Abstract
Prioritizing where to implement management interventions is critical because managers have limited budgets and the effect of habitat enhancement depends on site-specific environmental conditions. Field experiments can identify the conditions where habitat enhancement is most effective, but are typically of limited extent and thus not sufficient for producing spatial predictions that can guide management efforts. We tested if we could produce spatial predictions maps – showing where management interventions to enhance bee habitat would be most successful – by combining spatial predictions of plant community composition (i.e., environmental conditions) obtained from field surveys with a field experiment, in which we quantified the effect of three types of management interventions on bee species richness. Using information from digital maps, we predicted plant species composition within power line clearings across southeast Norway. The intervention type, which involved cutting and removal of the woody vegetation, resulted in the largest increase in bee species richness, but the enhanced bee species richness was limited to clearings with forb-dominated vegetation. Importantly, the estimated effects on bee species richness did not differ between models using the predicted, versus the empirically observed, plant species composition as predictor, making it possible to produce spatial predictions of the increase in bee richness from implementing different management interventions. Synthesis and applications: Combining field surveys with data from field experiments can be used to produce high-resolution maps showing where wild bee habitat enhancement is likely to have the greatest effect. Such maps can inform decisions about where to allocate costly management interventions.
Highlights
The effect of habitat management interventions on species and populations depend on site-specific environmental conditions (Batáry, Báldi, Kleijn, & Tscharntke, 2010; McCracken et al, 2015)
NMDS1Datasetsurvey separated sites according to the dominance by plants, such as forbs and shrubs that depended on fertile soils (Fig. 2A–C)
The non-metric dimensional scaling (NMDS) analysis of the plant plots from Datasetexp (Fig. 1D, stress = 0.12, linear fit R2 = 0.92) yielded a primary gradient (NMDS1) with the same interpretation as the ones retrieved from Datasetsurvey (Fig. 2D–F)
Summary
The effect of habitat management interventions on species and populations depend on site-specific environmental conditions (Batáry, Báldi, Kleijn, & Tscharntke, 2010; McCracken et al, 2015). Field experiments in which habitat conditions are manipulated can reveal causal relationships between habitat interventions and population and species level ecological responses. Field experiments are costly to implement, and they are typically limited in spatial and temporal extent, and limited to the organisms and environmental conditions that occur in the experimental plots. The limited sample size and extent of experiments can restrict our ability to produce valid spatial predictions of the environmental conditions (e.g. local plant species composition) that influence the effectiveness of management interventions. Field experiments alone may not be sufficient for producing spatial predictions that can guide habitat management efforts for species of conservation concern
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
