3,864 research outputs found
Effectiveness of spatial mosaic management for grassland breeding shorebirds
No full textSince 2000, a new management technique has been introduced to stop the rapid decline of grassland breeding shorebirds in the Netherlands, called ‘mosaic management’. The most important difference from earlier Agri-Environment Schemes is that the mosaic management is conducted at a landscape scale (150–650 ha) rather than an individual farm scale (50–60 ha) and that there is purposeful planning of the spatial distribution and layout of management measures within a local area. We tested the effectiveness of the mosaic management by analysing breeding population trends of Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Black-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa), Redshank (Tringa totanus) and Oystercatcher (Haematopus ostralegus) in comparison with three other management types: individual management, regular farmland and nature reserves. After the introduction of mosaic management, populations of Black-tailed Godwit and Redshank stabilised and Northern Lapwing populations increased. Oystercatcher decreased, but this was also due to reduced winter survival. Populations in the mosaic management areas showed a greater annual improvement of 0–18% compared to other management types. The mosaic areas did not appear to be ‘sink’ areas as productivity in the mosaic areas seemed to be sufficient to support the observed densities. However, with the exception of Northern Lapwing, the change of trend was not greater in the mosaic areas than in the other management types. So, for the species other than Northern Lapwing, the good performance cannot be attributed to the mosaic management. The mosaic areas were good breeding habitats beforehand and continue to be so. It is possible that the mosaic management is part of the success, but not exclusively so. Our results show that modern farming can still be combined with grassland breeding shorebird management. However, further study of success factors is urgently needed for the conservation of the remaining good habitats on farmland and restoration of lost one
Will agri‐environment schemes deliver substantial biodiversity gain, and if not why not?
No full text1. One of the main aims of agri-environment schemes (AES) is to increase biodiversity on farmland. Common conservation practice is to identify areas containing valuable resources (e.g. habitats, ecosystems and species) and then to protect them: \u27protected area\u27 schemes. AES differ from typical protected area schemes because they are often applied to small patches of land, such as field boundaries, and are sometimes located in areas where the target species does not occur. 2. AES require an enormous amount of funding and they have been applied across a large geographical area, i.e. the European Union. However, recent evidence suggests mixed results regarding the effects of AES on biodiversity. 3. It is hard to predict the consequences of AES on biodiversity because a number of factors are seldom accounted for explicitly. For example: (i) the occurrence of target species will vary between patches; (ii) there will be variation in habitat preference by species in different geographical areas; (iii) both optimal foraging theory and metapopulation theory predict that the distance from breeding individuals is likely to determine patch use; (iv) if resources are widely spread then the home ranges of some species may need to increase to encompass the multiple resources needed for breeding. The potential for these factors to affect the outcome of AES on biodiversity is discussed. 4. Synthesis and applications. AES are likely to increase biodiversity if a lower number of larger resource patches are provided, in contrast to current practice that promotes many small fragmented areas of environmental resource. One way of achieving this may be to run these schemes more like traditional protected area schemes, with farms or groups of farms managed using extensive farming methods. Such an approach negates some of the problems of current AES and may help to address a wider range of concerns held by different countryside stakeholders. \ua9 2006 The Author
Self-compression of 4.9 µm pulses to sub-40 fs with 2 mJ energy in Zinc Sulfide
No full textNonlinear self-compression of few-cycle multi-mJ pulses at 4.9 µm in ZnS is presented. 80 fs input pulses are compressed to 37 fs with 2.1 mJ energy at a 1 kHz repetition rate. © 2024 The Author(s
The future of agri-environment schemes: biodiversity gains and ecosystem service delivery?
No full textP>1. European agri-environment schemes (AESs) have so far delivered only moderate biodiversity gains. However, recent work has demonstrated that under a range of circumstances AESs can return substantial benefit both to biodiversity and ecosystem service delivery. This Special Profile brings together 13 papers that point the way to greater effectiveness. 2. One study in this Special Profile suggests that AES options modified by experience of working on the ground (i.e. guided by adaptive management) and applied to small fragmented pieces of land can have population level effects on a farmland bird species. Such adaptive management has been shown to correlate with increased levels of biodiversity for a range of taxa in a variety of situations, and thus demonstrates the potential of AESs to achieve significant biodiversity benefits. 3. Examples from this Special Profile provide evidence that AESs can improve ecosystem service provision, such as pollination services, biological control and carbon storage. However, AESs located in heterogeneous landscapes and in areas supporting high levels of biodiversity are likely to yield greater benefits than those in more homogeneous landscapes. 4. Estimating both the economic and non-economic value of ecosystem services is complex. A range of caveats need to be borne in mind if and when management strategies and policies are formulated based upon economics. These are well described in another paper in this Special Profile. 5. Synthesis and applications. Agri-environment schemes are more likely to deliver substantial benefit if: (i) they are implemented with clear guidance to land managers, and (ii) they are located in landscapes with high levels of biodiversity. Greater biodiversity on farmland is likely to increase the provision of a range of ecosystem services, which, in turn, should buffer agricultural land against likely future environmental changes
Correction to: Chamoun et al., Bacterial pathogenesis and interleukin-17: interconnecting mechanisms of immune regulation, host genetics, and microbial virulence that influence severity of infection
No full textChamoun MN, Blumenthal A, Sullivan MJ, Schembri MA, Ulett GC. 2018. Bacterial pathogenesis and interleukin-17: interconnecting mechanisms of immune regulation, host genetics, and microbial virulence that influence severity of infection. Critical Reviews in Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1080/1040841X.2018.1426556.
