Effects of agri-environmental habitat provision on winter and breeding season abundance of farmland birds

Farmland bird populations continue to show declines in spite of over 20 years of research and implementation of agri-environmental schemes (AES) intended to reverse this. Although it is well known that provision of winter food resources can attract farmland birds, there is continuing uncertainty over the ability of AES to provide tangible benefits for target species in terms of increased abundance. Answering these questions is hampered by interannual fluctuations in bird populations and the mobility and territoriality of farmland birds, which have complicated the interpretation of previous studies. We monitored birds for five years on a large arable estate in central England managed under varying levels of AES uptake (low level uptake of simple and widely applicable AES options, more extensive uptake of more complex AES options), and two control treatments (on-site and off-site). Bird abundance in winter and both total abundance and number of territories in the breeding season were calculated from monthly visits to 16 transects. Several species showed significantly higher winter abundance on AES treatments, particularly granivorous species (e.g. reed bunting, yellowhammer, linnet). Many other species (e.g. blackbird, chaffinch, robin) also showed significant differences in winter abundance between treatments on the estate and off-site controls. In the breeding season, linnet, reed bunting, goldfinch and combined granivorous birds showed higher abundance or number of territories on AES treatments compared to on-site controls. For most other species the differences were only significant between treatments on the estate and off-site controls. Independently of AES treatment, a lower coverage of cereals or greater Shannon diversity of crops in the local landscape also had a positive effect on the abundance of many species. Our results suggest that well-implemented AES can significantly enhance local populations of both farmland specialists of conservation concern and generalist species. Our results also show that, in many cases, these effects were only demonstrable at the farm scale, in comparison with off-site controls. This is probably due to high levels of movement and dispersal of birds resulting in a farm-scale spill-over of beneficial effects of agri-environment measures. Our results therefore highlight the importance of thinking beyond the single-farm scale when designing schemes or studies for monitoring the effectiveness of AES, and the importance of selecting appropriately located controls

IMC9 Edinburgh Nomenclature Sessions

The proceedings of the 3-5 August 2010, IMC9 Edinburgh Nomenclature Sessions are briefly summarized. The final resolution approved by the General Assembly endorses the recommendations by the Nomenclature Sessions regarding transfer of the governance of fungal nomenclature from botanical to mycological congresses, mandatory pre-publication deposit of nomenclatural information for valid publication of new fungal names, and the acceptability of English as an alternative to Latin in the valid publication of fungal names. Complete results from the IMC9 nomenclature questionnaire are also provided

The Amsterdam Declaration on Fungal Nomenclature

The Amsterdam Declaration on Fungal Nomenclature was agreed at an international symposium convened in Amsterdam on 19–20 April 2011 under the auspices of the International Commission on the Taxonomy of Fungi (ICTF). The purpose of the symposium was to address the issue of whether or how the current system of naming pleomorphic fungi should be maintained or changed now that molecular data are routinely available. The issue is urgent as mycologists currently follow different practices, and no consensus was achieved by a Special Committee appointed in 2005 by the International Botanical Congress to advise on the problem. The Declaration recognizes the need for an orderly transitition to a single-name nomenclatural system for all fungi, and to provide mechanisms to protect names that otherwise then become endangered. That is, meaning that priority should be given to the first described name, except where that is a younger name in general use when the first author to select a name of a pleomorphic monophyletic genus is to be followed, and suggests controversial cases are referred to a body, such as the ICTF, which will report to the Committee for Fungi. If appropriate, the ICTF could be mandated to promote the implementation of the Declaration. In addition, but not forming part of the Declaration, are reports of discussions held during the symposium on the governance of the nomenclature of fungi, and the naming of fungi known only from an environmental nucleic acid sequence in particular. Possible amendments to the Draft BioCode (2011) to allow for the needs of mycologists are suggested for further consideration, and a possible example of how a fungus only known from the environment might be described is presented

Proposals 117–119: To make the pre-publication deposit of key nomenclatural information in a recognized repository a requirement for valid publication of organisms treated as fungi under the Code

ormal proposals to conserve or protect fungal names as well as proposals to amend the International Code of Nomenclature of immediate interest to mycologists are now published concurrently in Mycotaxon and Taxon. Conservation proposals include Prop. 1918 (to conserve the name Dermatocarpon bucekii against Placidium steineri), Prop. 1919 (to conserve the name Lactarius with a conserved type), Prop. 1926 (to conserve the name Cladia against Heterodea, and Prop.1927 (to conserve the name Agaricus rachodes with that spelling). Props. 117-119 to amend the Code ask for pre-publication deposit of nomenclatural information in a recognized repository for valid publication of fungal names