4.7 Review

Farmland birds and resource protection in the UK: Cross-cutting solutions for multi-functional farming?

期刊

BIOLOGICAL CONSERVATION
卷 129, 期 4, 页码 530-542

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2005.11.020

关键词

agri-environment schemes; small constructed wetlands; diffuse pollution; biodiversity; multifunctional

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Farmland bird declines in Europe are well documented. In the UK, agri-environment schemes are key mechanisms for reversing the declines of birds and other farmland biodiversity, but recent reviews suggest that wet habitats might be a gap in provision by these schemes. Important resources provided by wet habitats include: (i) damp soil, for probing species; (ii) permanent water to provide water-dependent invertebrates, as a source of food; (iii) bare or sparsely vegetated ground in the draw-down zone, to improve access to food; (iv) rank emergent vegetation for nesting. However, wet habitats have been lost from farmland as a result of loss of ponds and filling of ditches, as well as the effective removal of water from fields by surface run-off, itself affected by soil compaction, and extensive under-field drainage. The efficient removal of water from fields can cause problems downstream, both through flooding, and diffuse pollution. Regular farmland pollutants include pesticides, nitrogen, phosphor-us and sediment, leading to environmental problems such as eutrophication and reduced quality of drinking water. Major new political instruments, such as the Water Framework Directive, will aim to reduce the impact of this diffuse pollution from agriculture. A variety of solutions to diffuse pollution, such as conservation tillage, buffer strips at field edges, and small constructed wetlands, could simultaneously provide some of the resources required by farmland birds. We suggest that future agri-environment schemes, to be truly multifunctional, could focus on bringing these diverse objectives together. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ltd. 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