Social and ecological drivers of success in agri-environment schemes: the roles of farmers and environmental context

1. Agri-environment schemes remain a controversial approach to reversing biodiversity losses, partly because the drivers of variation in outcomes are poorly understood. In particular, there is a lack of studies that consider both social and ecological factors. 2. We analysed variation across 48 farms in the quality and biodiversity outcomes of agri-environmental habitats designed to provide pollen and nectar for bumblebees and butterflies or winter seed for birds. We used interviews and ecological surveys to gather data on farmer experience and understanding of agri-environment schemes, and local and landscape environmental factors. 3. Multimodel inference indicated social factors had a strong impact on outcomes and that farmer experiential learning was a key process. The quality of the created habitat was affected positively by the farmer’s previous experience in environmental management. The farmer’s confidence in their ability to carry out the required management was negatively related to the provision of floral resources. Farmers with more wildlife-friendly motivations tended to produce more floral resources, but fewer seed resources. 4. Bird, bumblebee and butterfly biodiversity responses were strongly affected by the quantity of seed or floral resources. Shelter enhanced biodiversity directly, increased floral resources and decreased seed yield. Seasonal weather patterns had large effects on both measures. Surprisingly, larger species pools and amounts of semi-natural habitat in the surrounding landscape had negative effects on biodiversity, which may indicate use by fauna of alternative foraging resources. 5. Synthesis and application. This is the first study to show a direct role of farmer social variables on the success of agri-environment schemes in supporting farmland biodiversity. It suggests that farmers are not simply implementing agri-environment options, but are learning and improving outcomes by doing so. Better engagement with farmers and working with farmers who have a history of environmental management may therefore enhance success. The importance of a number of environmental factors may explain why agri-environment outcomes are variable, and suggests some – such as the weather – cannot be controlled. Others, such as shelter, could be incorporated into agri-environment prescriptions. The role of landscape factors remains complex and currently eludes simple conclusions about large-scale targeting of schemes.

Geographical range margins of many taxonomic groups continue to shift polewards

Many species are extending their leading-edge (cool) range margins polewards in response to recent climate change. In the present study, we investigated range margin changes at the northern (cool) range margins of 1573 southerly-distributed species from 21 animal groups in Great Britain over the past four decades of climate change, updating previous work. Depending on data availability, range margin changes were examined over two time intervals during the past four decades. For four groups (birds, butterflies, macromoths, and dragonflies and damselflies), there were sufficient data available to examine range margin changes over both time intervals. We found that most taxa shifted their northern range margins polewards and this finding was not greatly influenced by changes in recorder effort. The mean northwards range margin change in the first time interval was 23 km per decade (N = 13 taxonomic groups) and, in the second interval, was 18 km per decade (N = 16 taxonomic groups) during periods when the British climate warmed by 0.21 and 0.28 °C per decade, respectively. For the four taxa examined over both intervals, there was evidence for higher rate of range margin change in the more recent time interval in the two Lepidoptera groups. Our analyses confirm a continued range margin shift polewards in a wide range of taxonomic groups.

The pitfalls of ecological forecasting

Ecological forecasting is difficult but essential, because reactive management results in corrective actions that are often too late to avert significant environmental damage. Here, we appraise different forecasting methods with a particular focus on the modelling of species populations. We show how simple extrapolation of current trends in state is often inadequate because environmental drivers change in intensity over time and new drivers emerge. However, statistical models, incorporating relationships with drivers, simply offset the prediction problem, requiring us to forecast how the drivers will themselves change over time. Some authors approach this problem by focusing in detail on a single driver, whilst others use ‘storyline’ scenarios, which consider projected changes in a wide range of different drivers. We explain why both approaches are problematic and identify a compromise to model key drivers and interactions along with possible response options to help inform environmental management. We also highlight the crucial role of validation of forecasts using independent data. Although these issues are relevant for all types of ecological forecasting, we provide examples based on forecasts for populations of UK butterflies. We show how a high goodness-of-fit for models used to calibrate data is not sufficient for good forecasting. Long-term biological recording schemes rather than experiments will often provide data for ecological forecasting and validation because these schemes allow capture of landscape-scale land-use effects and their interactions with other drivers.

Non-bee insects are important contributors to global crop pollination

Wild and managed bees are well documented as effective pollinators of global crops of economic importance. However, the contributions by pollinators other than bees have been little explored despite their potential to contribute to crop production and stability in the face of environmental change. Non-bee pollinators include flies, beetles, moths, butterflies, wasps, ants, birds, and bats, among others. Here we focus on non-bee insects and synthesize 39 field studies from five continents that directly measured the crop pollination services provided by non-bees, honey bees, and other bees to compare the relative contributions of these taxa. Non-bees performed 25–50% of the total number of flower visits. Although non-bees were less effective pollinators than bees per flower visit, they made more visits; thus these two factors compensated for each other, resulting in pollination services rendered by non-bees that were similar to those provided by bees. In the subset of studies that measured fruit set, fruit set increased with non-bee insect visits independently of bee visitation rates, indicating that non-bee insects provide a unique benefit that is not provided by bees. We also show that non-bee insects are not as reliant as bees on the presence of remnant natural or seminatural habitat in the surrounding landscape. These results strongly suggest that non-bee insect pollinators play a significant role in global crop production and respond differently than bees to landscape structure, probably making their crop pollination services more robust to changes in land use. Non-bee insects provide a valuable service and provide potential insurance against bee population declines.

Supporting local diversity of habitats and species on farmland: a comparison of three wildlife-friendly schemes

Restoration and maintenance of habitat diversity have been suggested as conservation priorities in farmed landscapes, but how this should be achieved and at what scale are unclear. This study makes a novel comparison of the effectiveness of three wildlife-friendly farming schemes for supporting local habitat diversity and species richness on 12 farms in England. The schemes were: (i) Conservation Grade (Conservation Grade: a prescriptive, non-organic, biodiversity-focused scheme), (ii) organic agriculture and (iii) a baseline of Entry Level Stewardship (Entry Level Stewardship: a flexible widespread government scheme). Conservation Grade farms supported a quarter higher habitat diversity at the 100-m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Conservation Grade and organic farms both supported a fifth higher habitat diversity at the 250-m radius scale compared to Entry Level Stewardship farms. Habitat diversity at the 100-m and 250-m scales significantly predicted species richness of butterflies and plants. Habitat diversity at the 100-m scale also significantly predicted species richness of birds in winter and solitary bees. There were no significant relationships between habitat diversity and species richness for bumblebees or birds in summer. Butterfly species richness was significantly higher on organic farms (50% higher) and marginally higher on Conservation Grade farms (20% higher), compared with farms in Entry Level Stewardship. Organic farms supported significantly more plant species than Entry Level Stewardship farms (70% higher) but Conservation Grade farms did not (10% higher). There were no significant differences between the three schemes for species richness of bumblebees, solitary bees or birds. Policy implications. The wildlife-friendly farming schemes which included compulsory changes in management, Conservation Grade and organic, were more effective at increasing local habitat diversity and species richness compared with the less prescriptive Entry Level Stewardship scheme. We recommend that wildlife-friendly farming schemes should aim to enhance and maintain high local habitat diversity, through mechanisms such as option packages, where farmers are required to deliver a combination of several habitats.

Large reorganizations in butterfly communities during an extreme weather event

Drought events are projected to increase in frequency and magnitude, which may alter the composition of ecological communities. Using a functional community metric that describes abundance, life history traits and conservation status, based upon Grime’s CSR (Competitive-Stress tolerant-Ruderal)¬ scheme, we investigated how British butterfly communities changed during an extreme drought in 1995. Throughout Britain, the total abundance of these insects had a significant tendency to increase, accompanied by substantial changes in community composition, particularly in more northerly, wetter sites. Communities tended to shift away from specialist, vulnerable species, and towards generalist, widespread species and, in the year following, communities had yet to return to equilibrium. Importantly, heterogeneity in surrounding landscapes mediated community responses to the drought event. Contrary to expectation, however, community shifts were more extreme in areas of greater topographic diversity, whilst land-cover diversity buffered community changes and limited declines in vulnerable specialist butterflies.