Identifying factors that influence bird richness and abundance on farms

Zellweger-Fischer, Judith; Hoffmann, Jael; Korner-Nievergelt, Pius; Pfiffner, Lukas; Stoeckli, Sibylle; Birrer, Simon

doi:10.1080/00063657.2018.1446903

Cited by 16 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The evidence for higher diversity and abundance of organisms in landscapes where the agricultural area is subdivided into smaller fields stems from studies using existing differences in field size between landscapes. These include both contrasts across the former political border dividing Europe into East and West (Batáry et al., 2017; Šálek et al., 2018) and the general variation in mean field size within regions in Europe (Concepción et al., 2020; Hass et al., 2018; Konvicka, Benes, & Polakova, 2016; Martin et al., 2019; Sirami et al., 2019; Skórka, Lenda, Moroń, & Tryjanowski, 2013; Zellweger‐Fischer et al., 2018) and North America (Fahrig et al., 2015; Monck‐Whipp, Martin, Francis, & Fahrig, 2018), covering multiple taxa and controlling for field‐scale management intensity. The effect sizes are significant, since moving from a field size of 1–6 hectares has a similar negative effect on farmland biodiversity as the difference observed when moving from 35% to 0% seminatural habitat cover in the surrounding landscape.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field sizes and the future of farmland biodiversity in European landscapes

Clough

Kirchweger²,

Kantelhardt

2020

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lower diversity of plant and animal farmland species are usually reported where cropland has been aggregated into larger fields, which raises prospects of curbing declines in European farmland biodiversity and associated ecosystem services by halting trends to field size increases associated to agricultural intensification, without having to set aside arable land for conservation. Here, we consider the factors underlying trade-offs between farmer income and biodiversity as mediated by field size at local and landscape scales, and how these trade-offs may be overcome. Field sizes are still increasing, facilitated by increasing farm sizes and land consolidation. Decreases in working time and fuel expenses when fields are larger, uptake of larger machinery and subsidies favoring larger farms provide incentives to manage land in larger units, putting farmland biodiversity further at risk. Yet, field size-mediated ecological-economic trade-offs are largely ignored in policy and research. We recommend internalizing the ecological effects of changes in landscape-scale field size into land consolidation scheme design, ensuring that EU Common Agricultural Policy post-2020 rewards farmers that maintain and recreate fine-grained landscapes where these are essential for farmland biodiversity targets, and reducing economic-ecological trade-offs by stimulating agricultural research and innovation for economically efficient yet biodiversity-friendly farming in fine-grained landscapes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field sizes and the future of farmland biodiversity in European landscapes

Clough

Kirchweger²,

Kantelhardt

2020

CONSERVATION LETTERS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conservation measures consequently may have to put more effort into improving quality in terms of reducing agricultural land-use intensity and providing crucial resources instead of solely focusing on the availability of important land cover types. Due to strong similarities in habitat requirements with many farmland birds, measures to restore habitat for little owls will likely benefit multiple species (Fuller 2012 ; Zellweger-Fischer et al 2018 ). Because of this general value, resource-rich structures may be promoted by governments using horizontal agri-environment schemes (AES).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Political borders impact associations between habitat suitability predictions and resource availability

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context By linking species of conservation concern to their abiotic and biotic requirements, habitat suitability models (HSM) can assist targeted conservation measures. Yet, conservation measures may fail if HSM are unable to predict crucial resources. HSM are typically developed using remotely sensed land-cover classification data but not information on resources per se. Objectives While a certain land-cover class may correlate with crucial resources in the area of calibration, political boundaries can abruptly alter these associations. We investigate this potential discrepancy in a well-known study system highly relevant for farmland bird conservation. Methods We compared land cover, land-use intensity and resource availability between plots of highest habitat suitability for little owls (Athene noctua) among two neighbouring, but politically separated areas (i.e. south-western Germany vs. northern Switzerland). Results Land cover and land-use richness did not differ between German and Swiss plots. Yet there were marked differences in terms of land-use intensity and the availability of resources. Land-use intensity was significantly higher and resource availability lower in Swiss compared to German plots. Conclusions While accounting well for remotely sensed data such as land cover, HSM may fail to predict land-use intensity and resources across borders. The relationship between geodata used as proxies and ecologically relevant resources may differ according to history, policies and socio-cultural context, constraining the viability of HSM across political borders. This study emphasises the need for fine-scale resource assessments complementing landscape-scale suitability models. Conservation measures need to consider the availability of crucial resources and their socio-economic moderators to be effective.

show abstract

“…Vegetation complexity in farm pond margins had an influence (direct and indirect) on the abundance and the number of both water-dependent and terrestrial bird species in farmland habitats [23]. Indeed, the use of up to 85% of all the farm ponds studied by the eight most abundant declining bird species mentioned above cannot be attributed solely to their presence.…”

Section: Declining Bird Species and Crop Damaging Speciesmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Farm ponds are usually located on privately owned agricultural land and, consequently, the traditional legal protected areas strategy, e.g., purchase and protect, does not apply to them. Indeed, an approach geared more to stewardship conservation needs to be considered since farmers as primary stakeholders can positively influence biodiversity, ecosystem services, and agronomic outcomes in a shared perspective of sustainable agriculture [20][21][22][23]. Therefore, significant long-term efforts to focus on the conservation of farm ponds depend on having a good understanding of the perceptions that farmers have of these ponds and their willingness to help manage them for wildlife.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avian Use of Dairy Farm Ponds and Landowners’ Perceptions of Their Management for Wildlife Conservation

Bélanger

Maisonneuve

Rodrigue

2021

Birds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Farm ponds are among the last remaining lentic wetland habitats in human-dominated agricultural and suburban landscapes. However, their wildlife value and farmers’ willingness to maintain them for the conservation of regionally declining biodiversity are often both poorly documented. The objectives of this study of 61 dairy farm ponds located in Southern Quebec (Canada) were to (1) describe their biophysical features and birds’ use, (2) determine habitat and landscape characteristics that influence the bird community, and (3) assess the willingness of farmers to support wildlife use. The studied ponds were small (0.17 ha) and had rectangular shape with rocky/muddy steeply slopes (21°), surrounded by 3 m wide riparian strips and pastures, hayfields, and fallows. They were located about 300 m from farmhouses, buildings, streams, and adjacent ponds. A total of 1963 individuals belonging to 46 bird species were observed. The abundance of all bird species, of species with declining populations, and of crop damaging species were positively related to the area of fallow land and to the width of riparian strips; the areas of cereals and of mixed-wood forest had a negative influence. Only two habitat variables had influence on species richness: the width of riparian strips (+) and the distance to the closest farm buildings (–). Most pond landowners (>80%) were in favour of increasing wildlife use if they were given access to associated financial support and logistical assistance. Wider riparian strips and adjacent uncultivated field margins are recommended.

show abstract

Identifying factors that influence bird richness and abundance on farms

Cited by 16 publications

References 51 publications

Field sizes and the future of farmland biodiversity in European landscapes

Field sizes and the future of farmland biodiversity in European landscapes

Political borders impact associations between habitat suitability predictions and resource availability

Avian Use of Dairy Farm Ponds and Landowners’ Perceptions of Their Management for Wildlife Conservation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About