FREE SHIPPING over $40
OVER 9000 FIVE-STAR REVIEWS
5% OFF ALL SUBSCRIPTIONS
100% HAPPINESS GUARANTEE
Analyze Diet
0
Home / Equine Research Bank / PLoS One / Green treasures: Investigating the biodiversity potential of...
PloS one2024; 19(4); e0301168; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301168

Green treasures: Investigating the biodiversity potential of equine yards through the presence and quality of landscape features in the Netherlands.

Abstract: At a time of mounting ecological crises and biodiversity loss, there is an urgent need for nature-based solutions. Equestrian properties cover a considerable proportion of the European rural and peri-urban landscape and provide much potential for integrating ecosystem services, such as the inclusion of small landscape features. The aim of this study was to investigate the presence and quality of landscape features (LF) to help determine how the equine sector can contribute to the agro-ecological transition. Using a citizen science approach, 87 commercial and 420 private yard owners reported the type, frequency and geometric dimension of LFs and additional biodiversity enhancing features. A hierarchical multivariate regression was used to determine how equine property characteristics explain variation in the Percentage Property Coverage (PPC) of LFs. The model explained 47% of the variation of PPC. The variables that explained significant variation in PPC included Yard size, Number of LFs, Tree rows, Fruit orchard, Wild hedges, Flowering strips, Buffer strips, Embankments and Cluttered corners. Commercial yards are significantly larger with significantly more horses and on average only 9% (±13.87%) of the property was covered by LFs whilst private yards had significantly more coverage of LFs with on average 12% (±14.77%). These findings highlight the substantial yet untapped potential of equine yards in fostering biodiversity, suggesting that the equine sector could play an important role in the agro-ecological transition. To encourage more biodiverse-inclusive yard designs, tailored strategies should consider the diverse factors influencing equine yard design, including existing knowledge, client demands, financial considerations, and equine health and welfare.
Copyright: © 2024 Wolframm et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Get Full Text
Publication Date: 2024-04-11 PubMed ID: 38603711PubMed Central: PMC11008862DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0301168Google Scholar: Lookup
The Equine Research Bank provides access to a large database of publicly available scientific literature. Inclusion in the Research Bank does not imply endorsement of study methods or findings by Mad Barn.
LinkedInCopy
  • Journal Article

Summary

This research summary has been generated with artificial intelligence and may contain errors and omissions. Refer to the original study to confirm details provided. Submit correction.

This research article discusses the role of equestrian properties in fostering biodiversity and aiding ecological sustainability. The study assesses the landscape features in both commercial and private equine yards in the Netherlands, using a citizen science approach to understand the potential of these spaces in the agro-ecological transition.

Methodology and Scope

  • The study is based on responses from 87 commercial and 420 private yard owners in the Netherlands. The participants provided details of the type, frequency and geometric dimensions of landscape features (LFs) and additional biodiversity-enhancing features on their properties.
  • The researchers employed a hierarchical multivariate regression model to understand how different equine property characteristics influence the Percentage Property Coverage (PPC) of LFs.

Key Findings

  • The applied model clarified 47% variation of PPC, indicating that equine property characteristics are significant determinants of the extent of LFs.
  • Key factors contributing to PPC variation include yard size, number of LFs, and presence of tree rows, fruit orchards, wild hedges, flowering strips, buffer strips, embankments, and cluttered corners.
  • Commercial yards, despite being larger and hosting more horses, presented an average LF coverage of only 9% of the property. In contrast, private yards demonstrated better LF coverage, with an average of 12%.

Implications

  • This study underscores the vast, yet unexploited, potential of equine yards for fostering biodiversity and aiding ecological sustainability.
  • The findings suggest that the equine sector could significantly contribute to the ongoing agro-ecological transition by integrating more biodiversity-enhancing features into their yard designs.
  • To promote more inclusive yard designs, the authors recommend developing tailored strategies that consider various influencing factors, including existing knowledge, client demands, financial considerations, and equine health and welfare.

