@prefix dcat: . @prefix dct: . @prefix foaf: . @prefix xsd: . a dcat:Dataset ; dct:description """#Tranche 1: Project 3.3#\r \r ###Sheep and beef farms make up nearly 40% of Aotearoa’s landscape and play a vital role in our economy. At the same time, this land use is home to a quarter of all native vegetation and so acts as a refuge for many native plant and animal species, especially in the lowlands.###\r \r More information can be found here: https://www.biodiversity.nz/\r \r **Project Leader**\r \r - Hannah Buckley, Auckland University of Technology\r """ ; dct:identifier "94cb1755-3a8e-4254-afbe-25e4f6344fe2" ; dct:issued "2024-03-29T21:36:32.001291"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:modified "2024-08-05T04:55:38.757648"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:publisher ; dct:title "Farming & Nature Conservation" ; dcat:distribution , , , , , , , , , , . a dcat:Distribution ; dct:description """###The roles of non-production vegetation in agroecosystems: A research framework for filling process knowledge gaps in a social-ecological context###\r \r **March 2020**\r \r **Case BS, Pannell JL, Stanley MC, Norton DA, Brugman A, Funaki M, Mathieu C, Songling C, Suryaningrum F, Buckley HL 2020. [The roles of non-production vegetation in agroecosystems: A research framework for filling process knowledge gaps in a social-ecological Context](https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pan3.10093). People and Nature 2(2): 292-304.**\r \r **ABSTRACT** \r \r An ever-expanding human population, climatic changes and the spread of inten-sive farming practices are putting increasing pressure on agroecosystems andtheir inherent biodiversity. Non-production vegetation elements, such as woodypatches, riparian margins and restoration plantings, are vital for conserving agro-ecosystem biodiversity. Furthermore, such elements are key building blocks thatare manipulated via land management, thereby influencing the biotic and abioticprocesses that underpin functioning agroecosystems.\r \r Despite this critical role, there has been a lack of synthesis on which types of vegetation elements drive and/or support ecological processes, and the mechanisms by which this occurs. Using a systematic, quantitative literature review of 342articles, we asked the following questions: what are the effects of non-production vegetation on agroecosystem processes and how are these processes measured within global agroecosystems?\r \r Woody patches, hedgerows and borders, riparian margins, and shelterbelts were the most studied types of non-production vegetation. The majority (61%) of studies showed positive effects of non-production vegetation on ecological processes, where the presence, level or rate of the studied process was increased or enhanced.\r \r However, four key research gaps were revealed: (a) most studies (83%) used proxies for, instead of direct measurements of, ecosystem processes related to non-production vegetation; (b) study designs used to investigate non-production vegetation effects on ecosystem processes directly were largely limited to observational comparisons of non-production vegetation types, farm-scale vegetation configurations and different proximities to vegetation in terms of the effect on ecological processes; relatively few studies used manipulative experiments; (c) the relatively few studies directly measuring ecosystem processes were dominated by four process categories: invertebrate biocontrol, predator and natural enemy spillover, animal movement, and ecosystem cycling and (d) the methods used to directly measure non-production vegetation effects comprised a surprisingly limited set of approaches.\r \r To fill key research gaps that will inform the use of non-production vegetation to enhance agroecosystem processes, we present a framework for future research that emphasizes the need to combine an understanding of human decision-making with carefully designed and targeted investigations into the roles of taxa, ecosystem processes, and landscape heterogeneity related to non-production vegetation, at multiple spatial scales within agroecosystems.\r \r **KEYWORDS**\r \r agriculture, biodiversity, connectivity, decision-making, ecosystem process, landscape, multi-functionality, people""" ; dct:issued "2024-07-14T21:40:30.486286"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:modified "2024-07-14T21:40:30.486286"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:title "PAPER: Non-production vegetation roles in agroecosystems" ; dcat:accessURL . a dcat:Distribution ; dct:description """###Farm scale assessment of the impacts of biodiversity enhancement on the financial and environmental performance of mixed livestock farms in New Zealand###\r \r **February 2021**\r \r **Dominati EJ, Mackay AD, Rendel JM, Wall A, Norton DA, Pannell J, Devantier B 2021. [Farm scale assessment of the impacts of biodiversity enhancement on the financial and environmental performance of mixed livestock farms in New Zealand](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X20308684/pdfft?md5=49dfa5882bf36300b10c19677c7e21c4&pid=1-s2.0-S0308521X20308684-main.pdf). Agricultural Systems 187.