The network BiodiversityKnowledge in practice: insights from three trial assessments

In order to develop BiodiversityKnowledge, a Network of Knowledge working at the European science–policy interface for biodiversity and ecosystem services, we conducted three trial assessments. Their purpose was to test structure and processes of the knowledge synthesis function and to produce knowledge syntheses. The trial assessments covered conservation and management of kelp ecosystems, biological control of agricultural pests, and conservation and multifunctional management of floodplains. Following the BiodiversityKnowledge processes, we set up expert consultations, systematic reviews, and collaborative adaptive management procedures in collaboration with requesters, policy and decision-makers, stakeholders, and knowledge holders. Outputs included expert consultations, systematic review protocols, a group model and a policy brief. Important lessons learned were firstly that the scoping process, in which requesters and experts iteratively negotiate the scope, scale and synthesis methodology, is of paramount importance to maximize the scientific credibility and policy relevance of the output. Secondly, selection of a broad array of experts with diverse and complementary skills (including multidisciplinary background and a broad geographical coverage) and participation of all relevant stakeholders is crucial to ensure an adequate breath of expertise, better methodological choices, and maximal uptake of outcomes: Thirdly, as the most important challenge was expert and stakeholder engagement, a high visibility and reputation of BiodiversityKnowledge, supported by an incentive system for participation, will be crucial to ensure such engagement. We conclude that BiodiversityKnowledge has potential for a good performance in delivering assessments, but it requires adequate funding, trust-building among knowledge holders and stakeholders, and a proactive and robust interface with the policy and decision making communityPeer reviewe

Floodplain management in temperate regions : is multifunctionality enhancing biodiversity?

Background: Floodplains are among the most diverse, dynamic, productive and populated but also the most threatened ecosystems on Earth. Threats are mainly related to human activities that alter the landscape and disrupt fluvial processes to obtain benefits related to multiple ecosystem services (ESS). Floodplain management therefore requires close coordination among interest groups with competing claims and poses multi-dimensional challenges to policy-makers and project managers. The European Commission proposed in its recent Biodiversity Strategy to maintain and enhance European ecosystems and their services by establishing green infrastructure (GI). GI is assumed to provide multiple ecosystem functions and services including the conservation of biodiversity in the same spatial area. However, evidence for biodiversity benefits of multifunctional floodplain management is scattered and has not been synthesised. Methods/design: This protocol specifies the methods for conducting a systematic review to answer the following policy-relevant questions: a) what is the impact of floodplain management measures on biodiversity; b) how does the impact vary according to the level of multifunctionality of the measures; c) is there a difference in the biodiversity impact of floodplain management across taxa; d) what is the effect of the time since implementation on the impact of the most important measures; and e) are there any other factors that significantly modify the biodiversity impact of floodplain management measures? Within this systematic review we will assess multifunctionality in terms of ESS that are affected by an implemented intervention. Biodiversity indicators included in this systematic review will be related to the diversity, richness and abundance of species, other taxa or functional groups. We will consider if organisms are typical for and native to natural floodplain ecosystems. Specific inclusion criteria have been developed and the wide range of quality of primary literature will be evaluated with a tailor-made system for assessing susceptibility to bias and the reliability of the studies. The review is intended to bridge the science-policy interface and will provide a useful synthesis of knowledge for decision-makers at all governance levels

What works in conservation? Using expert assessment of summarised evidence to identify practices that enhance natural pest control in agriculture.

