This service record is an account of military actions during the American Civil War by veteran John M. Holland (1843- ), dated from 1910. ; 1 leaf ; 2 pdf pages. ; All descriptive lists and service records in this United Confederate (Civil War) Veterans manuscript collection believed to be based out of Robert E. Lee Camp #158 of the United Confederate Veterans (Fort Worth, Tex.). United Confederate Veterans. R.E. Lee Camp No. 158 (Fort Worth, Tex.) ; The Southwest Collection Manuscript Record can be accessed at the following URL: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/taro/ttusw/00119/tsw-00119.html
Governmental agri-environment schemes (AES) aim to improve pollinator abundance and diversity on farmland by sowing wildflower seed mixes. These often contain high proportions of Fabaceae, particularly Trifolium (clovers), which are attractive to some bumblebee species, but not to most of the ~ 240 solitary bee species in the UK. Here we identify wildflowers that are attractive to a greater range of wild bee species. Forty-five wildflower species being farmed for commercial seed production on a single farm were surveyed for native bees. Bee walks were conducted through discrete wildflower areas from April until August in 2018. The results indicate that including a range of Apiaceae, Asteraceae, and Geraniaceae in seed mixes would cater for a wide diversity of bee species. A total of 14 wildflower species across nine families attracted 37 out of the 40 bee species recorded on the farm, and accounted for 99.7% of all visitations. Only two of these 14 species are included in current AES pollinator mixes. Unexpectedly, few visits were made by bumblebees to Trifolium spp. (0.5%), despite their being considered an important food source for bumblebees, while Anthyllis vulneraria and Geranium pratense were highly attractive. For solitary bees, Crepis capillaris, Sinapsis arvensis, Convolvulus arvensis and Chaerophyllum temulum were amongst the best performing species, none of which are usually included in sown flower mixes. We suggest that the standard 'pollinator' mixes used in AES might be updated to include some of these wildflower species, and trialled as seed mixes on farmland.
International audience ; AbstractSemi-natural habitats are integral to most agricultural areas and have the potential to support ecosystem services, especially biological control and pollination by supplying resources for the invertebrates providing these services and for soil conservation by preventing erosion and run-off. Some habitats are supported through agri-environment scheme funding in the European Union, but their value for ecosystem service delivery has been questioned. An improved understanding of previous research approaches and outcomes will contribute to the development of more sustainable farming systems, improve experimental designs and highlight knowledge gaps especially for funders and researchers. Here we compiled a systematic map to allow for the first time a review of the quantity of evidence collected in Europe that semi-natural habitats support biological control, pollination and soil conservation. A literature search selected 2252 publications, and, following review, 270 met the inclusion criteria and were entered into the database. Most publications were of pest control (143 publications) with less on pollination (78 publications) or soil-related aspects (31). For pest control and pollination, most publications reported a positive effect of semi-natural habitats. There were weaknesses in the evidence base though because of bias in study location and the crops, whilst metrics (e.g. yield) valued by end users were seldom measured. Hedgerows, woodland and grassland were the most heavily investigated semi-natural habitats, and the wider landscape composition was often considered. Study designs varied considerably yet only 24% included controls or involved manipulation of semi-natural habitats. Service providers were commonly measured and used as a surrogate for ecosystem service delivery. Key messages for policymakers and funders are that they should encourage research that includes more metrics required by end users, be prepared to fund longer-term studies (61% were of only 1-year duration) ...
International audience ; AbstractSemi-natural habitats are integral to most agricultural areas and have the potential to support ecosystem services, especially biological control and pollination by supplying resources for the invertebrates providing these services and for soil conservation by preventing erosion and run-off. Some habitats are supported through agri-environment scheme funding in the European Union, but their value for ecosystem service delivery has been questioned. An improved understanding of previous research approaches and outcomes will contribute to the development of more sustainable farming systems, improve experimental designs and highlight knowledge gaps especially for funders and researchers. Here we compiled a systematic map to allow for the first time a review of the quantity of evidence collected in Europe that semi-natural habitats support biological control, pollination and soil conservation. A literature search selected 2252 publications, and, following review, 270 met the inclusion criteria and were entered into the database. Most publications were of pest control (143 publications) with less on pollination (78 publications) or soil-related aspects (31). For pest control and pollination, most publications reported a positive effect of semi-natural habitats. There were weaknesses in the evidence base though because of bias in study location and the crops, whilst metrics (e.g. yield) valued by end users were seldom measured. Hedgerows, woodland and grassland were the most heavily investigated semi-natural habitats, and the wider landscape composition was often considered. Study designs varied considerably yet only 24% included controls or involved manipulation of semi-natural habitats. Service providers were commonly measured and used as a surrogate for ecosystem service delivery. Key messages for policymakers and funders are that they should encourage research that includes more metrics required by end users, be prepared to fund longer-term studies (61% were of only 1-year duration) ...
