No abstract

Examinations of the impact of land-use change on functional diversity link changes in ecological community structure driven by land modification with the consequences for ecosystem function. Yet, most studies have been small-scale, experimental analyses and primarily focussed on plants. There is a lack of research on fauna communities and at large-scales across multiple land uses. We assessed changes in the functional diversity of bird communities across 24 land uses aligned along an intensification gradient. We tested the hypothesis that functional diversity is higher in less intensively used landscapes, documented changes in diversity using four diversity metrics, and examined how functional diversity varied with species richness to identify levels of functional redundancy. Functional diversity, measured using a dendogram-based metric, increased from high to low intensity land uses, but observed values did not differ significantly from randomly-generated expected values. Values for functional evenness and functional divergence did not vary consistently with land-use intensification, although higher than expected values were mostly recorded in high intensity land uses. A total of 16 land uses had lower than expected values for functional dispersion and these were mostly low intensity native vegetation sites. Relations between functional diversity and bird species richness yielded strikingly different patterns for the entire bird community vs. particular functional groups. For all birds and insectivores, functional evenness, divergence and dispersion showed a linear decline with increasing species richness suggesting substantial functional redundancy across communities. However, for nectarivores, frugivores and carnivores, there was a significant hump-shaped or non-significant positive linear relationship between these functional measures and species richness indicating less redundancy. Hump-shaped relationships signify that the most functionally diverse communities occur at intermediate levels of species richness. Interpretations of redundancy thus vary for different functional groups and related ecosystem functions (e.g. pollination), and can be substantially different to relationships involving entire ecological communities.

By 2050, 70% of the world's population will live in urban areas. In many cases urbanization reduces the richness and abundance of native species. Living in highly modified environments with fewer opportunities to interact directly with a diversity of native species may adversely affect residents' personal well-being and emotional connection to nature. We assessed the personal well-being, neighborhood well-being (a measure of a person's satisfaction with their neighborhood), and level of connection to nature of over 1000 residents in 36 residential neighborhoods in southeastern Australia. We modeled these response variables as a function of natural features of each neighborhood (e.g., species richness and abundance of birds, density of plants, and amount of vegetation cover) and demographic characteristics of surveyed residents. Vegetation cover had the strongest positive relations with personal well-being, whereas residents' level of connection to nature was weakly related to variation in species richness and abundance of birds and density of plants. Demographic characteristics such as age and level of activity explained the greatest proportion of variance in well-being and connection to nature. Nevertheless, when controlling for variation in demographic characteristics (examples were provided above), neighborhood well-being was positively related to a range of natural features, including species richness and abundance of birds, and vegetation cover. Demographic characteristics and how well-being was quantified strongly influenced our results, and we suggest demography and metrics of well-being must be considered when attempting to determine relations between the urban environment and human well-being.

Effective biodiversity monitoring is critical to evaluate, learn from, and ultimately improve conservation practice. Well conceived, designed and implemented monitoring of biodiversity should: (i) deliver information on trends in key aspects of biodiversity (e.g. population changes); (ii) provide early warning of problems that might otherwise be difficult or expensive to reverse; (iii) generate quantifiable evidence of conservation successes (e.g. species recovery following management) and conservation failures; (iv) highlight ways to make management more effective; and (v) provide information on return on conservation investment. The importance of effective biodiversity monitoring is widely recognized (e.g. Australian Biodiversity Strategy). Yet, while everyone thinks biodiversity monitoring is a good idea, this has not translated into a culture of sound biodiversity monitoring, or widespread use of monitoring data. We identify four barriers to more effective biodiversity monitoring in Australia. These are: (i) many conservation programmes have poorly articulated or vague objectives against which it is difficult to measure progress contributing to design and implementation problems; (ii) the case for long-term and sustained biodiversity monitoring is often poorly developed and/or articulated; (iii) there is often a lack of appropriate institutional support, co-ordination, and targeted funding for biodiversity monitoring; and (iv) there is often a lack of appropriate standards to guide monitoring activities and make data available from these programmes. To deal with these issues, we suggest that policy makers, resource managers and scientists better and more explicitly articulate the objectives of biodiversity monitoring and better demonstrate the case for greater investments in biodiversity

No abstract