Cite This Article

APA
Wolframm IA, Heric L, Allen AM. (2024). Green treasures: Investigating the biodiversity potential of equine yards through the presence and quality of landscape features in the Netherlands. PLoS One, 19(4), e0301168. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0301168

Publication

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
NlmUniqueID: 101285081
Country: United States
Language: English
Volume: 19
Issue: 4
Pages: e0301168
PII: e0301168

Researcher Affiliations

Wolframm, Inga A
  • Applied Research Centre, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, Velp, Gelderland, Netherlands.
Heric, Lara
  • Applied Research Centre, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, Velp, Gelderland, Netherlands.
Allen, Andrew M
  • Applied Research Centre, Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, Velp, Gelderland, Netherlands.

MeSH Terms

  • Humans
  • Animals
  • Horses
  • Ecosystem
  • Netherlands
  • Biodiversity
  • Trees

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

References

This article includes 67 references
  1. Pathak A, Hilberg L, Hansen L, Stein B. Key Considerations for the Use of Nature-Based Solutions in Climate Services and Adaptation. Sustainability 2022;14:16817.
    doi: 10.3390/sᐤ16817google scholar: lookup
  2. Cowie RH, Bouchet P, Fontaine B. The Sixth Mass Extinction: fact, fiction or speculation?. Biological Reviews 2022;97:640–63.
    doi: 10.1111/brv.12816pmc: PMC9786292pubmed: 35014169google scholar: lookup
  3. Lin L, Yang H, Xu X. Effects of Water Pollution on Human Health and Disease Heterogeneity: A Review. Frontiers in Environmental Science 2022;10.
    doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.880246google scholar: lookup
  4. World Health Organization. WHO global air quality guidelines. Particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxid. Geneva: 2021.
  5. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023. FAO; 2023.
    doi: 10.4060/cc3017engoogle scholar: lookup
  6. Rosol C, Schäfer GN, Turner SD, Waters CN, Head MJ, Zalasiewicz J. Evidence and experiment: Curating contexts of Anthropocene geology. The Anthropocene Review 2023;10:330–9.
    doi: 10.1177/20530196231165621google scholar: lookup
  7. Ehrlich PR, Ehrlich AH. Extinction. The Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. New York, NY: Random House; 1981.
  8. Westman WE. How Much Are Nature’s Services Worth?. Science 1977;197:960–4.
    doi: 10.1126/science.197.4307.960pubmed: 17784115google scholar: lookup
  9. Birkhofer K, Diehl E, Andersson J, Ekroos J, Früh-Müller A, Machnikowski F. Ecosystem services—current challenges and opportunities for ecological research. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2015;2.
    doi: 10.3389/fevo.2014.00087google scholar: lookup
  10. Czúcz B, Baruth B, Angileri V, Prieto Lopez A, Terres JM. Landscape features in the EU Member States A review of existing data and approaches. Luxembourg: 2022.
    doi: 10.2760/101979google scholar: lookup
  11. Czúcz B, Baruth B, Terres JM, Gallego J, Hagyo A, Angileri V. Classification and quantification of landscape features in agricultural land across the EU A brief review of existing definitions, typologies, and data sources for quantification. Luxembourg: 2022.
    doi: 10.2760/59418google scholar: lookup
  12. Biffi S, Chapman PJ, Grayson RP, Ziv G. Soil carbon sequestration potential of planting hedgerows in agricultural landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 2022;307:114484.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114484pmc: PMC8850413pubmed: 35078067google scholar: lookup
  13. Estrada-Carmona N, Sánchez AC, Remans R, Jones SK. Complex agricultural landscapes host more biodiversity than simple ones: A global meta-analysis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2022;119.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.2203385119pmc: PMC9499564pubmed: 36095174google scholar: lookup
  14. Jeanneret P, Schüpbach B, Luka H. Quantifying the impact of landscape and habitat features on biodiversity in cultivated landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 2003;98:311–20.
    doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00091-4google scholar: lookup
