Explore the vast range of titles available.

Despite the existence of well‐established international environmental and nature conservation policies (e.g., the Ramsar Convention and Convention on Biological Diversity) ponds are largely missing from national and international legislation and policy frameworks. Ponds are among the most biodiverse and ecologically important freshwater habitats, and their value lies not only in individual ponds, but more importantly, in networks of ponds (pondscapes). Ponds make an important contribution to society through the ecosystem services they provide, with effective conservation of pondscapes essential to ensuring that these services are maintained. Implementation of current pond conservation through individual site designations does not function at the landscape scale, where ponds contribute most to biodiversity. Conservation and management of pondscapes should complement current national and international nature conservation and water policy/legislation, as pondscapes can provide species protection in landscapes where large‐scale traditional conservation areas cannot be established (e.g., urban or agricultural landscapes). We propose practical steps for the effective incorporation or enhancement of ponds within five policy areas: through open water sustainable urban drainage systems in urban planning, increased incentives in agrienvironment schemes, curriculum inclusion in education, emphasis on ecological scale in mitigation measures following anthropogenic developments, and the inclusion of pondscapes in conservation policy.

Habitat loss and fragmentation greatly affect biological diversity. Actions to counteract their negative effects include increasing the quality, amount and connectivity of seminatural habitats at the landscape scale. However, much of the scientific evidence underpinning landscape restoration comes from studies of habitat loss and fragmentation, and it is unclear whether the ecological principles derived from habitat removal investigations are applicable to habitat creation. In addition, the relative importance of local- (e.g., improving habitat quality) vs. landscape-level (e.g., increasing habitat connectivity) actions to restore species is largely unknown, partly because studying species responses over sufficiently large spatial and temporal scales is challenging. We studied small mammal responses to large-scale woodland creation spanning 150 yr, and assessed the influence of local- and landscape-level characteristics on three small mammal species of varying woodland affinity. Woodland specialists, generalists, and grassland specialists were present in woodlands across a range of ages from 10 to 160 yr, demonstrating that these species can quickly colonize newly created woodlands. However, we found evidence that woodlands become gradually better over time for some species. The responses of individual species corresponded to their habitat specificity. A grassland specialist (Microtus agrestis) was influenced only by landscape attributes; a woodland generalist (Apodemus sylvaticus) and specialist (Myodes glareolus) were primarily influenced by local habitat attributes, and partially by landscape characteristics. At the local scale, high structural heterogeneity, large amounts of deadwood, and a relatively open understory positively influenced woodland species (both generalists and specialists); livestock grazing had strong negative effects on woodland species abundance. Actions to enhance habitat quality at the patch scale focusing on these attributes would benefit these species. Woodland creation in agricultural landscapes is also likely to benefit larger mammals and birds of prey feeding on small mammals and increase ecosystem processes such as seed dispersal.

Summary The primary aim of many agri‐environment schemes (AES) is to enhance biodiversity; however, the results of AES designed for this purpose have, to date, been largely underwhelming. One reason for this may be because AES tend to be administered at the farm scale. We argue that collaborative AES (cAES) – single environmental management agreements for multiple farm units – can benefit biodiversity. We then discuss how a shift to this type of scheme may impact upon ecosystem services (ES). Evidence gathered from studies carried out across European farmland demonstrated that more than a third (18 of 52; 35%) of the bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian and bumblebee species important in English farmland operate at scales larger than the typical English farm (146 ha) in the breeding season. While this study relates ranging behaviour specifically to England and the English AES system, the estimates of ranging behaviour presented in this study could also be used (with caution) to compare with farm sizes elsewhere in Europe, making the results of wider geographical relevance. Data were obtained from face‐to‐face interviews with 32 farmers with differing AES backgrounds [current participants at either low or high level (entry‐level Stewardship or higher‐level Stewardship/countryside Stewardship scheme), or current non‐participants]. Eighty‐one per cent of interviewees were found to be willing, in principle, to participate in a collaborative AES (cAES) programme. However, they viewed less extensive options (e.g. management of existing hedgerows) more favourably than extensive or cooperatively demanding land management options (e.g. large‐scale habitat creation). Data from an online consultation of a further 122 farmers supported the principal finding, with 75% of respondents willing, in theory, to participate in collaborative schemes. Synthesis and applications. Well‐designed landscape‐scale schemes are likely to be more beneficial than farm‐scale schemes for a small but significant number of key farmland species and ES, such as bats, mammals and some important pollinators, while unlikely to harm species operating at smaller scales. These schemes can be expected to attract widespread participation from landowners. Thus, policymakers may be heartened that collaborative AES are a potential multifaceted solution to environmental management on farmland. Well‐designed landscape‐scale schemes are likely to be more beneficial than farm‐scale schemes for a small but significant number of key farmland species and ES, such as bats, mammals and some important pollinators, while unlikely to harm species operating at smaller scales. These schemes can be expected to attract widespread participation from landowners. Thus, policymakers may be heartened that collaborative AES are a potential multifaceted solution to environmental management on farmland.

Conservation strategies to tackle habitat loss and fragmentation require actions at the local (e.g., improving/expanding existing habitat patches) and landscape level (e.g., creating new habitat in the matrix). However, the relative importance of these actions for biodiversity is still poorly understood, leading to debate on how to prioritize conservation activities. Here, we assess the relative importance of local vs. landscape-level attributes in determining the use of woodlands by bats in fragmented landscapes; we also compare the role of habitat amount in the surrounding landscape per se vs. a combination of both habitat amount and configuration and explore whether the relative importance of these attributes varies with species mobility and landscape context. We conducted acoustic surveys in 102 woodland patches in the UK that form part of the WrEN project (www.wren-project.com), a large-scale natural experiment designed to study the effects of 160 yr of woodland creation on biodiversity and inform landscape-scale conservation. We used multivariate analysis and a model-selection approach to assess the relative importance of local (e.g., vegetation structure) and landscape-level (e.g., amount/configuration of surrounding land types) attributes on bat occurrence and activity levels. Species mobility was an important trait determining the relative importance of local vs. landscape-level attributes for different bat species. Lower mobility species were most strongly influenced by local habitat quality; the landscape became increasingly important for higher mobility species. At the landscape-scale, a combination of habitat amount and configuration appeared more important than habitat amount alone for lower mobility species, while the opposite was observed for higher mobility species. Regardless of species mobility, landscape-level attributes appeared more important for bats in a more homogeneous and intensively farmed landscape. Conservation strategies involving habitat creation and restoration should take into account the mobility of target species and prioritize landscape-level actions in more homogeneous and intensively farmed landscapes where habitat loss and fragmentation have been more severe.

1. New native woodlands are typically created in a small and isolated configuration, potentially reducing their value as a resource for biodiversity. The use of ecological networks for habitat restoration and creation could be beneficial for woodland biodiversity. This approach is conceptualised as local- and landscape-scale conservation actions designed to increase the area, quality, amount and connectivity of habitat types. However, there is limited evidence about the value of secondary woodlands and the relative or combined effects of network variables for woodland insects. 2. Seventy-eight woodland sites created in the last 160 years across England and Scotland were sampled for hoverflies (Diptera: Syrphidae) and craneflies (Diptera: Tipuloidea), using two Malaise net traps placed in the centre of each woodland. The diversity of insects supported by created woodland patches was analysed using measures of dissimilarity, and the relative direct and indirect effects of ecological network variables on their abundance and species richness were assessed using structural equation models. 3. We found 27% of British woodland hoverfly species and 43% of British woodland cranefly species in the study sites, indicating that woodland insects are colonising created native woodlands, despite their fragmented nature. However, these species communities were highly variable across woodland patches. 4. Landscape-scale variables had no effect on woodland-associated hoverflies or craneflies relative to local-scale variables. Local-scale variables relating to habitat quality (i.e. structural heterogeneity of trees and understorey cover) had the strongest influence on abundance and species richness. 5. Synthesis and applications. To benefit woodland-associated Díptera, woodland creation and restoration should maintain a focus on habitat quality. This should include active management to facilitate a diverse tree and understorey vegetation structure. Many woodlands in the UK are privately owned, and landowners should be encouraged to plant and actively manage their woodlands to increase structural heterogeneity and resources for woodland insects.