**\r \r **ABSTRACT**\r \r In New Zealand, 25% of the remaining indigenous vegetation cover is found on mixed livestock farms located predominantly in hill country. Despite evidence that adding natural capital stocks in the form of biodiversity enhancement is likely to increase the provision of ecosystem services on and off farmland, quantitative data are largely lacking. This research takes a case study approach to providing an evaluation of the implications of advancing a biodiversity enhancement programme on the financial and environmental performance of three mixed livestock farms across New Zealand.\r \r The research used a farm system optimisation model to quantify the effects of biodiversity enhancement on different aspects of the farm business. The three farms studied varied in size, geo-climatic zones, amount of indigenous vegetation and the size of the proposed biodiversity enhancement programme. Shifting even a small part of farmland from grazing to biodiversity enhancement affects farm system design, resulting in changes to the livestock policy, sale and purchase dates of livestock and the grazing management plan. These changes also affect farm revenue, Net Present Value and annuity, all of which declined by 3–9% across the three farms over the 10 years modelled. However, after implementation of the biodiversity enhancement programme, there was a small increase in the annuity per hectare grazed compared with the Base farm scenario for two of the three farms studied. The provision of other ecosystem services was quantified on one farm, and in sharp contrast, these increased, which included greenhouse gas regulation with additional C storage and decreased GHG emissions, and increased filtering and nutrient retention resulting in a reduction in N and P losses to water. Biodiversity enhancement on farm has the potential to improve aesthetics, increase sense of place, recreational and spiritual values and provision of other food products. The current study highlighted the fact that our current farm system models lack the capability to provide quantitative information on the provision of ecosystem services at the farm scale, and do not include all the natural resources across different areas of the farm. This should be a priority in the future.\r \r **KEYWORDS**\r \r indigenous biodiversity enhancement; ecosystem approach; farm system optimisation; farm system modelling; natural capital; ecosystem services""" ; dct:issued "2024-07-14T23:17:51.927382"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:modified "2024-07-14T23:17:51.927382"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:title "PAPER: Biodiversity impact on livestock farm performance" ; dcat:accessURL . a dcat:Distribution ; dct:description """###STAKEHOLDER - Supporting native biodiversity management on farms###\r \r **March 2024**\r \r Farmers can play an important part in caring for and revitalising our natural environment. This pilot project bridged the gap between science and farm systems - supporting farmers to learn about native biodiversity and start managing it on their farms.\r """ ; dct:format "PDF" ; dct:issued "2024-03-29T21:38:03.865709"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:modified "2024-03-29T21:38:03.865709"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:title "BRIEF: Supporting native biodiversity management on farms" ; dcat:accessURL ; dcat:byteSize 2558432.0 ; dcat:mediaType "application/pdf" . a dcat:Distribution ; dct:description """###Achieving win-win outcomes for pastoral farming and biodiversity conservation in New Zealand###\r \r **April 2020**\r \r **Norton DA, Suryaningrum F, Buckley HL, Case BS, Cochrane CH, Forbes AS, Harcombe M 2020. [Achieving win-win outcomes for pastoral farming and biodiversity conservation in New Zealand](https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/3408.pdf). New Zealand Journal of Ecology 44(2).**\r \r **ABSTRACT**\r \r In this article, we explore options to enhance native biodiversity conservation within New Zealand pastoral systems. We argue that there is strong synergistic interdependence between biodiversity conservation and pastoral farming and suggest that it is possible to have win-win outcomes for both. Landowners need to be incentivised and rewarded for good biodiversity management, rather than relying on a strict rules-based approach. \r \r **KEYWORDS**\r \r agroecosystems, biodiversity, conservation, ecosystem services, environmental verification, incentives, pastoral farming, policy""" ; dct:issued "2024-07-14T22:12:29.644836"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:modified "2024-07-14T22:12:29.644836"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:title "PAPER: Win-win outcomes for farming and conservation." ; dcat:accessURL . a dcat:Distribution ; dct:description """###Understanding farmer behaviour: A psychological approach to encouraging pro-biodiversity actions on-farm###\r \r **January 2022**\r \r **Small B, Maseyk FJF 2022. [Understanding farmer behaviour: A psychological approach to encouraging pro-biodiversity actions on-farm](https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/3468.pdf). New Zealand Journal of Ecology 46(1): 1-11.