Electronic Supplementary Materials (Eigenbrod et al. 2009 – Ecosystem service benefits of contrasting conservation strategies in a human-dominated region. Proceedings of the Royal Society B doi: 10.1098/rspb.2009.0528)
1. Supplementary Methods
a) Modelled distributions of bird data
For the BAP birds presence/absence tetrad data were available from the 1988-1991 Breeding Birds Atlas as volunteer recorders for this atlas were asked to visit at least 8 of the 25 tetrads (each tetrad is 2 x 2 km) in each 10 x 10 km grid square in timed transects (Gibbons et al. 1993). We modelled species distributions to obtain a probability of occurrence value for all tetrads in England. Models were built using the amount of each of 13 classes from the 1990 Land Cover Map (Fuller et al. 1994) in the square, plus elevation and geographical location (x and y co-ordinates, Ordnance Survey grid reference) as predictors (see Franco et al. (2009) for detailed methods). These probabilities were then converted to binary values based on a species-specific cutoff (the ROC intercept when minimizing abs[sensitivity-specificity] using the roc function for SPLUS; http://www.stats.ox.ac.uk/~ripley/) (Table S1). For 5 species with fewer than 20 data points we did not build models and used presence/absence data instead. This was considered a suitable approach as the rare species are likely to be targeted by bird recorders and so the presence/absence information available is likely to represent the entire range.
b) Calculation of production values for agriculture
We obtained detailed information on the land area covered by major crops and number of livestock for England from the June Agricultural Survey (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 2005). The June Agricultural Survey is a randomly stratified survey of 30% of English farms that is spatially explicit at the ward/local authority level (mean area 1912 ha). We obtained boundary layers for these areas from UKBorders (http://www.edina.ac.uk/ukborders/). We then calculated the agricultural land area of each ward (cropland plus pastures and any grassland, including rough grazing and calcareous grassland) based on the Land Cover Map 2000 (Fuller et al. 2002). We converted the area of a crop/number of livestock in the agricultural land of each ward into gross margins by multiplying them by gross margin per unit area (or per unit of livestock) as obtained from the Farm Management Handbook (FMH) 2007/2008 (Beaton et al. 2007) (Table S2). If more than one estimate of gross margin per unit area was given, we used the intermediate value or the average of the high and low value. The gross margin accounts for variable costs of production. We excluded the decoupled single payment subsidy (‘all other output’ in the FMH) from the gross margin per unit area based on whole farm data for either cereal, horticulture, dairy, lowland cattle and sheep or ‘less favoured areas’ (LFA) cattle and sheep farms.
We calculated separate gross margins for the lowlands and LFA areas for cows and sheep to account for the two estimates of gross margins per livestock unit present in the FMH. We clipped the agricultural census layer by a layer delineating least favoured areas obtained from www.magic.gov.uk. If a ward contained both less favoured areas and lowlands, we divided the number of cattle and sheep between the less favoured areas and lowlands based on the percentage of the ward that was located in each area. We did not calculate gross margins for hay and other crops raised to feed livestock as we assumed these would be included as variable costs for livestock. We also did not include poultry or pigs in our estimates as both are largely produced in factory farms which are largely disconnected from inputs from the land on which they occur.
Supplementary References
Beaton, C., Catto, J. & Kerr, G. (eds) 2007 The farm management handbook
2007/2008, Edinburgh: Scottish Agricultural College.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2005. June Agricultural Survey 2004. See http://www.defra.gov.uk/esg/work_htm/publications/cs/farmstats_web/2_SURVE Y_DATA_SEARCH/COMPLETE_DATASETS/NUTS/nuts_excel_2004.zip.
Franco, A. M. A. et al. 2009. Surrogacy and persistence in reserve selection: landscape prioritization for multiple taxa in Britain. J. Appl. Ecol. 46, 82-91.
Fuller, R. M., Groom, G. B. & Jones, A.R. 1994 The Land Cover Map of Great Britain: an automated classification of Landsat Thermatic Mapper data. Eng. Remote Sens. 60, 553-62.
Fuller, R. M., Smith, G. M., Sanderson, J. M., Hill, R.A. & Thomson, A.G. 2002 Land Cover Map 2000: A general description of the UK's new vector GIS based on classification of remotely sensed data. Cartographic J. 39, 15–25.
Gibbons, D. W., Reid, J. B. & Chapman, R. A. 1993 The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland, 1988-1991 London: T. & A.D. Poyser.
2. Supplementary Tables
Table S1. The cutoff value used to convert modelled bird distribution values (Supplementary Methods) to binary presences (> cutoff) and absences (< cutoff).