This paper documents an exercise to synthesize and assess the best available scientific knowledge on the effectiveness of different farm practices at enhancing natural pest regulation in agriculture. It demonstrates a novel combination of three approaches to evidence synthesis-systematic literature search, collated synopsis and evidence assessment using an expert panel. These approaches follow a logical sequence moving from a large volume of disparate evidence to a simple, easily understandable answer for use in policy or practice. The example of natural pest regulation in agriculture was selected as a case study within two independent science-policy interface projects, one European and one British. A third funder, a private business, supported the final stage to translate the synthesized findings into a useful, simplified output for agronomists. As a whole, the case study showcases how a network of scientific knowledge holders and knowledge users can work together to improve the use of science in policy and practice. The process identified five practices with good evidence of a benefit to natural pest regulation, with the most beneficial being 'Combine trap and repellent crops in a push-pull system'. It highlights knowledge gaps, or potential research priorities, by showing practices considered important by stakeholders for which there is not enough evidence to make an assessment of effects on natural pest regulation, including 'Alter the timing of pesticide application.' Finally, the process identifies several important practices where the volume of evidence of effects on natural pest regulation was too large (>300 experimental studies) to be summarised with the resources available, and for which focused systematic reviews may be the best approach. These very well studied practices include 'Reduce tillage' and 'Plant more than one crop per field'.Elements of this work were funded by the European Commission under its 7th framework programme (BiodiversityKnowledge project, Grant number: 265299), the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)'s Knowledge Exchange Programme on Sustainable Food Production (Grant code: NE/K001191/1) and Waitrose plc. L.V.D is funded by NERC under the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Service Sustainability (BESS) Programme (Grant code: NE/K015419/1).This is the author accepted manuscript. It is currently under an indefinite embargo pending publication by Springer

Species richness in dry grassland patches of eastern Austria: A multi-taxon study on the role of local, landscape and habitat quality variables

AbstractAccording to island biogeography theory, the species richness of patches is determined by their size and spatial isolation, while in conservation practice, it is patch quality that determines protection and guides management. We analysed whether size, isolation or habitat quality are most important for the species richness in a set of 50 dry grassland fragments in agricultural landscapes of eastern Austria. We studied two plant taxa (vascular plants, bryophytes) and 11 invertebrate taxa (gastropods, spiders, springtails, grasshoppers, true bugs, leafhoppers and planthoppers, ground beetles, rove beetles, butterflies and burnets, ants and wild bees). The species richness of three categories was analysed: (1) dry grassland specialist species, (2) all grassland species and (3) all species. We used regression and hierarchical partitioning techniques to determine the relationship between species richness and environmental variables describing patch size and shape, patch quality, landscape configuration and landscape quality. The area-isolation paradigm was only applicable for dry grassland specialists, which comprised 12% of all species. Richness of all grassland species was determined mostly by landscape heterogeneity parameters. Total species richness was highly influenced by spillover from adjacent biotopes, and was significantly determined by the percentage of arable land bordering the patches. When analysing all taxa together, species richness of dry grassland specialists was significantly related to historical patch size but not to current patch size, indicating an extinction debt. At the landscape scale, the variable ‘short-grass area’ was a better predictor than the less specific variable ‘area of extensively used landscape elements’. ‘Distance to mainland’ was a good predictor for specialists of mobile animal taxa. Plant specialists showed a pronounced dependence on quality measures at the patch scale and at the landscape scale, whereas animal specialists were influenced by patch size, patch quality, landscape quality and isolation measures. None of the taxa benefited from linear structures in the surroundings. In conclusion, high patch quality and a network of high-quality areas in the surrounding landscape should be the best conservation strategy to ensure conservation of dry grassland specialists. This goal does not conflict with the specific demands of single taxa

The Network of Knowledge approach: improving the science and society dialogue on biodiversity and ecosystem services in Europe

The absence of a good interface between scientific and other knowledge holders and decision-makers in the area of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been recognised for a long time. Despite recent advancements, e.g. with the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), challenges remain, particularly concerning the timely provision of consolidated views from different knowledge domains. To address this challenge, a strong and flexible networking approach is needed across knowledge domains and institutions. Here, we report on a broad consultation process across Europe to develop a Network of Knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services (NoK), an approach aiming at (1) organising institutions and knowledge holders in an adaptable and responsive framework and (2) informing decision-makers with timely and accurate biodiversity knowledge. The consultation provided a critical analysis of the needs that should be addressed by a NoK and how it could complement existing European initiatives and institutions at the interface between policy and science. Among other functions, the NoK provides consolidated scientific views on contested topics, identification of research gaps to support relevant policies, and horizon scanning activities to anticipate emerging issues. The NoK includes a capacity building component on interfacing activities and contains mechanisms to ensure its credibility, relevance and legitimacy. Such a network would need to ensure credibility, relevance and legitimacy of its work by maximizing transparency and flexibility of processes, quality of outputs, the link to data and knowledge provision, the motivation of experts for getting involved and sound communication and capacity building

Submersion tolerance of some diplopod species

Volume: 169Start Page: 477End Page: 48

Biodiversity accounting in life cycle assessment – a novel method

Biodiversity accounting in life cycle assessment – a novel method Life cycle assessment (LCA) of products may be an indispensable tool in the transition towards a sustainable lifestyle and planetary wellbeing – but parameter evaluation has often been limited to greenhouse gas emissions and inclusion of biodiversity effects has shown to be notoriously difficult. I developed a new and universally applicable method for biodiversity accounting in LCAs. The biodiversity effect measure BE quantifies the change in extinction risk of all species in an assemblage as a result of a land use change or some other kind of external influence impinging on the species, summed across the assemblage. It consists of four components, impact overlap IOi, population impact PIi, national and international Red List risk categories (PEnat, i; PEint, i), and a concentration measure Ci. Impact overlap IOi quantifies the spatial relationship between impact area and species range. Population impact PIi specifies the degree and direction of the land use change consequences for a population of the species i within the impact area. The use of national and international Red List categories is based on the consideration that extinction risk change owing to land use change intervention depends on extinction risk in the first place – the first derivative of an exponential function is also an exponential function. Finally, the effect on a particular species depends on the concentration of populations Ci in the impact area; the more a species is restricted to the impact habitat and impact area, the higher the quantitative weight of the species within the assemblage. The measure BE, accounting for biodiversity effects in a standardized area, is then obtained by summing up the values obtained for single species. To obtain universally comparable values, the quantification method is currently restricted to mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles, organism groups for which Red List categorizations are largely complete and ecological information is in most cases easily accessible. The method can be applied both to subtle local changes in land use intensity and to large-scale or global product comparisons, as three application examples show. The first example quantifies the biodiversity effects of setting aside field margins as flower strips in Central Europe. The second example compares the biodiversity effects of conventionally grown potatoes and potatoes from organic agriculture. The third example quantifies the biodiversity effects of soybeans cultivated in Austria with those cultivated in Brazil based on several land use change scenarios. Reduction of the equations developed for the general case – biodiversity accounting in LCAs – makes the method applicable to special cases, for example biodiversity accounting in monitoring or Environmental Impact Assessment.peerReviewe

Stigmale Plastronstrukturen, die einigen Diplopoden-Arten eine submerse Lebensweise in kaltem und in fliessendem Wasser erm\uf6glichen

Volume: 103Start Page: 613End Page: 62

Risks and opportunities of assisted colonization: the perspectives of experts

Owing to climate change and other anthropogenic environmental changes, the suitability of locations is changing for many biota that consequently have to adapt in situ or to move to other areas. To mitigate the effects of such pressures, assisted colonization is a conservation tool developed to reduce extinction risks by intentionally moving and releasing an organism outside its native range, and thus, to facilitate tracking changing environmental conditions. This conservation tool has been proposed for threatened animals or plants that presumably cannot adapt in situ or follow environmental changes by dispersal or migration. However, there have been contentious debates about the shortcomings and risks of implementing assisted colonization. For this reason, we evaluated the specific opinions of global experts for assisted colonization on potential risks and opportunities that this approach offers. For this purpose, we used an online survey targeted at authors of scientific publications on assisted colonization. The majority (82%) of the 48 respondents were in favor of applying assisted colonization for species that are at risk of global extinction due to anthropogenic environmental change. Most respondents agreed that assisted colonization should be considered only when other conservation tools are not available and that certain preconditions must be met. Some of these were already highlighted in the IUCN guidelines for assisted colonization and include a completed risk assessment, clearly defined management plans and secured political as well as financial support. The advocacy of assisted colonization in response to anthropogenic global environmental changes was only weakly dependent on the geographic origin of the experts and their working background. Regarding possible risks, most of the respondents were concerned about consequences like failure of the long-term establishment of the translocated species and the transmission of diseases and invasiveness potentially endangering native biota. To keep these risks as low as possible most of the experts agreed that a target area must have a reasonable carrying capacity to sustain a minimum viable population and that adaptive management should be implemented. Careful evaluation of assisted colonization projects is required to generate further evidence that needs to be considered for further developing conservation tools for the Anthropocene