Portail documentaire

How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity ? / David Kleijn in Journal of applied ecology, 40 ([01/01/2003]) 

Public Citation [article]  inJournal of applied ecology > 40 [01/01/2003] . - 947-969 Titre : How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity ? Type de document : Imprimé Auteurs : David Kleijn ; Willliam J. Sutherland (1956-) Année de publication : 2003 Article en page(s) : 947-969 Langues : Français (fre) Résumé : Increasing concern over the environmental impact of agriculture in Europe has led to the introduction of agri-environment schemes. These schemes compensate farmers financially for any loss of income associated with measures that aim to benefit the environment or biodiversity. There are currently agri-environment schemes in 26 out of 44 European countries. Agri-environment schemes vary markedly between countries even within the European Union. The main objectives include reducing nutrient and pesticide emissions, protecting biodiversity, restoring landscapes and preventing rural depopulation. In virtually all countries the uptake of schemes is highest in areas of extensive agriculture where biodiversity is still relatively high and lowest in intensively farmed areas where biodiversity is low. Approximately $24·3 billion has been spent on agri-environment schemes in the European Union (EU) since 1994, an unknown proportion of it on schemes with biodiversity conservation aims. We carried out a comprehensive search for studies that test the effectiveness of agri-environment schemes in published papers or reports. Only 62 evaluation studies were found originating from just five EU countries and Switzerland (5). Indeed 76% of the studies were from the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, where until In the majority of studies, the research design was inadequate to assess reliably the effectiveness of the schemes. Thirty-one percent did not contain a statistical analysis. Where an experimental approach was used, designs were usually weak and biased towards giving a favourable result. The commonest experimental design (37% of the studies) was a comparison of biodiversity in agri-environment schemes and control areas. However, there is a risk of bias if either farmers or scheme co-ordinators select the sites for agri-environment schemes. In such cases the sites are likely to have a higher biodiversity at the outset compared to the controls. This problem may be addressed by collecting baseline data (34% of studies), comparing trends (32%) or changes (26%) in biodiversity between areas with and without schemes or by pairing scheme and control sites that experience similar environmental conditions (16%). 5. Overall, 54% of the examined species (groups) demonstrated increases and 6% decreases in species richness or abundance compared with controls. Seventeen percent showed increases for some species and decreases for other species, while 23% showed no change at all in response to agri-environment schemes. The response varied between taxa. Of 19 studies examining the response of birds that included a statistical analysis, four showed significant increases in species richness or abundance, two showed decreases and nine showed both increases and decreases. Comparative figures for 20 arthropod studies yielded 11 studies that showed an increase in species richness or abundance, no study showed a decrease and three showed both increases and decreases. Fourteen plant studies yielded six studies that showed increases in species richness or abundance, two showed decreases and no study showed both increases and decreases. Synthesis and applications. The lack of robust evaluation studies does not allow a general judgement of the effectiveness of European agri-environment schemes. We suggest that in the future, ecological evaluations must become an integral part of any scheme, including the collection of baseline data, the random placement of scheme and control sites in areas with similar initial conditions, and sufficient replication. Results of these studies should be collected and disseminated more widely, in order to identify the approaches and prescriptions that best deliver biodiversity enhancement and value for money from community support." Lien pérenne : DOI : 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00868.x Permalink : https://biblio.cbnpmp.fr/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=147261 Kleijn, David, Sutherland, Willliam J. (1956-) 2003 How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity ? Journal of applied ecology, 40: 947-969.

Documents numériques

Consultable Article (2003) URL

Managing habitats for conservation / Willliam J. Sutherland (1995)

Public Citation Titre : Managing habitats for conservation Type de document : Imprimé Auteurs : Willliam J. Sutherland (1956-) ; David A Hill Editeur : New York : Cambridge University Press Année de publication : 1995 Importance : 399 p. ISBN/ISSN/EAN : 978-0-521-44260-2 Langues : Anglais (eng) Lien pérenne : DOI : 10.1017/CBO9781316036426 Permalink : https://biblio.cbnpmp.fr/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=80050 Sutherland, Willliam J. (1956-), Hill, David A , 1995. Managing habitats for conservation. Cambridge University Press, New York. 399 pp.

Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain / Robert A. Robinson in Journal of applied ecology, 39 (2002) 

Public Citation [article]  inJournal of applied ecology > 39 (2002) . - 157-176 Titre : Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain Type de document : Électronique Auteurs : Robert A. Robinson ; Willliam J. Sutherland (1956-) Année de publication : 2002 Article en page(s) : 157-176 Langues : Anglais (eng) Catégories : [CBNPMP-Thématique] Messicole Note de contenu : 1. Agriculture represents the dominant land use throughout much of western Europe and a significant part of European biodiversity is associated with this habitat. We attempted to quantify the changes in agriculture and biodiversity in Britain since the 1940s. 2. There have been widespread declines in the populations of many groups of organisms associated with farmland in Britain and north-west Europe. The declines have been particularly marked amongst habitat specialists; many of the taxa still common on farmland are habitat generalists. 3. Farming practices have become increasingly intensive in the post-war period, with a dramatic reduction in landscape diversity. Since 1945, there has been a 65% decline in the number of farms, a 77% decline in farm labour and an almost fourfold increase in yield. Farms have become more specialized; the greatly increased use of machinery has made operations quicker and more efficient, but has resulted in the removal of 50% of the hedgerow stock. Autumn sowing of crops has become predominant, with winter stubbles now far less prevalent. The number and extent of chemical applications has increased greatly, but the net amount applied, and their persistence, has decreased in recent years. 4. Intensification has had a wide range of impacts on biodiversity, but data for many taxa are too scarce to permit a detailed assessment of the factors involved. Reduction in habitat diversity was important in the 1950s and 1960s; reduction in habitat quality is probably more important now. 5. As a case study, the declines in populations of seed-eating birds populations were assessed in relation to changing agricultural management. Generally, the declines were likely to be caused by a reduced food supply in the non-breeding season, although other factors may be important for particular species. 6. Agriculture will face a number of challenges in the medium term. While research into the mechanisms underlying species and habitat associations, and their interaction with scale, will be critical in under-pinning management, consideration of farmer attitudes and socio-economic factors is likely to be as important. Biodiversity may benefit from integrated farming echniques but these need to incorporate environmental objectives explicitly, rather than as a fringe benefit. Lien pérenne : DOI : 10.1046/j.1365-2664.2002.00695.x Permalink : https://biblio.cbnpmp.fr/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=141220 Robinson, Robert A., Sutherland, Willliam J. (1956-) 2002 Post-war changes in arable farming and biodiversity in Great Britain. Journal of applied ecology, 39: 157-176.

Documents numériques

Consultable Article (2002) URL

The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management / Péter Batáry in Conservation Biology, (2015) 

Public Citation [article]  inConservation Biology > (2015) . - 1-11 Titre : The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management Type de document : Imprimé Auteurs : Péter Batáry ; Lynn V. Dicks ; David Kleijn ; Willliam J. Sutherland (1956-) Année de publication : 2015 Article en page(s) : 1-11 Langues : Anglais (eng) Résumé : Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been formillennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe.We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU’s agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted. Lien pérenne : DOI : 10.1111/cobi.12536 Permalink : https://biblio.cbnpmp.fr/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=145978 Batáry, Péter, Dicks, Lynn V., Kleijn, David, Sutherland, Willliam J. (1956-) 2015 The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conservation Biology: 1-11.

Documents numériques

Consultable Article (2015) URL