  15. Oreszczyn S, Lane A. The meaning of hedgerows in the English landscape: Different stakeholder perspectives and the implications for future hedge management. Journal of Environmental Management 2000;60:101–18.
    doi: 10.1006/jema.2000.0365google scholar: lookup
  16. Withaningsih S, Parikesit P, Malik AD, Rahmi MA. Analysis of the Structure and Ecological Function of an Extreme Landscape in a Tropical Region of West Java, Indonesia. Forests 2022;13:115.
    doi: 10.3390/f13010115google scholar: lookup
  17. EC. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives. COM/2020/380 final. Brussels: 2020.
  18. European Commission. Approved 28 CAP Strategic Plans (2023–2027) Summary overview for 27 Member States Facts and figures. Brussels: 2023.
  19. Bomans K, Dewaelheyns V, Gulinck H. Pasture for horses: An underestimated land use class in an urbanized and multifunctional area. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 2011;6:195–211.
    doi: 10.2495/SDP-V6-N2-195-211google scholar: lookup
  20. Rzekęć A, Vial C, Bigot G. Green assets of equines in the European context of the ecological transition of agriculture. Animals 2020;10.
    doi: 10.3390/ani10010106pmc: PMC7023172pubmed: 31936379google scholar: lookup
  21. Eurogroup for Animals. Equines in the revised animal welfare legislation—policy briefing. Brussels: 2023.
  22. IFCE. Green assets of equine in Europe. 2022.
  23. Bigot G, Mugnier S, Brétière G, Gaillard C, Ingrand S. Roles of horses on farm sustainability in different French grassland regions. 2015, p. 177–86.
    doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-824-7_16google scholar: lookup
  24. Furtado T, King M, Perkins E, McGowan C, Chubbock S, Hannelly E. An Exploration of Environmentally Sustainable Practices Associated with Alternative Grazing Management System Use for Horses, Ponies, Donkeys and Mules in the UK. Animals 2022;12.
    doi: 10.3390/ani12020151pmc: PMC8772570pubmed: 35049774google scholar: lookup
  25. Hüppe CF, Schmitz A, Tonn B, Isselstein J. The role of socio-economic determinants of horse farms for grassland management, vegetation composition and ecological value. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2020;12:1–18.
    doi: 10.3390/sሤ10641google scholar: lookup
  26. Hausberger M, Roche H, Henry S, Visser EK. A review of the human-horse relationship. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2008;109:1–24.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2007.04.015google scholar: lookup
  27. Hockenhull J, Furtado T. Escaping the gilded cage: Could COVID-19 lead to improved equine welfare? A review of the literature. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 2021;237.
    doi: 10.1016/j.applanim.2021.105303google scholar: lookup
  28. Visser EK, Neijenhuis F, de Graaf-Roelfsema E, Wesselink HGM, de Boer J, van Wijhe-Kiezebrink MC. Risk factors associated with health disorders in sport and leisure horses in the Netherlands. Journal of Animal Science 2014;92:844–55.
    doi: 10.2527/jas.2013-6692pubmed: 24352963google scholar: lookup
  29. KNHS. Nederland Paardenland. Ermelo: 2017.
  30. Agricola H, Van der Wielen P, Kistenkas F. Paardenhouderij en landschap, hoe pakken gemeenten het op?. Wageningen: 2008.
  31. LNV. Nature checks enhance biodiversity on farms in Denmark. Ministerie van Landbouw, Nature En Voedselveiligheid 2023.
  32. Samen voor Biodiversiteit. Raamwerk Aanvalsplan versterking landschappelijke identiteit via landschapselementen. 2021.
  33. Crall AW, Newman GJ, Stohlgren TJ, Holfelder KA, Graham J, Waller DM. Assessing citizen science data quality: an invasive species case study. Conservation Letters 2011;4:433–42.
    doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00196.xgoogle scholar: lookup
  34. Dickinson JL, Zuckerberg B, Bonter DN. Citizen Science as an Ecological Research Tool: Challenges and Benefits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 2010;41:149–72.
    doi: 10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-102209-144636google scholar: lookup
  35. Hulbert JM, Hallett RA, Roy HE, Cleary M. Citizen science can enhance strategies to detect and manage invasive forest pests and pathogens. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 2023;11.
    doi: 10.3389/fevo.2023.1113978google scholar: lookup
