; Colombia Fil: Steffan Dewenter, Ingolf. Universität Würzburg; Alemania Fil: Stout, Jane C.. Trinity College Dublin; Irlanda Fil: Tonietto, Rebecca K.. Northwestern University; Estados Unidos. Chicago Botanic Garden; Estados Unidos Fil: Teja, Tscharntke. Universität Göttingen; Alemania Fil: Tylianakis, Jason M.. Imperial College London; Reino Unido. University of Canterbury; Nueva Zelanda Fil: Verboven, Hans A. F.. Katholikie Universiteit Leuven; Bélgica Fil: Vergara, Carlos H.. Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla; México Fil: Verhulst, Jort. No especifíca; Fil: Westphal, Catrin. Universität Göttingen; Alemania Fil: Yoon, Hyung Joo. National Institute of Agricultural Science; Corea del Sur Fil: Purvis, Andy. Natural History Museum; Reino Unido. Imperial College London; Reino Unido

Summary 1. In many European agricultural landscapes, species richness is declining considerably. Studies performed at a very large spatial scale are helpful in understanding the reasons for this decline and as a basis for guiding policy. In a unique, large-scale study of 25 agricultural landscapes in seven European countries, we investigated relationships between species richness in several taxa, and the links between biodiversity and landscape structure and management. 2. We estimated the total species richness of vascular plants, birds and five arthropod groups in each 16-km 2 landscape, and recorded various measures of both landscape structure and intensity of agricultural land use. We studied correlations between taxonomic groups and the effects of landscape and land-use parameters on the number of species in different taxonomic groups. Our statistical approach also accounted for regional variation in species richness unrelated to landscape or land-use factors. 3. The results reveal strong geographical trends in species richness in all taxonomic groups. No single species group emerged as a good predictor of all other species groups. Species richness of all groups increased with the area of semi-natural habitats in the landscape. Species richness of birds and vascular plants was negatively associated with fertilizer use. 4. Synthesis and applications. We conclude that indicator taxa are unlikely to provide an effective means of predicting biodiversity at a large spatial scale, especially where there is large biogeographical variation in species richness. However, a small list of landscape and land-use parameters can be used in agricultural landscapes to infer large-scale patterns of species richness. Our results suggest that to halt the loss of biodiversity in these landscapes, it is important to preserve and, if possible, increase the area of semi-natural habitat.

1. Agricultural intensification poses a serious threat to biodiversity as a consequence of increased land-use intensity, decreased landscape heterogeneity and reduced habitat diversity. Although there is interest in the preservation of total species richness of an agricultural landscape (γ diversity), the effects of intensification have been assessed primarily by species richness at a local scale (α diversity). This ignores species richness between local communities (β diversity), which is an important component of total species richness. 2. In this study, measures of land-use intensity, landscape structure and habitat diversity were related to γ, α and β diversity of wild bees (Apoidea), carabid beetles (Carabidae), hoverflies (Syrphidae), true bugs (Heteroptera) and spiders (Araneae) within 16 local communities in 24 temperate European agricultural landscapes. 3. The total landscape species richness of all groups was most strongly affected by increased proximity of semi-natural habitat patches. Bees also decreased in landscapes with a high intensity of farmland management, demonstrating additive effects of both factors. 4. Separating total species diversity into components, the decrease in total species richness could be attributed primarily to a decrease in species diversity between local communities. Species richness of the local communities of all investigated groups decreased with increasing land-use intensity and, in the case of spiders, decreasing proximity of the semi-natural habitat patches. 5. The effect of increased habitat diversity appeared to be of secondary importance to total species richness but caused a shift in the relative contribution of α and β diversity towards the latter.

