Limits...
Rapid assessment of ecosystem services provided by two mineral extraction sites restored for nature conservation in an agricultural landscape in eastern England.

Blaen PJ, Jia L, Peh KS, Field RH, Balmford A, MacDonald MA, Bradbury RB - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Despite growing recognition that mineral sites restored for nature conservation can enhance local biodiversity, the wider societal benefits provided by this type of restoration relative to alternative options are not well understood.Using a combination of site-specific primary field data, benefits transfer and modelling, we show that for our sites restoration for nature conservation provides a more diverse array of ecosystem services than would be delivered under an agricultural restoration scenario.The results of this study highlight the wider societal importance of restored mineral sites and may help conservation managers and planners to develop future restoration strategies that provide benefits for both biodiversity and human well-being.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL, United Kingdom; School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
Despite growing recognition that mineral sites restored for nature conservation can enhance local biodiversity, the wider societal benefits provided by this type of restoration relative to alternative options are not well understood. This study addresses this research gap by quantifying differences in ecosystem services provision under two common mineral site after-uses: nature conservation and agriculture. Using a combination of site-specific primary field data, benefits transfer and modelling, we show that for our sites restoration for nature conservation provides a more diverse array of ecosystem services than would be delivered under an agricultural restoration scenario. We also explore the effects of addressing different conservation targets, which we find alter the provision of ecosystem services on a service-specific basis. Highly species-focused intervention areas are associated with increased carbon storage and livestock grazing provision, whereas non-intervention areas are important for carbon sequestration, fishing, recreation and flood risk mitigation. The results of this study highlight the wider societal importance of restored mineral sites and may help conservation managers and planners to develop future restoration strategies that provide benefits for both biodiversity and human well-being.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

One-off restoration costs (grey bars) and annual management costs (white bars) for a) Ouse Fen under the current and agriculture scenarios, and b) Fen Drayton under the current management regime and alternative intervention and non-intervention scenarios.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4404093&req=5

pone.0121010.g004: One-off restoration costs (grey bars) and annual management costs (white bars) for a) Ouse Fen under the current and agriculture scenarios, and b) Fen Drayton under the current management regime and alternative intervention and non-intervention scenarios.

Mentions: At Ouse Fen, one-off restoration costs (approximately £0.8m or £5000 ha-1) are similar between the nature reserve and agriculture scenarios [Fig. 4A]. Annual management costs under the agriculture scenario are £1021 ha-1, leading to a total net farm income due to arable production of £55,056 a-1 [Table 4]. These management costs are considerably more than those incurred as a nature reserve (£650 ha-1). At Fen Drayton, restoration costs range from £1.1m to £1.5m (£3600 ha-1 to £4800 ha-1) between the current state and alternative scenarios [Fig. 4B]. Annual management costs for the current state (£250 ha-1) and the non-intervention scenario (£200 ha-1) are similar, but costs for the intervention scenario (£520 ha-1) are substantially higher.


Rapid assessment of ecosystem services provided by two mineral extraction sites restored for nature conservation in an agricultural landscape in eastern England.

Blaen PJ, Jia L, Peh KS, Field RH, Balmford A, MacDonald MA, Bradbury RB - PLoS ONE (2015)

One-off restoration costs (grey bars) and annual management costs (white bars) for a) Ouse Fen under the current and agriculture scenarios, and b) Fen Drayton under the current management regime and alternative intervention and non-intervention scenarios.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4404093&req=5

pone.0121010.g004: One-off restoration costs (grey bars) and annual management costs (white bars) for a) Ouse Fen under the current and agriculture scenarios, and b) Fen Drayton under the current management regime and alternative intervention and non-intervention scenarios.
Mentions: At Ouse Fen, one-off restoration costs (approximately £0.8m or £5000 ha-1) are similar between the nature reserve and agriculture scenarios [Fig. 4A]. Annual management costs under the agriculture scenario are £1021 ha-1, leading to a total net farm income due to arable production of £55,056 a-1 [Table 4]. These management costs are considerably more than those incurred as a nature reserve (£650 ha-1). At Fen Drayton, restoration costs range from £1.1m to £1.5m (£3600 ha-1 to £4800 ha-1) between the current state and alternative scenarios [Fig. 4B]. Annual management costs for the current state (£250 ha-1) and the non-intervention scenario (£200 ha-1) are similar, but costs for the intervention scenario (£520 ha-1) are substantially higher.

Bottom Line: Despite growing recognition that mineral sites restored for nature conservation can enhance local biodiversity, the wider societal benefits provided by this type of restoration relative to alternative options are not well understood.Using a combination of site-specific primary field data, benefits transfer and modelling, we show that for our sites restoration for nature conservation provides a more diverse array of ecosystem services than would be delivered under an agricultural restoration scenario.The results of this study highlight the wider societal importance of restored mineral sites and may help conservation managers and planners to develop future restoration strategies that provide benefits for both biodiversity and human well-being.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL, United Kingdom; School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
Despite growing recognition that mineral sites restored for nature conservation can enhance local biodiversity, the wider societal benefits provided by this type of restoration relative to alternative options are not well understood. This study addresses this research gap by quantifying differences in ecosystem services provision under two common mineral site after-uses: nature conservation and agriculture. Using a combination of site-specific primary field data, benefits transfer and modelling, we show that for our sites restoration for nature conservation provides a more diverse array of ecosystem services than would be delivered under an agricultural restoration scenario. We also explore the effects of addressing different conservation targets, which we find alter the provision of ecosystem services on a service-specific basis. Highly species-focused intervention areas are associated with increased carbon storage and livestock grazing provision, whereas non-intervention areas are important for carbon sequestration, fishing, recreation and flood risk mitigation. The results of this study highlight the wider societal importance of restored mineral sites and may help conservation managers and planners to develop future restoration strategies that provide benefits for both biodiversity and human well-being.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus