The role of natural regeneration to ecosystem services provision and habitat availability: a case study in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest

Natural regeneration provides multiple benefits to nature and human societies, and can play a major role in global and national restoration targets. However, these benefits are context specific and impacted by both biophysical and socioeconomic heterogeneity across landscapes. Here, we investigate the benefits of natural regeneration for climate change mitigation, sediment retention and biodiversity conservation in a spatially explicit way at very high resolution for a region within the global biodiversity hotspot of the Atlantic Forest. We classified current land‐use cover in the region and simulated a natural regeneration scenario in abandoned pasturelands, areas where potential conflicts with agricultural production would be minimized and where some early stage regeneration is already occurring. We then modeled changes in biophysical functions for climate change mitigation and sediment retention, and performed an economic valuation of both ecosystem services. We also modeled how land‐use changes affect habitat availability for species. We found that natural regeneration can provide significant ecological and social benefits. Economic values of climate change mitigation and sediment retention alone could completely compensate for the opportunity costs of agricultural production over 20 yr. Habitat availability is improved for three species with different dispersal abilities, although by different magnitudes. Improving the understanding of how costs and benefits of natural regeneration are distributed can be useful to design incentive structures that bring farmers’ decision making more in line with societal benefits. This alignment is crucial for natural regeneration to fulfill its potential as a large‐scale solution for pressing local and global environmental challenges.     

Insect declines and agroecosystems: does light pollution matter?

Drastic declines in insect populations, ‘Ecological Armageddon’, have recently gained increased attention in the scientific community, and are commonly considered to be the consequence of large‐scale factors such as land‐use changes, use of pesticides, climate change and habitat fragmentation. Artificial light at night (ALAN), a pervasive global change that strongly impacts insects, remains, however, infrequently recognised as a potential contributor to the observed declines. Here, we provide a summary of recent evidence of impacts of ALAN on insects and discuss how these impacts can drive declines in insect populations in light‐polluted areas. ALAN can increase overall environmental pressure on insect populations, and this is particularly important in agroecosystems where insect communities provide important ecosystem services (such as natural pest control, pollination, conservation of soil structure and fertility and nutrient cycling), and are already under considerable environmental pressure. We discuss how changes in insect populations driven by ALAN and ALAN itself may hinder these services to influence crop production and biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Understanding the contribution of ALAN and other factors to the decline of insects is an important step towards mitigation and the recovery of the insect fauna in our landscapes. In future studies, the role of increased nocturnal illumination also needs to be examined as a possible causal factor of insect declines in the ongoing ‘Ecological Armageddon’, along with the more commonly examined factors. Given the large scale of agricultural land use and the potential of ALAN to indirectly and directly impact crop production and biodiversity, a better understanding of effects of ALAN in agroecosystems is urgently needed.     

Rapid redistribution of agricultural land alters avian richness,abundance, and functional diversity

The conversion of natural, or seminatural, habitats to agricultural land and changes in agricultural land use are significant drivers of biodiversity loss. Within the context of land‐sharing versus land‐sparing debates, large‐scale commercial agriculture is known to be detrimental to biodiversity, but the effects of small‐scale subsistence farming on biodiversity are disputed. This poses a problem for sustainable land‐use management in the Global South, where approximately 30% of farmland is small‐scale. Following a rapid land redistribution program in Zimbabwe, we evaluated changes in avian biodiversity by examining richness, abundance, and functional diversity. Rapid land redistribution has, in the near term, resulted in increased avian abundance in newly farmed areas containing miombo woodland and open habitat. Conversion of seminatural ranched land to small‐scale farms had a negative impact on larger‐bodied birds, but species richness increased, and birds in some feeding guilds maintained or increased abundance. We found evidence that land‐use change caused a shift in the functional traits of the communities present. However, functional analyses may not have adequately reflected the trait filtering effect of land redistribution on large species. Whether newly farmed landscapes in Zimbabwe can deliver multiple benefits in terms of food production and habitat for biodiversity in the longer term is an open question. When managing agricultural land transitions, relying on taxonomic measures of diversity, or abundance‐weighted measures of function diversity, may obscure important information. If the value of smallholder‐farmed land for birds is to be maintained or improved, it will be essential to ensure that a wide array of habitat types is retained alongside efforts to reduce hunting and persecution of large bird species.     

