农业生物多样性保护的景观规划途径

农业生物多样性保护不仅关系到农业可持续发展,也是物种多样性保护的重要组成部分.近年来,生物多样性保护更加强调通过景观规划途径来实现.本文在回顾国内外关于景观结构对生物多样性影响一般性结论和研究结果的基础上,从景观、地块间、地块内3个尺度分别探讨了农业生物多样性保护的景观规划途径,并建议可以通过采取如下途径有效地保护农业生物多样性：1)在景观尺度上,维持较高比例的自然、半自然生境,注意农用地和种植作物的多样化,注重树篱等廊道生境的保护和建设;2)在地块间尺度上,构建农田边缘地带;3)在地块内尺度上,合理地规划作物种植密度、作物空间分布及采取间套作、轮作等方式.此外,大尺度景观规划途径的实施还需要诸如自然保护计划、土地利用规划及生态补偿等相关政策措施的配套与支持.     

景观生态学与生物多样性保护

景观生态学的发展为生物多样性保护提供了新理论,方法和技术手段,从景观多样性与遗传多样性,物种多样性,生态系统多样性各层次生物多样性之间的相互关系及生物多样性保护的景观规划等方面评述近年来景观生态学应用于生物多样性保护的主要内容及研究进展,阐述了生物多样性动态及反馈,生物多样性保护的地理途径（ＧＡＰ分析）,景观生态安全格局,区域和大陆尺度的生态网络等一些新的概念和方法。     

景观遗传学：概念与方法

全球变化下的物种栖息地丧失和破碎化给生物多样性保护带来了新的问题和挑战,生物多样性保护必须由单纯的物种保护上升到栖息地景观的保护。景观遗传学是定量确定栖息地景观特征对种群遗传结构影响的一门交叉学科,在生物保护及自然保护区管理方面有巨大的潜力。从生物多样性保护的角度评述了景观结构与遗传多样性的关系,介绍了景观遗传学的基本概念,研究尺度和方法,并对景观遗传学当前的研究焦点及面临的挑战做了总结。     

生物多样性不同层次尺度效应及其耦合关系研究进展

生物多样性包含遗传、物种、生态系统和景观多样性4个层次,虽然各个层次的研究较多,但是各层次间相互关系的研究较少。物种多样性多采用野外样方调查法,景观多样性采用遥感、地理信息系统和野外调查,研究方法较为成熟;生态系统多样性研究因生物地理地域和尺度的不同,常采用不同的分类体系,尚无统一评估标准。物种多样性的尺度效应在α、β、γ指数上均有不同体现,景观多样性的尺度效应非常明显。生境异质性与物种α和β多样性指数密切相关,在一定尺度上,丰富的景观多样性提高了物种多样性。未来研究需要揭示不同生物多样性层次之间的耦合关系,并将研究结果应用到生态系统红色名录制定、区域生物多样性综合监测与评估等实践之中。     

农业景观生物多样性与害虫生态控制

现代农业的一个重要特征就是人类对农田生态系统的干扰强度及频率不断增加,严重影响农业景观的结构及其生物多样性.农业景观结构的变化及其生物多样性的丧失,必然引起生态系统服务功能的弱化,不利于实施以保护自然天敌为主的害虫生态控制.农业的集约化经营导致自然生境破碎化,减少了农业景观的复杂性,使得作物和非作物变成一种相对离散化的生境类型和镶嵌的景观格局;破碎化的生境不仅会减少某些物种的丰度,还会影响物种之间的相互关系及生物群落的多样性和稳定性.非作物生境类型如林地、灌木篱墙、田块边缘区、休耕地和草地等,是一种比较稳定的异质化环境.非作物生境较少受到干扰,可以为寄生性和捕食性节肢动物提供适宜的越冬或避难场所以及替代猎物、花粉和花蜜等资源,因此,非作物生境有利于自然天敌的栖息和繁衍,也有利于它们迁入邻近的作物生境中对害虫起到调节和控制作用.景观的格局-过程-尺度影响农田生物群落物种丰富度、多度、多样性以及害虫与天敌之间的相互作用.从区域农业景观系统的角度出发,运用景观生态学的理论和方法来研究作物、害虫、天敌等组分在不同斑块之间的转移过程和变化规律,揭示害虫在较大尺度和具有异质性的空间范围内的灾变机理,可为利用农业景观生物多样性来保护农田自然天敌,实施害虫的区域性生态控制提供新的研究思路和手段.     

