DOI: 10.5061/dryad.7wm37pw49
title: Landscape context influences efficacy of protected areas and agri-environment scheme delivery for breeding waders

description: Protected areas (PAs) and agri-environment schemes (AESs) are the main
 policy mechanisms for addressing terrestrial biodiversity loss in Europe.
 Landscape context can moderate their efficacy but has not been studied for
 both mechanisms concurrently. Both mechanisms are widely used to
 address ongoing declines of waders breeding on lowland wet grassland.
 Using a repeat, nationwide (England) survey we investigate the role of PA
 status (nature reserves and a statutory designation), AES (bespoke and
 general options), surrounding landcover (up to 1500 m), soil properties
 and range position (core versus periphery) on field-level breeding
 occupancy and abundance change of four declining waders between 2009/10
 and 2020/21. Field occupancy of Northern Lapwing Vanellus
 vanellus, Common Redshank Tringa totanus and Common Snipe Gallingo
 gallinago was associated with PA status, being highest in reserves.
 Abundance change was more positive on fields in reserves than in
 unprotected or designated non-reserve sites for Lapwing, Redshank, and
 Eurasian Curlew Numenius arquata. Fields under bespoke wader AES
 management were more likely to hold Lapwing and Redshank, which could
 reflect local redistribution or effective option targeting. Although there
 was limited evidence that AES increased wader abundance, habitat
 maintenance options within and outside PAs maintained, and habitat
 creation/restoration options within reserves increased, Lapwing and
 Redshank abundance. Fields surrounded by more wet grassland were
 more likely to be occupied by Lapwing and Curlew, particularly in
 designated non-reserve sites (Curlew only) and reserves. The same was true
 for Redshank and Snipe, but only in designated non-reserve sites (Snipe
 only) and reserves. For Lapwing and Redshank, abundance change was more
 positive where surrounding wet grassland cover was greater. Synthesis and
 applications: Landscape context strongly moderates PA efficacy for
 breeding waders, with reserve fields performing particularly well when
 surrounded by favourable habitat. Further work is needed to establish the
 mechanism(s) behind these findings, but future conservation investment
 might prioritise expanding existing reserves, or the creation of large,
 new blocks with reserve-level management. Future deployment of wader AES
 outside of reserves could focus on population maintenance, but to increase
 abundance schemes need to deliver higher habitat quality at sufficient
 scale.
description: # Landscape context influences efficacy of protected areas and
 agri-environment scheme delivery for breeding waders
 [https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.7wm37pw49](https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.7wm37pw49) Read me file for: "Landscape context influences efficacy of protected areas and agri-environment scheme delivery for breeding waders" Robert W. Hawkes, 1*; Lucy R. Mason, 1; Greg J. Conway, 2; Gavin M. Siriwardena, 2; Philip V. Grice, 3; Andrew J. Cole, 4; & Will J. Peach, 1 *Corresponding author ([robert.hawkes@rspb.org.uk](mailto:robert.hawkes@rspb.org.uk)) 1\. RSPB Centre for Conservation Science, RSPB, The Lodge, Sandy, Bedfordshire, SG19 2DL, UK. 2\. BTO, The Nunnery, Thetford, Norfolk, IP24 2PU, UK 3\. Natural England, Chief Scientist Directorate, Peterborough, PE2 8YY, UK 4\. Natural England, Chief Scientist Directorate, Kendal, LA9 7RL, UK \* Corresponding author ## Description of the data and file structure ### Files and variables #### 1. Meta data for the occupancy analysis datasets There are four datasets for the occupancy analysis, one per species. Note, for each species-specific dataset, fields without at least one visit within each species valid data range (see below) have been excluded, as have fields outside each species’ known breeding range (see 'material and methods' for details). ##### Dataset attributes \# F_LOC_ID: unique field ID \# S_LOC_ID: unique site ID \# Area_ha: Field area (in ha) \# Survey_yr: The year the field was surveyed \# L/RK/CU/SNpairs: The number of Lapwing (L), Redshank (RK), Curlew (CU) or Snipe (SN) pairs, in 2021 or 2022, calculated using the formulae described in Appendix S3. Note, Half pair estimates have been rounded up and all other decimal estimates were rounded to the nearest whole number. \# L/RK/CU/SNpa: Presence (1) or absence (0) of