**\r \r **ABSTRACT**\r \r Understanding farmer behaviour and drivers for behaviour change will be the key to bringing about practice change, such as increasing management and enhancement of native biodiversity on-farm. Farmer participation in biodiversity protection and management is a critical challenge for both national conservation outcomes and achieving more sustainable farm systems. Enhancing native biodiversity provides a mechanism for increasing the sustainability of food and fibre production, mitigation of environmental emissions, and enhancing the resilience of farm systems to weather events and the impacts of climate change. We surveyed 500 sheep and beef farmers throughout New Zealand using a survey explicitly based on the dominant psychological model of volitional behaviour, the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB). Farmers’ attitudes, perception of social norms, control beliefs, moral obligation, and perceived private-public benefit, regarding the protection and management of native biodiversity on-farm, were investigated. We used a combination of descriptive statistics, correlation analyses, and TPB regression modelling of the survey data to understand past pro-biodiversity behaviour and future intentions to implement pro-biodiversity behaviours on-farm. We found that sheep and beef farmers saw (1) greater public than private benefit resulting from the protection and management of native biodiversity on-farm; (2) belief in the efficacy of specific biodiversity behaviours has a stronger relationship with actual behaviour than intentional behaviour; and (3) planning for pro-biodiversity behaviours, such as in a farm planning process, increases farmer pro-biodiversity behaviour. We conclude there is a need to increase farmer understanding of pro-biodiversity practices and outcomes for both farmer private and public benefit and the removal and dissolution of perceived barriers and constraints preventing more pro-biodiversity behaviour on-farm. Based on this research, we recommend that policy initiatives should be targeted at (1) illustrating and communicating the multiple values of native biodiversity to farm systems and farming enterprises (private benefit), and to ecosystem function and New Zealand’s conservation objectives as a whole (public benefit); (2) the specific areas operating as behavioural controls on pro-biodiversity behaviour, and (3) integrating native biodiversity considerations into farm planning processes.\r \r **KEYWORDS**\r \r behaviour change, policy interventions, pro-biodiversity behaviour, public-private benefit, theory of planned behaviour""" ; dct:issued "2024-07-14T23:36:33.392214"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:modified "2024-07-14T23:36:33.392214"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:title "PAPER: Encouraging pro-biodiversity actions on-farm" ; dcat:accessURL . a dcat:Distribution ; dct:description """###Managing and protecting native biodiversity on-farm – what do sheep and beef farmers think?###\r \r **2021**\r \r **Maseyk F, Small B, Henwood R, Pannell J, Buckley H, Norton D. 2021. [Managing and protecting native biodiversity on-farm – what do sheep and beef farmers think?](https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/3420.pdf) New Zealand Journal of Ecology.**\r \r **ABSTRACT**\r \r Despite one-third of New Zealand’s landmass being protected as public conservation land, the country still faces significant conservation challenges. Nearly 50% of the country’s landmass has been converted to pastoral farming, and biological invasions pose a sustained and growing threat to remaining biodiversity across all land tenures. Managing and protecting biodiversity on-farm provides vast opportunities to create nature-rich pastoral landscapes. A key step towards bringing about necessary behaviour change to achieve this is increasing \r insights into farmers’ attitudes towards the value of native biodiversity on their farms. Using a questionnaire underpinned by the Theory of Planned Behaviour, we surveyed 500 sheep and beef farmers from around New Zealand as to their beliefs and attitudes and perceived barriers relating to the protection and management of native biodiversity on their farm. Although the survey respondents were largely homogenous, the surveyed group of farmers were heterogeneous in their responses. When asked about advantages associated with managing \r and protecting native biodiversity on their farms, 690 distinct responses were provided, spanning social (47%), environmental (34%), practical (10%), and economic (2%) themes. In contrast, identified disadvantages were fewer (530 distinct responses) and less wide-ranging in scope, clustering around economic (44%), practical (26%) and social (25%) themes. Nearly three times as many farmers stated there were no disadvantages (22%) than stated there were no advantages (8%). However, the most frequently cited disadvantages were cost and time, which were also commonly cited as barriers to managing biodiversity. Our study illustrates that sheep and beef farmers perceive may advantages in maintaining native biodiversity on-farm, but there is a clear desire for greater support in overcoming identified barriers and this will require a targeted policy response.