Biodiversity and Conservation

, Volume 16, Issue 12, pp 3543–3557

Benefits of habitat restoration to small mammal diversity and abundance in a pastoral agricultural landscape in mid-Wales

Original Paper

Abstract

Changes in agricultural practice are predicted across the UK following agricultural reform driven by government policy. The suitability of agri-environment schemes for many species is currently debated because limited quantitative data are collected. In order to understand the changes to biodiversity due to agri-environment schemes, there is a need for studies to not just compare biodiversity and species composition in and out of agri-environment areas, but to factor in the influence of temporal habitat changes. In this study, we investigate the suitability of an agri-environment initiative to support and enhance a small mammal fauna among pastoral hill farms in mid-Wales. Grazed and ungrazed woodlands, riparian habitats, and broadleaf plantations, were compared for small mammal abundance and diversity following a trapping study. Mammal diversity was similar across habitats, though abundance varied significantly. A principle component analysis identified that mammal abundance clustered into three main habitat groups separated by seral stage (early, mid, late). No relationship between mammal abundance and stock grazing was found. A canonical correspondence analysis confirmed that vegetation structure was important in explaining the distribution of captures of mammal species across the landscape. The results for habitat type, and habitat context, suggest that a mix of vegetation seral stages, reflecting a varied vegetation structure, is important to maintain small mammal diversity and abundance across the study area. Heterogeneity in structural diversity at the landscape scale is important to maintain a variety of ground-dwelling mammal species, and particularly because trends in countryside surveys show that woodlands are skewed towards late seral stages. Habitat heterogeneity can be maintained because the hill farms neighbour each other, and the farmers co-operate as a group to manage the landscape. Habitat diversity is therefore possible. These results help us to advocate, and anticipate, the benefits of groups of farms within a landscape.

Keywords

Agri-environment scheme Bank vole Common shrew Grazing Landscape ecology Restoration ecology Small mammals Woodland Wood mouse Yellow-neck mouse 