High latitude regions are warming rapidly with important ecological and societal consequences. Utilizing two landscape-scale data sets from interior Alaska, we compared patterns in forest structure in two regions with differing fire disturbance, topography, and summer climate norms. Our goal was to evaluate a set of hypotheses concerning possible warming-driven changes in forest structure suggested by recent literature. We found essentially consistent habitat associations for the tree flora across two disparate study areas concomitant with considerable differences in observed patterns of forest structure and composition. Our results confirmed expected increases in broadleaved species occupancy and abundance in the warmer, more fire-affected study region along with considerably higher tree occupancy and abundance in high elevation areas there. However, contrary to our predictions, we found no evidence of expected reductions in conifer occupancy or increases in non-fire related tree mortality. Instead, both individual and combined tree species occupancy, density, abundance, and richness were considerably higher in the warmer, more fire-influenced region, except in the warmest, driest areas (steep and south-facing slopes at low elevation). Our comparison of two landscape-scale data sets suggests that changes in tree distribution and forest structure in interior Alaska will proceed unevenly, governed by a mosaic of site-dependent influences wherein forest community composition and species dominance will shift along different trajectories and at different rates according to variation in underlying landscape attributes. Although there were clear differences in forest structure between the two areas that were likely attributable to differences in growing season warmth and fire disturbance, we found scant support for the concept of an incipient, ongoing biome shift in interior Alaska resulting from impending diminution of boreal forest cover over the short to medium term. Indeed, we suggest that (depending on severity of disturbance dynamics and the rapidity of future warming) cooler areas of interior Alaska's forest may reasonably be expected to sustain marginal increases in forest cover with additional warming, at least in certain topographic positions (such as poorly drained basins and cool treeline sites) and/or geographic regions, prior to any landscape-scale diminution of forest cover due to warming.

1. Pollination is a vital ecosystem service, which is endangered by the ongoing declines of pollinators. These declines also affect bumblebees (Bombus spp.), which are important generalist pollinators in agricultural landscapes. Most studies focussing on the conservation of bumblebees have investigated the effects of local flower-rich habitats on bumblebee density and diversity. However, bumblebee densities do not necessarily correlate with the colonies' reproductive success (i.e. the presence or absence of males and/or queens). 2. We analysed the effects of landscape-wide availability of mass flowering oilseed rape Brassica napus on the growth and sexual reproduction of Bombus terrestris colonies. Thirty-two young colonies were established and monitored in different resource environments represented by 16 landscapes (circular study areas with 3000 m radius) with large or small amounts of oilseed rape. As an indicator of colony growth, we used weight gain, which was strongly correlated with the numbers of brood cells in the colonies. 3. The colonies gained significantly more weight in study areas with large amounts of oilseed rape particularly during early colony stages. 4. Despite early weight gain, the colonies in study areas with large amounts of oilseed rape did not reproduce more successfully. The frequencies of colonies that produced males and/or queens did not differ between the two resource environments. 5. Synthesis and applications. Early mass flowering oilseed rape has a beneficial effect on colony growth, which however, does not translate into a greater likelihood of colonies producing sexual offspring. This may be due to food plant scarcity later in the colony cycle. Conservation measures should enhance food plant availability in agricultural landscapes, particularly during the most critical phases of the colony cycle: the colony establishment in spring and the reproductive phase in mid- to late summer.

The desire to promote Natural Flood Management (NFM) has not yet been matched by implementation. In part, this reflects the lack of scientific evidence regarding the ability of NFM measures to contribute to risk reduction at the national scale. Broad scale understanding, as exemplified for Great Britain in this paper, is necessary evidence for policy development and a prerequisite for implementation at scale. This does not imply a lack of confidence in the wider benefits that NFM provide (for biodiversity, carbon sequestration, well‐being and many others), but without credible quantified flood risk reduction evidence, progress has been slow. This paper integrates national‐scale hydrological models (using SHETRAN and HBV‐TYN) and fluvial flood risk analysis (using the Future Flood Explorer, FFE) to quantify the flood risk reduction benefits of NFM across Great Britain under conditions of future climate and socio‐economic change. An optimisation of these benefits is presented considering alternative NFM policy ambitions and other demands on land (urban development, agriculture, and biodiversity). The findings suggest NFM has the potential to make a significant contribution to national flood risk reduction when implemented as part of a portfolio of measures. An optimisation through to 2100 suggests investment in NFM achieves a benefit‐to‐cost ratio of ~3 to 5 (based on the reduction in Expected Annual Damage (EAD) to residential properties alone). By the 2050s, this equates to an ~£80 m reduction in EAD under a scenario of low population growth and a 2°C rise in global warming by 2100. This increases to £110 m given a scenario of high population growth and a 4°C rise. Assuming current levels of adaptation continue in all other aspects of flood risk management, this represents ~9%–13% of the reduction in EAD achieved by the portfolio as a whole. By the 2080s, the contribution of NFM to risk reduction increases to ~£110 and ~£145 m under these two scenarios. These figures are based on the reduction in EAD to residential properties alone, and do not include the substantial co‐benefits that would also accrue.

