农业景观中木本植物的生物多样性效益:一项全球荟萃分析

IF 6.4 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-07 DOI:10.1016/j.agee.2024.109453
Suzanne M. Prober , Adam C. Liedloff , Jacqueline R. England , Karel Mokany , Sue Ogilvy , Anna E. Richards
{"title":"农业景观中木本植物的生物多样性效益:一项全球荟萃分析","authors":"Suzanne M. Prober ,&nbsp;Adam C. Liedloff ,&nbsp;Jacqueline R. England ,&nbsp;Karel Mokany ,&nbsp;Sue Ogilvy ,&nbsp;Anna E. Richards","doi":"10.1016/j.agee.2024.109453","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Woody plantings are widely promoted to ameliorate biodiversity loss in agricultural landscapes. New market mechanisms are rapidly emerging to expedite such efforts, but limited tools and data to account for benefits achieved hamper their implementation. Using data from 204 primary studies and 1206 paired comparisons, we present a global meta-analysis of the biodiversity benefits of woody plantings in agricultural landscapes, in a biodiversity and ecosystem accounting framework. Consistent with emerging biodiversity and ecosystem accounting methods, we express results as agricultural field:natural reference and planting:natural reference ratios to estimate the biodiversity values of agricultural fields and plantings, respectively. Mean biodiversity abundance and species richness for agricultural fields were 0.40 of those for natural reference sites, compared with 0.62 for plantings averaging 20 years old, indicating a mean biodiversity benefit of 0.22. These values varied significantly among taxonomic groups, with unexpectedly high values for agricultural fields driven by high means for invertebrates. Variation among studies was substantial, and biodiversity values for plantings increased with higher diversity and native dominance of plantings and lower management intensity. Critically, estimates of biodiversity benefits based on abundance versus richness were comparable, but estimates using compositional measures typically implied substantially lower benefits, likely owing to effects of species identity. Our study operationalises approaches for quantifying the benefit of plantings for biodiversity and ecosystem accounting, and emphasises the need to use compositional measures for realistic estimates of biodiversity benefits.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7512,"journal":{"name":"Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment","volume":"381 ","pages":"Article 109453"},"PeriodicalIF":6.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Accounting for the biodiversity benefits of woody plantings in agricultural landscapes: A global meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Suzanne M. Prober ,&nbsp;Adam C. Liedloff ,&nbsp;Jacqueline R. England ,&nbsp;Karel Mokany ,&nbsp;Sue Ogilvy ,&nbsp;Anna E. Richards\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.agee.2024.109453\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Woody plantings are widely promoted to ameliorate biodiversity loss in agricultural landscapes. New market mechanisms are rapidly emerging to expedite such efforts, but limited tools and data to account for benefits achieved hamper their implementation. Using data from 204 primary studies and 1206 paired comparisons, we present a global meta-analysis of the biodiversity benefits of woody plantings in agricultural landscapes, in a biodiversity and ecosystem accounting framework. Consistent with emerging biodiversity and ecosystem accounting methods, we express results as agricultural field:natural reference and planting:natural reference ratios to estimate the biodiversity values of agricultural fields and plantings, respectively. Mean biodiversity abundance and species richness for agricultural fields were 0.40 of those for natural reference sites, compared with 0.62 for plantings averaging 20 years old, indicating a mean biodiversity benefit of 0.22. These values varied significantly among taxonomic groups, with unexpectedly high values for agricultural fields driven by high means for invertebrates. Variation among studies was substantial, and biodiversity values for plantings increased with higher diversity and native dominance of plantings and lower management intensity. Critically, estimates of biodiversity benefits based on abundance versus richness were comparable, but estimates using compositional measures typically implied substantially lower benefits, likely owing to effects of species identity. Our study operationalises approaches for quantifying the benefit of plantings for biodiversity and ecosystem accounting, and emphasises the need to use compositional measures for realistic estimates of biodiversity benefits.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7512,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment\",\"volume\":\"381 \",\"pages\":\"Article 109453\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880924005711\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167880924005711","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

木本种植被广泛推广,以改善农业景观中生物多样性的丧失。新的市场机制正在迅速出现,以加快这种努力,但是有限的工具和数据阻碍了这些机制的实施。利用204项初步研究和1206项配对比较的数据,我们在生物多样性和生态系统核算框架下,对木本种植在农业景观中的生物多样性效益进行了全球元分析。与新兴的生物多样性和生态系统会计方法一致,我们将结果分别表示为农业领域:自然参考比率和种植:自然参考比率来估计农业领域和种植的生物多样性价值。农田的平均生物多样性丰度和物种丰富度是自然参考样地的0.40,而平均20年树龄的人工林的平均生物多样性丰度和物种丰富度为0.62,平均生物多样性效益为0.22。这些值在不同的分类类群之间差异显著,在无脊椎动物的高平均值驱动下,农业领域的值出乎意料地高。研究间差异较大,植物多样性和本地优势度越高,管理强度越低,植物的生物多样性价值越高。至关重要的是,基于丰度和丰富度的生物多样性效益估计具有可比性,但使用成分测量的估计通常隐含的效益要低得多,这可能是由于物种特性的影响。我们的研究为生物多样性和生态系统会计量化种植效益的方法提供了操作方法,并强调需要使用成分度量来实际估计生物多样性效益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Accounting for the biodiversity benefits of woody plantings in agricultural landscapes: A global meta-analysis
Woody plantings are widely promoted to ameliorate biodiversity loss in agricultural landscapes. New market mechanisms are rapidly emerging to expedite such efforts, but limited tools and data to account for benefits achieved hamper their implementation. Using data from 204 primary studies and 1206 paired comparisons, we present a global meta-analysis of the biodiversity benefits of woody plantings in agricultural landscapes, in a biodiversity and ecosystem accounting framework. Consistent with emerging biodiversity and ecosystem accounting methods, we express results as agricultural field:natural reference and planting:natural reference ratios to estimate the biodiversity values of agricultural fields and plantings, respectively. Mean biodiversity abundance and species richness for agricultural fields were 0.40 of those for natural reference sites, compared with 0.62 for plantings averaging 20 years old, indicating a mean biodiversity benefit of 0.22. These values varied significantly among taxonomic groups, with unexpectedly high values for agricultural fields driven by high means for invertebrates. Variation among studies was substantial, and biodiversity values for plantings increased with higher diversity and native dominance of plantings and lower management intensity. Critically, estimates of biodiversity benefits based on abundance versus richness were comparable, but estimates using compositional measures typically implied substantially lower benefits, likely owing to effects of species identity. Our study operationalises approaches for quantifying the benefit of plantings for biodiversity and ecosystem accounting, and emphasises the need to use compositional measures for realistic estimates of biodiversity benefits.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
11.70
自引率
9.10%
发文量
392
审稿时长
26 days
期刊介绍: Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment publishes scientific articles dealing with the interface between agroecosystems and the natural environment, specifically how agriculture influences the environment and how changes in that environment impact agroecosystems. Preference is given to papers from experimental and observational research at the field, system or landscape level, from studies that enhance our understanding of processes using data-based biophysical modelling, and papers that bridge scientific disciplines and integrate knowledge. All papers should be placed in an international or wide comparative context.
期刊最新文献
A systematic map of agricultural practices affecting insectivorous bats in temperate regions: cross‐scale evidence patterns and implications for bat-friendly farming Applying recovered nutrients and pruning waste to enrich and regenerate agricultural soils in urban agriculture: Effects on emissions and yield of spinach and sweet potato Effects of different urea-based fertilizers on gaseous and hydrological nitrogen losses from subtropical citrus orchards The mosaic of management strategies drives the contribution of chestnut groves to plant diversity Synergistic effects of biochar and probiotic fermentation agent on soil aggregate stability, carbon sequestration, and heavy metal(loid)s passivation in paddy fields
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1