Restoration of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on Agricultural Land

Cultivation and cropping are major causes of destruction and degradation of natural ecosystems throughout the world. We face the challenge of maintaining provisioning services while conserving or enhancing other ecosystem services and biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. There is a range of possibilities within two types of intervention, namely “land sharing” and “land separation”; the former advocates the enhancement of the farmed environment, but the latter a separation between land designated for farming versus conservation. Land sharing may involve biodiversity-based agricultural practices, learning from traditional farming, changing from conventional to organic agriculture and from “simple” crops and pastures to agro-forestry systems, and restoring or creating specific elements to benefit wildlife and particular services without decreasing agricultural production. Land separation in the farmland context involves restoring or creating non-farmland habitat at the expense of field-level agricultural production—for example, woodland on arable land. Restoration by land sharing has the potential to enhance agricultural production, other ecosystem services and biodiversity at both the field and landscape scale; however, restoration by land separation would provide these benefits only at the landscape scale. Although recent debate has contrasted these approaches, we suggest they should be used in combination to maximize benefits. Furthermore, we suggest “woodland islets”, an intermediate approach between land abandonment and farmland afforestation, for ecological restoration in extensive agricultural landscapes. This approach allows reconciliation of farmland production, conservation of values linked to cultural landscapes, enhancement of biodiversity, and provision of a range of ecosystem services. Beyond academic research, restoration projects within agricultural landscapes are essential if we want to halt environmental degradation and biodiversity loss.     

Assessing the impacts of agricultural intensification on biodiversity: a British perspective

Agricultural intensification is best considered as the level of human appropriation of terrestrial net primary production. The global value is set to increase from 30%, increasing pressures on biodiversity. The pressures can be classified in terms of spatial scale, i.e. land cover, landscape management and crop management. Different lowland agricultural landscapes in Great Britain show differences among these pressures when habitat diversity and nutrient surplus are used as indicators. Eutrophication of plants was correlated to N surplus, and species richness of plants correlated with broad habitat diversity. Bird species diversity only correlated with habitat diversity when the diversity of different agricultural habitats was taken into account. The pressures of agricultural change may be reduced by minimizing loss of large habitats, minimizing permanent loss of agricultural land, maintaining habitat diversity in agricultural landscapes in order to provide ecosystem services, and minimizing pollution from nutrients and pesticides from the crops themselves. While these pressures could potentially be quantified using an internationally consistent set of indicators, their impacts would need to be assessed using a much larger number of locally applicable biodiversity indicators.     

Winners and losers of national and global efforts to reconcile agricultural intensification and biodiversity conservation

Closing yield gaps within existing croplands, and thereby avoiding further habitat conversions, is a prominently and controversially discussed strategy to meet the rising demand for agricultural products, while minimizing biodiversity impacts. The agricultural intensification associated with such a strategy poses additional threats to biodiversity within agricultural landscapes. The uneven spatial distribution of both yield gaps and biodiversity provides opportunities for reconciling agricultural intensification and biodiversity conservation through spatially optimized intensification. Here, we integrate distribution and habitat information for almost 20,000 vertebrate species with land‐cover and land‐use datasets. We estimate that projected agricultural intensification between 2000 and 2040 would reduce the global biodiversity value of agricultural lands by 11%, relative to 2000. Contrasting these projections with spatial land‐use optimization scenarios reveals that 88% of projected biodiversity loss could be avoided through globally coordinated land‐use planning, implying huge efficiency gains through international cooperation. However, global‐scale optimization also implies a highly uneven distribution of costs and benefits, resulting in distinct “winners and losers” in terms of national economic development, food security, food sovereignty or conservation. Given conflicting national interests and lacking effective governance mechanisms to guarantee equitable compensation of losers, multinational land‐use optimization seems politically unlikely. In turn, 61% of projected biodiversity loss could be avoided through nationally focused optimization, and 33% through optimization within just 10 countries. Targeted efforts to improve the capacity for integrated land‐use planning for sustainable intensification especially in these countries, including the strengthening of institutions that can arbitrate subnational land‐use conflicts, may offer an effective, yet politically feasible, avenue to better reconcile future trade‐offs between agriculture and conservation. The efficiency gains of optimization remained robust when assuming that yields could only be increased to 80% of their potential. Our results highlight the need to better integrate real‐world governance, political and economic challenges into sustainable development and global change mitigation research.     