Numbers and sizes of populations of the European tree frog in The Netherlands have dramatically decreased in the second half of the last century due to extensive habitat destruction and fragmentation. We have studied the genetic structure of a slowly recovering meta-population. Strong genetic differentiation, estimated at eight microsatellite loci, was found between clusters of populations (F (st)-values above 0.2). Within clusters, consisting of ponds within a radius of about 5 km, European tree frog populations were less differentiated (F (st)

1. In landscapes influenced by anthropogenic activities, such as intensive agriculture, knowledge of the relative importance and interaction of environmental factors on the composition and function of local communities across a range of spatial scales is important for maintaining biodiversity. 2. We analysed five arthropod taxa covering a broad range of functional aspects (wild bees, true bugs, carabid beetles, hoverflies and spiders) in 24 landscapes (4 x 4 km) across seven European countries along gradients of both land-use intensity and landscape structure. Species-environment relationships were examined in a hierarchical design of four main sets of environmental factors (country, land-use intensity, landscape structure, local habitat properties) that covered three spatial scales (region, landscape, local) by means of hierarchical variability partitioning using partial canonical correspondence analyses. 3. Local community composition and the distribution of body size classes and trophic guilds were most affected by regional processes, which highly confounded landscape and local factors. After correcting for regional effects, factors at the landscape scale dominated over local habitat factors. Land-use intensity explained most of the variability in species data, whereas landscape characteristics (especially connectivity) accounted for most of the variability in body size and trophic guilds. 4. Synthesis and applications. Our results suggest that management effort should be focused on land-use intensity and habitat connectivity in order to enhance diversity in agricultural landscapes. Since these factors are largely independent, specific conservation programmes may be developed with regards to socio-economic and agri-environmental requirements. Changes in either of these factors will enhance diversity but will also result in specific effects on local communities related to dispersal ability and the resource use of species.

Biodiversity conservation policies justified with science and intrinsic value arguments have produced disappointing outcomes, and the need for conservation is now being additionally justified with the concept of ecosystem services. However, little, if any empirical attention is paid to ways in which different types of ecosystem service decisions are made, to what arguments are effective in turning policy into practice and further into conservation outcomes and, in general, to how ecosystem services are governed. To close this gap, this paper identifies the different modes of governance in policy implementation from biodiversity and environmental conservation literature and incorporates them in a conceptual model of ecosystem services commonly utilised at present, the cascade model. The resulting conceptual framework encompasses: (1) hierarchical governance; (2) scientific-technical governance; (3) adaptive collaborative governance; and; (4) governing strategic behaviour. This comprehensive framework provides a structure for empirical analysis of ecosystem services governance, which takes into account the people and organisations making decisions, and, in particular, the different arguments that are used when implementing policies. The framework will facilitate holistic ecosystem service analyses and support policies in generating conservation and sustainability impact. Ecosystem services; Biodiversity conservation; Governance; Policy implementation; Arguments http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Research on ecosystem services has grown rapidly over the last decade. Two conceptual frameworks have been published to guide ecological assessments of organisms that deliver services?the concepts of service-providing units (SPUs) and ecosystem service providers (ESPs). Here, we unite these frameworks and present an SPU-ESP continuum that offers a coherent conceptual approach for synthesizing the latest developments in ecosystem service research, and can direct future studies at all levels of organization. In particular, we show how the service-provider concept can be applied at the population, functional group, and community levels. We strongly emphasize the need to identify and quantify the organisms and their characteristics (e.g., functional traits) that provide services, and to assess service provision relative to the demands of human beneficiaries. We use key examples from the literature to illustrate the new approach and to highlight gaps in knowledge, particularly in relation to the impact of species interactions and ecosystem dynamics on service provision. Fil: Luck, Gary. Charles Sturt University; Australia Fil: Harrington, Richard. Rothamsted Research. Department of Plant and Invertebrate Ecology. Centre for Bioenergy and Climate Change; Reino Unido Fil: Harrison, Paula A.. Oxford University Centre for the Environment. Environmental Change Institute; Reino Unido Fil: Kremen, Claire. University of California. Environmental Sciences Policy and Management; Reino Unido Fil: Berry, Pam M.. Oxford University Centre for the Environment. Environmental Change Institute; Reino Unido Fil: Bugter, Rob. Wageningen University and Research Centre; Países Bajos Fil: Dawson, Terence P.. University of Southampton. School of Geography; Reino Unido Fil: de Bello, Francesco. Université Joseph Fourier. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine; Francia Fil: Diaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Feld, Christian K.. University of Duisburg-Essen. Department of Applied Zoology/Hydrobiology; Alemania Fil: Haslett, John R.. University of Salzburg. Department of Organismal Biology. Division of Zoology and Functional Anatomy; Austria Fil: Hering, Daniel. University of Duisburg-Essen. Department of Applied Zoology/Hydrobiology; Alemania Fil: Kontogianni, Areti. University of the Aegean. Department of Environmental Studies and the Department of Marine Sciences; Grecia Fil: Lavorel, Sandra. Université Joseph Fourier. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine; Francia Fil: Ronsevell, Mark. University of Edinburgh. Centre for Environmental Change and Sustainability; Reino Unido Fil: Samways, Michael J.. University of Stellenbosch. Faculty of AgriSciences. Centre for Agricultural Biodiversity. Department of Conservation Ecology and Entomology; Sudáfrica Fil: Sandin, Leonard. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Department of Environmental Assessment; Suecia Fil: Settele, Josef. Department of Community Ecology. UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania Fil: Sykes, Martin T.. Lund University. Department of Physical Geography and Eco-systems Analysis; Suecia Fil: van den Hove, Sybille. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Median SCP and the Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals; España Fil: Wandewalle, Marie. Lund University. Department of Physical Geography and Eco-systems Analysis; Suecia Fil: Zobel, Martin. University of Tartu. Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences; Estonia

