High Nature Value Farmland in Europe - An Estimate of the Distribution Patterns on the Basis of Land Cover and Biodiversity Data

Europe's agricultural landscapes provide highly varied living conditions for many plants and animals. Baldock et al. (1993) and Beaufoy et al. (1994) described the general characteristics of low-input farming systems in terms of biodiversity and management practices and introduced the term high nature value farmland. Typical high nature value farmland areas are the extensively grazed uplands in the UK, alpine meadows and pasture, steppic areas in eastern and southern Europe and dehesas and montados in Spain and Portugal. The more intensively farmed areas in lowland western Europe can also host concentrations of species of particular conservation interest, such as migratory waterfowl. The need for measures to prevent the loss of high nature value farmland is widely acknowledged. Conservation of biodiversity on agricultural land is an explicit objective of the pan-European Biodiversity and Landscape Strategy, the Bern Convention, the European Landscape Convention, and, at EU level, the Habitats and Birds Directives and the Rural Development Policy (Community Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development Programming Period 2007-2013). In their 6th Environment Action Programme, the EU committed itself to halting biodiversity decline by 2010. Conserving High Nature Value farmland is key to achieving this 2010 biodiversity target. Pan-European data on distribution and conservation status of HNV farmland, however, were largely lacking. In their 2003 "Kyiv" declaration, the European Environment Ministers have therefore set the goal to fill this data gap and take adequate conservation measures. In support of this policy process, EEA and UNEP published a Joint Message (EEA 2004), presenting a preliminary map of HNV farmland and analysing the targeting of agricultural policy instruments. The Joint Message used the concept as developed by Andersen et al. (2003) that describes HNV farmland as: "Those areas in Europe where agriculture is a major (usually the dominant) land use and where that agriculture supports, or is associated with, either a high species and habitat diversity or the presence of species of European conservation concern, or both". The aim of estimating HNV farmland distribution at European level according to a standardised method is primarily to gain insight in the current status, as well as enabling analysis of European trends and targeting of relevant policy instruments, such as Less Favoured Area (LFA) support. In order to increase accuracy, JRC and the EEA have been preparing the first EU27 map of High Nature Value farmland, on the basis of new land cover data, refined and regionally differentiated selection criteria, and additional biodiversity datasets.JRC.H.5-Rural, water and ecosystem resource

Drivers of the changing abundance of European birds at two spatial scales

Detecting biodiversity change and identifying its causes is challenging because biodiversity is multifaceted and temporal data often contain bias. Here, we model temporal change in species' abundance and biomass by using extensive data describing the population sizes and trends of native breeding birds in the United Kingdom (UK) and the European Union (EU). In addition, we explore how species’ population trends vary with species’ traits. We demonstrate significant change in the bird assemblages of the UK and EU, with substantial reductions in overall bird abundance and losses concentrated in a relatively small number of abundant and smaller sized species. In contrast, rarer and larger birds had generally fared better. Simultaneously, overall avian biomass had increased very slightly in the UK and was stable in the EU, indicating a change in community structure. Abundance trends across species were positively correlated with species’ body mass and with trends in climate suitability, and varied with species’ abundance, migration strategy, and niche associations linked to diet. Our work highlights how changes in biodiversity cannot be captured easily by a single number; care is required when measuring and interpreting biodiversity change given that different metrics can provide very different insight

Coverage of vertebrate species distributions by Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas and Special Protection Areas in the European Union

Peer reviewe

Threats to seabirds: A global assessment

We present the first objective quantitative assessment of the threats to all 359 species of seabirds, identify the main challenges facing them, and outline priority actions for their conservation. We applied the standardised Threats Classification Scheme developed for the IUCN Red List to objectively assess threats to each species and analysed the data according to global IUCN threat status, taxonomic group, and primary foraging habitat (coastal or pelagic). The top three threats to seabirds in terms of number of species affected and average impact are: invasive alien species, affecting 165 species across all the most threatened groups; bycatch in fisheries, affecting fewer species (100) but with the greatest average impact; and climate change/severe weather, affecting 96 species. Overfishing, hunting/trapping and disturbance were also identified as major threats to seabirds. Reversing the top three threats alone would benefit two-thirds of all species and c. 380 million individual seabirds (c. 45% of the total global seabird population). Most seabirds (c. 70%), especially globally threatened species, face multiple threats. For albatrosses, petrels and penguins in particular (the three most threatened groups of seabirds), it is essential to tackle both terrestrial and marine threats to reverse declines. As the negative effects of climate change are harder to mitigate, it is vital to compensate by addressing other major threats that often affect the same species, such as invasive alien species, bycatch and overfishing, for which proven solutions exist

On a Rare Visit to Texas

<p>Species' sensitivity scores are calculated as their niche breadth*reliance, with higher values indicating species less sensitive to changes in resource abundance or availability. Equivalent, PECBMS-only <i>BREAKPOINT</i> sets for the forest type and region indicators are presented in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0097217#pone.0097217.s014" target="_blank">Table S7</a>. ‘0/1’ identifies species that were interchangeable in any given breakpoint set due to equal sensitivity scores – see specific note for each indicator for further details.</p><p><i>*Species also included in current pan-European forest bird indicator (for full list see</i><a href="http://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=459" target="_blank">http://www.ebcc.info/index.php?ID=459</a>).</p>a<p>Either species could be included.</p>b<p>Any one of three could be included.</p>c<p>Any two of three could be included.</p

State of the world's birds

We present an overview of the global spatiotemporal distribution of avian biodiversity, changes in our knowledge of that biodiversity, and the extent to which it is imperilled. Birds are probably the most completely inventoried large taxonomic class of organisms, permitting a uniquely detailed understanding of how the Anthropocene has shaped their distributions and conservation status in space and time. We summarize the threats driving changes in bird species richness and abundance, highlighting the increasingly synergistic interactions between threats such as habitat loss, climate change, and overexploitation. Many metrics of avian biodiversity are exhibiting globally consistent negative trends, with the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List Index showing a steady deterioration in the conservation status of the global avifauna over the past three decades. We identify key measures to counter this loss of avian biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, which will necessitate increased consideration of the social context of bird conservation interventions in order to deliver positive transformative change for nature

Quantifying the Detrimental Impacts of Land-Use and Management Change on European Forest Bird Populations

The ecological impacts of changing forest management practices in Europe are poorly understood despite European forests being highly managed. Furthermore, the effects of potential drivers of forest biodiversity decline are rarely considered in concert, thus limiting effective conservation or sustainable forest management. We present a trait-based framework that we use to assess the detrimental impact of multiple land-use and management changes in forests on bird populations across Europe. Major changes to forest habitats occurring in recent decades, and their impact on resource availability for birds were identified. Risk associated with these changes for 52 species of forest birds, defined as the proportion of each species' key resources detrimentally affected through changes in abundance and/or availability, was quantified and compared to their pan-European population growth rates between 1980 and 2009. Relationships between risk and population growth were found to be significantly negative, indicating that resource loss in European forests is an important driver of decline for both resident and migrant birds. Our results demonstrate that coarse quantification of resource use and ecological change can be valuable in understanding causes of biodiversity decline, and thus in informing conservation strategy and policy. Such an approach has good potential to be extended for predictive use in assessing the impact of possible future changes to forest management and to develop more precise indicators of forest health

Generation lengths of the world's birds and their implications for extinction risk

Birds have been comprehensively assessed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List more times than any other taxonomic group. However, to date, generation lengths have not been systematically estimated to scale population trends when undertaking assessments, as required by the criteria of the IUCN Red List. We compiled information from major databases of published life-history and trait data for all birds and imputed missing life-history data as a function of species traits with generalized linear mixed models. Generation lengths were derived for all species, based on our modeled values of age at first breeding, maximum longevity, and annual adult survival. The resulting generation lengths varied from 1.42 to 27.87 years (median 2.99). Most species (61%) had generation lengths <3.33 years, meaning that the period of 3 generations—over which population declines are assessed under criterion A—was <10 years, which is the value used for IUCN Red List assessments of species with short generation times. For these species, our trait-informed estimates of generation length suggested that 10 years is a robust precautionary value for threat assessment. In other cases, however, for whole families, genera, or individual species, generation length had a substantial impact on their estimated extinction risk, resulting in higher extinction risk in long-lived species than in short-lived species. Although our approach effectively addressed data gaps, generation lengths for some species may have been underestimated due to a paucity of life-history data. Overall, our results will strengthen future extinction-risk assessments and augment key databases of avian life-history and trait data

Measuring the Impact of Conservation : The Growing Importance of Monitoring Fauna, Flora and Funga

Many stakeholders, from governments to civil society to businesses, lack the data they need to make informed decisions on biodiversity, jeopardising efforts to conserve, restore and sustainably manage nature. Here we review the importance of enhancing biodiversity monitoring, assess the challenges involved and identify potential solutions. Capacity for biodiversity monitoring needs to be enhanced urgently, especially in poorer, high-biodiversity countries where data gaps are disproportionately high. Modern tools and technologies, including remote sensing, bioacoustics and environmental DNA, should be used at larger scales to fill taxonomic and geographic data gaps, especially in the tropics, in marine and freshwater biomes, and for plants, fungi and invertebrates. Stakeholders need to follow best monitoring practices, adopting appropriate indicators and using counterfactual approaches to measure and attribute outcomes and impacts. Data should be made openly and freely available. Companies need to invest in collecting the data required to enhance sustainability in their operations and supply chains. With governments soon to commit to the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, the time is right to make a concerted push on monitoring. However, action at scale is needed now if we are to enhance results-based management adequately to conserve the biodiversity and ecosystem services we all depend on.This paper was made possible by funding from the Swiss Network for International Studies to the University of Lausanne (L.F. and P.J.S.) and its partners under the project: "Unblocking the flow of biodiversity data for multi-stakeholder environmental sustainability management". The research was carried out, in part, by GNG at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004). PAVB was supported by the project MACRISK-PTDC/BIA-CBI/0625/2021, through the FCT-FundacAo para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia. YNB acknowledges support from the Audemars-Watkins Foundation for the CBCR's protected area monitoring work featured in this paper.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Measuring the Impact of Conservation: The Growing Importance of Monitoring Fauna, Flora and Funga

Many stakeholders, from governments to civil society to businesses, lack the data they need to make informed decisions on biodiversity, jeopardising efforts to conserve, restore and sustainably manage nature. Here we review the importance of enhancing biodiversity monitoring, assess the challenges involved and identify potential solutions. Capacity for biodiversity monitoring needs to be enhanced urgently, especially in poorer, high-biodiversity countries where data gaps are disproportionately high. Modern tools and technologies, including remote sensing, bioacoustics and environmental DNA, should be used at larger scales to fill taxonomic and geographic data gaps, especially in the tropics, in marine and freshwater biomes, and for plants, fungi and invertebrates. Stakeholders need to follow best monitoring practices, adopting appropriate indicators and using counterfactual approaches to measure and attribute outcomes and impacts. Data should be made openly and freely available. Companies need to invest in collecting the data required to enhance sustainability in their operations and supply chains. With governments soon to commit to the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, the time is right to make a concerted push on monitoring. However, action at scale is needed now if we are to enhance results-based management adequately to conserve the biodiversity and ecosystem services we all depend on