Limiting factors in the restoration of UK grassland beetle assemblages

Grasslands restoration is a key management tool contributing to the long-term maintenance of insect populations, providing functional connectivity and mitigating against extinction debt across landscapes. As knowledge of grassland insect communities is limited, the lag between the initiation of restoration and the ability of these new habitats to contribute to such processes is unclear. Using ten data sets, ranging from 3 to 14 years, we investigate the lag between restoration and the establishment of phytophagous beetle assemblages typical of species rich grasslands. We used traits and ecological characteristics to determine factors limiting beetle colonisation, and also considered how food-web structure changed during restoration. For sites where seed addition of host-plants occurred the success in replicating beetle assemblages increased over time following a negative exponential function. Extrapolation beyond the existing data set tentatively suggested that success would plateau after 20 years, representing a c. 60% increase in assemblage similarity to target grasslands. In the absence of seed addition, similarity to the target grasslands showed no increase over time. Where seed addition was used the connectance of plant-herbivore food webs decreased over time, approaching values typical of species rich grasslands after c. 7 years. This trend was, however, dependent on the inclusion of a single site containing data in excess of 6 years of restoration management. Beetles not capable of flight, those showing high degrees of host-plant specialisation and species feeding on nationally rare host plants take between 1 and 3 years longer to colonise. Successful grassland restoration is underpinned by the establishment of host-plants, although individual species traits compound the effects of poor host-plant establishment to slow colonisation. The use of pro-active grassland restoration to mitigate against future environmental change should account for lag periods in excess of 10 years if the value of these habitats is to be fully realised.

Limiting factors in the restoration of grassland insects

Grasslands restoration is a key management tool contributing to the long-term maintenance of insect populations, providing functional connectivity and mitigating against extinction debt across landscapes. As knowledge of grassland insect communities is limited, the lag between the initiation of restoration and the ability of these new habitats to contribute to the successful enhancement of native biodiversity is unclear. Using two long term data sets, we investigate differences in successional trajectories during the establishment of butterfly (11 years) and phytophagous beetle (13 years) communities during the recreation of calcareous grassland. Overall restoration success was higher for the butterflies than the beetles. However, both shared a general pattern of rapidly increasing restoration success over the first five years, awhich approached an asymptote after c. 10 years. The use of pro-active grassland restoration to mitigate against future environmental change therefore needs to account for such time lag if the value of these habitats is to be fully realised.

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.