Back

Using landscape biodiversity metrics to assess rewilding: a space-for-time comparison between the Knepp Estate and an agricultural baseline at Boothby Wildland

Pates, N. J.; Boyce, B. B.; Crawley, M. J.; de Klee, I.; Green, P.; Hodge, J. A.; Estrada, C.; Loughlin, E. K.; Learmonth, R.; Moye, T. J.; Pearce, S. I.; Sherlock, M.; Pearse, W. D.

2025-01-21 ecology
10.1101/2025.01.16.633386 bioRxiv
Show abstract

O_LIThe biodiversity crisis is often framed in terms of the reduction of species found at a site: a (alpha) diversity. However, changes in species composition across a landscape - b (beta) diversity - caused by biotic homogenisation are part of the same crisis. Much biotic homogenisation in British terrestrial landscapes in the post-war period (1945 onwards) has been driven by agricultural conversion and intensification. Restoration efforts must therefore contend with restoring agricultural land to some desired state, and rewilding has emerged as a potential solution to this problem. C_LIO_LIHere we quantify rewilding success by comparing a- and b-diversity of plant assemblages across two study systems in different stages of rewilding. Boothby Wildland is an arable farm recently given over to rewilding, while the Knepp Estate is an ex-arable and dairy farm currently >20 years into rewilding. We assessed a-diversity within, and b- diversity across, these two landscapes using 3 years of plant survey data (2022-2024). C_LIO_LIWe confirmed expected differences between a baseline and rewilded landscape and explored the changes in a brand new rewilded landscape in its early years of progress. As expected, the plant community at the Knepp Estate is relatively stable while that of Boothby Wildland is changing rapidly, and we discuss the landscape impacts of different herbivory regimes on recovery. C_LIO_LISynthesis and applications. We also show that spatial metrics for SESMPD and SESMNTD can distinguish between a rewilded and degraded landscape. This suggests that changes in the structure of biodiversity across landscapes can be quantified using analyses that account for spatial structure in metrics. We call for further research to see if a spatial approach of this kind can be used as a general metric of success in rewilding. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of Applied Ecology
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
21.3%
2
Biological Conservation
46 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.3%
3
Journal of Ecology
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.7%
4
Ecography
54 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.7%
5
Diversity and Distributions
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
6
Ecological Applications
34 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
7
Oikos
84 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.1%
8
Ecosphere
57 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.1%
50% of probability mass above
9
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
27 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
10
Basic and Applied Ecology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.7%
11
Ecological Indicators
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
12
Global Ecology and Biogeography
47 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.4%
13
Biodiversity and Conservation
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
14
Landscape Ecology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
15
Ecology
85 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.9%
16
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.9%
17
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
18
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.7%
19
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
176 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
20
Forest Ecology and Management
27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.6%
21
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.5%
22
Global Change Biology
78 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
23
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.3%
24
Science of The Total Environment
186 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
25
Conservation Science and Practice
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
26
Molecular Ecology
336 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
27
Journal of Environmental Management
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
28
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
29
Insect Conservation and Diversity
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
30
Conservation Letters
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%