Search for: All records

The conversion of forest to agriculture is considered one of the greatest threats to avian biodiversity, yet how species respond to habitat modification throughout the annual cycle remains unknown. We examined whether forest bird associations with agricultural habitats vary throughout the year, and if species traits influence these relationships. Using data from the eBird community‐science program, we investigated associations between agriculturally‐modified land cover and the occurrence of 238 forest bird species based on three sets of avian traits: migratory strategy, dietary guild, and foraging strategy. We found that the influence of agriculturally‐modified land cover on species distributions varied widely across periods and trait groups but highlighting several broad findings. First, migratory species showed strong seasonal differences in their response to agricultural land cover while resident species did not. Second, there was a migratory strategy by season interaction; Neotropical migrants were most negatively influenced by agricultural land cover during the breeding period while short‐distance migrants were most negatively influenced during the non‐breeding period. Third, regardless of season, some dietary (e.g. insectivores) and foraging guilds (e.g. bark foragers) consistently responded more negatively to agricultural land cover than others (e.g. omnivores and ground foragers, respectively). Fourth, there were greater differences among dietary guilds in their responses to agricultural land cover during the breeding period than during the non‐breeding period, perhaps reflecting how different habitat and ecological requirements enhance the susceptibility of some guilds during reproduction. These results suggest that management efforts across the annual cycle may be oversimplified and thus ineffective when based on broad ecological generalisations that are static in space and time. 

Abstract Sustaining the organisms, ecosystems and processes that underpin human wellbeing is necessary to achieve sustainable development. Here we define critical natural assets as the natural and semi-natural ecosystems that provide 90% of the total current magnitude of 14 types of nature’s contributions to people (NCP), and we map the global locations of these critical natural assets at 2 km resolution. Critical natural assets for maintaining local-scale NCP (12 of the 14 NCP) account for 30% of total global land area and 24% of national territorial waters, while 44% of land area is required to also maintain two global-scale NCP (carbon storage and moisture recycling). These areas overlap substantially with cultural diversity (areas containing 96% of global languages) and biodiversity (covering area requirements for 73% of birds and 66% of mammals). At least 87% of the world’s population live in the areas benefitting from critical natural assets for local-scale NCP, while only 16% live on the lands containing these assets. Many of the NCP mapped here are left out of international agreements focused on conserving species or mitigating climate change, yet this analysis shows that explicitly prioritizing critical natural assets and the NCP they provide could simultaneously advance development, climate and conservation goals.