Accounting for the biodiversity benefits of woody plantings in agricultural landscapes: A global meta-analysis

IF 6 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Suzanne M. Prober , Adam C. Liedloff , Jacqueline R. England , Karel Mokany , Sue Ogilvy , Anna E. Richards
{"title":"Accounting for the biodiversity benefits of woody plantings in agricultural landscapes: A global meta-analysis","authors":"Suzanne M. Prober ,&nbsp;Adam C. Liedloff ,&nbsp;Jacqueline R. England ,&nbsp;Karel Mokany ,&nbsp;Sue Ogilvy ,&nbsp;Anna E. Richards","doi":"10.1016/j.agee.2024.109453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Woody plantings are widely promoted to ameliorate biodiversity loss in agricultural landscapes. New market mechanisms are rapidly emerging to expedite such efforts, but limited tools and data to account for benefits achieved hamper their implementation. Using data from 204 primary studies and 1206 paired comparisons, we present a global meta-analysis of the biodiversity benefits of woody plantings in agricultural landscapes, in a biodiversity and ecosystem accounting framework. Consistent with emerging biodiversity and ecosystem accounting methods, we express results as agricultural field:natural reference and planting:natural reference ratios to estimate the biodiversity values of agricultural fields and plantings, respectively. Mean biodiversity abundance and species richness for agricultural fields were 0.40 of those for natural reference sites, compared with 0.62 for plantings averaging 20 years old, indicating a mean biodiversity benefit of 0.22. These values varied significantly among taxonomic groups, with unexpectedly high values for agricultural fields driven by high means for invertebrates. Variation among studies was substantial, and biodiversity values for plantings increased with higher diversity and native dominance of plantings and lower management intensity. Critically, estimates of biodiversity benefits based on abundance versus richness were comparable, but estimates using compositional measures typically implied substantially lower benefits, likely owing to effects of species identity. Our study operationalises approaches for quantifying the benefit of plantings for biodiversity and ecosystem accounting, and emphasises the need to use compositional measures for realistic estimates of biodiversity benefits.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7512,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment","volume":"381 ","pages":"Article 109453"},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880924005711","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Woody plantings are widely promoted to ameliorate biodiversity loss in agricultural landscapes. New market mechanisms are rapidly emerging to expedite such efforts, but limited tools and data to account for benefits achieved hamper their implementation. Using data from 204 primary studies and 1206 paired comparisons, we present a global meta-analysis of the biodiversity benefits of woody plantings in agricultural landscapes, in a biodiversity and ecosystem accounting framework. Consistent with emerging biodiversity and ecosystem accounting methods, we express results as agricultural field:natural reference and planting:natural reference ratios to estimate the biodiversity values of agricultural fields and plantings, respectively. Mean biodiversity abundance and species richness for agricultural fields were 0.40 of those for natural reference sites, compared with 0.62 for plantings averaging 20 years old, indicating a mean biodiversity benefit of 0.22. These values varied significantly among taxonomic groups, with unexpectedly high values for agricultural fields driven by high means for invertebrates. Variation among studies was substantial, and biodiversity values for plantings increased with higher diversity and native dominance of plantings and lower management intensity. Critically, estimates of biodiversity benefits based on abundance versus richness were comparable, but estimates using compositional measures typically implied substantially lower benefits, likely owing to effects of species identity. Our study operationalises approaches for quantifying the benefit of plantings for biodiversity and ecosystem accounting, and emphasises the need to use compositional measures for realistic estimates of biodiversity benefits.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
392
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment publishes scientific articles dealing with the interface between agroecosystems and the natural environment, specifically how agriculture influences the environment and how changes in that environment impact agroecosystems. Preference is given to papers from experimental and observational research at the field, system or landscape level, from studies that enhance our understanding of processes using data-based biophysical modelling, and papers that bridge scientific disciplines and integrate knowledge. All papers should be placed in an international or wide comparative context.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信