Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss - a meta-analysis

In Europe, agri‐environmental schemes (AES) have been introduced in response to concerns about farmland biodiversity declines. Yet, as AES have delivered variable results, a better understanding of what determines their success or failure is urgently needed. Focusing on pollinating insects, we quant...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Ecology letters 2013-07, Vol.16 (7), p.912-920
Main Authors: Scheper, Jeroen, Holzschuh, Andrea, Kuussaari, Mikko, Potts, Simon G., Rundlöf, Maj, Smith, Henrik G., Kleijn, David
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agri-environmental schemes
agricultural landscapes
Agriculture
Animal and plant ecology
Animal, plant and microbial ecology
Animals
bees
Biologi
Biological and medical sciences
Biological Sciences
communities
conservation
Conservation of Natural Resources
countries
Earth and Related Environmental Sciences
ecological contrast
Ecology
Ecosystem
ecosystem services
Effectiveness
Ekologi
Environment
Europe
farmland biodiversity
Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology
General aspects
Geovetenskap och miljövetenskap
Insecta - physiology
intensity
land-use intensity
landscape context
management
Meta-analysis
Natural Sciences
Naturvetenskap
Pollination
pollinators
schemes
species richness
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In Europe, agri‐environmental schemes (AES) have been introduced in response to concerns about farmland biodiversity declines. Yet, as AES have delivered variable results, a better understanding of what determines their success or failure is urgently needed. Focusing on pollinating insects, we quantitatively reviewed how environmental factors affect the effectiveness of AES. Our results suggest that the ecological contrast in floral resources created by schemes drives the response of pollinators to AES but that this response is moderated by landscape context and farmland type, with more positive responses in croplands (vs. grasslands) located in simple (vs. cleared or complex) landscapes. These findings inform us how to promote pollinators and associated pollination services in species‐poor landscapes. They do not, however, present viable strategies to mitigate loss of threatened or endangered species. This indicates that the objectives and design of AES should distinguish more clearly between biodiversity conservation and delivery of ecosystem services.
ISSN:1461-023X
1461-0248
DOI:10.1111/ele.12128