Pest control by natural enemies (natural pest control) is an important regulating ecosystem service with significant implications for the sustainability of agro-ecosystems. The presence of semi-natural habitats and landscape heterogeneity are key determinants of the delivery of this service. However, to date, synthetic and consistent indicators at large scales are lacking. We developed a pan-European, spatially-explicit model to map and assess the landscape potential to sustain natural pest control. The model considers landscape composition in terms of semi-natural habitats types, abundance, spatial configuration and distance from the focal field. It combines recent high-resolution geospatial layers with empirical results from extensive field surveys measuring the specific contribution of different semi-natural habitats to support insects flying enemies providing natural pest control. The resulting maps facilitate a comparison of the relative biological control potential of different areas and show that currently a large proportion of high-productive agricultural areas in Europe has low potential. The obtained indicator can inform the formulation of policies and planning strategies aimed at increasing biodiversity and ecosystem services and can be used to assess trade-offs between different services. Potential fields of application include the Common Agricultural Policy and the EU Biodiversity Strategy, in particular the implementation of Green Infrastructure.
Pest control by natural enemies (natural pest control) is an important regulating ecosystem service with significant implications for the sustainability of agro-ecosystems. The presence of semi-natural habitats and landscape heterogeneity are key determinants of the delivery of this service. However, to date, synthetic and consistent indicators at large scales are lacking. We developed a pan-European, spatially-explicit model to map and assess the landscape potential to sustain natural pest control. The model considers landscape composition in terms of semi-natural habitats types, abundance, spatial configuration and distance from the focal field. It combines recent high-resolution geospatial layers with empirical results from extensive field surveys measuring the specific contribution of different semi-natural habitats to support insects flying enemies providing natural pest control. The resulting maps facilitate a comparison of the relative biological control potential of different areas and show that currently a large proportion of high-productive agricultural areas in Europe has low potential. The obtained indicator can inform the formulation of policies and planning strategies aimed at increasing biodiversity and ecosystem services and can be used to assess trade-offs between different services. Potential fields of application include the Common Agricultural Policy and the EU Biodiversity Strategy, in particular the implementation of Green Infrastructure.
Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert ...
Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert ...
1. Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high‐quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post‐2020 CAP, we performed a European‐scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator‐friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake. 2. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources. 3. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early‐season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived. 4. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator‐friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen‐fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. 5. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, ...
Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert ...
1. Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high‐quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post‐2020 CAP, we performed a European‐scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator‐friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake. 2. A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources. 3. EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early‐season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived. 4. Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator‐friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen‐fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. 5. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, ...
Increasing concerns about global environmental change and food security have focused attention on the need for environmentally sustainable agriculture. This is agriculture that makes efficient use of natural resources and does not degrade the environmental systems that underpin it, or deplete natural capital stocks. We convened a group of 29 'practitioners' and 17 environmental scientists with direct involvement or expertise in the environmental sustainability of agriculture. The practitioners included representatives from UK industry, non-government organizations and government agencies. We collaboratively developed a long list of 264 knowledge needs to help enhance the environmental sustainability of agriculture within the UK or for the UK market. We refined and selected the most important knowledge needs through a three-stage process of voting, discussion and scoring. Scientists and practitioners identified similar priorities. We present the 26 highest priority knowledge needs. Many of them demand integration of knowledge from different disciplines to inform policy and practice. The top five are about sustainability of livestock feed, trade-offs between ecosystem services at farm or landscape scale, phosphorus recycling and metrics to measure sustainability. The outcomes will be used to guide on-going knowledge exchange work, future science policy and funding.