‘Farmer Clusters’ are an English movement where groups of neighbouring farmers have identified and instigated their own conservation initiatives as a collective, providing a ‘bottom‐up’ alternative to the ‘top‐down’, government‐initiated agri‐environment schemes. Although cross‐farm cooperation can be found in mainland Europe, this specific Farmer Cluster approach had not yet been tested before 2020. FRAMEwork (Farmer clusters for Realising Agrobiodiversity Management across Ecosystems), an EU Horizon 2020 project, aims to identify whether Farmer Clusters could be established in other European countries and improve farmland biodiversity at the landscape scale. FRAMEwork established 11 Farmer Clusters across nine European countries. The aim of this paper was to describe the different strategies used, the challenges faced and the potential solutions identified to provide future practitioners with guidance. Forming the Farmer Clusters required a wide range of approaches, from contacting previously known farmers to using advertising campaigns. An integral part of the Farmer Cluster approach is the presence of a ‘facilitator’, someone with farming and environmental knowledge, who can support the group and assist them in their biodiversity‐friendly actions. Management of the Farmer Clusters required various strategies, and the facilitators were provided with training through the FRAMEwork project. These strategies were applied to unite the farmers within each Farmer Cluster, encouraging them to collaborate and identify their own biodiversity targets. Expanding the scope of Farmer Cluster activities to enable farmers and local communities and volunteers to observe and monitor biodiversity themselves requires additional effort. However, it provides learning opportunities and capacity development in Farmer Clusters to enhance local collection of information and improved knowledge of local actions and outcomes. Practical Implication. Farmer Clusters provide a strategy to tackle biodiversity restoration across European farmland at the landscape scale. They also offer tailored and targeted advice from expert facilitators, alleviating the constraints of the current ‘top‐down’ process, allowing farmers more flexibility and ownership of their biodiversity goals. We encourage European policymakers to take up the Farmer Cluster model and provide a facilitation fund similar to that found in England to better aid farmland biodiversity recovery at the landscape scale. Farmer Clusters are an English initiative which were trialled across Europe through the FRAMEwork project. A variety of challenges arose from each country, and over the course of the project, solutions were found to successfully form and manage all 11 Farmer Clusters. This paper details these challenges and solutions to aid any future practitioner engaged in European Farmer Clusters.

Conservation in eastern and southern Africa has historically centered on megafauna and protected areas (PAs), yet, in the face of rapid change, biodiversity outside of PAs is under threat. With policy changes underway in Kenya, we have performed an analysis that (a) quantifies how inclusive the current PA network is of the country's vertebrate diversity, and (b) identifies wildlife policy areas that need reform to achieve conservation targets. We found that species richness of mammals, birds, and amphibians is highest in areas of intermediate human pressures, whereas Kenya's current wildlife conservation policy focuses on land use (LU) types with the least human pressure. Percentage of range overlap for amphibians, mammals, and birds were all highest in rangelands followed by agricultural (cultivated) areas and then national PAs. Out of 1,535 terrestrial vertebrate species, 80 had no range overlap with national PAs. The current wildlife PA network adequately covers only 16% of amphibians, 45% of birds, and 41% of mammals. In addition, we used a biodiversity importance score which demonstrated the importance of rangelands and agricultural areas for biodiversity conservation. Finally, we observed that the distribution of current PAs, and the focus of Kenya's wildlife policy in general, is in areas of lowest human pressure, often with the highest large mammal densities. However, other biodiversity indicators ‐ such as bird and plant species richness ‐ show that areas under human‐dominated LU currently support substantial biodiversity. Overall, our analysis demonstrates that formal PAs and wildlife policy presently cover only a small fraction of national biodiversity, which resides mainly in human‐dominated landscapes that are undergoing rapid change. These findings echo global calls for a landscape‐based approach to conservation policy and practice that promotes the coexistence of people and wildlife within social‐ecological systems.