@article{ReinhardGeisslerBlaum2022,
  author    = {Reinhard, Johanna E. and Geißler, Katja and Blaum, Niels},
  title     = {Grass and ground dwelling beetle community responses to holistic and wildlife grazing management using a cross-fence comparison in Western Kalahari rangeland, Namibia},
  series = {Journal of insect conservation : an international journal devoted to the conservation of insects and related invertebrates},
  volume    = {26},
  journal   = {Journal of insect conservation : an international journal devoted to the conservation of insects and related invertebrates},
  publisher = {Springer},
  address   = {Dordrecht},
  issn      = {1366-638X},
  doi       = {10.1007/s10841-022-00410-6},
  pages     = {711 -- 720},
  year      = {2022},
  abstract  = {Savannahs are often branded by livestock grazing with resulting land degradation. Holistic management of livestock was proposed to contribute to biodiversity conservation by simulating native wildlife grazing behaviour. This study attempts the comparison of the impact of a holistic management regime to a wildlife grazing management regime on grass and ground-dwelling beetle species diversity on neighboring farms in Namibian rangeland. Results show that the response of biodiversity in species richness and composition to holistic management of livestock differs substantially from wildlife grazing with a positive impact. From a total of 39 identified species of ground-dwelling beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae, Carabidae) from 29 genera, eight species were found to be indicators for holistic management of livestock and three were found to be indicators for wildlife grazed rangeland. Observations suggest that holistic management of livestock may contribute to biodiversity conservation, but the differential effect of grazing management on species assemblages suggests that livestock grazing cannot replace native wildlife herbivory. Implications for insect conservation An adaptive management strategy such as holistic management used in this study shows the potential to support high beetle biodiversity. Holistic management of livestock thus aspects in favour for a sustainable form of grazing management for insect conservation even though it does not functionally replace grazing by native wildlife.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{SchmidtMartinLopezPhillipsetal.2018,
  author    = {Schmidt, Katja and Martin-Lopez, Berta and Phillips, Peter M. and Julius, Eike and Makan, Neville and Walz, Ariane},
  title     = {Key landscape features in the provision of ecosystem services},
  series = {Land use policy},
  volume    = {82},
  journal   = {Land use policy},
  publisher = {Elsevier},
  address   = {Oxford},
  issn      = {0264-8377},
  doi       = {10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.12.022},
  pages     = {353 -- 366},
  year      = {2018},
  abstract  = {Whereas ecosystem service research is increasingly being promoted in science and policy, the utilisation of ecosystem services knowledge remains largely underexplored for regional ecosystem management. To overcome the mere generation of knowledge and contribute to decision-making, scientists are facing the challenge of articulating specific implications of the ecosystem service approach for practical land use management. In this contribution, we compare the results of participatory mapping of ecosystem services with the existing management plan for the Pentland Hills Regional Park (Scotland, UK) to inform its future management plan. By conducting participatory mapping in a workshop with key stakeholders (n = 20), we identify hotspots of ecosystem services and the landscape features underpinning such hotspots. We then analyse to what extent these landscape features are the focus of the current management plan. We found a clear mismatch between the key landscape features underpinning the provision of ecosystem services and the management strategy suggested. Our findings allow for a better understanding of the required focus of future land use management to account for ecosystem services.},
  language  = {en}
}