\r \r **KEYWORDS**\r \r agroecosystems, behaviour change, biodiversity policy, pastoral farming""" ; dct:issued "2024-07-14T23:28:57.854175"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:modified "2024-07-14T23:28:57.854175"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:title "PAPER: Managing and protecting native biodiversity on-farm" ; dcat:accessURL . a dcat:Distribution ; dct:description """###Restoring mature-phase forest tree species through enrichment planting in New Zealand's lowland landscapes ###\r \r **February 2020**\r \r **Forbes AS, Wallace KJ, Buckley HL, Case BS, Clarkson BD, Norton DA 2020. [Restoring mature-phase forest tree species through enrichment planting in New Zealand's lowland landscapes](https://newzealandecology.org/nzje/3404.pdf). New Zealand Journal of Ecology 44(1).**\r \r **ABSTRACT**\r \r To restore secondary forests, depauperate remnant forests and create new forests that have complex structure, high biomass, and natural canopy tree diversity, mature-phase canopy and emergent species should be reintroduced through human interventions (i.e. enrichment planting). Experiments demonstrate that mature-phase tree species establishment can be optimised through canopy manipulation to address competition for light. Such targeted management can determine successful recruitment of mature-phase tree species, as can weed maintenance post-enrichment planting and landscape-level pest animal control. Currently political focus is emphasising planting of new early-successional native forests. However, support from scientific research and policy development is essential to actively recruit mature-phase tree species where they are now poorly represented and hence forest succession may be arrested.\r \r **KEYWORDS**\r \r broadcast seeding, Emissions Trading Scheme, enrichment planting, forest canopy, forest restoration, mature-phase forest tree species, One Billion Trees, pre-human, restoration plantings, secondary forest""" ; dct:issued "2024-07-14T22:56:31.775070"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:modified "2024-07-14T22:56:31.775070"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:title "PAPER: Forest restoration through enrichment planting" ; dcat:accessURL . a dcat:Distribution ; dct:description """###Non-production vegetation has a positive effect on ecological processes in agroecosystems###\r \r **May 2019**\r \r **Case BS, Pannell JL, Stanley MC, Norton DA, Brugman A, Funaki M, Mathieu C, Songling C, Suryaningrum F, Buckley HL. 2019. [Non-production vegetation has a positive effect on ecological processes in agroecosystems](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/624635v1.full.pdf). bioRxiv: 624635.**\r \r **ABSTRACT**\r \r An ever-expanding human population, ongoing global climatic changes, and the spread of intensive farming practices is putting increasing pressure on agroecosystems and the inherent biodiversity they contain. Non-production vegetation elements, such as woody patches, riparian margins, and inter-crop and restoration plantings, are vital for conserving biodiversity in agroecosystems and are therefore considered key to sustaining the biotic and abiotic processes underpinning sustainable and resilient agroecosystems. Despite this critical role, there is a surprising lack of synthesis of which types of non-production vegetation elements drive and/or support ecological processes and the mechanisms by which this occurs. Using a systematic, quantitative literature review of 342 articles, we asked: what are the effects of non-production vegetation elements on agroecosystem processes and how are these processes measured within global agroecosystems? Our literature search focussed on the effects of non-production vegetation related to faunal, weed, disease, and abiotic processes. The majority (61%) of studies showed positive effects on ecological processes: non-production vegetation increased the presence, level or rate of the studied process. However, rather than directly measuring ecosystem processes, 83% of studies inferred processes using proxies for ecosystem function, such as biodiversity and soil physicochemical properties. Studies that directly measured non-production vegetation effects focussed on a limited number of vegetation effects including comparisons of vegetation types, farm-scale configuration, and proximity to vegetation. Moreover, studies directly measuring ecosystem processes were similarly limited, dominated by invertebrate biocontrol, predator and natural enemy spillover, animal movement, and ecosystem cycling. We identify research gaps and present a pathway for future research in understanding the ecosystem components and processes that build resilient, sustainable agroecosystems.