Integrating biodiversity and conservation with modern agricultural landscapes

To achieve food security and meet the demands of the ever-growing human populations, farming systems have assumed unsustainable practices to produce more from a finite land area. This has been cause for concern mainly due to the often-irreversible damage done to the otherwise productive agricultural landscapes. Agro-ecology is proclaimed to be deteriorating due to eroding integrity of connected ecological mosaics and vulnerability to climate change. This has contributed to declining species diversity, loss of buffer vegetation, fragmentation of habitats, and loss of natural pollinators or predators, which eventually leads to decline in ecosystem services. Currently, a hierarchy of conservation initiatives is being considered to restore ecological integrity of agricultural landscapes. However, the challenge of identifying a suitable conservation strategy is a daunting task in view of socio-ecological factors that may constrain the choice of available strategies. One way to mitigate this situation and integrate biodiversity with agricultural landscapes is to implement offset mechanisms, which are compensatory and balancing approaches to restore the ecological health and function of an ecosystem. This needs to be tailored to the history of location specific agricultural practices, and the social, ecological and environmental conditions. The offset mechanisms can complement other initiatives through which farmers are insured against landscape-level risks such as droughts, fire and floods. For countries in the developing world with significant biodiversity and extensive agriculture, we should promote a comprehensive model of sustainable agricultural landscapes and ecosystem services, replicable at landscape to regional scales. Arguably, the model can be a potential option to sustain the integrity of biodiversity mosaic in agricultural landscapes.     

Landscape attributes shape dung beetle diversity at multiple spatial scales in agricultural drylands

Land-use change is one of the main drivers of biodiversity loss worldwide, but its negative effects can vary depending on the spatial scale analyzed. Considering the continuous expansion of agricultural demand for land, it is urgent to identify the drivers that shape biological communities in order to balance agricultural production and biodiversity conservation in human-modified landscapes. We used a patch-landscape design and a multimodel inference approach to assess the effects of landscape composition and configuration at two spatial scales (patch and landscape) on the structure of dung beetle assemblages. We performed our study in the Caatinga, the largest dry forest in South America. We sampled 3,526 dung beetles belonging to 19 species and 11 genera. At patch scale, our findings highlight the positive relationship of forest cover and landscape heterogeneity with dung beetle diversity, which are the major drivers of beetle assemblages. Edge density, in turn, is a major driver at the landscape scale and has a negative effect on beetle diversity. Our results support the hypothesis that landscapes combining natural vegetation remnants and heterogeneous agricultural landscapes are the most effective at conserving the biodiversity of dung beetles in the Caatinga landscapes. Directing efforts to better understand the dynamics of dung beetles in agricultural lands can be helpful for policymakers and scientists to design agri-environment schemes and apply conservation strategies in tropical dry forests.     

The end of hunger: fertilizers,microbes and plant productivity

It is a grand challenge to ensure the food security for a predicted world population of exceeding 9.7 billion by 2050, especially in an era of global climate change, land degradation and biodiversity loss. Current agricultural productions are mainly relying on synthetic chemical fertilisers to boost plant productivity but have undesirable effects on the environment and soil biodiversity. A promising direction in sustainable agriculture is to harness naturally occurring processes of beneficial plant-associated microbiomes to ensure sustained crop production and global food security. Despite the significant progress made in the development of beneficial microbes as inoculants to enhance plant performance, challenges remain with the translation of knowledge of plant and soil microbiomes to successful microbial products in the agricultural sector. Here, we highlight how fertilizer technology should be renovated by harnessing microbiome-based innovations to promote plant productivity and contribute to the end of hunger.     

Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of 'ecoagriculture' landscapes

The dominant late twentieth century model of land use segregated agricultural production from areas managed for biodiversity conservation. This module is no longer adequate in much of the world. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment confirmed that agriculture has dramatically increased its ecological footprint. Rural communities depend on key components of biodiversity and ecosystem services that are found in non-domestic habitats. Fortunately, agricultural landscapes can be designed and managed to host wild biodiversity of many types, with neutral or even positive effects on agricultural production and livelihoods. Innovative practitioners, scientists and indigenous land managers are adapting, designing and managing diverse types of 'ecoagriculture' landscapes to generate positive co-benefits for production, biodiversity and local people. We assess the potentials and limitations for successful conservation of biodiversity in productive agricultural landscapes, the feasibility of making such approaches financially viable, and the organizational, governance and policy frameworks needed to enable ecoagriculture planning and implementation at a globally significant scale. We conclude that effectively conserving wild biodiversity in agricultural landscapes will require increased research, policy coordination and strategic support to agricultural communities and conservationists.     