生物文化多样性研究进展

生物文化多样性包括生物多样性、文化多样性和二者之间的复杂联系,是保持自然界和人类社会健康的基础。由于其内涵丰富、涉及学科众多、研究内容广泛,在研究时把握研究对象及相应尺度尤为重要。生物多样性和文化多样性通过自然和社会的各种因素紧密连接在一起,表现为空间上的重合、共同的进化过程以及受到共同的威胁。对生物多样性和文化多样性进行共同保护是减缓生物多样性丧失和保护传统文化的有效途径。主要从生物多样性和文化多样性的关系、传统生态知识、文化景观等三大方面对相关研究进行了梳理,并指出了主要发展趋势。我国学者在生物文化多样性研究的一些领域做出了富有特色和价值的工作,但在保持我国优势和特色领域发展的同时,还需紧跟国际热点和趋势,在机制与系统分析、生物文化多样性的环境影响、生物文化多样性的保护与管理等方面加强研究。     

农田边界生物多样性与边界属性相互关系研究

农田边界 (田埂ｆｉｅｌｄｂｏｕｎｄａｒｙ)可定义为农田(作物田块 )间过渡带 (ｅｃｏｔｏｎｅ) [4 ] 。不同类型农田边界所包含的景观要素不同。农田边界包括的景观要素有树篱、防护林、草带、墙、篱笆、沟渠、道路、作物边界带等。半自然生境的农田边界是重要的动植物栖息地和扩散廊道[6] ,而农田边界的生物多样性和物种的扩散 ,又受边界结构属性、农作系统及农作措施和区域景观结构及动态的影响[1,7] 。随着人口的增加和农业集约化的发展 ,农业景观中非生产性(半自然生境 )用地面积逐渐减少 ,在一定程度上引起生物多样性下降及影响农田…     

农业景观异质性对生物多样性与生态系统服务的影响研究进展

农业景观是人类生活所需资料的最主要来源地,农业景观及其提供的生物多样性和生态系统服务是影响人类福祉的最主要因素之一。系统梳理了景观异质性变化对生物多样性和生态系统服务影响的相关研究,总结指出:(1)农业景观格局变化会强烈的影响着区域生物多样性和生态系统服务,但总体上更关注了空间异质性,对于时间和功能异质性的研究仍需加强;(2)尺度效应、大尺度上景观背景的差异、种间差异、营养级联效应等会对景观异质性和生物多样性、生态系统服务间的关系产生显著的、综合的、交互的影响效应。未来区域农业景观中如何通过景观构建和管理措施的施行来确保生物多样性与生态系统服务供给的持续稳定仍需进一步加强以下内容的研究:景观异质性变化在时间上和功能上的影响效应及其阈值的探讨;跨尺度、多因素、多物种类群与多生态系统服务的综合及其交互作用;不同生物类群和不同生态系统服务间的权衡;景观异质性提高与有效生境面积下降及其引起的生物随机丧失间的权衡等问题。     

农业景观中非农景观要素结构特征对植物物种多样性的影响——以封丘县为例

农业景观中的非农生境对维持与提高农业景观的生物多样性具有非常关键的作用。为了探究非农生境的相关结构属性对农业景观中植物物种多样性的影响,选择黄河下游平原区的封丘县为研究区域,对研究区内42个样点的非农生境进行植物多样性调查,并对各个样点周围1 km范围内的非农景观要素进行了提取,分析不同非农生境中植物物种组成及其景观要素的构成、结构及空间配置对植物物种多样性的影响。研究结果表明:不同类型的非农生境中,物种组成共有种相对较多,特有种或指示种较少;林地与树篱具有相对较高的物种多样性,以沟渠为生境的植物物种组成与其它两种生境类型相比存在明显差异;林地与树篱/沟渠的组成比例相当时,植物物种丰富度最高;景观指数对不同非农生境中的植物物种具有明显影响,景观破碎化及人为干扰指数的影响较为显著。未来在对本区域内农业景观进行结构优化的过程中,应从非农景观要素的改造入手。通过调整和设置非农景观要素的不同类型及比例、合理改造其结构与空间配置,为最终实现农业景观的有效管理与可持续健康发展奠定重要的研究基础。     

整合空间信息在生物多样性丧失等研究中的重要性

无数证据表明,地球可能正经历着有史以来的第六次物种大灭绝。在这一背景下,研究生物多样性丧失机制及其对生态系统功能的影响具有重要意义。从先前的相关研究中,已逐渐清晰地认识到造成多样性丧失的几大机制,并对这些机制发生的空间尺度有了一定了解。然而,空间本身对多样性丧失研究的影响仍被该领域的很多研究所忽视。因为生物多样性丧失过程发生在不同空间尺度中,所造成的多样性丧失格局也具有不同的空间尺度特征。忽略空间信息很可能会对多样性丧失等相关研究造成很大干扰,甚至得出错误的结论,其结果也很难正确地运用于不同空间尺度的多样性保护当中。整合空间信息已成为当前生物多样性丧失研究,乃至整个生态学研究的前沿和热点之一。为促进这一趋势在国内的发展,将结合多样性丧失的估计与监测、几大多样性丧失机制(全球环境变化与生境片段化、生物入侵等)来阐述空间信息对当前及今后多样性丧失机制研究的重要性,并用实例展示未充分考虑空间信息而可能造成的后果。最后探讨我国当前科技条件下进行整合空间信息的生物多样性丧失等研究的可行性。     

Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management

Understanding the negative and positive effects of agricultural land use for the conservation of biodiversity, and its relation to ecosystem services, needs a landscape perspective. Agriculture can contribute to the conservation of high‐diversity systems, which may provide important ecosystem services such as pollination and biological control via complementarity and sampling effects. Land‐use management is often focused on few species and local processes, but in dynamic, agricultural landscapes, only a diversity of insurance species may guarantee resilience (the capacity to reorganize after disturbance). Interacting species experience their surrounding landscape at different spatial scales, which influences trophic interactions. Structurally complex landscapes enhance local diversity in agroecosystems, which may compensate for local high‐intensity management. Organisms with high‐dispersal abilities appear to drive these biodiversity patterns and ecosystem services, because of their recolonization ability and larger resources experienced. Agri‐environment schemes (incentives for farmers to benefit the environment) need to broaden their perspective and to take the different responses to schemes in simple (high impact) and complex (low impact) agricultural landscapes into account. In simple landscapes, local allocation of habitat is more important than in complex landscapes, which are in total at risk. However, little knowledge of the relative importance of local and landscape management for biodiversity and its relation to ecosystem services make reliable recommendations difficult.     

Organic farming at local and landscape scales benefits plant diversity

Agri‐environment schemes (AES) have been suggested to counter negative effects of agricultural intensification and enhance farmland biodiversity, but evaluations have produced inconsistent results. We suggest that this is partly a consequence of scale‐dependence, i.e. that the consequence of organic farming will differ depending on the scale of uptake in a particular landscape. To test our hypothesis on diversity of forbs, we designed a landscape scale study using spatially explicit information about the Swedish AES for organic farming. The study system consisted of uncultivated field borders along paired fields (organic and conventional) in matched landscapes with either a high or a low proportion of organic faming, allowing separate tests of the effects of farming practice at the local and the landscape scale. The local effect of organic farming was consistently strong, with higher diversity in borders adjoining organic fields, most likely due to the lack of herbicide use on organically managed farmland. Thus, we show that not only the proportion of semi‐natural habitat is important for farmland biodiversity, but that also the management of cropland can influence the diversity in semi‐natural habitats. Furthermore, forb richness was also higher in borders situated in landscapes with a high proportion of organic land, irrespectively of local management, possibly as a result of dispersal of mainly annual plant species from the organically managed fields into the borders (mass effect). Our results demonstrate that farming practice at a local and a landscape scale independently can influence plant species richness, indicating that organic farming can influence diversity also at larger spatial scales and outside the organically managed land. Our study highlight the importance of studying multiple scales, including both local and landscape factors to provide a better understanding of biodiversity patterns.     

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.     

Local vs. landscape controls on diversity: a test using surface-dwelling soil macroinvertebrates of differing mobility

Aim A better understanding of the processes driving local species richness and of the scales at which they operate is crucial for conserving biodiversity in cultivated landscapes. Local species richness may be controlled by ecological processes acting at larger spatial scales. Very little is known about the effect of landscape variables on soil biota. The aim of our study was to partly fill this gap by relating the local variation of surface‐dwelling macroarthropod species richness to factors operating at the habitat scale (i.e. land use and habitat characteristics) and the landscape scale (i.e. composition of the surrounding matrix). Location An agricultural landscape with a low‐input farming system in Central Hesse, Germany. Methods We focused on five taxa significantly differing in mobility and ecological requirements: ants, ground beetles, rove beetles, woodlice, and millipedes. Animals were caught with pitfall traps in fields of different land use (arable land, grassland, fallow land) and different habitat conditions (insolation, soil humidity). Composition of the surrounding landscape was analysed within a radius of 250 m around the fields. Results Factors from both scales together explained a large amount of the local variation in species richness, but the explanatory strength of the factors differed significantly among taxa. Land use particularly affected ground beetles and woodlice, whereas ants and rove beetles were more strongly affected by habitat characteristics, namely by insolation and soil characteristics. Local species richness of diplopods depended almost entirely on the surrounding landscape. In general, the composition of the neighbouring landscape had a lower impact on the species richness of most soil macroarthropod taxa than did land use and habitat characteristics. Main conclusions We conclude that agri‐environment schemes for the conservation of biodiversity in cultivated landscapes have to secure management for both habitat quality and heterogeneous landscape mosaics.     

