4.7 Article

Tools for exploring habitat suitability for steppe birds under land use change scenarios

期刊

AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT
卷 200, 期 -, 页码 119-125

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.agee.2014.11.013

关键词

Conservation policy; Farming systems; Habitat suitability; Land sharing; Resource availability

资金

  1. Fundacion General del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas from Spain (FGCSIC)
  2. CSIC
  3. Banco Santander
  4. Infraestructures.cat (Generalitat de Catalunya)
  5. Aigues del Segarra-Garrigues SA
  6. European Social Fund (ESF)
  7. [BIODIVERSA/0003/2011]
  8. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [BIODIVERSA/0003/2011] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, scenario development based on changes in key socioeconomic drivers (namely, the prices of conventional food products, rural development policies and agro-environmental regulations) was used together with resource-based habitat suitability models to develop plausible visions of future pathways of agricultural land use and evaluate their potential consequences on conservation of target species. Analyses focused on three steppe bird species in a protected Natura 2000 area, located in the Iberian Peninsula. Our results showed that changes in land use composition under different scenarios can have important effects on habitat suitability, but that the size of those effects would vary depending on species-specific requirements and spatial distribution of land use changes. Positive effects of some new crops in the study area (grain legumes and aromatic plants) on studied species were suggested by our analyses. A positive effect of aggregation of land use changes was also found for two of the studied species. Scenario building and forecasting using transferable inter-disciplinary knowledge can therefore improve our capability to anticipate future changes and provide timely advice towards long-term conservation planning in agricultural systems. (C) 2014 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