Towards sustainable land use: identifying and managing the conflicts between human activities and biodiversity conservation in Europe

Conflicts between biodiversity conservation and human activities are becoming increasingly apparent in all European landscapes. The intensification of agricultural and silvicultural practices, land abandonment and other land uses such as recreation and hunting are all potential threats to biodiversity that can lead to conflicts between stakeholder livelihoods and biodiversity conservation. To address the global decline in biodiversity there is, therefore, a need to identify the drivers responsible for conflicts between human activities and the conservation of European biodiversity and to promote the management of these conflicts. Here, the drivers of biodiversity conflicts are analysed in a European context for five habitat types: agricultural landscapes, forests, grasslands, uplands and freshwater habitats. A multi- disciplinary approach to conflict management is described, with active stakeholder involvement at every stage of conflict identification and management as well as a range of other approaches including stakeholder dialogue and education, consumer education, improvement of political and legislative frameworks, financial incentives, and planning infrastructure.     

Retaining biodiversity in intensive farmland: epiphyte removal in oil palm plantations does not affect yield

The expansion of agriculture into tropical forest frontiers is one of the primary drivers of the global extinction crisis, resulting in calls to intensify tropical agriculture to reduce demand for more forest land and thus spare land for nature. Intensification is likely to reduce habitat complexity, with profound consequences for biodiversity within agricultural landscapes. Understanding which features of habitat complexity are essential for maintaining biodiversity and associated ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes without compromising productivity is therefore key to limiting the environmental damage associated with producing food intensively. Here, we focus on oil palm, a rapidly expanding crop in the tropics and subject to frequent calls for increased intensification. One promoted strategy is to remove epiphytes that cover the trunks of oil palms, and we ask whether this treatment affects either biodiversity or yield. We experimentally tested this by removing epiphytes from four‐hectare plots and seeing if the biodiversity and production of fruit bunches 2 months and 16 months later differed from equivalent control plots where epiphytes were left uncut. We found a species‐rich and taxonomically diverse epiphyte community of 58 species from 31 families. Epiphyte removal did not affect the production of fresh fruit bunches, or the species richness and community composition of birds and ants, although the impact on other components of biodiversity remains unknown. We conclude that as they do not adversely affect palm oil production, the diverse epiphyte flora should be left uncut. Our results underscore the importance of experimentally determining the effects of habitat complexity on yield before introducing intensive methods with no discernible benefits.     

Promoting biological control in a rapidly changing world

Sustainable agriculture must provide for growing human demands for crops while minimizing impacts on ecosystems. This is a daunting challenge as agroecosystems have trended towards monocultures with intensive synthetic inputs. Moreover, agricultural landscapes often lack natural habitats that are necessary to support biodiversity. Furthermore, problems associated with agricultural intensification and land-use change may be exacerbated by climate change, which increases the frequency of disturbances, modifies the suitability of habitats, and changes the way species interact. To meet this challenge, farmers must increasingly rely on integrated pest management strategies, including biological control. Biological control of arthropods, weeds, and diseases can promote the stability and diversity of agricultural communities and aid in reducing synthetic inputs. Promoting biological control may thus help farming systems adapt to a rapidly changing world. This special issue considers how multiple global change drivers such as agricultural intensification, land-use change, and climate change affect biological control. Here, we discuss these papers and highlight concepts that remain relatively unexplored in the context of global change and biological control. Future research addressing these issues will promote biological control and enhance agricultural sustainability in a rapidly changing world.     

