Literature DB >> 24988764

Is there any empirical support for biodiversity offset policy?

Michael Curran, Stefanie Hellweg, Jan Beck.   

Abstract

Biodiversity offsets are seen as a policy mechanism to balance development and conservation goals. Many offset schemes employ habitat restoration in one area to recreate biodiversity value that is destroyed elsewhere, assuming that recovery is timely and predictable. Recent research has challenged these assumptions on the grounds that restoration implies long time delays and a low certainty of success. To investigate these assertions, and to assess the strength of empirical support for offset policy, we used a meta-analytic approach to analyze data from 108 comparative studies of secondary growth (SG) and old-growth (OG) habitat (a total of 1228 SG sites and 716 OG reference sites). We extracted species checklists and calculated standardized response ratios for species richness, Fisher's alpha, Sorenson similarity, and Morisita-Horn similarity. We modeled diversity change with habitat age using generalized linear models and multi-model averaging, correcting for a number of potential explanatory variables. We tested whether (1) diversity of passively and actively restored habitat converges to OG values over time, (2) active restoration significantly accelerates this process, and (3) current offset policies are appropriate to the predicted uncertainties and time lags associated with restoration. The results indicate that in the best case, species richness converges to OG reference values within a century, species similarity (Sorenson) takes about twice as long, and assemblage composition (Morisita-Horn) up to an order of magnitude longer (hundreds to thousands of years). Active restoration significantly accelerates the process for all indices, but the inherently large time lags, uncertainty, and risk of restoration failure require offset ratios that far exceed what is currently applied in practice. Restoration offset policy therefore leads to a net loss of biodiversity, and represents an inappropriate use of the otherwise valuable tool of ecosystem restoration.

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24988764     DOI: 10.1890/13-0243.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecol Appl        ISSN: 1051-0761            Impact factor:   4.657


  20 in total

1.  Ecological Equivalence Assessment Methods: What Trade-Offs between Operationality, Scientific Basis and Comprehensiveness?

Authors:  Lucie Bezombes; Stéphanie Gaucherand; Christian Kerbiriou; Marie-Eve Reinert; Thomas Spiegelberger
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 3.266

2.  Accounting for Uncertainty and Time Lags in Equivalency Calculations for Offsetting in Aquatic Resources Management Programs.

Authors:  Michael J Bradford
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 3.266

3.  Reduced ecological resilience jeopardizes zero loss of biodiversity using the mitigation hierarchy.

Authors:  Falko Buschke; Susie Brownlie
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2020-04-06       Impact factor: 15.460

4.  Defining freshwater as a natural resource: A framework linking water use to the area of protection natural resources.

Authors:  Charlotte Pradinaud; Stephen Northey; Ben Amor; Jane Bare; Lorenzo Benini; Markus Berger; Anne-Marie Boulay; Guillaume Junqua; Michael J Lathuillière; Manuele Margni; Masaharu Motoshita; Briana Niblick; Sandra Payen; Stephan Pfister; Paula Quinteiro; Thomas Sonderegger; Ralph K Rosenbaum
Journal:  Int J Life Cycle Assess       Date:  2019       Impact factor: 4.141

5.  'Old wine in a new bottle': conceptualization of biodiversity offsets among environmental practitioners in Uganda.

Authors:  Ritah Kigonya
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2022-04-08       Impact factor: 3.644

Review 6.  Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with Life Cycle Assessment: are we there yet?

Authors:  Danielle M Souza; Ricardo F M Teixeira; Ole P Ostermann
Journal:  Glob Chang Biol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 10.863

7.  Leaf litter arthropod responses to tropical forest restoration.

Authors:  Rebecca J Cole; Karen D Holl; Rakan A Zahawi; Philipp Wickey; Alan R Townsend
Journal:  Ecol Evol       Date:  2016-06-28       Impact factor: 2.912

8.  A meta-analysis of functional group responses to forest recovery outside of the tropics.

Authors:  Rebecca Spake; Thomas H G Ezard; Philip A Martin; Adrian C Newton; C Patrick Doncaster
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 6.560

9.  A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success.

Authors:  Renato Crouzeilles; Michael Curran; Mariana S Ferreira; David B Lindenmayer; Carlos E V Grelle; José M Rey Benayas
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 14.919

10.  Environmental offsets, resilience and cost-effective conservation.

Authors:  L R Little; R Q Grafton
Journal:  R Soc Open Sci       Date:  2015-07-08       Impact factor: 2.963

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.