Here we explore how waggle dance decoding may be applied as a tool for ecology by evaluating the benefits and limitations of the methodology compared to other existing ways to evaluate the honey bees’ use of the landscape. The honey bee foragers sample and “report” back on large areas (c. 100km2). Because honey bees perform dances only for the most profitable resources, these data provide spatial information about the availability of good quality forage for any given time. We argue that dance decoding provides information for a wide range of ecological, conservation, and land management issues. In this way, one species and methodology gives us a novel measure of a landscape’s profitability and “health” that may be widely relevant, not just for honey bees, but for other flower-visiting insects as well.

/pdf/environmental-consultancy-dancing-bee-bioindicators-to-bmlw4qioxj.pdf

Environmental consultancy: dancing bee bioindicators to evaluate landscape health

In this article, we use an autoethnographic approach to explore relationships between landholders and government agencies and natural resource management projects. We use this exploration to argue for a holistic, collaborative approach to decision making around the implementation of biodiversity conservation on private and public land. This approach aligns with principles underpinning reconciliation ecology, which emphasises the inclusion of grass-roots communities for promoting biodiversity conservation in human-dominated landscapes where approaches to the management of natural resources may be contested. We present three projects (Environmental Champions; Fencing Incentive programmes; Plains-wanderer programme) and other research from the Mid-Murray Valley region of southern New South Wales to highlight the positive and negative aspects of relationships between landholders and others in natural resource management. We argue that for a more collaborative approach; we need to build relationships based on understanding, trust, respect, ownership and partnerships between rural communities, landholders, education and research institutions and government agencies as recognised in reconciliation ecology.

Biodiversity on private land: Lessons from the
 Mid‐Murray
 Valley in South‐eastern Australia

Production landscapes are critical for biodiversity conservation. Individual landholders can contribute but the real challenge is coordinated cross-property action at a landscape scale. This paper describes 2 projects through which we have attempted to better understand that challenge. The ‘Communities in Landscapes’ project (Caring for Our Country 2009-2012) provided coordinated advice and training to develop cross-property biodiversity plans and $70k for each of 7 landholder groups for the initial phase of the implementation. The project generated collaboration on landscape scale biodiversity conservation, but without ongoing support the benefits achieved could be soon lost. The ‘Increasing landholder collaboration for landscape scale conservation’ project (NSW Environmental Trust 2016-2017) is exploring the nature and extent of collaboration, and the opportunities provided by collaboration for public and private benefit. The vision is for landholders to develop ‘Landscape Corporations’ which are the vehicle for integrating production and conservation for landholders sharing the same landscape. Introduction Achieving coordinated landscape-scale conservation is both critical and complex. It is critical because biodiversity remains in decline largely because our production landscapes lack connectivity and suitable habitat in more productive areas. It is complex because productive areas are also valuable for agriculture. This means that the opportunity cost for taking these areas out of production is high. This is exacerbated by low farm incomes, increasing debt, decline in rural communities, and fragmentary, episodic and inadequate policy responses of governments (Hutchings & Nordblom 2011, Ikin et al 2016). The Australian Government Environment Stewardship Program in its various iterations provided support for successful landholders to manage key areas of endangered ecological communities for conservation. This included the opportunity cost of avoided grazing as well as the cost of fencing, planting and management. However, it required landholders to apply individually, competing with each other for least cost conservation. While existing stewardship contracts will be honoured, the program has now been discontinued. Landscape scale conservation has been a high profile objective of ongoing programs, such as the Greater Eastern Ranges Initiative, which seek to build corridors between the ranges and the coast to facilitate the movement of species. They rely largely on the altruistic actions of landholders with some small grant support from a number of sources to fence off areas from livestock, undertake conservation plantings and manage weeds and pest animals. It is widely recognised that, while these and other actions are worthwhile, their impacts are too small and fragmented to make a significant impact at a landscape scale (Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council 2010; Biodiversity Working Group 2016). In order to address these concerns, we have been active in two projects which we have summarized in this paper. Both are action research projects based on the idea that landscape scale conservation across production landscapes can best be achieved by engaged, connected and empowered communities. Method Two case studies are analyzed; the first is ‘Communities in Landscapes’ (2009-2012), a $4.2million (AUD) project funded by the Australian Governments ‘Caring for Our Country program to ‘integrate conservation and production across Box-Gum woodlands’. It was managed by Landcare NSW and brought farmers, extensionists and researchers together from 8 community, research, government and non-government organisations to work with people living in and managing Box-Gum Woodlands. Through this project 7 cross property groups were established, and training and facilitation provided to help each group develop landscape scale biodiversity plans. They then had $70,000 in project funds to undertake on-ground works to begin implementing their plan. The short-term success of this initiative stimulated us to look for longer term approaches to maintain successful collaboration. The second is ‘Increasing landholder collaboration for landscape scale conservation’ (2016-2017), a $150,000 project funded by NSW Environmental Trust. We aim to better understand how to support greater landholder collaboration on landscape scale conservation and sustainable agriculture. It is a partnership between 3 universities actively supported by Local Land Services and Landcare (NSW, Watershed, Little River and Hovell’s Creek). Both projects used participatory rural appraisal (PRA) which consists of: key informant interviews for orientation and recruitment of participants; forming a team of researchers and locals to conduct semi-structured interviews of community members; team meetings to build a ‘rich picture’ of the local situation; and a community meeting to present findings and generate dialogue. In the first project, the PRA consisted of 84 interviews across 3 locations focused on identifying key eco-innovations and eco-innovators. This was followed by selection of groups for cross property biodiversity planning, then working with those groups to develop and implement their plans. At the conclusion of the project, participants joined a focus group discussion to evaluate its success of the

/pdf/landscape-scale-conservation-incentives-for-cross-property-4fnvy8e50p.pdf

Landscape scale conservation: incentives for cross-property action

Tensions between production and natural resource management objectives, often perceived as mutually opposing, are increasing as technological, political, social changes and climatic variability continue to shape Australian rural landscapes. This paper explores enablers and barriers for landholder collaboration to bridge this gap, and to facilitate transitioning to new industries. Through key informant interviews we identified nine central themes that need be considered for enhanced understanding of the complexities and contextual nature of landholder collaboration. These include models of collaboration; the role of government and funding; the role of industry; the role of education; marketing strategies; the importance of social cohesion; community involvement; succession of collaboration; and integrating production and conservation. Social analysis of key informants provided lessons to address barriers for achieving desired outcomes within past and present models of landholder collaboration. Our findings suggest that when transitioning to new industries on a landscape-based scale: a) A one-size-fits-all approach to collaboration is inappropriate due to the highly contextualised nature of elements that make or break attempts to collaborate. b) The complexity of the topic affects the role of government and industry on the effectiveness and potential of outcomes generated through collaboration. c) Education and communication through common language are key enabling factors for the success of cohesive landholder groups. Potential enablers to collaboration between actors at the landscape scale included: social cohesion and generation of relationships based on trust, as was the role of whole community involvement in providing support structures and generating environments conducive to effective collaboration. Themes of ownership, leadership and motivation fuelled by common interest were highlighted as key stabilising factors that contributed to the resilience of groups to survive internal and external shocks. Finally, models that demonstrated the integration of production and conservation initiatives were suggested as providing the best chance for successful cross-property collaboration.

Lessons and best practice of landholder collaboration for landscape-scale conservation and production

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

H Pfeiffer

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Landscape scale conservation: incentives for cross-property action

Lessons and best practice of landholder collaboration for landscape-scale conservation and production