Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2011 Jun 22;278(1713):1894-902.
doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1923. Epub 2010 Nov 24.

Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of agri-environmental management: a meta-analysis

Péter Batáry  1 , András Báldi, David Kleijn, Teja Tscharntke
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of agri-environmental management: a meta-analysis

Péter Batáry et al. Proc Biol Sci. .

Abstract

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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Hypothesized relationship between biodiversity (species richness) and local management in dependence of the structural composition of agricultural landscapes. AEM is contrasted against conventional management. Landscape type is classified as simple (0–20% cover of semi-natural habitat) and complex (>20% semi-natural habitat; see [34,35]). The large black arrows indicate benefits of biodiversity, when changing from conventional management to AEM. Open boxes, grassland with AEM; filled boxes, grassland without AEM; open circles, cropland with AEM; filled circles, cropland without AEM.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
The effects of AEM on (a) species richness and (b) abundance depending on landscape type (simple versus complex) and agricultural system (croplands versus grasslands). Indicated is mean effect size ± 95% CI. The mean effect size is significantly different from zero, if the CIs do not overlap with zero [42]. Numbers indicate sample sizes. Open circles, simple; filled circles, complex.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
The effects of AEM in croplands on (a) species richness and (b) abundance of all arthropods (AR) and pollinators (PO) depending on landscape type (simple versus complex). The mean and 95% CI is shown for each analysis. Numbers indicate sample sizes. Open circles, simple; filled circles, complex.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
The effects of AEM in grasslands on (a) species richness and (b) abundance of all arthropods (AR), pollinators (PO), herbivores (HE), plants (PL) and birds (BI) depending on landscape type (simple versus complex). The mean and 95% CI is shown for each analysis. Numbers indicate sample sizes. Open circles, simple; filled circles, complex.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Margules C. R., Pressey R. L. 2000. Systematic conservation planning. Nature 405, 243–25310.1038/35012251 (doi:10.1038/35012251) - DOI - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tallis H., Goldmann R., Uhl M., Brosi B. 2009. Integrating conservation and development in the field: implementing ecosystem service projects. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7, 12–2010.1890/080012 (doi:10.1890/080012) - DOI - DOI
    1. Klein A.-M., Vaissière B. E., Cane J. H., Steffan-Dewenter I., Cunningham S. A., Kremen C., Tscharntke T. 2007. Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for world crops. Proc. R. Soc. B 274, 303–31310.1098/rspb.2006.3721 (doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3721) - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tscharntke T., Bommarco R., Clough Y., Crist T. O., Kleijn D., Rand T. A., Tylianakis J. M., Van Nouhuys S., Vidal S. 2007. Conservation biological control and enemy diversity on a landscape scale. Biol. Cont. 43, 294–30910.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.08.006 (doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.08.006) - DOI - DOI
    1. Yachi S., Loreau M. 1999. Biodiversity and ecosystem productivity in a fluctuating environment: the insurance hypothesis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 1463–146810.1073/pnas.96.4.1463 (doi:10.1073/pnas.96.4.1463) - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources