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.

Identifying time lags in the restoration of grassland butterfly communities: a multi-site assessment

Although grasslands are crucial habitats for European butterflies, large-scale declines in quality and area have devastated many species. Grassland restoration can contribute to the recovery of butterfly populations, although there is a paucity of information on the long-term effects of management. Using eight UK data sets (9-21 years), we investigate changes in restoration success for (1) arable reversion sites, were grassland was established on bare ground using seed mixtures, and (2) grassland enhancement sites, where degraded grasslands are restored by scrub removal followed by the re-instigation of cutting/grazing. We also assessed the importance of individual butterfly traits and ecological characteristics in determining colonisation times. Consistent increases in restoration success over time were seen for arable reversion sites, with the most rapid rates of increase in restoration success seen over the first 10 years. For grasslands enhancement there were no consistent increases in restoration success over time. Butterfly colonisation times were fastest for species with widespread host plants or where host plants established well during restoration. Low mobility butterfly species took longer to colonise. We show that arable reversion is an effective tool for the management of butterfly communities. We suggest that as restoration takes time to achieve, its use as a mitigation tool against future environmental change (i.e. by decreasing isolation in fragmented landscapes) needs to take into account such time lags.

Enhancement of buffer strips can improve provision of multiple ecosystem services

Farmland invertebrates play a pivotal role in the provision of ecosystem services, i.e. services that benefit humans. For example, bumblebees, solitary bees and honeybees, are crucial to the pollination of many of the world's crops and wildflowers, with over 70% of the world's major food crops dependent on the pollination services provided by these insects. The larvae of some butterfly species are considered to be pests; however, together with moth and sawfly larvae, they represent a key dietary component for many farmland birds. Spiders and ground beetles predate on crop pests including aphids, whilst soil macrofauna such as earthworms are vital for soil fertility services and nutrient recycling. Despite their importance, population declines of invertebrates have been observed during the last sixty years in the UK and NW Europe. For example, seven UK bumblebee species are in decline, and in the last 20 years, the species Bombus subterraneus (short-haired bumblebee) has become extinct, whilst there was a 54% decline in honeybee colony numbers in England from 1985 to 2005. Comparable trends have been documented for butterflies with a 23% decline in UK farmland species such as Anthocharis cardamines (orange tip) between 1990 and 2007. These declines have been widely attributed to the modern intensive arable management practices that have been developed to maximise crop yield. For example, loss and fragmentation of foraging and nesting habitats, including species-rich meadows and hedgerows, have been implicated in the decline of bees and butterflies. Increased use of herbicides and fertilisers has caused detrimental effects on many plant species with negative consequences for predatory invertebrates such as spiders and beetles which rely on plants for food and shelter.

Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life, 2013 Annual Checklist

This release of the Catalogue of Life contains contributions from 132 databases with information on 1,352,112 species, 114,069 infraspecific taxa and also includes 928,147 synonyms and 408,689 common names covering the following groups: Viruses • Viruses and Subviral agents from ICTV_MSL UPDATED! Bacteria and Archaea from BIOS Chromista • Chromistan fungi from Species Fungorum Protozoa • Major groups from ITIS Regional, • Ciliates from CilCat, • Polycystines from WoRMS Polycystina UPDATED!, • Protozoan fungi from Species Fungorum and Trichomycetes database • Slime moulds from Nomen.eumycetozoa.com Fungi • Various taxa in whole or in part from CABI Bioservices databases (Species Fungorum, Phyllachorales, Rhytismatales, Saccharomycetes and Zygomycetes databases) and from three other databases covering Xylariaceae, Glomeromycota, Trichomycetes, Dothideomycetes • Lichens from LIAS UPDATED! Plantae (Plants) • Mosses from MOST • Liverworts and hornworts from ELPT • Conifers from Conifer Database • Cycads and 6 flowering plant families from IOPI-GPC, and 99 families from WCSP • Plus individual flowering plants families from AnnonBase, Brassicaceae, ChenoBase, Droseraceae Database, EbenaBase, GCC UPDATED!, ILDIS UPDATED!, LecyPages, LHD, MELnet UPDATED!, RJB Geranium, Solanaceae Source, Umbellifers. Animalia (Animals) • Marine groups from URMO, ITIS Global, Hexacorals, ETI WBD (Euphausiacea), WoRMS: WoRMS Asteroidea UPDATED!, WoRMS Bochusacea UPDATED!, WoRMS Brachiopoda UPDATED!, WoRMS Brachypoda UPDATED!, WoRMS Brachyura UPDATED!, WoRMS Bryozoa UPDATED!, WoRMS Cestoda NEW!, WoRMS Chaetognatha UPDATED!, WoRMS Cumacea UPDATED!, WoRMS Echinoidea UPDATED!, WoRMS Gastrotricha NEW!, WoRMS Gnathostomulida NEW!, WoRMS Holothuroidea UPDATED!, WoRMS Hydrozoa UPDATED!, WoRMS Isopoda UPDATED!, WoRMS Leptostraca UPDATED!, WoRMS Monogenea NEW!, WoRMS Mystacocarida UPDATED!, WoRMS Myxozoa NEW!, WoRMS Nemertea UPDATED!, WoRMS Oligochaeta UPDATED!, WoRMS Ophiuroidea UPDATED!, WoRMS Phoronida UPDATED!, WoRMS Placozoa NEW!, WoRMS Polychaeta UPDATED!, WoRMS Polycystina UPDATED!, WoRMS Porifera UPDATED!, WoRMS Priapulida NEW!, WoRMS Proseriata and Kalyptorhynchia UPDATED!, WoRMS Remipedia UPDATED!, WoRMS Scaphopoda UPDATED!, WoRMS Tanaidacea UPDATED!, WoRMS Tantulocarida UPDATED!, WoRMS Thermosbaenacea UPDATED!, WoRMS Trematoda NEW!, WoRMS Xenoturbellida UPDATED! • Rotifers, mayflies, freshwater hairworms, planarians from FADA databases: FADA Rotifera UPDATED!, FADA Ephemeroptera NEW!, FADA Nematomorpha NEW! & FADA Turbellaria NEW! • Entoprocts, water bears from ITIS Global • Spiders, scorpions, ticks & mites from SpidCat via ITIS UPDATED!, SalticidDB , ITIS Global, TicksBase, SpmWeb BdelloideaBase UPDATED! & Mites GSDs: OlogamasidBase, PhytoseiidBase, RhodacaridBase & TenuipalpidBase • Diplopods, centipedes, pauropods and symphylans from SysMyr UPDATED! & ChiloBase • Dragonflies and damselflies from Odonata database • Stoneflies from PlecopteraSF UPDATED! • Cockroaches from BlattodeaSF UPDATED! • Praying mantids from MantodeaSF UPDATED! • Stick and leaf insects from PhasmidaSF UPDATED! • Grasshoppers, locusts, katydids and crickets from OrthopteraSF UPDATED! • Webspinners from EmbiopteraSF UPDATED! • Bark & parasitic lices from PsocodeaSF NEW! • Some groups of true bugs from ScaleNet, FLOW, COOL, Psyllist, AphidSF UPDATED! , MBB, 3i Cicadellinae, 3i Typhlocybinae, MOWD & CoreoideaSF NEW!• Twisted-wing parasites from Strepsiptera Database UPDATED! • Lacewings, antlions, owlflies, fishflies, dobsonflies & snakeflies from LDL Neuropterida • Some beetle groups from the Scarabs UPDATED!, TITAN, WTaxa & ITIS Global • Fleas from Parhost • Flies, mosquitoes, bots, midges and gnats from Systema Dipterorum, CCW & CIPA • Butterflies and moths from LepIndex UPDATED!, GloBIS (GART) UPDATED!, Tineidae NHM, World Gracillariidae • Bees & wasps from ITIS Bees, Taxapad Ichneumonoidea, UCD, ZOBODAT Vespoidea & HymIS Rhopalosomatidae NEW!• Molluscs from WoRMS Mollusca NEW!, FADA Bivalvia NEW!, MolluscaFW NEW! & AFD (Pulmonata) • Fishes from FishBase UPDATED! • Reptiles from TIGR Reptiles • Amphibians, birds and mammals from ITIS Global PLUS additional species of many groups from ITIS Regional, NZIB and CoL China NEW!

Rapid assessment of historic, current and future habitat quality for biodiversity around UK Natura 2000 sites

Changes in landscape composition and structure may impact the conservation and management of protected areas. Species that depend on specific habitats are at risk of extinction when these habitats are degraded or lost. Designing robust methods to evaluate landscape composition will assist decision- and policy-making in emerging landscapes. This paper describes a rapid assessment methodology aimed at evaluating landcover quality for birds, plants, butterflies and bees around seven UK Natura 2000 sites. An expert panel assigned quality values to standard Coordination of Information on the Environment (CORINE) landcover classes for each taxonomic group. Quality was assessed based on historical (1950, 1990), current (2000) and future (2030) land-cover data, the last projected using three alternative scenarios: a growth applied strategy (GRAS), a business-as-might-beusual (BAMBU) scenario, and sustainable European development goal (SEDG) scenario. A quantitative quality index weighted the area of each land-cover parcel with a taxa-specific quality measure. Land parcels with high quality for all taxonomic groups were evaluated for temporal changes in area, size and adjacency. For all sites and taxonomic groups, the rate of deterioration of land-cover quality was greater between 1950 and 1990 than current rates or as modelled using the alternative future scenarios (2000– 2030). Model predictions indicated land-cover quality stabilized over time under the GRAS scenario, and was close to stable for the BAMBU scenario. The SEDG scenario suggested an ongoing loss of quality, though this was lower than the historical rate of c. 1% loss per decade. None of the future scenarios showed accelerated fragmentation, but rather increases in the area, adjacency and diversity of high quality land parcels in the landscape.

Impact of game bird release on the Adonis blue butterfly Polyommatus bellargus (Lepidoptera Lycaenidae) on chalk grassland

Polyommatus bellargus is a priority species of butterfly in the UK as a result of its scarcity and the rate of population decline over the last few years. In the UK, the species is associated with chalk grassland on hot, south-facing slopes suitable for the growth of the food plant Hippocrepis comosa. Shooting game birds is a popular pastime in the UK. Over 40 million game birds, principally Phasianus colchicus and Alectoris rufa, are bred and released into the countryside each year for shooting interests. There is a concern that the release of such a large number of non-native birds has an adverse effect on native wildlife. A study was carried out over a period of 3 years out to examine whether there was any evidence that A. rufa released into chalk grassland habitat negatively affects populations of P. bellargus. A comparison was made between sites where large numbers of A. rufa were released versus sites where no, or few, birds were released. The study involved the construction of exclosures in these sites to allow an examination of the number of butterflies emerging from H. comosa when the birds were excluded versus when the birds had free range across the area. Where birds were present the on-site vegetation was shorter than where they were absent indicating that the birds were definitely influencing habitat structure. However, the evidence that A. rufa was negatively influencing the number of adult butterflies emerging was not strong, although there was a largely non-significant tendency for higher butterfly emergence when the birds were excluded or absent.

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.

The challenge of maintaining Atlantic forest biodiversity: A multi-taxa conservation assessment of specialist and generalist species in an agro-forestry mosaic in southern Bahia

Recent developments have highlighted the importance of forest amount at large spatial scales and of matrix quality for ecological processes in remnants. These developments, in turn, suggest the potential for reducing biodiversity loss through the maintenance of a high percentage of forest combined with sensitive management of anthropogenic areas. We conducted a multi-taxa survey to evaluate the potential for biodiversity maintenance in an Atlantic forest landscape that presented a favorable context from a theoretical perspective (high proportion of mature forest partly surrounded by structurally complex matrices). We sampled ferns, butterflies, frogs, lizards, bats, small mammals and birds in interiors and edges of large and small mature forest remnants and two matrices (second-growth forests and shade cacao plantations), as well as trees in interiors of small and large remnants. By considering richness, abundance and composition of forest specialists and generalists, we investigated the biodiversity value of matrix habitats (comparing them with interiors of large remnants for all groups except tree), and evaluated area (for all groups) and edge effects (for all groups except trees) in mature forest remnants. our results suggest that in landscapes comprising high amounts of mature forest and low contrasting matrices: (1) shade cacao plantations and second-growth forests harbor an appreciable number of forest specialists; (2) most forest specialist assemblages are not affected by area or edge effects, while most generalist assemblages proliferate at edges of small remnants. Nevertheless, differences in tree assemblages, especially among smaller trees, Suggest that observed patterns are unlikely to be stable over time. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Taxon surrogates among Amazonian mammals: Can total species richness be predicted by single orders?

Limited financial sources and the difficulty in performing complete surveys, allied to the speed of habitat fragmentation and the urgent necessity in select conservation areas, create the necessity of using some methodologies which bypass these problems. One possibility is the use of surrogate taxa that might be used as indicator of others groups richness and even total richness of an area. We investigated if the use of surrogate taxon is useful among seven mammal orders in Amazon. We tested through Pearson`s correlation (Bonferroni`s adjusted) if (1) there was a correlation between richness of total species and some order; (2) there was a significant pair wise correlation between species richness of each order; and (3) the combination of two orders would give better results as a surrogate for the total richness. The correlations found, in general, were positive. It means that the increase in the richness of an order was followed by its increase in another order, as well as in the total species richness. Only Didelphimorphia was significantly correlated with the total species richness. In the pair wise analyses only one assembly, Primates and Artiodactyla, was significantly correlated with total richness. Since indicator species are more effective within taxonomic groups (life-history characteristics are likely to be more different among than within major taxonomic groups), we suggest that an indicator group might be chosen for each one. In this case, for mammals from Amazon, it would be Didelphimorphia. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.