Mapping agrobiodiversity in Europe: Different indicators, different priority areas

Antonia E. Matthies; Catherine M.J. Fayet; Louise M.J. O'Connor; Peter H. Verburg

doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110744

Mapping agrobiodiversity in Europe: Different indicators, different priority areas

Antonia E. Matthies
, Catherine M.J. Fayet
, Louise M.J. O'Connor
, Peter H. Verburg^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Environmental Geography

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Agriculture plays a dual role in the conservation of European biodiversity, as extensive agricultural lands provide habitats for more than half of Europe's species, but intensification and abandonment of farmland threaten these species' habitats. Consequently, the preservation of agrobiodiversity, i.e., biodiversity on agricultural land, is increasingly the focus of conservation strategies. Agrobiodiversity is a complex and multi-dimensional concept, which begets that there currently is no consistent definition, measurement framework, or high-resolution spatial indicator that covers all facets of agrobiodiversity (genetic, species, and ecosystem). Furthermore, existing indicators have not been compared in terms of the areas the indicators identify as having high agrobiodiversity value. The objective of this study was, therefore, to compare four agrobiodiversity indicators, representing species and ecosystem levels of agrobiodiversity, by mapping them on extensive agricultural land in Europe and comparing them with the High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF) map. We mapped hotspots for each indicator and performed a pairwise Fuzzy Numerical map comparison. The findings show only moderate spatial similarity between indicators, where similarities mainly reflect correspondence in coldspot areas as well as low hotspot agreement with the well-established HNVF map. The results further indicate correspondence between hotspots for all indicators and HNVF on less than 1,500 km² (or less than 0.005% of extensive European farmland). The indicators' sensitivity to land-use change scenarios was also evaluated, revealing up to ± 50% difference in scenario response, depending on the chosen indicator, which could lead to inconsistent scenario outcomes. The results of this novel study highlight the importance of clearly defining agrobiodiversity before mapping and selecting an indicator for measuring it, especially if such analysis intends to identify priority areas for policy targeting.

Original language	English
Article number	110744
Pages (from-to)	1-10
Number of pages	10
Journal	Ecological Indicators
Volume	154
Early online date	2 Aug 2023
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110744
Publication status	Published - Oct 2023

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The research is financed through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme within the TERRANOVA project, No 813904. The paper reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Union cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. We would like to thank Yue Dou and Cecilia Zagaria for allowing us access to the land use change scenarios ahead of publication.

Funding Information:
The research is financed through the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme within the TERRANOVA project, No 813904. The paper reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Union cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. We would like to thank Yue Dou and Cecilia Zagaria for allowing us access to the land use change scenarios ahead of publication.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 The Authors

Funding

The research is financed through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme within the TERRANOVA project, No 813904. The paper reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Union cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. We would like to thank Yue Dou and Cecilia Zagaria for allowing us access to the land use change scenarios ahead of publication. The research is financed through the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme within the TERRANOVA project, No 813904. The paper reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Union cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. We would like to thank Yue Dou and Cecilia Zagaria for allowing us access to the land use change scenarios ahead of publication.

Keywords

Agrobiodiversity
Biodiversity conservation
Hotspot mapping
Spatial indicators
Species habitats

Access to Document

10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110744

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{00bc64ec51494984b5678bcc07b9a466,

title = "Mapping agrobiodiversity in Europe: Different indicators, different priority areas",

abstract = "Agriculture plays a dual role in the conservation of European biodiversity, as extensive agricultural lands provide habitats for more than half of Europe's species, but intensification and abandonment of farmland threaten these species' habitats. Consequently, the preservation of agrobiodiversity, i.e., biodiversity on agricultural land, is increasingly the focus of conservation strategies. Agrobiodiversity is a complex and multi-dimensional concept, which begets that there currently is no consistent definition, measurement framework, or high-resolution spatial indicator that covers all facets of agrobiodiversity (genetic, species, and ecosystem). Furthermore, existing indicators have not been compared in terms of the areas the indicators identify as having high agrobiodiversity value. The objective of this study was, therefore, to compare four agrobiodiversity indicators, representing species and ecosystem levels of agrobiodiversity, by mapping them on extensive agricultural land in Europe and comparing them with the High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF) map. We mapped hotspots for each indicator and performed a pairwise Fuzzy Numerical map comparison. The findings show only moderate spatial similarity between indicators, where similarities mainly reflect correspondence in coldspot areas as well as low hotspot agreement with the well-established HNVF map. The results further indicate correspondence between hotspots for all indicators and HNVF on less than 1,500 km2 (or less than 0.005\% of extensive European farmland). The indicators' sensitivity to land-use change scenarios was also evaluated, revealing up to ± 50\% difference in scenario response, depending on the chosen indicator, which could lead to inconsistent scenario outcomes. The results of this novel study highlight the importance of clearly defining agrobiodiversity before mapping and selecting an indicator for measuring it, especially if such analysis intends to identify priority areas for policy targeting.",

keywords = "Agrobiodiversity, Biodiversity conservation, Hotspot mapping, Spatial indicators, Species habitats",

author = "Matthies, \{Antonia E.\} and Fayet, \{Catherine M.J.\} and O'Connor, \{Louise M.J.\} and Verburg, \{Peter H.\}",

note = "Funding Information: The research is financed through the European Union{\textquoteright}s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme within the TERRANOVA project, No 813904. The paper reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Union cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. We would like to thank Yue Dou and Cecilia Zagaria for allowing us access to the land use change scenarios ahead of publication. Funding Information: The research is financed through the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme within the TERRANOVA project, No 813904. The paper reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Union cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. We would like to thank Yue Dou and Cecilia Zagaria for allowing us access to the land use change scenarios ahead of publication. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023 The Authors",

year = "2023",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110744",

language = "English",

volume = "154",

pages = "1--10",

journal = "Ecological Indicators",

issn = "1470-160X",

publisher = "Elsevier B.V.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mapping agrobiodiversity in Europe

T2 - Different indicators, different priority areas

AU - Matthies, Antonia E.

AU - Fayet, Catherine M.J.

AU - O'Connor, Louise M.J.

AU - Verburg, Peter H.

N1 - Funding Information: The research is financed through the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme within the TERRANOVA project, No 813904. The paper reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Union cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. We would like to thank Yue Dou and Cecilia Zagaria for allowing us access to the land use change scenarios ahead of publication. Funding Information: The research is financed through the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme within the TERRANOVA project, No 813904. The paper reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Union cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. We would like to thank Yue Dou and Cecilia Zagaria for allowing us access to the land use change scenarios ahead of publication. Publisher Copyright: © 2023 The Authors

PY - 2023/10

Y1 - 2023/10

N2 - Agriculture plays a dual role in the conservation of European biodiversity, as extensive agricultural lands provide habitats for more than half of Europe's species, but intensification and abandonment of farmland threaten these species' habitats. Consequently, the preservation of agrobiodiversity, i.e., biodiversity on agricultural land, is increasingly the focus of conservation strategies. Agrobiodiversity is a complex and multi-dimensional concept, which begets that there currently is no consistent definition, measurement framework, or high-resolution spatial indicator that covers all facets of agrobiodiversity (genetic, species, and ecosystem). Furthermore, existing indicators have not been compared in terms of the areas the indicators identify as having high agrobiodiversity value. The objective of this study was, therefore, to compare four agrobiodiversity indicators, representing species and ecosystem levels of agrobiodiversity, by mapping them on extensive agricultural land in Europe and comparing them with the High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF) map. We mapped hotspots for each indicator and performed a pairwise Fuzzy Numerical map comparison. The findings show only moderate spatial similarity between indicators, where similarities mainly reflect correspondence in coldspot areas as well as low hotspot agreement with the well-established HNVF map. The results further indicate correspondence between hotspots for all indicators and HNVF on less than 1,500 km2 (or less than 0.005% of extensive European farmland). The indicators' sensitivity to land-use change scenarios was also evaluated, revealing up to ± 50% difference in scenario response, depending on the chosen indicator, which could lead to inconsistent scenario outcomes. The results of this novel study highlight the importance of clearly defining agrobiodiversity before mapping and selecting an indicator for measuring it, especially if such analysis intends to identify priority areas for policy targeting.

AB - Agriculture plays a dual role in the conservation of European biodiversity, as extensive agricultural lands provide habitats for more than half of Europe's species, but intensification and abandonment of farmland threaten these species' habitats. Consequently, the preservation of agrobiodiversity, i.e., biodiversity on agricultural land, is increasingly the focus of conservation strategies. Agrobiodiversity is a complex and multi-dimensional concept, which begets that there currently is no consistent definition, measurement framework, or high-resolution spatial indicator that covers all facets of agrobiodiversity (genetic, species, and ecosystem). Furthermore, existing indicators have not been compared in terms of the areas the indicators identify as having high agrobiodiversity value. The objective of this study was, therefore, to compare four agrobiodiversity indicators, representing species and ecosystem levels of agrobiodiversity, by mapping them on extensive agricultural land in Europe and comparing them with the High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF) map. We mapped hotspots for each indicator and performed a pairwise Fuzzy Numerical map comparison. The findings show only moderate spatial similarity between indicators, where similarities mainly reflect correspondence in coldspot areas as well as low hotspot agreement with the well-established HNVF map. The results further indicate correspondence between hotspots for all indicators and HNVF on less than 1,500 km2 (or less than 0.005% of extensive European farmland). The indicators' sensitivity to land-use change scenarios was also evaluated, revealing up to ± 50% difference in scenario response, depending on the chosen indicator, which could lead to inconsistent scenario outcomes. The results of this novel study highlight the importance of clearly defining agrobiodiversity before mapping and selecting an indicator for measuring it, especially if such analysis intends to identify priority areas for policy targeting.

KW - Agrobiodiversity

KW - Biodiversity conservation

KW - Hotspot mapping

KW - Spatial indicators

KW - Species habitats

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85166622065

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85166622065#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110744

DO - 10.1016/j.ecolind.2023.110744

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85166622065

SN - 1470-160X

VL - 154

SP - 1

EP - 10

JO - Ecological Indicators

JF - Ecological Indicators

M1 - 110744

ER -

Mapping agrobiodiversity in Europe: Different indicators, different priority areas

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this