Ecosystem services assessments to improve management of marine habitats, amphibians and reptiles, forest biodiversity and silviculture, and medicinal plants

In this Issue, a great diversity of article types can be found, ranging from short research papers to research letters and reviews, in addition to several regular research papers. Topic-wise the papers are equally diverse. More ‘traditional’ topics of the journal are dealt with by Vidyarthi et al. (2013) and Lawal and Adekunle (2013), respectively, presenting novel findings from India and Nigeria on the influence of land use and ecosystem management on biodiversity. Papers by Ezebilo (2013) and Krause and Zambonino (2013) follow up on papers that have been recently published in this journal, in which the role of local knowledge and support for biodiversity conservation was highlighted (see Van Oudenhoven & De Groot (2012, 2013) for more information). The papers provide the latest insights from conservation programs in Nigeria and the Ecuadorian Amazon. Finally, three relatively underexplored topics are discussed. Kaltenborn et al. (2013) discuss the perception of hunters on their role in ecosystem management. Carollo et al. (2013) report on an expert workshop in which an attempt was made to link marine habitat type classifications with ecosystem services. Valencia-Aguilar et al. (2013) present the first comprehensive overview of ecosystem services that can be directly or indirectly contributed to amphibians and reptiles. This journal has a trusted reputation and long history when it comes to publishing studies on medicinal plants’ importance, use and harvesting practices (e.g. Negi et al. 2010; Nagaraja et al. 2011; Rahman et al. 2011). Although recent studies have not necessarily presented groundbreaking new methodologies, their findings on medicinal plants from unique, often remote, locations continue to offer new insights and important guidance for local biodiversity management. For this purpose, short research papers (<5000 words) or short communications (<2000 words) are especially suitable, to present new findings of exceptional interest in a short, but complete form. In this Issue, a short research paper by Vidyarthi et al. (2013) documents indigenous uses of some important medicinal plants in a district of the Indian Himalaya, analyses their distribution pattern, nativity and endemism, and finally suggests conservation strategies. Of the 75 recorded medicinal plant species, 29 medicinal plants were native, 1 endemic, 11 near-endemic and 46 non-native. Because of the large pressure on some commercially viable but rare native species, the authors suggest further research into the multiplication of these species through conventional and in vitro methods, among others. The scale on which this could occur, however, could be questionable, since the impact of larger-scale farming techniques could have serious ecological consequences for an already threatened and highly vulnerable area. The contribution of silvicultural management to maintaining forest biodiversity has been mostly studied in a European context (e.g. Fabbio et al. 2003) and to a certain extent in Africa (e.g. Geldenhuys 2010). Lawal and Adekunle (2013) present a study in this Issue on the contributions of a silvicultural practice, the authors call enrichment planting, to ecosystem restoration, management and biodiversity conservation in a Nigerian forest reserve. The authors compared three forest types: a degraded forest, nature reserve and the earlier mentioned enrichment planting forest. The enrichment planting forest was found to have the highest number of species, genera and families as well as the highest biodiversity indices, as compared to the other forest types. Although for soil properties no significant differences could be found (apart from nitrogen contents at certain depths), it was concluded that the enrichment planting silvicultural practice has the potential to improve soil fertility, and contribute to restoration of degraded forests. We remain in Nigeria, but now focus on local people’s preference for incentives that could help increase local support for nature conservation (Ezebilo 2013). Community members living around a national park in southeast Nigeria were subjected to personal interviews. Similar to findings by Ansong and Røskaft (2011, in Ghana) and Islam et al. (2012, Bangladesh), Ezebilo found that community forestry and skills development were among the most preferred incentives. The most important factors that influence people’s preferences included education, NTFP extraction and the value thereof, and farmland size. Ezebilo concludes that the effectivity of incentive-based nature conservation would be greatly increased if local people were more strongly involved in negotiations regarding the available incentives. See the editorial by Van Oudenhoven and De Groot (2011) in which we present more papers on ecological and social factors that influence biodiversity management and nature conservation. The perception of local people on biodiversity and its protection is becoming an increasingly studied topic (c.f. Blicharska & Angelstam 2010; Jalilova & Vacik 2012; Van Oudenhoven & de Groot 2012), especially in the light of stakeholder participation for biodiversity