International audience; Question: Which are the plant functional groups responding most clearly to agricultural disturbances? Which are the relative roles of habitat availability, landscape configuration and agricultural land use intensity in affecting the functional composition and diversity of vascular plants in agricultural landscapes? Location: 25 agricultural landscape areas in seven European countries. Methods: We examined the plant species richness and abundance in 4 km × 4 km landscape study sites. The plant functional group classification was derived from the BIOLFLOR database. Factorial decomposition of functional groups was applied. Results: Natural habitat availability and low land use intensity supported the abundance and richness of perennials, sedges, pteridophytes and high nature quality indicator species. The abundance of clonal species, C and S strategists was also correlated with habitat area. An increasing density of field edges explained a decrease in richness of high nature quality species and an increase in richness of annual graminoids. Intensive agriculture enhanced the richness of annuals and low nature quality species. Conclusions: Habitat patch availability and habitat quality are the main drivers of functional group composition and plant species richness in European agricultural landscapes. Linear elements do not compensate for the loss of habitats, as they mostly support disturbance tolerant generalist species. In order to conserve vascular plant species diversity in agricultural landscapes, the protection and enlargement of existing patches of (semi-) natural habitats appears to be more effective than relying on the rescue effect of linear elements. This should be done in combination with appropriate agricultural management techniques to limit the effect of agrochemicals to the fields.

The intensity of agricultural production was assessed in 25 landscape test sites across temperate Europe using a standardised farmer questionnaire. The intensity indicators, nitrogen input (to arable crops and to permanent grassland), density of livestock units and number of pesticide applications (herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and retardants), were recorded and integrated into an overall intensity index. All three components were needed to appropriately characterise the intensity of agricultural management. Four hypotheses were tested. (i) A low diversity of crops is related to higher intensity. The contrary was observed, namely because diverse crop rotations contained a higher share of crops which are more demanding in terms of nitrogen and of plant protection. (ii) Intensity decreases when there is more permanent grassland. This was confirmed by our study. (iii) Large farms are managed more intensively. There was no relation between farm size and intensity. (iv) Large fields are managed more intensively. There was a tendency towards higher nitrogen input and livestock density in landscapes with larger fields but only a few of the results were statistically significant. The aggregated overall intensity index was of limited usefulness mainly because of limitations in interpretability.