Scientific name / CutoffAnthus trivialis / 0.13512
Burhinus oedicnemus / 0.00101
Caprimulgus europaeus / 0.00182
Carduelis cannabina / 0.45476
Carduelis flavirostris / 0.05993
Coccothraustes coccothraustes / 0.00395
Crex crex / 0.00258
Cuculus canorus / 0.34958
Dendrocopos minor / 0.02205
Emberiza cirlus / 0.00026
Emberiza schoeniclus / 0.18442
Lagopus lagopus / 0.14594
Limosa limosa / 0.00125
Locustella naevia / 0.0272
Loxia scotica / 0.00261
Lullula arborea / 0.00152
Miliaria calandra / 0.0983
Motacilla flava / 0.11478
Muscicapa striata / 0.29018
Numenius arquata / 0.29265
Parus montanus / 0.0743
Parus palustris / 0.1095
Passer domesticus / 0.68715
Passer montanus / 0.14289
Phylloscopus sibilatrix / 0.07788
Pyrrhula pyrrhula / 0.29217
Streptopelia turtur / 0.1875
Sturnus vulgaris / 0.74213
Tetrao tetrix / 0.02357
Tetrao urogallus / 0.00054
Turdus philomelos / 0.66314
Turdus torquatus / 0.04584
Table S2. Summary of values used in calculating the gross margin of agriculture production (Supplementary Methods). Gross margins per unit area in £/ha unless otherwise indicated.
Horticulture / 8627 / Includes fruit, vegetables, hardy stock, nursery, vineyards, flowers
Barley / 205 / Assume 50/50 split between spring and winter barley
Wheat / 354 / Assuming all winter wheat
Potatoes / 1053 / Maincrop ware
Oilseed rape / 20.76 / Assuming all winter rape. Biofuel subsidy removed.
Field beans / -19.31 / Protein crop subsidy removed
Peas for dry
harvesting / -125.31 / Protein crop subsidy removed
Sugar beet / 255
Dairy / 805.30 (£/cow)
Ewe equivalent (LFA) / 21.9 (£/ewe equivalent) / 1 breeding cow = 7.5 ewe equivalent; 1 ewe = 1 ewe equivalent27
Ewe equivalent (lowland) / 34.2 (£/ewe equivalent)
Table S3. Changes in the Biodiversity ratios depending on the minimum area of a conservation strategy required for it to be ‘present’ in a 2 km grid square. ‘Area (%) of Conservation Strategy’ is the percent of England that the strategy covers using a particular cutoff. The percentage of England covered by the Protected Areas is 6%; for the Agri-environment Scheme (CSS) it is 16%. The biodiversity ratios for the Protected Landscapes change little as these generally are found over large contiguous areas (Fig. 1) and are thus not shown. We use 0.40 for the main results, as this best corresponds to the actual area covered by all strategies. Over a wide range of potential threshold values, the general conclusion holds that Protected Areas over-represent BAP species (Ratios >2) whereas the Agri-environment Scheme is similar to a random selection of locations for biodiversity (Ratio values around 1).
Protected Areas / >0 / 68.2 / 33.4 / 2.04
0.1 / 39.0 / 12.9 / 3.03
0.2 / 29.4 / 9.1 / 3.24
0.3 / 24.2 / 7.1 / 3.41
0.4 / 18.8 / 5.6 / 3.33
0.5 / 15.9 / 4.7 / 3.38
0.6 / 11.6 / 3.9 / 2.98
0.7 / 9.9 / 3.2 / 3.09
0.8 / 7.3 / 2.6 / 2.77
0.9 / 5.1 / 1.9 / 2.70
0.999 / 1.6 / 0.9 / 1.77
Agri-environment Scheme (CSS) / >0 / 63.9 / 67.4 / 0.95
0.1 / 41.2 / 41.1 / 1.00
0.2 / 29.0 / 28.5 / 1.02
0.3 / 21.6 / 19.9 / 1.08
0.4 / 13.7 / 13.8 / 0.99
0.5 / 9.7 / 9.6 / 1.01
0.6 / 7.0 / 6.6 / 1.06
0.7 / 4.9 / 4.5 / 1.10
0.8 / 3.2 / 2.8 / 1.14
0.9 / 2.1 / 1.6 / 1.33
0.999 / 0.7 / 0.4 / 1.90
* Summed proportion of the ranges of each species falling into 2 km grid cells containing greater than a given minimum proportion of each conservation strategy in a 2 km square.