References

  1. Alibhai SK, Gipps JHW (1991) The bank vole. In: Corbet GB, Harris S (eds), The handbook of British mammals. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Aviron S, Burel F, Baudrey J, Schermann N (2005) Carabid assemblages in agricultural landscapes: landscape context at different spatial scales and farming intensity. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:205–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? TREE 18:182–188Google Scholar
  4. Bokdam RS, Bokdam J, Ouden J, Olff H, Schot-Opschoor H, Shrijvers M (2001) Effects of introduction and exclusion of large herbivores on small rodent communities. Plant Ecol 155:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burke J, Taylor N (2002) Small mammal survey on agricultural land during conversion and into full organic production. In: UK organic research 2002: Proceedings of the COR conference March 2002. AberystwythGoogle Scholar
  6. Carey PD, Manchester SJ, Firbank L (2005) Performance of two agri-environment schemes in England: a comparison of ecological and multi-disciplinary evaluations. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:178–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carroll ZL, Bird SB, Emmett BA, Reynolds B, Sinclair FL (2004) Can tree shelterbelts on agricultural land reduce flood risk? Soil Use Manage 20:357–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Churchfield S (1991) The common shrew. In: Corbet GB, Harris S (eds) The handbook of British mammals. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford UKGoogle Scholar
  9. Churchfield S, Hollier L, Brown VK (1997) Community structure and habitat use of small mammals in grasslands of different successional age. J Zool 242:519–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DEFRA (2003) The common agricultural policy: from creation to the present day. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Fitzgibbon C (1997) Small mammals in farm woodlands: the effects of habitat, isolation and surround land-use patterns. J Appl Ecol 34:530–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Flowerdew JR, Shore RF, Poulton SMC, Sparks TH (2004) Live trapping to monitor small mammals in Britain. Mammal Rev 34: 31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Galbraith H (1988) Effects of agriculture on the breeding of lapwings Vanellus vanellus. J Appl Ecol 25:487–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geuse P (1985) Spatial microhabitat of bank voles and wood mice in a forest in central Belgium. Acta Zool 173:61–64Google Scholar
  15. Gipps JHW, Alibhai SK (1991) The field vole. In: Corbet GB, Harris S (eds) The handbook of British mammals. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford UKGoogle Scholar
  16. Haines-Young RH, Barr CJ, Black HJ, Briggs DJ, Bunce RH, Clarke RT, Cooper A, Dawson FH, Firbank LG (2000) Accounting for nature: assessing habitats in the UK countryside. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Harris S, Morris P, Wray S, Yalden D (1995) A review of British mammals: population estimates and conservation status of British mammals other than cetaceans. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris S, Woollard T (1990) The dispersal of mammals in agricultural habitats in Britain. In: Bunce RGH, Howard DC (eds) Species dispersal in agricultural habitats. Belhaven Press, London, pp 159–188Google Scholar
  19. Hawthorne AJ, Hassall M, Sotherton NW (1998) Effects of cereal headland treatments on the abundance and movements of three species of carabid beetles. Appl Soil Ecol 9:417–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Herzog F (2005) Agri-environment schemes as landscape experiments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:175–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hope ACA (1968) A simplified Monte Carlo significance test procedure. J Roy Stat Soc B 30:582–598Google Scholar
  22. Jacob J (2003) Short-term effects of farming practices on populations of common voles. Agric Ecosyst Environ 95:321–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kleijn D, Berendse F, Smit R, Gilissen N (2001) Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes. Nature 413:723–725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Krebs CJ (1966) Fluctuating populations of Microtus Californicus. Ecol Monogr 36:239–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Love RA, Webbon C, Glue DE, Harris S (2000) Changes in the food of British Barn Owls (Tytoalba) between 1974 and 1997. Mammal Rev 30:107–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manly FJ (1994) Multivariate statistical methods: a primer, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, London UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Marsh ACW, Harris S (2000) Partitioning of woodland habitat resources by two sympatric species of Apodemus: lessons for the conservation of the yellow-necked mouse in Britain. Biol Conserv 92:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Marsh ACW, Poulton S, Harris S (2001) The Yellow-necked Mouse Apodemus flavicollis in Britain: status and analysis of factors affecting distribution. Mammal Rev 31:203–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moore NP, Askew N, Bishop JD (2003) Small mammals in new farm woodlands. Mammal Rev 33:101–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ostman O, Ekborn B, Bengtsson J, Weibull AC (2001) Landscape complexity and farming practice influence the condition of polyphagous carabid beetles. Ecol Appl 11:480–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Payne RW (2002) The Guide to GenStat® Release 6.1 - Part 2: Statistics, VSN InternationalGoogle Scholar
  33. Putman RJ, Edwards PJ, Mann JCE, How RC, Hill SD (1989) Vegetational and faunal changes in an area of heavily grazed woodland following relief of grazing. Biol Conserv 47:13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pywell RF, Warman EA, Sparks TH, Greatorex-Davies JN, Walker KJ, Meek WR, Carvell C, Petit S, Firbank LG (2004) Assessing habitat quality for butterflies on intensively managed arable farmland. Biol Conserv 118:313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schmitzberger I, Wrbka T, Steurer B, Aschenbrenner G, Peterseil J, Zechmeister H (2005) How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:274–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smit R, Bokdam J, Ouden JD, Olff H, Schot-Opschoor H, Schrijvers M (2001) Effects of introduction and exclusion of large herbivores on small rodent communities. Plant Ecol 155:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smith RK, Vaughan-Jennings N, Harris S (2005) A quantitative analysis of the abundance and demography of European hares Lepus europaeus in relation to habitat type, intensity of agriculture and climate. Mammal Rev 35:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stephens PA, Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR, Sutherland WJ (2003) Predicting the response of farmland bird populations to changing food supplies. J Appl Ecol 40:970–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sunderland K, Samu F (2000) Effects of agricultural diversification on the abundance, distribution, and pest control potential of spiders: a review. Entomol Exp Appl 95:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sutherland WJ (2002) Restoring a sustainable countryside. TREE 17:148–150Google Scholar
  41. ter Braak CJF (1995) Ordination. In: Jongman RHG, ter Braak CJF, van Tongeren OFR (eds), Data analysis in community and landscape ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK, pp 91–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2002) CANOCO Reference Manual and CanocoDraw for Windows User’s guide: software for canonical community ordination (vs4.5). Microcomputer power, Ithaca NYGoogle Scholar
  43. Tattersall FH, MacDonald DW (2002) The arable wood mouse. In: Tattersall FH, Manley WJ (eds) Conservation and conflict: mammals and farming in Britain. Linnean Society Occasional Publication. Westbury Publishing, Otley Yorkshire UKGoogle Scholar
  44. Tattersall FH, Macdonald DW, Hart BJ, Johnson P, Manley W, Feber R (2002) Is habitat linearity important for small mammal communities on farmland? J Appl Ecol 39:643–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wakeham-Dowson A, Szoszkiewicz K, Stern K, Aebischer NJ (1998) Breeding skylarks Alauda arvensis on Environmentally Sensitive Area reversion grass in southern England: survey-based and experimental determination of density. J Appl Ecol 35:635–648Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NERC Centre for Ecology & HydrologyBangorUK
  2. 2.School of Agricultural and Forest SciencesUniversity of WalesBangorUK
  3. 3.Chevron Australia Pty LtdPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations