Assessing wild bees in perennial bioenergy landscapes: effects of bioenergy crop composition,landscape configuration,and bioenergy crop area

Context

Wild bee populations are currently under threat, which has led to recent efforts to increase pollinator habitat in North America. Simultaneously, U.S. federal energy policies are beginning to encourage perennial bioenergy cropping (PBC) systems, which have the potential to support native bees.

Objectives

Our objective was to explore the potentially interactive effects of crop composition, total PBC area, and PBC patches in different landscape configurations.

Methods

Using a spatially-explicit modeling approach, the Lonsdorf model, we simulated the impacts of three perennial bioenergy crops (PBC: willow, switchgrass, and prairie), three scenarios with different total PBC area (11.7, 23.5 and 28.8% of agricultural land converted to PBC) and two types of landscape configurations (PBC in clustered landscape patterns that represent realistic future configurations or in dispersed neutral landscape models) on a nest abundance index in an Illinois landscape.

Results

Our modeling results suggest that crop composition and PBC area are particularly important for bee nest abundance, whereas landscape configuration is associated with bee nest abundance at the local scale but less so at the regional scale.

Conclusions

Strategies to enhance wild bee habitat should therefore emphasize the crop composition and amount of PBC.

     

Science for action at the local landscape scale

For landscape ecology to produce knowledge relevant to society, it must include considerations of human culture and behavior, extending beyond the natural sciences to synthesize with many other disciplines. Furthermore, it needs to be able to support landscape change processes which increasingly take the shape of deliberative and collaborative decision making by local stakeholder groups. Landscape ecology as described by Wu (Landscape Ecol 28:1–11, 2013) therefore needs three additional topics of investigation: (1) the local landscape as a boundary object that builds communication among disciplines and between science and local communities, (2) iterative and collaborative methods for generating transdisciplinary approaches to sustainable change, and (3) the effect of scientific knowledge and tools on local landscape policy and landscape change. Collectively, these topics could empower landscape ecology to be a science for action at the local scale.     

Assessing alternative futures for agriculture in Iowa,U.S.A.

The contributions of current agricultural practices to environmental degradation and the social problems facing agricultural regions are well known. However, landscape-scale alternatives to current trends have not been fully explored nor their potential impacts quantified. To address this research need, our interdisciplinary team designed three alternative future scenarios for two watersheds in Iowa, USA, and used spatially-explicit models to evaluate the potential consequences of changes in farmland management. This paper summarizes and integrates the results of this interdisciplinary research project into an assessment of the designed alternatives intended to improve our understanding of landscape ecology in agricultural ecosystems and to inform agricultural policy. Scenario futures were digitized into a Geographic Information System (GIS), visualized with maps and simulated images, and evaluated for multiple endpoints to assess impacts of land use change on water quality, social and economic goals, and native flora and fauna. The Biodiversity scenario, targeting restoration of indigenous biodiversity, ranked higher than the current landscape for all endpoints (biodiversity, water quality, farmer preference, and profitability). The Biodiversity scenario ranked higher than the Production scenario (which focused on profitable agricultural production) in all endpoints but profitability, for which the two scenarios scored similarly, and also ranked higher than the Water Quality scenario in all endpoints except water quality. The Water Quality scenario, which targeted improvement in water quality, ranked highest of all landscapes in potential water quality and higher than the current landscape and the Production scenario in all but profitability. Our results indicate that innovative agricultural practices targeting environmental improvements may be acceptable to farmers and could substantially reduce the environmental impacts of agriculture in this region.This revised version was published online in May 2005 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology?