Addressing challenges for large-scale trophic rewilding

The climate and biodiversity crises are inextricably linked and curbing both requires large-scale ecosystem restoration to be put into practice. In this context, trophic rewilding, which focusses on the restoration of megafauna and their ecological roles, remains a particularly major challenge. Many landscapes across the globe currently have low densities of megafauna or have lost these species altogether. Although some megafauna species have recovered in some places, through both passive and active rewilding, they are often confined to small areas. There is an increasing recognition that protected areas alone may not suffice to retain and recover high trophic complexity over large spatial extents in most of the world. This raises a clear need to scale up rewilding initiatives. Here, we discuss major challenges and potential solutions for such a scaling up of trophic rewilding, including land availability, supportive policies, the supply of animals for translocations and reintroductions, and funding. We illustrate these challenges and opportunities for two cases, the steppes of Kazakhstan and the Mediterranean rangelands. We highlight that ongoing structural change and agricultural abandonment offers opportunities for trophic rewilding in different world regions. Making use of these opportunities would require mainstreaming land-use planning that supports rewilding regardless of the current protection status of landscapes, and a reorientation of subsidies for agricultural activities in marginal lands to supporting restoration efforts. The supply of animals for reintroduction and population reinforcement projects represents another key challenge. This could be supported through a transition from farming to wildlife ranching, combined with ambitious breeding programs for keystone megafauna. Upscaling restoration efforts has recently been agreed upon as a global conservation target, and we here highlight the challenges and opportunities for restoring megafauna and their key role in ecosystems.     

Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated region

The hope among policy-makers and scientists alike is that conservation strategies designed to protect biodiversity also provide direct benefits to people by protecting other vital ecosystem services. The few studies that have examined the delivery of ecosystem services by existing conservation efforts have concentrated on large, ‘wilderness’-style biodiversity reserves. However, such reserves are not realistic options for densely populated regions. Here, we provide the first analyses that compare representation of biodiversity and three other ecosystem services across several contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated landscape (England). We show that small protected areas and protected landscapes (restrictive zoning) deliver high carbon storage and biodiversity, while existing incentive payment (agri-environment) schemes target areas that offer little advantage over other parts of England in terms of biodiversity, carbon storage and agricultural production. A fourth ecosystem service—recreation—is under-represented by all three strategies. Our findings are encouraging as they illustrate that restrictive zoning can play a major role in protecting natural capital assets in densely populated regions. However, trade-offs exist even among the four ecosystem services we considered, suggesting that a portfolio of conservation and sustainability investments will be needed to deliver both biodiversity and the other ecosystem services demanded by society.     

Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes

Biodiversity in agricultural landscapes can be increased with conversion of some production lands into 'more-natural'- unmanaged or extensively managed - lands. However, it remains unknown to what extent biodiversity can be enhanced by altering landscape pattern without reducing agricultural production. We propose a framework for this problem, considering separately compositional heterogeneity (the number and proportions of different cover types) and configurational heterogeneity (the spatial arrangement of cover types). Cover type classification and mapping is based on species requirements, such as feeding and nesting, resulting in measures of 'functional landscape heterogeneity'. We then identify three important questions: does biodiversity increase with (1) increasing heterogeneity of the more-natural areas, (2) increasing compositional heterogeneity of production cover types and (3) increasing configurational heterogeneity of production cover types? We discuss approaches for addressing these questions. Such studies should have high priority because biodiversity protection globally depends increasingly on maintaining biodiversity in human-dominated landscapes.     

The impact of biomass crop cultivation on temperate biodiversity

The urgency for mitigation actions in response to climate change has stimulated policy makers to encourage the rapid expansion of bioenergy, resulting in major land‐use changes over short timescales. Despite the potential impacts on biodiversity and the environment, scientific concerns about large‐scale bioenergy production have only recently been given adequate attention. Environmental standards or legislative provisions in the majority of countries are still lagging behind the rapid development of energy crops. Ranging from the field to the regional scale, this review (i) summarizes the current knowledge about the impact of biomass crops on biodiversity in temperate regions, (ii) identifies knowledge gaps and (iii) drafts guidelines for a sustainable biomass crop production with respect to biodiversity conservation. The majority of studies report positive effects on biodiversity at the field scale but impacts strongly depend on the management, age, size and heterogeneity of the biomass plantations. At the regional scale, significant uncertainties exist and there is a major concern that extensive commercial production could have negative effects on biodiversity, in particular in areas of high nature‐conservation value. However, integration of biomass crops into agricultural landscapes could stimulate rural economy, thus counteracting negative impacts of farm abandonment or supporting restoration of degraded land, resulting in improved biodiversity values. Given the extent of landconversion necessary to reach the bioenergy targets, the spatial layout and distribution of biomass plantations will determine impacts. To ensure sustainable biomass crop production, biodiversity would therefore have to become an essential part of risk assessment measures in all those countries which have not yet committed to making it an obligatory part of strategic landscape planning. Integrated environmental and economic research is necessary to formulate standards that help support long‐term economic and ecological sustainability of biomass production and avoid costly mistakes in our attempts to mitigate climate change.     

