scholarly journals Perennial rhizomatous grasses: Can they really increase species richness and abundance in arable land?—A meta‐analysis

GCB Bioenergy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (11) ◽  
pp. 968-978
Author(s):  
Jan Lask ◽  
Elena Magenau ◽  
Andrea Ferrarini ◽  
Andreas Kiesel ◽  
Moritz Wagner ◽  
...  
2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (10) ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtney L. Larson ◽  
Sarah E. Reed ◽  
Adina M. Merenlender ◽  
Kevin R. Crooks

2010 ◽  
Vol 143 (3) ◽  
pp. 545-554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Felton ◽  
Emma Knight ◽  
Jeff Wood ◽  
Charlie Zammit ◽  
David Lindenmayer

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sini Savilaakso ◽  
Anna Johansson ◽  
Matti Häkkilä ◽  
Anne Uusitalo ◽  
Terhi Sandgren ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Forest harvesting changes forest habitat and impacts forest dependent species. Uneven-aged management is often considered better for biodiversity than even-aged management, but there is an ongoing discourse over the benefits and disadvantages of different silvicultural systems. This systematic review contributes to the public discussion and provides evidence for policy making by synthesising current evidence on impacts of even-aged and uneven-aged forest management on biodiversity in boreal forests of Fennoscandia and European Russia. In this review even-aged and uneven-aged forest management are compared directly to each other as well as to natural forest to provide a broad basis for public discussion. Methods Both peer-reviewed and grey literature were searched in bibliographical databases, organizational webpages and internet search engines in English, Finnish, Swedish and Russian. Articles were screened for relevance by their title/abstract and again by full text. The inclusion of studies was assessed against pre-defined criteria published in an a priori protocol. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted to describe the evidence base and to compare species richness and abundance between differently managed forests. The influence of habitat specialism, taxon, years since harvesting, deadwood availability and harvesting intensity on species richness and abundance were also tested. Review findings Searching identified 43,621 articles of which 137 articles with 854 studies had independent data and were included in the narrative synthesis. Of those, 547 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The most studied taxa were arthropods, vascular plants, bryophytes, fungi, and lichens. Results showed that forests with less disturbance (uneven-aged and mature even-aged) host more forest dependent species than young even-aged forests (< 80 years old) although the difference was only marginally significant for mature even-aged forests (> 80 years old). Uneven-aged forest had similar number of species and individuals than natural forest whereas even-aged forest had less species than natural forest. Open habitat species and their individuals were more numerous in young even-aged forests and forests undergone retention harvest. Effect sizes found were mostly large indicating strong and uniform impact of forest management based on species’ habitat preferences. In addition to habitat specialism, years since harvest explained some of the differences found in species richness and abundance due to increase of open habitat species in the early successional stages and forest dependent species in late successional stages. Taxon had limited explanatory power. Conclusions Habitat preferences determine species’ response to different harvesting methods and the magnitude of effect is large. Less disturbance from harvesting is better for forest dependent species whereas opposite is true for open habitat species. Uneven-aged and mature even-aged forests (> 80 years old) are important to maintain biodiversity in boreal forests. However, the results also highlight that natural forests are needed to ensure the future of forest dependent species in Fennoscandia and European Russia. Given that a broader set of biodiversity aspects are to be protected, best overall biodiversity impacts for a variety of species at landscape level can be achieved by ensuring that there is a mosaic of different forests within landscapes.


2010 ◽  
Vol 278 (1713) ◽  
pp. 1894-1902 ◽  
Author(s):  
Péter Batáry ◽  
András Báldi ◽  
David Kleijn ◽  
Teja Tscharntke

Agri-environmental management (AEM) is heralded as being key to biodiversity conservation on farmland, yet results of these schemes have been mixed, making their general utility questionable. We test with meta-analysis whether the benefits of AEM for species richness and abundance of plants and animals are determined by the surrounding landscape context. Across all studies (109 observations for species richness and 114 observations for abundance), AEM significantly increased species richness and their abundance. More specifically, we test the hypothesis that AEM benefits species richness and abundance (i.e. increases the difference between fields with and without AEM) more in simple than in complex landscapes. In croplands, species richness but not abundance was significantly enhanced in simple but not in complex landscapes. In grasslands, AEM effectively enhanced species richness and abundance regardless of landscape context. Pollinators were significantly enhanced by AEM in simple but not in complex landscapes in both croplands and grasslands. Our results highlight that the one-size-fits-all approach of many agri-environmental programmes is not an efficient way of spending the limited funds available for biodiversity conservation on farmland. Therefore, we conclude that AEM should be adapted to landscape structure and the species groups at which they are targeted.