+ This is the summed area (expressed as a percentage of England) deemed to contain a given conservation strategy, when different thresholds are used to “include” 2 km grid cells. Thus, 33.4% of England 2 km grid cells contain at least some Protected Area land, 5.6% of 2 km grid cells are covered by more than 40% Protected Area, and only 0.9% of 2 km grid cells are entirely covered by Protected Areas.
Table S4. Assignment of LC2000 land cover map subclasses (Fuller et al. 2002) to calculate the distribution of key land cover types. We selected these particular land cover types for their relevance to the four ecosystem services we examined.
Deciduous forest / 1 – Broad leaved woodland
Coniferous forest / 2 – Coniferous woodland
Cropland / 4 – Arable & horticulture
Pasture/Grassland / 5 – 8 – Improved, calcareous, neutral, and acid grassland
Moorland heather / 9, 10 – Dwarf shrub heath and bracken
Wetland / 11, 12 – Fen, marsh, swamp and bog
Urban/suburban / 17 – Built up areas, gardens
Table S5. Distribution (%) of key land cover types within conservation strategies and across all of England and the wider countryside (areas not covered by any of the three conservation strategies).
(NP and AONB) / National Parks (NP) / AONB / Protected Areas / All strategies / None of the strategies
Deciduous forest / 0.08 / 0.08 / 0.11 / 0.09 / 0.12 / 0.13 / 0.10 / 0.07
Coniferous forest / 0.02 / 0.01 / 0.04 / 0.06 / 0.03 / 0.05 / 0.03 / 0.02
Cropland / 0.36 / 0.45 / 0.23 / 0.07 / 0.31 / 0.06 / 0.31 / 0.38
Pasture/Grassland / 0.36 / 0.36 / 0.46 / 0.54 / 0.41 / 0.33 / 0.41 / 0.33
Moorland heather / 0.03 / 0.04 / 0.09 / 0.17 / 0.04 / 0.23 / 0.06 / 0.00
Wetland / 0.01 / 0.02 / 0.03 / 0.04 / 0.02 / 0.09 / 0.02 / 0.00
Urban/suburban / 0.10 / 0.03 / 0.03 / 0.02 / 0.03 / 0.02 / 0.03 / 0.14
Table S6. Biodiversity results (BAP species) by species group. The “Ratio” results for plants, animals and bryophytes confirm that Protected Areas represent biodiversity most effectively, and that the Agri-environment Scheme (CSS) has the lowest representation of biodiversity. Protected Landscapes (AONB and National Parks) are intermediate.
Protected Areas / plants / 157 / 20 / 28 / 3.55
animals / 86 / 12 / 4 / 2.21
bryophytes / 81 / 23 / 38 / 4.10
AONB / plants / 157 / 30 / 33 / 1.91
animals / 86 / 23 / 6 / 1.42
bryophytes / 81 / 30 / 31 / 1.90
National Parks / plants / 157 / 14 / 73 / 1.69
animals / 86 / 13 / 6 / 1.58
bryophytes / 81 / 16 / 58 / 1.90
CSS / plants / 157 / 13 / 39 / 0.96
animals / 86 / 16 / 3 / 1.16
bryophytes / 81 / 12 / 42 / 0.88
* Summed proportion of the ranges of each species falling into 2 km grid cells containing >40% cover of each conservation strategy. Thus 22% of the total range area of all plant species falls within Protected Areas-containing (>40% cover) grid cells, which is 3.18 times as great a representation as would be expected, given the total area of these Protected Area-containing cells.
+ Number of species in each taxonomic group that are not recorded as present within any of the 2 km grid cells containing each conservation strategy (at >40% cover).
Table S7. Comparison of ecosystem service representation between the three major Agri-environment Schemes1 in England. A Ratio of >1 indicates that an ecosystem service is over-represented; values <1 indicate under-representation. The percentage of the total amount of biodiversity (summed proportion of range) or ecosystem service in England is given for each scheme. The Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme (ESA) is another major Agri-environment Scheme in England. It is targeted at areas with high conservation values. We did not consider it the main analysis because it gives very similar results to the Protected Landscapes within which it is largely nested (83% overlap).
% of Total / Ratio / % of Total / Ratio / % of Total / Ratio
Biodiversity / 13.7 / 0.99 / 9.8 / 1.87 / 3.3 / 1.70
Carbon Storage / 17.1 / 1.08 / 7.3 / 1.52 / 3.8 / 1.24
Recreation / 10.4 / 0.66 / 1.9 / 0.40 / 1.8 / 0.58
Agriculture
+ Timber / 16 / 1.01 / 3.3 / 0.68 / 2.7 / 0.89
1ESA and HLS data was obtained from www.magic.gov.uk and is current as of June 11, 2007 and June 1, 2008, respectively (most current available data).
1