Mediterranean island biodiversity and climate change: the last 10,000 years and the future

Mediterranean islands (MI) are hotspots of global biodiversity and lie in one of the most susceptible to climate change (CC) areas of the world; a big challenge for any conservation strategy. In fact, there is already increasing evidence for CC in the region and associated biological responses in MI ecosystems. These include phenological changes and upward elevation shifts of species and plant communities; although evidence is frequently contrasting for different taxa. Threats are also evident, mainly for endemic species from most taxonomic groups, while communities in mountain and coastal regions are likely to be affected most. For MI conservation under CC additional factors need to be considered: (i) their position at the crossroads of three continents; with which they share common environmental characteristics, (ii) their great variability in sizes and topography and (iii) their climatic differences; with a clear west-east basin divide. CC synergies with changing tourist aspiration and agricultural practices will, in the medium term, modify island landscapes and provide further challenges for biodiversity conservation. Such a combined impact from CC, land-use change, fragmentation of habitats and tourism is difficult to predict. Furthermore, the limited space on islands (especially habitat availability and climatic range limitations) imposes a barrier to species range expansion. Thus, conservation of MI biodiversity under CC requires: (i) future research to focus on improved climate predictions linked to improved understanding of ecological (climate-biotic) responses, incorporating lessons learnt from (island) biogeography, (ii) specific adaptation measures for spatial planning and improvement in regional institutional capacities.     

氮肥用量和秸秆根茬碳投入对黄淮海平原典型农田土壤有机质积累的影响

土壤有机质与粮食安全和气候变化等重大问题密切相关,也是目前国内外研究热点。通过分析黄淮海平原10个小麦玉米长期定位试验资料,在不同施氮量下建立土壤有机质积累与碳投入的数学模型,探讨了土壤有机质积累与碳氮投入的关系。结果表明:土壤有机质积累与碳投入的关系受氮肥用量的影响显著,无论低量施氮(长期定位试验中的常规施肥量,化肥氮量≤330kg/(hm.2a))还是高量施氮(长期定位试验中的高量施肥量,化肥氮量330kg/(hm.2a)),秸秆根茬碳还田量与土壤有机质变化量之间均呈极显著正相关关系(P0.01);利用土壤有机质积累与碳投入的数学模型计算的维持土壤有机质平衡的碳投入量(MSC),高量施氮时为7254kg/(hm.2a),低量施氮为1297kg/(hm.2a),前者是后者的5.6倍。因此,大量施用氮肥降低了投入碳的积累,不利于土壤有机质的提升。     

Forest bees are replaced in agricultural and urban landscapes by native species with different phenologies and life‐history traits

Anthropogenic landscapes are associated with biodiversity loss and large shifts in species composition and traits. These changes predict the identities of winners and losers of future global change, and also reveal which environmental variables drive a taxon's response to land use change. We explored how the biodiversity of native bee species changes across forested, agricultural, and urban landscapes. We collected bee community data from 36 sites across a 75,000 km² region, and analyzed bee abundance, species richness, composition, and life‐history traits. Season‐long bee abundance and richness were not detectably different between natural and anthropogenic landscapes, but community phenologies differed strongly, with an early spring peak followed by decline in forests, and a more extended summer season in agricultural and urban habitats. Bee community composition differed significantly between all three land use types, as did phylogenetic composition. Anthropogenic land use had negative effects on the persistence of several life‐history strategies, including early spring flight season and brood parasitism, which may indicate adaptation to conditions in forest habitat. Overall, anthropogenic communities are not diminished subsets of contemporary natural communities. Rather, forest species do not persist in anthropogenic habitats, but are replaced by different native species and phylogenetic lineages preadapted to open habitats. Characterizing compositional and functional differences is crucial for understanding land use as a global change driver across large regional scales.