Lapwing, Redshank, Curlew or Snipe, in 2021 or 2022, during at least one visit between 15 April and 31 May (Lapwing), 15 April and 20 May (Redshank), 15 April and 24 June (Curlew), or 1 May and 24 June (Snipe) \# PA type: Protected area status: 'Reserve', 'SSSI' or 'None'. \# AES_status_2yrs: AES status: 'Wader AES', 'General AES' or 'No AES' \# GO_REGION: Region \# GO_REGION_CODE: Region code, as used in the analysis (EA/EE: Eastern England; EM: East Midlands; L: London; NE: Northeast England; NW: Northwest England; SE: Southeast England; SW: Southwest England; WM: West Midlands; YH/YK: Yorkshire and Humber) \# woodland.500mbuf: % area of woodland within a 500m buffer of the fields centroid \# woodland.1000mbuf: % area of woodland within a 1000m buffer of the fields centroid \# woodland.1500mbuf: % area of woodland within a 1500m buffer of the fields centroid \# intensive.land.500mbuf: % area of intensive farmland within a 500m buffer of the fields centroid \# intensive.land.1000mbuf: % area of intensive farmland within a 1000m buffer of the fields centroid \# intensive.land.1500mbuf: % area of intensive farmland within a 1500m buffer of the fields centroid \# wetgrass.500mbuf: % area of wet grassland within a 500m buffer of the fields centroid \# wetgrass.1000mbuf: % area of wet grassland within a 1000m buffer of the fields centroid \# wetgrass.1500mbuf: % area of wet grassland within a 1500m buffer of the fields centroid \# urban.500mbuf: % area of urban within a 500m buffer of the fields centroid \# urban.1000mbuf: % area of urban within a 1000m buffer of the fields centroid \# urban.1500mbuf: % area of urban within a 1500m buffer of the fields centroid \# swi.score: Soil wetness score \# L/RK/CU/SN.range.pos.score: Range position score \# no. visits: Number of breeding wader survey visits to the field \# soil.oc: Organic content (%) #### 2. Meta data for the abundance change analysis datasets ######### There are four datasets for the abundance change analysis, one per species. The same species-specific field exclusions described for the occupancy datasets (see above) were applied here ##### Dataset attributes \# F_LOC_ID_V2: unique field ID \# S_LOC_ID: unique site ID \# Area_ha: Field area (in ha) \# Survey_yr: The focal survey period: 2009/20 or 2021/22 \# L/RK/CU/SNpairs: The number of Lapwing (L), Redshank (RK), Curlew (CU) or Snipe (SN) pairs, within the focal period, calculated using the formulae described in Appendix S3. Note, Half pair estimates have been rounded up and all other decimal estimates were rounded to the nearest whole number. \# PA type: Protected area status: 'Reserve', 'SSSI' or 'None'. \# AES_change: Wader AES history status: 'None', 'Lost', 'Gained, or 'Retained' \# GO_REGION: Region \# GO_REGION_CODE: Region code, as used in the analysis (EA/EE: Eastern England; EM: East Midlands; L: London; NE: Northeast England; NW: Northwest England; SE: Southeast England; SW: Southwest England; WM: West Midlands; YH/YK: Yorkshire and Humber) \# woodland.500mbuf: % area of woodland within a 500m buffer of the fields centroid \# woodland.1000mbuf: % area of woodland within a 1000m buffer of the fields centroid \# woodland.1500mbuf: % area of woodland within a 1500m buffer of the fields centroid \# intensive.land.500mbuf: % area of intensive farmland within a 500m buffer of the fields centroid \# intensive.land.1000mbuf: % area of intensive farmland within a 1000m buffer of the fields centroid \# intensive.land.1500mbuf: % area of intensive farmland within a 1500m buffer of the fields centroid \# wetgrass.500mbuf: % area of wet grassland within a 500m buffer of the fields centroid \# wetgrass.1000mbuf: % area of wet grassland within a 1000m buffer of the fields centroid \# wetgrass.1500mbuf: % area of wet grassland within a 1500m buffer of the fields centroid \# urban.500mbuf: % area of urban within a 500m buffer of the fields centroid \# urban.1000mbuf: % area of urban within a 1000m buffer of the fields centroid \# urban.1500mbuf: % area of urban within a 1500m buffer of the fields centroid \# swi.score: Soil wetness score \# L/RK/CU/SN.range.pos.score: Range position score \# no. visits: Number of breeding wader survey visits to the field \# soil.oc: Organic content (%) #### 3. Meta data for the option type analysis datasets There are two datasets for the abundance change analysis, one for Lapwing and one for Redshank ##### Dataset attributes \# Same as the abundance change analysis (see section 2), but with 'AES change' replaced with 'AES_option_type'