Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Biodiversity and Conservation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alibhai SK, Gipps JHW (1991) The bank vole. In: Corbet GB, Harris S (eds), The handbook of British mammals. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 108:205–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? TREE 18:182–188

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 155:119–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Aberystwyth

  • 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 108:178–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll ZL, Bird SB, Emmett BA, Reynolds B, Sinclair FL (2004) Can tree shelterbelts on agricultural land reduce flood risk? Soil Use Manage 20:357–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchfield S (1991) The common shrew. In: Corbet GB, Harris S (eds) The handbook of British mammals. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchfield S, Hollier L, Brown VK (1997) Community structure and habitat use of small mammals in grasslands of different successional age. J Zool 242:519–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DEFRA (2003) The common agricultural policy: from creation to the present day. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgibbon C (1997) Small mammals in farm woodlands: the effects of habitat, isolation and surround land-use patterns. J Appl Ecol 34:530–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flowerdew JR, Shore RF, Poulton SMC, Sparks TH (2004) Live trapping to monitor small mammals in Britain. Mammal Rev 34: 31–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith H (1988) Effects of agriculture on the breeding of lapwings Vanellus vanellus. J Appl Ecol 25:487–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geuse P (1985) Spatial microhabitat of bank voles and wood mice in a forest in central Belgium. Acta Zool 173:61–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Gipps JHW, Alibhai SK (1991) The field vole. In: Corbet GB, Harris S (eds) The handbook of British mammals. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 159–188

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:417–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herzog F (2005) Agri-environment schemes as landscape experiments. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:175–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hope ACA (1968) A simplified Monte Carlo significance test procedure. J Roy Stat Soc B 30:582–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacob J (2003) Short-term effects of farming practices on populations of common voles. Agric Ecosyst Environ 95:321–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn D, Berendse F, Smit R, Gilissen N (2001) Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes. Nature 413:723–725

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2003) How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? J Appl Ecol 40:947–969

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krebs CJ (1966) Fluctuating populations of Microtus Californicus. Ecol Monogr 36:239–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Love RA, Webbon C, Glue DE, Harris S (2000) Changes in the food of British Barn Owls (Tytoalba) between 1974 and 1997. Mammal Rev 30:107–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manly FJ (1994) Multivariate statistical methods: a primer, 2nd edn. Chapman & Hall, London UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 92:275–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh ACW, Poulton S, Harris S (2001) The Yellow-necked Mouse Apodemus flavicollis in Britain: status and analysis of factors affecting distribution. Mammal Rev 31:203–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore NP, Askew N, Bishop JD (2003) Small mammals in new farm woodlands. Mammal Rev 33:101–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostman O, Ekborn B, Bengtsson J, Weibull AC (2001) Landscape complexity and farming practice influence the condition of polyphagous carabid beetles. Ecol Appl 11:480–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne RW (2002) The Guide to GenStat® Release 6.1 - Part 2: Statistics, VSN International

  • 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 47:13–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 118:313–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 108:274–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 155:119–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 35:1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens PA, Freckleton RP, Watkinson AR, Sutherland WJ (2003) Predicting the response of farmland bird populations to changing food supplies. J Appl Ecol 40:970–983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunderland K, Samu F (2000) Effects of agricultural diversification on the abundance, distribution, and pest control potential of spiders: a review. Entomol Exp Appl 95:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland WJ (2002) Restoring a sustainable countryside. TREE 17:148–150

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 91–173

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 NY

  • 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 UK

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 39:643–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 35:635–648

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We express our appreciation to all the farmers of the Pontbren Group for their help and support, and in particular, to Margaret Hughes, Aled Morris and Eirlys and Roger Jukes for their hospitality, enthusiasm and their kindness during work on their farms. David Jenkins (Coed Cymru) offered important logistical advice and support. Conservation work at Pontbren is supported by the Enfys Programme administered by the Wales Council for Voluntary Action. Tim Sparks provided statistical advice. Peter Carey, Bridget Emmett and Richard Shore provided constructive comments on drafts of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bangor, Gwynedd, LL57 2UP, UK

    Dorian Moro

  2. School of Agricultural and Forest Sciences, University of Wales, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK

    Stephanie Gadal

  3. Chevron Australia Pty Ltd, Gorgon HES QV1 Building, 250 St George’s Terrace, Perth, WA, 6000, Australia

    Dorian Moro

Authors
  1. Dorian Moro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephanie Gadal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dorian Moro.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Moro, D., Gadal, S. Benefits of habitat restoration to small mammal diversity and abundance in a pastoral agricultural landscape in mid-Wales. Biodivers Conserv 16, 3543–3557 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9104-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-006-9104-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation