Levi Van Sant, Amy E. M. Johnson, Daniel J. Read, Grant M. Connette, Erin T. Shibley
{"title":"保护地役权对弗吉尼亚州谢南多厄和皮埃蒙特地区鸟类多样性的影响","authors":"Levi Van Sant, Amy E. M. Johnson, Daniel J. Read, Grant M. Connette, Erin T. Shibley","doi":"10.1111/csp2.70019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Conservation easements—voluntary legal agreements in which a landowner forfeits some development rights in exchange for tax incentives—have become a central part of efforts to limit development in the US. Given the importance of biodiversity conservation on private lands and the rapid growth in conservation easements, they are often celebrated as a win-win scenario. However, there are also increasing questions about the ecological benefits of conservation easements. The kinds of studies necessary to better understand this issue are challenging for several reasons, and there is a special need for more field studies. We draw on a unique cooperative study of bird biodiversity on private lands conducted by Virginia Working Landscapes, a program of the Smithsonian Institution. We compared bird species abundance on private farmland protected by a conservation easement to private farmland not protected by a conservation easement. We estimated a probability of 0.90 that there was a weak positive effect of conservation easements on bird species abundance at the full community level but found no effect on a smaller subset of grassland-obligate birds. However, this relationship varied highly across bird species, with some individual species showing positive or negative associations with easements. We argue that (a) these results support recent calls to promote or mandate specific conservation practices on eased properties; (b) the limitations of publicly available data present significant challenges to assessing the ecological impacts of conservation easements; and (c) given these limitations, researchers should exercise caution when making generalized claims about the effects of conservation easements on biodiversity.</p>","PeriodicalId":51337,"journal":{"name":"Conservation Science and Practice","volume":"7 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.70019","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effects of conservation easements on bird biodiversity in the Shenandoah and Piedmont regions of Virginia\",\"authors\":\"Levi Van Sant, Amy E. M. Johnson, Daniel J. Read, Grant M. Connette, Erin T. Shibley\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/csp2.70019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Conservation easements—voluntary legal agreements in which a landowner forfeits some development rights in exchange for tax incentives—have become a central part of efforts to limit development in the US. Given the importance of biodiversity conservation on private lands and the rapid growth in conservation easements, they are often celebrated as a win-win scenario. However, there are also increasing questions about the ecological benefits of conservation easements. The kinds of studies necessary to better understand this issue are challenging for several reasons, and there is a special need for more field studies. We draw on a unique cooperative study of bird biodiversity on private lands conducted by Virginia Working Landscapes, a program of the Smithsonian Institution. We compared bird species abundance on private farmland protected by a conservation easement to private farmland not protected by a conservation easement. We estimated a probability of 0.90 that there was a weak positive effect of conservation easements on bird species abundance at the full community level but found no effect on a smaller subset of grassland-obligate birds. However, this relationship varied highly across bird species, with some individual species showing positive or negative associations with easements. We argue that (a) these results support recent calls to promote or mandate specific conservation practices on eased properties; (b) the limitations of publicly available data present significant challenges to assessing the ecological impacts of conservation easements; and (c) given these limitations, researchers should exercise caution when making generalized claims about the effects of conservation easements on biodiversity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Conservation Science and Practice\",\"volume\":\"7 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/csp2.70019\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Conservation Science and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.70019\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conservation Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/csp2.70019","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
保护地役权——一种自愿签订的法律协议,土地所有者放弃部分开发权以换取税收优惠——已成为美国限制开发努力的核心部分。鉴于在私人土地上保护生物多样性的重要性和保护地役权的迅速增长,它们通常被视为一个双赢的方案。然而,保护地役权的生态效益也受到越来越多的质疑。为了更好地理解这一问题所需要的各种研究是具有挑战性的,原因有几个,特别需要更多的实地研究。我们借鉴了史密森学会(Smithsonian Institution)下属的弗吉尼亚工作景观(Virginia Working Landscapes)项目对私人土地上鸟类生物多样性进行的独特合作研究。我们比较了受保护地役权保护的私人农田和未受保护地役权保护的私人农田的鸟类物种丰度。我们估计,在0.90的概率下,保护地役权对整个群落的鸟类物种丰度有微弱的积极影响,但对较小的草原专性鸟类没有影响。然而,这种关系在鸟类物种之间差异很大,一些个体物种与地应力表现出正相关或负相关。我们认为:(a)这些结果支持最近呼吁促进或强制执行对放松财产的具体保护措施;(b)公开资料有限,对评估保育地役权的生态影响构成重大挑战;(c)考虑到这些限制,研究人员在对保护地役权对生物多样性的影响做出笼统的断言时应该谨慎行事。
The effects of conservation easements on bird biodiversity in the Shenandoah and Piedmont regions of Virginia
Conservation easements—voluntary legal agreements in which a landowner forfeits some development rights in exchange for tax incentives—have become a central part of efforts to limit development in the US. Given the importance of biodiversity conservation on private lands and the rapid growth in conservation easements, they are often celebrated as a win-win scenario. However, there are also increasing questions about the ecological benefits of conservation easements. The kinds of studies necessary to better understand this issue are challenging for several reasons, and there is a special need for more field studies. We draw on a unique cooperative study of bird biodiversity on private lands conducted by Virginia Working Landscapes, a program of the Smithsonian Institution. We compared bird species abundance on private farmland protected by a conservation easement to private farmland not protected by a conservation easement. We estimated a probability of 0.90 that there was a weak positive effect of conservation easements on bird species abundance at the full community level but found no effect on a smaller subset of grassland-obligate birds. However, this relationship varied highly across bird species, with some individual species showing positive or negative associations with easements. We argue that (a) these results support recent calls to promote or mandate specific conservation practices on eased properties; (b) the limitations of publicly available data present significant challenges to assessing the ecological impacts of conservation easements; and (c) given these limitations, researchers should exercise caution when making generalized claims about the effects of conservation easements on biodiversity.