2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 398-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriele Midolo ◽  
Rob Alkemade ◽  
Aafke M. Schipper ◽  
Ana Benítez‐López ◽  
Michael P. Perring ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caspar Donnison ◽  
Robert Holland ◽  
Zoe Harris ◽  
Felix Eigenbrod ◽  
Gail Taylor

&lt;p&gt;Whilst dedicated bioenergy crops with non-food uses are currently sparsely deployed across the world, most future energy pathways necessitate a sizeable scale-up of 100-500 million ha of land converted to these crops to provide both energy substitutes for fossil fuels and negative emissions through bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). In the face of expected bioenergy expansion, understanding the environmental and societal impact of this land-use change is important in determining where and how bioenergy crops should be deployed, and the trade-offs and co-benefits to the environment and society. Here we review the existing literature on two difficult to measure impacts which could prove critical to the future wide-scale acceptability of global bioenergy cropping in the temperate environment: biodiversity and amenity value. We focus on agricultural landscapes, since this is where large-scale bioenergy planting may be required. A meta-analysis of 42 studies on the biodiversity impacts of land-use change from either arable and grassland to bioenergy crops found strong benefits for bird abundance (+ 109 % &amp;#177; 24 %), bird species richness (+ 100 % &amp;#177; 31 %), arthropod abundance (+ 299 % &amp;#177; 76 %), microbial biomass (+ 77 % &amp;#177; 24 %), and plant species richness (+ 25 % &amp;#177; 22 %) and a non-significant upward trend in earthworm abundance. Land-use change from arable land led to particularly strong benefits, providing an insight into how future land-use change to bioenergy crops could support biodiversity. Evidence concerning the impact of bioenergy crops on landscape amenity value highlighted the importance of landscape context, planting strategies, and landowner motivations in determining amenity values, with few generalizable conclusions. In this first meta-analysis to quanitfy the impacts of land-use change to bioenergy on on biodiversity and amenity, &amp;#160;we have demonsrated &amp;#160;improved farm-scale biodiversity on agricultural land but also demonstrated the lack of knowledge concerning public response to bioenergy crops which could prove crucial to the political feasibility of bioenergy policies such as BECCS.&lt;/p&gt;


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caspar Donnison ◽  
Robert A Holland ◽  
Zoe M Harris ◽  
Felix Eigenbrod ◽  
Gail Taylor

Most decarbonization scenarios of energy systems necessitate more than 500 Mha of land converted to non-food bioenergy crops to provide both energy substitutes for fossil fuels and negative emissions through bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS). Understanding the environmental and societal impact of this significant land-use change (LUC) is important in determining where and how bioenergy crops should be deployed, and the trade-offs and co-benefits to the environment and society. Here, we use two systematic reviews and a meta-analysis to assess the existing literature on impacts that are likely to have an important effect on public perceptions of the acceptability of such land use change: biodiversity and amenity value. We focus on the impact of LUC to non-food bioenergy crops on agricultural landscapes, where large-scale bioenergy planting may be required. Our meta-analysis finds strong benefits for biodiversity overall (up 75 % ± 13 %), with particular benefits for bird abundance (+ 81 % ± 32 %), bird species richness (+ 100 % ± 31 %), arthropod abundance (+ 52 % ± 36 %), microbial biomass (+ 77 % ± 24 %), and plant species richness (+ 25 % ± 22 %), when land moves out of either arable crops or grassland to bioenergy production. Conversions from arable land to energy trees led to particularly strong benefits, providing an insight into how future LUC to bioenergy crops could support biodiversity. There were inadequate data to complete a meta-analysis on the effects of bioenergy crops on landscape amenity value, and few generalizable conclusions from systematic review of the literature, however, findings highlight the importance of landscape context and planting strategies in determining amenity values. Our findings demonstrate improved farm-scale biodiversity on agricultural land with bioenergy crops, but also limited knowledge concerning public response to this land use change which could prove crucial to the effective deployment of bioenergy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document