L'escola a casa. 'La escuela en casa'.

Resumen basado en el del autor en catalán

Nonbreeding-Season Drivers of Population Dynamics in Seasonal Migrants: Conservation Parallels Across Taxa

For seasonal migrants, logistical constraints have often limited conservation efforts to improving survival and reproduction during the breeding season only. Yet, mounting empirical evidence suggests that events occurring throughout the migratory life cycle can critically alter the demography of many migrant species. Herein, we build upon recent syntheses of avian migration research to review the role of non-breeding seasons in determining the population dynamics and fitness of diverse migratory taxa, including salmonid fishes, marine mammals, ungulates, sea turtles, butterflies, and numerous bird groups. We discuss several similarities across these varied migrants: (i) non-breeding survivorship tends to be a strong driver of population growth; (ii) non-breeding events can affect fitness in subsequent seasons through seasonal interactions at individual- and population-levels; (iii) broad-scale climatic influences often alter non-breeding resources and migration timing, and may amplify population impacts through covariation among seasonal vital rates; and (iv) changes to both stationary and migratory non-breeding habitats can have important consequences for abundance and population trends. Finally, we draw on these patterns to recommend that future conservation research for seasonal migrants will benefit from: (1) more explicit recognition of the important parallels among taxonomically diverse migratory animals; (2) an expanded research perspective focused on quantification of all seasonal vital rates and their interactions; and (3) the development of detailed population projection models that account for complexity and uncertainty in migrant population dynamics.

Impacts of a pesticide on pollinator species richness at different spatial scales

Pesticides are an important potential cause of biodiversity and pollinator decline. Little is known about the impacts of pesticides on wild pollinators in the field. Insect pollinators were sampled in an agricultural system in Italy with the aim of detecting the impacts of pesticide use. The insecticide fenitrothion was over 150 times greater in toxicity than other pesticides used in the area, so sampling was set up around its application. Species richness of wild bees, bumblebees and butterflies were sampled at three spatial scales to assess responses to pesticide application: (i) the ‘field’ scale along pesticide drift gradients; (ii) the ‘landscape’ scale sampling in different crops within the area and (iii) the ‘regional’ scale comparing two river basins with contrasting agricultural intensity. At the field scale, the interaction between the application regime of the insecticide and the point in the season was important for species richness. Wild bee species richness appeared to be unaffected by one insecticide application, but declined after two and three applications. At the landscape scale, the species richness of wild bees declined in vine fields where the insecticide was applied, but did not decline in maize or uncultivated fields. At the regional scale, lower bumblebee and butterfly species richness was found in the more intensively farmed basin with higher pesticide loads. Our results suggest that wild bees are an insect pollinator group at particular risk from pesticide use. Further investigation is needed on how the type, quantity and timing of pesticide application impacts pollinators.

Enhancing pollinator biodiversity in intensive grasslands

Increased agricultural intensification has led to well-documented declines in the fauna and flora associated with intensive grasslands in the UK. We aimed to quantify the effectiveness of different field margin management strategies for putting bumblebee and butterfly biodiversity back into intensive grasslands. Using four intensive livestock farms in south-west England, we manipulated conventional management practices (addition of inorganic fertilizer, cutting frequency and height, and aftermath grazing) to generate seven grass-based treatments along a gradient of decreasing management intensity. We also tested two more interventionist treatments which introduced sown components into the sward: (i) a cereal, grass and legume mix, and (ii) a diverse conservation mix with kale, mixed cereals, linseed and legumes. These crop mixtures were intended to provide forage and structural resources for pollinators but were not intended to have agronomic value as livestock feed. Using a replicated block design, we monitored bumblebee and butterfly responses in 27 plots (10 x 50 m) in each farm from 2003 to 2006. Bumblebees were most abundant, species-rich and diverse in the sown treatments and virtually absent from the grass-based treatments. The diverse conservation mix treatment supported larger and more diverse bumblebee assemblages than the cereal, grass and legume mix treatment. The sown treatments, and the most extensively managed grass-based treatments, had the highest abundance, species richness and diversity of adult butterflies, whereas butterfly larvae were only found in the grass-based treatments. Bumblebee and butterfly assemblage structure was driven by floral abundance, floral richness, the availability of nectar resources, and sward structure. Only vegetation cover was correlated with butterfly larval abundance. Synthesis and applications. This study has identified management options in the margins of intensive grasslands which can enhance bumblebee and butterfly biodiversity. Extensification of conventional grass management by stopping fertilization, reducing cutting frequency and not grazing, benefits butterflies. However, to enhance bumblebees requires a more interventionist approach in the form of sowing flower-rich habitat. Both approaches are potentially suitable for adoption in agri-environment schemes in the UK and Europe.