This collaborative essay grows out of a debate about the relationship between aesthetics and ecology and the possibility of an “ecological aesthetic” that affects landscape planning, design, and management. We describe our common understandings and unresolved questions about this relationship, including the importance of aesthetics in understanding and affecting landscape change and the ways in which aesthetics and ecology may have either complementary or contradictory implications for a landscape. To help understand these issues, we first outline a conceptual model of the aesthetics–ecology relationship. We posit that: 1. While human and environmental phenomena occur at widely varying scales, humans engage with environmental phenomena at a particular scale: that of human experience of our landscape surroundings. That is the human “perceptible realm.” 2. Interactions within this realm give rise to aesthetic experiences, which can lead to changes affecting humans and the landscape, and thus ecosystems. 3. Context affects aesthetic experience of landscapes. Context includes both effects of different landscape types (wild, agricultural, cultural, and metropolitan landscapes) and effects of different personal–social situational activities or concerns. We argue that some contexts elicit aesthetic experiences that have traditionally been called “scenic beauty,” while other contexts elicit different aesthetic experiences, such as perceived care, attachment, and identity. Last, we discuss how interventions through landscape planning, design, and management; or through enhanced knowledge might establish desirable relationships between aesthetics and ecology, and we examine the controversial characteristics of such ecological aesthetics. While these interventions may help sustain beneficial landscape patterns and practices, they are inherently normative, and we consider their ethical implications.     

Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm

Landscape ecological science has produced knowledge about the relationship between landscape pattern and landscape processes, but it has been less effective in transferring this knowledge to society. We argue that design is a common ground for scientists and practitioners to bring scientific knowledge into decision making about landscape change, and we therefore propose that the pattern–process paradigm should be extended to include a third part: design. In this context, we define design as any intentional change of landscape pattern for the purpose of sustainably providing ecosystem services while recognizably meeting societal needs and respecting societal values. We see both the activity of design and the resulting design pattern as opportunities for science: as a research method and as topic of research. To place design within landscape ecology science, we develop an analytic framework based on the concept of knowledge innovation, and we apply the framework to two cases in which design has been used as part of science. In these cases, design elicited innovation in society and in science: the design concept was incorporated in societal action to improve landscape function, and it also initiated scientific questions about pattern–process relations. We conclude that landscape design created collaboratively by scientists and practitioners in many disciplines improves the impact of landscape science in society and enhances the saliency and legitimacy of landscape ecological scientific knowledge.     

The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy

Environmental policy should explicitly address the appearance of the landscape because people make inferences about ecological quality from the look of the land. Where appearances are misleading, failing to portray ecological degradation or ecological health, public opinion may be ill-informed, with consequences for environmental policy. This paper argues that while ecology is a scientific concept, landscape perception is a social process. If we do not recognize this difference, we have problems with the appearance of ecological systems. Three influential problems are discussed: 1) the problem of the false identity of ecological systems, 2) the problem of design and planning as deceit about ecological systems, and 3) the problem of invisible ecological systems. These problems for environmental policy may be resolved in part if landscape planners and policy-makers use socially-recognized signs to display human intentions for ecological systems. Specifically, planning and policy can include socially-recognized signs of beauty and stewardship to display human care for ecological systems. An example in United States federal agricultural policy is described.     

Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology

The normative landscape scenario is one of many types of scenario methods that are used by landscape ecologists. We describe how normative landscape scenarios are different from other types and how these differences create special potential for engaging science to build landscape policy and for exploring scientific questions in realistic simulated landscapes. We describe criteria and a method for generating normative scenarios to realize this potential in both policy and landscape ecology research. Finally, we describe how the method and criteria apply to an interdisciplinary project that proposed alternative scenarios for federal agricultural policy and related futures for agricultural watersheds in Iowa, USA.This revised version was published online in May 2005 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Culture and changing landscape structure

Culture changes landscapes and culture is embodied by landscapes. Both aspects of this dynamic are encompassed by landscape ecology, but neither has been examined sufficiently to produce cultural theory within the field. This paper describes four broad cultural principles for landscape ecology, under which more precise principles might be organized. A central underlying premise is that culture and landscape interact in a feedback loop in which culture structures landscapes and landscapes inculcate culture. The following broad principles are proposed:

1. Human landscape perception, cognition, and values directly affect the landscape and are affected by the landscape.
2. Cultural conventions powerfully influence landscape pattern in both inhabited and apparently natural landscapes.
3. Cultural concepts of nature are different from scientific concepts of ecological function.
4. The appearance of landscapes communicates cultural values.

Both the study of landscapes at a human scale and experimentation with possible landscapes, landscape patterns invented to accommodate ecological function, are recommended as means of achieving more precise cultural principles.