News News

For a better production, agriculture areas need to recover at least 20% of natural habitat

International agreements aim to conserve 17% of Earth's land area by 2020 but include no area-based conservation targets within the working landscapes that support human needs through farming, ranching, and forestry. Through a review of country-level legislation, this study found that just 38% of countries have minimum area requirements for conserving native habitats within working landscapes. The study argues for increasing native habitats to at least 20% of working landscape area where it is below this minimum. Such target has benefits for food security, nature's contributions to people, and the connectivity and effectiveness of protected area networks in biomes in which protected areas are underrepresented. Other urgings of the review include maintaining native habitat at higher levels where it currently exceeds the 20% minimum, and a literature review shows that even more than 50% native habitat restoration is needed in particular landscapes. Including a >20% native habitats within working landscapes restoration target offers an unrivaled opportunity to simultaneously enhance biodiversity, food security and quality of life. The post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework is an opportune moment to include a minimum habitat restoration target for working landscapes that contributes to, but does not compete with, initiatives for expanding protected areas, the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. informacion[at]ebd.csic.es: Garibaldi et al (2020) Working landscapes need at least 20% native habitat. Conserv Letter DOI: 10.1111/conl.12773


https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/conl.12773
Average (0 Votes)

Latest News Latest News

Back

The structure of waterbird seed dispersal networks is not mediated by functional traits

The structure of waterbird seed dispersal networks is not mediated by functional traits

Plants and their dispersers form interaction networks whose structure has important implications for the persistence and stability of the community. Frugivory is vital for the dispersal of many plants, but the dispersal interactions between plants and non-frugivorous animals, such as waterfowl, are poorly studied. In this study, the authors characterized the structure of networks for seed dispersal by waterfowl, considered whether their structure is similar to that of the networks formed between frugivorous birds and plants with fleshy fruits, and searched for functional traits of birds or plants that are important for maintenance of network structure. Data from four European community-level studies on the content of the digestive tracts of ducks and rallids, including 12 species of birds and 88 of plants, were used. Waterbird seed dispersal networks shared some organizational patterns with those of frugivores, but unlike frugivores, their underlying structure was not related to functional traits. This is likely related to fundamental differences between waterfowl and frugivores in the way they ingest seeds. Differences in the functional role of particular waterbird species for seed dispersal are likely due to other processes, such as differences in population size, movement patterns, microhabitat selection, or gut processing of seeds. informacion[at]ebd.csic.es: Sebastián-González et al (2020) Waterbird seed-dispersal networks are similarly nested but less modular than those of frugivorous species, and not driven by species ecological traits. Funct Ecol https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2435.13657


https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1365-2435.13657