scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Institution

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

NonprofitSandy, United Kingdom
About: Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is a nonprofit organization based out in Sandy, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Biodiversity. The organization has 670 authors who have published 1425 publications receiving 88006 citations. The organization is also known as: RSPB & Plumage League.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The seedbanks from the Betula spp.
Abstract: 1 Many areas of lowland heaths are being lost due to invasion by Betula spp., Pinus sylvestris, Pteridium aquilinum, Rhododendron ponticum and Ulex europaeus. One of the factors influencing the success of restoration of heathland on such sites will be the content of their viable seedbanks. 2 Ten heathland areas in the Poole Basin area of Dorset, where succession to one or more of the above species had occurred were studied. The viable seedbanks of the successional sites were compared with those of nearby heathland using Canonical Discriminant Analysis. 3 The seedbanks of all the successional stages were significantly different from the seedbank of the heath. 4 The seedbanks from the Pinus sylvestris and Pteridium aquilinum successional stages contained significantly lower numbers of heathland species than did the heathland seedbank, although few non heathland species were present. 5 The seedbanks from the Betula spp., Rhododendron ponticum and Ulex europaeus successional sites contained both significantly lower numbers of heathland species and significantly higher numbers of non heathland species than the heathland seedbank. 6 The results are discussed in relation to the restoration of heathland on successional sites and the use of the seedbank as a source of propagales for the establishment of heathland species.

73 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors identify a candidate list of 296 possible interventions across the main regulating services of air quality regulation, climate regulation, water flow regulation, erosion regulation and water purification and waste treatment, disease regulation, pest regulation, pollination and natural hazard regulation.
Abstract: The major task of policy makers and practitioners when confronted with a resource management problem is to decide on the potential solution(s) to adopt from a range of available options. However, this process is unlikely to be successful and cost effective without access to an independently verified and comprehensive available list of options. There is currently burgeoning interest in ecosystem services and quantitative assessments of their importance and value. Recognition of the value of ecosystem services to human well-being represents an increasingly important argument for protecting and restoring the natural environment, alongside the moral and ethical justifications for conservation. As well as understanding the benefits of ecosystem services, it is also important to synthesize the practical interventions that are capable of maintaining and/or enhancing these services. Apart from pest regulation, pollination, and global climate regulation, this type of exercise has attracted relatively little attention. Through a systematic consultation exercise, we identify a candidate list of 296 possible interventions across the main regulating services of air quality regulation, climate regulation, water flow regulation, erosion regulation, water purification and waste treatment, disease regulation, pest regulation, pollination and natural hazard regulation. The range of interventions differs greatly between habitats and services depending upon the ease of manipulation and the level of research intensity. Some interventions have the potential to deliver benefits across a range of regulating services, especially those that reduce soil loss and maintain forest cover. Synthesis and applications: Solution scanning is important for questioning existing knowledge and identifying the range of options available to researchers and practitioners, as well as serving as the necessary basis for assessing cost effectiveness and guiding implementation strategies. We recommend that it become a routine part of decision making in all environmental policy areas.

73 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This article discusses the development and application of the SA methodology developed for BioScene, and describes the engagement of stakeholder panels in each study area and the use of causal chain analysis for understanding the likely implications for land use and biodiversity under alternative scenarios for agriculture and rural policy and for biodiversity management.
Abstract: BioScene (scenarios for reconciling biodiversity conservation with declining agriculture use in mountain areas in Europe) was a three-year project (2002–2005) funded by the European Union’s Fifth Framework Programme, and aimed to investigate the implications of agricultural restructuring and decline for biodiversity conservation in the mountain areas of Europe. The research took a case study approach to the analysis of the biodiversity processes and outcomes of different scenarios of agri-environmental change in six countries (France, Greece, Norway, Slovakia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom) covering the major biogeographical regions of Europe. The project was coordinated by Imperial College London, and each study area had a multidisciplinary team including ecologists and social and economic experts, which sought a comprehensive understanding of the drivers for change and their implications for sustainability. A key component was the sustainability assessment (SA) of the alternative scenarios. This article discusses the development and application of the SA methodology developed for BioScene. While the methodology was objectives-led, it was also strongly grounded in baseline ecological and socio-economic data. This article also describes the engagement of stakeholder panels in each study area and the use of causal chain analysis for understanding the likely implications for land use and biodiversity of strategic drivers of change under alternative scenarios for agriculture and rural policy and for biodiversity management. Finally, this article draws conclusions for the application of SA more widely, its use with scenarios, and the benefits of stakeholder engagement in the SA process.

73 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Apr 2021
TL;DR: In this article, the authors developed a geographically explicit model of future agricultural land clearance based on observed historical changes, and combined the outputs with species-specific habitat preferences for 19,859 species of terrestrial vertebrates.
Abstract: The projected loss of millions of square kilometres of natural ecosystems to meet future demand for food, animal feed, fibre and bioenergy crops is likely to massively escalate threats to biodiversity. Reducing these threats requires a detailed knowledge of how and where they are likely to be most severe. We developed a geographically explicit model of future agricultural land clearance based on observed historical changes, and combined the outputs with species-specific habitat preferences for 19,859 species of terrestrial vertebrates. We project that 87.7% of these species will lose habitat to agricultural expansion by 2050, with 1,280 species projected to lose ≥25% of their habitat. Proactive policies targeting how, where, and what food is produced could reduce these threats, with a combination of approaches potentially preventing almost all these losses while contributing to healthier human diets. As international biodiversity targets are set to be updated in 2021, these results highlight the importance of proactive efforts to safeguard biodiversity by reducing demand for agricultural land.

72 citations


Authors

Showing all 672 results

NameH-indexPapersCitations
Andrew Balmford9129033359
Rhys E. Green7828530428
Richard D. Gregory6116518428
Richard Evans4830610513
Rafael Mateo462387091
Deborah J. Pain46996717
Jeremy D. Wilson4512312587
Les G. Underhill452338217
Richard B. Bradbury421138062
Paul F. Donald4111711153
James W. Pearce-Higgins401445623
Jörn P. W. Scharlemann408416393
Juliet A. Vickery391168494
Mark A. Taggart381113703
Patrick W Thompson381446379
Network Information
Related Institutions (5)
Zoological Society of London
3.7K papers, 201.2K citations

85% related

The Nature Conservancy
3.7K papers, 202K citations

84% related

Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research
3.2K papers, 161.6K citations

84% related

Wildlife Conservation Society
4.9K papers, 243.8K citations

83% related

Conservation International
1.5K papers, 167.2K citations

82% related

Performance
Metrics
No. of papers from the Institution in previous years
YearPapers
20224
202190
202073
201993
201882
201770