4.7 Article

Brownfield sites promote biodiversity at a landscape scale

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 804, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150162

关键词

Abandoned land; Contaminated land; Lepidoptera; Odonata; Post-industrial sites; Repurposing

资金

  1. Research England (UKRI) through the THYME project

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found a positive correlation between species richness of birds, plants, and insects and the presence and increasing area of ex-landfill sites, but species richness associated with ex-landfill sites declined over time for birds and insects while increased over time for plants. Therefore, when repurposing brownfield sites, consideration should be given to their impact on biodiversity, with a focus on smaller sites or areas with a high density of other brownfield sites to minimize loss of biodiversity.
Repurposing of brownfield sites is often promoted, because it is perceived that protecting the green belt limits damage to biodiversity; yet brownfield sites provide scarce habitats with limited disturbance, so conversely are also perceived to be ecologically valuable. Combining data from three national-scale UK biological monitoring schemes with location data on historical landfill sites, we show that species richness is positively associated with both the presence and increasing area of ex-landfill sites for birds, plants and several insect taxa. Assemblage rarity of birds is also positively associated with presence of ex-landfill sites. Species richness associated with ex landfill sites declined over time for birds and insects but increased over time for plants. These findings suggest that development of brownfield sites may have unintended negative consequences for biodiversity, and imply that to minimise loss of biodiversity, brownfield site repurposing could be targeted towards smaller sites, or sites in areas with a high density of other brownfield sites. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据