Land use change has stronger effects on functional diversity than taxonomic diversity in tropical Andean hummingbirds

Land use change modifies the environment at multiple spatial scales, and is a main driver of species declines and deterioration of ecosystem services. However, most of the research on the effects of land use change has focused on taxonomic diversity, while functional diversity, an important predictor of ecosystem services, is often neglected. We explored how local and landscape scale characteristics influence functional and taxonomic diversity of hummingbirds in the Andes Mountains in southern Ecuador. Data was collected in six landscapes along a land use gradient, from an almost intact landscape to one dominated by cattle pastures. We used point counts to sample hummingbirds from 2011 to 2012 to assessed how local factors (i.e., vegetation structure, flowering plants richness, nectar availability) and landscape factors (i.e., landscape heterogeneity, native vegetation cover) influenced taxonomic and functional diversity. Then, we analyzed environment – trait relationships (RLQ test) to explore how different hummingbird functional traits influenced species responses to these factors. Taxonomic and functional diversity of hummingbirds were positively associated with landscape heterogeneity but only functional diversity was positively related to native vegetation coverage. We found a weak response of taxonomic and functional diversity to land use change at the local scale. Environment‐trait associations showed that body mass of hummingbirds likely influenced species sensitivity to land use change. In conclusion, landscape heterogeneity created by land use change can positively influence hummingbird taxonomic and functional diversity; however, a reduction of native vegetation cover could decrease functional diversity. Given that functional diversity can mediate ecosystem services, the conservation of native vegetation cover could play a key role in the maintenance of hummingbird pollination services in the tropical Andes. Moreover, there are particular functional traits, such as body mass, that increase a species sensitivity to land use change.     

Agrotolerant and high nature-value species—Plant biodiversity indicator groups in agroecosystems

We analysed the effect of agricultural land use intensity and landscape structure on the plant diversity and improved the monitoring methodology by classifying plant species into two emergent agrotolerance groups: (i) species that occur frequently on agricultural land – common agrotolerant species, and (ii) all other species – so-called nature-value species, including habitat specialists and rare weed species. We tested the hypothesis that the species richness (alpha-diversity at habitat scale) of those species groups has differential response to changes in agricultural land use intensity, landscape structure and habitat characteristics.The proportion of (semi-)natural elements in the landscape enhanced species richness at habitat and landscape scale. Higher fertilisation rate predicted the reduction in small-scale species richness in both species groups. High species richness of agrotolerant species was associated with the vicinity of agricultural land, i.e. open field boundaries, small-area habitat patches and road verges, while it was suppressed by tree or shrub layer. The alpha-diversity of nature-value species was higher in large-area habitat patches and ditch verges.The classification of plant species based on their tolerance to agricultural disturbances is very useful in the evaluation of the effects of agricultural practices on biodiversity. The distinction between agrotolerant and nature-value plant species, and the estimation of habitat structure would increase the effectiveness of biodiversity monitoring in agricultural landscapes in comparison with classical methodology based on the assessment of total plant species richness.     

Beyond Reserves: A Research Agenda for Conserving Biodiversity in Human-modified Tropical Landscapes

To truly understand the current status of tropical diversity and to forecast future trends, we need to increase emphasis on the study of biodiversity in rural landscapes that are actively managed or modified by people. We present an integrated landscape approach to promote research in human-modified landscapes that includes the effects of landscape structure and dynamics on conservation of biodiversity, provision of ecosystem services, and sustainability of rural livelihoods. We propose research priorities encompassing three major areas: biodiversity, human–environment interactions, and restoration ecology. We highlight key areas where we lack knowledge and where additional understanding is most urgent for promoting conservation and sustaining rural livelihoods. Finally, we recommend participatory and multidisciplinary approaches in research and management. Lasting conservation efforts demand new alliances among conservation biologists, agroecologists, agronomists, farmers, indigenous peoples, rural social movements, foresters, social scientists, and land managers to collaborate in research, co-design conservation programs and policies, and manage human-modified landscapes in ways that enhance biodiversity conservation and promote sustainable livelihoods.     

Remotely sensed landscape heterogeneity as a rapid tool for assessing local biodiversity value in a highly modified New Zealand landscape

The widespread conversion of natural habitats to agricultural land has created a need to integrate intensively managed landscapes into conservation management priorities. However, there are no clearly defined methods for assessing the conservation value of managed landscapes at the local scale. We used remotely sensed landscape heterogeneity as a rapid practical tool for the assessment of local biodiversity value within a predominantly agricultural landscape in Canterbury, New Zealand. Bird diversity was highly significantly correlated with landscape heterogeneity, distance from rivers and the Christchurch central business district, altitude and average annual household income, indicating that remotely sensed landscape heterogeneity is a good predictor of local biodiversity patterns. We discuss the advantages and limitations of using geographic information systems to determine local areas of high conservation value.     

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.