\r \r **KEYWORDS**\r \r Agriculture, biodiversity, non-production vegetation, connectivity, ecosystem \r disservice, ecosystem function, ecosystem process, ecosystem service, landscape, multi-functionality, resilience, sustainable agroecosystems \r """ ; dct:issued "2024-07-14T21:27:15.295500"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:modified "2024-07-14T21:27:15.295500"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:title "PAPER: Non-production vegetation benefits agroecosystems" ; dcat:accessURL . a dcat:Distribution ; dct:description """###Modelling movement and landscape connectivity of New Zealand native birds in highly structured agroecosystem networks###\r \r **June 2020**\r \r **Zhang J, Pannell JL, Case BS, Hinchliffe G, Stanley MC, Buckley HL 2020. [Modelling movement and landscape connectivity of New Zealand native birds in highly structured agroecosystem networks](https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.24.170274v1.full.pdf). bioRxiv: 2020.06.24.170274.**\r \r **ABSTRACT**\r \r Understanding how spatial heterogeneity affects movement and dispersal is critical for maintaining functional connectivity in agroecosystems. Least-cost path models are popular conservation tools to quantify the cost of a species dispersing though the landscapes. However, the variability of species in life history traits and landscape configurations can affect their space-use patterns and should be considered in agroecosystem management aiming to improve functional biodiversity. In this study, we modelled the connectivity properties of native species on a real agroecosystem landscape dominated by sheep and beef farming in north Canterbury, New Zealand, where the recovery of native bird population is desired. We chose two species to act as case studies that were contrasting in their mobility: New Zealand pigeon/kererū (*Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae*; highly mobile) and southern brown kiwi/tokoeka (*Apteryx australis*; flightless). Networks of the least-cost paths of kererū and tokoeka were constructed based on their habitat preferences and movement capacities, and we compared and contrasted the connectivity properties and network topographies of their networks. We then compared the network metrics of western side (higher density of forest) with the eastern side (dominated by grazed grassland) of the study area where the vegetation composition was vastly different for both species. The results shown three variables were the most important contributors to the structure of the dispersal networks: the nature of the matrix, spatial structure of vegetation patches, and the gap-crossing ability of the study species. Tokoeka were able to utilise smaller habitat patches as stepping-stones for dispersal, while kererū can select more preferred habitat patches due to their high movement capacity. In contrast to the eastern side, we observed the western/forested side to have more, and stronger, links among habitat patches for both species, due to the presence of several large patches of native forest. Our work suggested that one size does not fit all, rather, conservation strategies that account for species’ life histories and movement traits are required to identify and preserve a connected ecological network.\r \r **KEYWORDS**\r \r Spatial heterogeneity;\r Functional connectivity;\r Least-cost path models;\r Species dispersal;\r Agroecosystem management""" ; dct:issued "2024-07-14T23:08:24.802213"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:modified "2024-07-14T23:08:24.802213"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:title "PAPER: Modelling native bird movement in agroecosystems" ; dcat:accessURL . a dcat:Distribution ; dct:description """###FARMER - Managing native biodiversity on farm###\r \r **March 2024**\r \r What is native biodiversity and why is it important? And how do you manage biodiversity on your farm? The Farming with Native Biodiversity project created free digital resources for farmers wanting to better manage on-farm biodiversity.""" ; dct:format "PDF" ; dct:issued "2024-03-29T21:39:34.081210"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:modified "2024-03-29T21:39:34.081210"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:title "BRIEF: Managing native biodiversity on farm" ; dcat:accessURL ; dcat:byteSize 2728136.0 ; dcat:mediaType "application/pdf" . a dcat:Distribution ; dct:description """###Upscaling restoration of native biodiversity: A New Zealand perspective###\r \r **June 2018**\r \r **Norton DA, Butt J, Bergin DO 2018. [Upscaling restoration of native biodiversity: A New Zealand perspective](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/emr.12316). Ecological Management & Restoration 19: 26-35.**\r \r **ABSTRACT**\r \r Efforts are being made to upscale restoration of New Zealand’s native ecosystems. Success depends, however, on consideration of several key issues that need to be built into restoration planning, implementation and monitoring. This study makes eight recommendations to improve the prospect of obtaining the hoped-for biodiversity conservation outcomes.\r \r **KEYWORDS**\r \r community involvement; eco-sourcing; landscape scale; nursery production; restoration""" ; dct:issued "2024-07-14T21:19:12.691414"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:modified "2024-07-14T21:19:12.691414"^^xsd:dateTime ; dct:title "PAPER: Upscaling restoration of native biodiversity" ; dcat:accessURL . a foaf:Organization ; foaf:name "Challenge Inventory" .