Responses of invertebrate trophic level, feeding guild and body size to the management of improved grassland field margins

P>1. Management of lowland mesotrophic grasslands in north-west Europe often makes use of inorganic fertilizers, high stocking densities and silage-based forage systems to maximize productivity. The impact of these practices has resulted in a simplification of the plant community combined with wide-scale declines in the species richness of grassland invertebrates. We aim to identify how field margin management can be used to promote invertebrate diversity across a suite of functionally diverse taxa (beetles, planthoppers, true bugs, butterflies, bumblebees and spiders). 2. Using an information theoretic approach we identify the impacts of management (cattle grazing, cutting and inorganic fertilizer) and plant community composition (forb species richness, grass species richness and sward architecture) on invertebrate species richness and body size. As many of these management practices are common to grassland systems throughout the world, understanding invertebrate responses to them is important for the maintenance of biodiversity. 3. Sward architecture was identified as the primary factor promoting increased species richness of both predatory and phytophagous trophic levels, as well as being positively correlated with mean body size. In all cases phytophagous invertebrate species richness was positively correlated with measures of plant species richness. 4. The direct effects of management practices appear to be comparatively weak, suggesting that their impacts are indirect and mediated though the continuous measures of plant community structure, such as sward architecture or plant species richness. 5. Synthesis and applications. By partitioning field margins from the remainder of the field, economically viable intensive grassland management can be combined with extensive management aimed at promoting native biodiversity. The absence of inorganic fertilizer, combined with a reduction in the intensity of both cutting and grazing regimes, promotes floral species richness and sward architectural complexity. By increasing sward architecture the total biomass of invertebrates also increased (by c. 60% across the range of sward architectural measures seen in this study), increasing food available for higher trophic levels, such as birds and mammals.

Fox-hunting in England and Wales: its contribution to the management of woodland and other habitats

Hunting foxes with hounds has been a countryside pursuit in Britain since the 17th Century, but its effect nationally on habitat management is little understood by the general public. A survey questionnaire was distributed to 163 mounted fox hunts of England and Wales to quantify their management practices in woodland and other habitat. Ninety-two hunts (56%), covering 75,514 km(2), returned details on woodland management motivated by the improvement of their sport. The management details were verified via on-site visits for a sample of 200 woodlands. Following verification, the area of woodlands containing the management was conservatively estimated at 24,053 (+/- 2241) ha, comprising 5.9% of woodland area within the whole of the area hunted by the 92 hunts. Management techniques included: tree planting, coppicing, felling, ride and perimeter management. A case study in five hunt countries in southern England examined, through the use of botanical survey and butterfly counts, the consequences of the hunt management on woodland ground flora and butterflies. Managed areas had, within the last 5 years, been coppiced and rides had been cleared. Vegetation cover in managed and unmanaged sites averaged 86% and 64%, respectively, and managed areas held on average 4 more plant species and a higher plant diversity than unmanaged areas (Shannon index of diversity: 2.25 vs. 1.95). Both the average number of butterfly species (2.2 vs. 0.3) and individuals counted (4.6 vs. 0.3) were higher in the managed than unmanaged sites.

New tools to boost butterfly habitat quality in existing grass buffer strips

There are approximately 29,000 ha of grass buffer strips in the UK under Agri-Environment Schemes; however, typically they are floristically poor and as such are of limited biodiversity value. Introducing a sown wildflower component has the potential to increase dramatically the value of these buffer strips for a suite of native species, including butterflies. This study investigates management practices aiming to promote the establishment and maintenance of wildflowers in existing buffer strips. The effectiveness of two methods used to increase the establishment of wildflowers for the benefit of native butterfly species were tested, both individually and in combination. The management practices were: (1) the application of a selective graminicide (fluazifop-P-butyl) which reduces the dominance of competitive grasses; and (2) scarification of the soil which creates germination niches for sown wildflower seeds. A wildflower seed mix consisting of nine species was sown in conjunction with the scarification treatment. Responses of wildflowers and butterflies were monitored for two years after establishment. Results indicate that the combined scarification and graminicide treatment produced the greatest cover and species richness of sown wildflowers. Butterfly abundance, species richness and diversity were positively correlated with sown wildflower species richness, with the highest values in the combined scarification and graminicide treatment. These findings have confirmed the importance of both scarification as a means of introducing wildflower seed into existing buffer strips, and subsequent management using graminicides, for the benefit of butterflies. Application of this approach could provide tools to help butterfly conservation on farmland in the future.

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.