Search results

We thank several authors who generously provided data for this meta-analysis (WebPanel 2). ABL acknowledges the support of mobility grants from Universidad de Alcalá and Spanish Ministry of Education, postdoctoral fellowships from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, and Project AS2013/MAE-2719 "REMEDINAL-3" from the Government of Madrid. The data underlying this paper are available through an institutional repository (http://hdl.handle.net/10481/62260). ; Salvage logging, or logging after natural disturbances such as wildfires, insect outbreaks, and windstorms, is carried out to recover some of a forest's natural and/or economic capital. However, trade-offs between management objectives and a lack of consensus on the ecological consequences of salvage logging impair science-based decision making on the management of forests after natural disturbances. We conducted a global meta-analysis of the impacts of salvage logging on regulating ecosystem services and on fuel loads, as a frequent post-disturbance objective is preventing subsequent wildfires that could be fueled by the accumulation of dead trunks and branches. Salvage logging affected ecosystem services in a moderately negative way, regardless of disturbance type and severity, time elapsed since salvage logging, intensity of salvage logging, and the group of regulating ecosystem services being considered. However, prolonging the time between natural disturbance and salvage logging mitigated negative effects on regulating ecosystem services. Salvage logging had no overall effect on surface fuels; rather, different fuel types responded differently depending on the time elapsed since salvage logging. Delaying salvage logging by ~2–4 years may reduce negative ecological impacts without affecting surface fuel loads. ; Project AS2013/MAE-2719 "REMEDINAL-3" from the Government of Madrid

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10 years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now.

A large proportion of European biodiversity today depends on habitat provided by low-intensity farming practices, yet this resource is declining as European agriculture intensifies. Within the European Union, particularly the central and eastern new member states have retained relatively large areas of species-rich farmland, but despite increased investment in nature conservation here in recent years, farmland biodiversity trends appear to be worsening. Although the high biodiversity value of Central and Eastern European farmland has long been reported, the amount of research in the international literature focused on farmland biodiversity in this region remains comparatively tiny, and measures within the EU Common Agricultural Policy are relatively poorly adapted to support it. In this opinion study, we argue that, 10 years after the accession of the first eastern EU new member states, the continued under-representation of the low-intensity farmland in Central and Eastern Europe in the international literature and EU policy is impeding the development of sound, evidence-based conservation interventions. The biodiversity benefits for Europe of existing low-intensity farmland, particularly in the central and eastern states, should be harnessed before they are lost. Instead of waiting for species-rich farmland to further decline, targeted research and monitoring to create locally appropriate conservation strategies for these habitats is needed now. ; peerReviewed