Optimizing agri-environment schemes for biodiversity, ecosystem services or both?
Biological Conservation, ISSN: 0006-3207, Vol: 172, Page: 65-71
2014
- 187Citations
- 554Captures
- 2Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Review Description
Agri-environment schemes (AES) have been introduced to mitigate negative environmental effects caused by increased agricultural intensification in Europe. However, there is still debate on whether currently available incentives are efficiently enhancing farmland biodiversity. Moreover, agri-environment schemes often lead to a yield reduction, which has been argued to potentially increase pressure on non-cropped habitats, with unintended negative environmental consequences. Here, we argue that AES should build on more explicit goals regarding (1) biodiversity protection as such and (2) provisioning of ecosystem services benefiting agricultural production. We discuss how this can be achieved by an efficient spatial allocation of AES measures to the benefit of biodiversity, ecosystem service providers and agricultural production. We differentiate between biodiversity conservation schemes, which target species of conservation concern, and ecosystem service schemes which explicitly target ecosystem service providers important for environmentally sustainable agriculture, most of which are common species. We construct a simplistic, conceptual model, based on well-founded ecological principles, to illustrate how to allocate biodiversity conservation schemes and ecosystem service schemes spatially, depending on where they are needed in order to meet the goals of protecting biodiversity per se and promoting environmentally sustainable agriculture. By understanding the functional importance of different types of AES we can achieve much more effective schemes in the future.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320714000718; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.013; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84895779920&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320714000718; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.013
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know