When the above article was first published online, the below three corrections were missed.
The author ‘Antje Blumenthal’ was wrongly affiliated to the affiliation “cSchool of Chemistry and Molecular Biosciences, and Australian Infectious Disease Research Centre, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia”. Now this affiliation has been removed for this author.
The affiliation ‘bTranslational Research Institute, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Woolloongabba, Australia’ of the author ‘Antje Blumenthal’ should read ‘bThe University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, Translational Research Institute, Brisbane, Australia’.
In Table 3, the sentence ‘Benefit of manipulating IL-17 levels to improve immunization strategies M. tuberculosis’ should read “Benefit of manipulating IL-17 levels to improve immunization strategies against M. tuberculosis”.No Full Tex
Generation of 22-mJ, 2.0-ps Pulses from a 1-kHz Ho:YLF Regenerative Chirped Pulse Amplifier
No full textWe report a CW-pumped Ho:YLF regenerative amplifier (RA) delivering pulses with 22.5-mJ energy and 2.0-ps duration at 1 kHz. The RA emitting at 2051 nm is broadband-seeded and implemented in a chirped pulse amplification system. © 2024 The Author(s
Anti-predator signals in the chaffinch <em>Fringilla coelebs</em> in response to habitat structure and different predator types
No full textThe effects of habitat structure on predation risk of birds in agricultural landscapes
No full textIt has been suggested that increased predation rates may rival habitat alteration as a causal agent in farmland bird population declines. Such a view may be over-simplistic, however, as changes in habitat structure may influence habitat selection and foraging efficiency through their influence on perceived and actual predation risk. We review evidence from the literature on the effects of habitat structure on predation risk of foraging and nesting birds and apply these principles to investigate the likely effects on the 20 species that comprise the UK Government\u27s \u27Farmland Bird Index\u27. Shorter vegetation is likely to enhance foraging efficiency and reduce predation risk (when ground foraging) for 15 of the 20 species. However, within grassland systems longer vegetation is known to enhance food supplies (e.g. Tipulid larvae and voles) of several farmland bird species and so mosaics of short and long vegetation may provide the optimum conditions for most species (e.g. Lapwing Vanellus vanellus, Starling Sturnus vulgaris, Barn Owl Tyto alba). Agricultural intensification has encouraged uniform dense swards, thus reducing habitat diversity, and agri-environment schemes that provide heterogeneous sward structure may thus facilitate farmland bird conservation. Intensification has also resulted in less dense hedgerows; although a reversal of this trend may improve foraging efficiency for many species, it may be detrimental to a smaller number of species that prefer shorter, less dense hedges for nesting. Before these tentative conclusions can be confirmed, more research is required that considers how the effects of habitat structure on individuals is likely to translate into population-level impacts
Birds select conventional over organic wheat when given free choice
No full textBACKGROUND: Global demand for organic produce is increasing by (sic)4 billion annually. One key reason why consumers buy organic food is because they consider it to be better for human and animal health. Reviews comparing organic and conventional food have stated that organic food is preferred by birds and mammals in choice tests. RESULTS: This study shows the opposite result that captive birds in the laboratory and wild garden birds both consumed more conventional than organic wheat when given free choice. There was a lag in preference formation during which time birds learnt to distinguish between the two food types, which is likely to explain why the present results differ from those of previous studies. A further experiment confirmed that, of 16 potential causal factors, detection by birds of consistently higher levels of protein in conventional seeds (a common difference between many organic and conventional foodstuffs) is the likely mechanism behind this pattern. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the current dogma that organic food is preferred to conventional food may not always be true, which is of considerable importance for consumer perceptions of organically grown food. (C) 2010 Society of Chemical Industr
- …