  36. Gutiérrez-Granados G, Rodríguez-Zúñiga MT. Bats as indicators of ecological resilience in a megacity. Urban Ecosystems 2023.
    doi: 10.1007/s11252-023-01462-5google scholar: lookup
  37. Dulisz B, Stawicka AM, Knozowski P, Diserens TA, Nowakowski JJ. Effectiveness of using nest boxes as a form of bird protection after building modernization. Biodiversity and Conservation 2022;31:277–94.
    doi: 10.1007/s10531-021-02334-0google scholar: lookup
  38. Gaujour E, Amiaud B, Mignolet C, Plantureux S. Factors and processes affecting plant biodiversity in permanent grasslands. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 2012;32:133–60.
    doi: 10.1007/s13593-011-0015-3google scholar: lookup
  39. Wadham H, Wallace C, Furtado T. Agents of sustainability: How horses and people co‐create, enact and embed the good life in rural places. Sociologia Ruralis 2023;63:390–414.
    doi: 10.1111/soru.12387google scholar: lookup
  40. Miraglia N. Sustainable development and equids in rural areas: an open challenge for the territory cohesion. The new equine economy in the 21st century, Brill | Wageningen Academic; 2015, p. 167–76.
    doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-824-7_15google scholar: lookup
  41. Fleurance G, Edouard N, Collas C, Duncan P, Farruggia A, Baumont R. How do horses graze pastures and affect the diversity of grassland ecosystems?. Forages and grazing in horse nutrition, Wageningen: Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2012, p. 147–61.
    doi: 10.3920/978-90-8686-755-4_16google scholar: lookup
  42. Baumgartner M, Kuhnke S, Hülsbergen K-J, Erhard MH, Zeitler-Feicht MH. Improving Horse Welfare and Environmental Sustainability in Horse Husbandry: Linkage between Turnout and Nitrogen Surplus. Sustainability 2021;13:8991.
    doi: 10.3390/s጖8991google scholar: lookup
  43. Hiron M, Berg Å, Eggers S, Josefsson J, Pärt T. Bird diversity relates to agri-environment schemes at local and landscape level in intensive farmland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2013;176:9–16.
    doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2013.05.013google scholar: lookup
  44. Litza K, Diekmann M. Hedgerow age affects the species richness of herbaceous forest plants. Journal of Vegetation Science 2019;30:553–63.
    doi: 10.1111/jvs.12744google scholar: lookup
  45. McGuire JL, Lawler JJ, McRae BH, Nuñez TA, Theobald DM. Achieving climate connectivity in a fragmented landscape. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2016;113:7195–200.
    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1602817113google scholar: lookup
  46. Vanneste T, Govaert S, De Kesel W, Van Den Berge S, Vangansbeke P, Meeussen C. Plant diversity in hedgerows and road verges across Europe. Journal of Applied Ecology 2020;57:1244–57.
    doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13620google scholar: lookup
  47. Blanuša T, Qadir ZJ, Kaur A, Hadley J, Gush MB. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Urban Hedges as Air Pollution Barriers: Importance of Sampling Method, Species Characteristics and Site Location. Environments 2020;7:81.
    doi: 10.3390/environments7100081google scholar: lookup
  48. Collier MJ. Are field boundary hedgerows the earliest example of a nature-based solution?. Environmental Science & Policy 2021;120:73–80.
    doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2021.02.008google scholar: lookup
  49. Grote R, Samson R, Alonso R, Amorim JH, Cariñanos P, Churkina G. Functional traits of urban trees: air pollution mitigation potential. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2016;14:543–50.
    doi: 10.1002/fee.1426google scholar: lookup
  50. Pascual U, Balvanera P, Anderson CB, Chaplin-Kramer R, Christie M, González-Jiménez D. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature 2023;620:813–23.
    doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9pmc: PMC10447232pubmed: 37558877google scholar: lookup
  51. Phillips BB, Bullock JM, Osborne JL, Gaston KJ. Ecosystem service provision by road verges. Journal of Applied Ecology 2020;57:488–501.
    doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.13556google scholar: lookup
  52. Pfiffner L, Cahenzli F, Steinemann B, Jamar L, Bjørn MC, Porcel M. Design, implementation and management of perennial flower strips to promote functional agrobiodiversity in organic apple orchards: A pan-European study. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2019;278:61–71.
    doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2019.03.005google scholar: lookup
  53. Wratten SD, Gillespie M, Decourtye A, Mader E, Desneux N. Pollinator habitat enhancement: Benefits to other ecosystem services. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 2012;159:112–22.
    doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2012.06.020google scholar: lookup
  54. Tschumi M, Albrecht M, Entling MH, Jacot K. High effectiveness of tailored flower strips in reducing pests and crop plant damage. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2015;282:20151369.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.1369pmc: PMC4571701pubmed: 26311668google scholar: lookup
  55. Paar P, Röhricht W, Schuler J. Towards a planning support system for environmental management and agri-environmental measures—The Colorfields study. Journal of Environmental Management 2008;89:234–44.
    doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.047pubmed: 17767997google scholar: lookup
  56. Bátori Z, Kiss PJ, Tölgyesi C, Deák B, Valkó O, Török P. River embankments mitigate the loss of grassland biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. River Research and Applications 2020;36:1160–70.
    doi: 10.1002/rra.3643google scholar: lookup
  57. Bátori Z, Körmöczi L, Zalatnai M, Erdős L, Ódor P, Tölgyesi C. River Dikes in Agricultural Landscapes: The Importance of Secondary Habitats in Maintaining Landscape-Scale Diversity. Wetlands 2016;36:251–64.
    doi: 10.1007/s13157-016-0734-ygoogle scholar: lookup
  58. Sutherland LA. Horsification: Embodied gentrification in rural landscapes. Geoforum 2021;126:37–47.
    doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.07.020google scholar: lookup
  59. van Wijk-Jansen E, Visser-Riedstra K, Verstegen J, Kortstee H. Passie voor paarden: Een onderzoek naar de belevingswereld en het informatiezoekgedrag van paardenliefhebbers in Nederland. Den Haag: 2009.
  60. Batáry P, Báldi A, Kleijn D, Tscharntke T. Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of agri-environmental management: a meta-analysis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 2011;278:1894–902.
    doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.1923pmc: PMC3097824pubmed: 21106585google scholar: lookup
  61. Greiner R. Motivations and attitudes influence farmers’ willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts. Agricultural Systems 2015;137:154–65.
    doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.04.005google scholar: lookup
  62. Hockenhull J, Creighton E. The day-to-day management of UK leisure horses and the prevalence of owner-reported stable-related and handling behaviour problems. Animal Welfare 2015;24:29–36.
    doi: 10.7120/09627286.24.1.029google scholar: lookup
  63. Mazzola SM, Colombani C, Pizzamiglio G, Cannas S, Palestrini C, Costa ED. Do You Think I Am Living Well? A Four-Season Hair Cortisol Analysis on Leisure Horses in Different Housing and Management Conditions. Animals 2021;11:2141.
    doi: 10.3390/ani11072141pmc: PMC8300697pubmed: 34359269google scholar: lookup
  64. Mentges A, Blowes SA, Hodapp D, Hillebrand H, Chase JM. Effects of site‐selection bias on estimates of biodiversity change. Conservation Biology 2021;35:688–98.
    doi: 10.1111/cobi.13610pubmed: 32808693google scholar: lookup
  65. Conrad CC, Hilchey KG. A review of citizen science and community-based environmental monitoring: issues and opportunities. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 2011;176:273–91.
    doi: 10.1007/s10661-010-1582-5pubmed: 20640506google scholar: lookup
  66. Delaney DG, Sperling CD, Adams CS, Leung B. Marine invasive species: validation of citizen science and implications for national monitoring networks. Biological Invasions 2008;10:117–28.
    doi: 10.1007/s10530-007-9114-0google scholar: lookup
  67. Jäckel D, Mortega KG, Sturm U, Brockmeyer U, Khorramshahi O, Voigt-Heucke SL. Opportunities and limitations: A comparative analysis of citizen science and expert recordings for bioacoustic research. PLOS ONE 2021;16:e0253763.
    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253763pmc: PMC8238189pubmed: 34181671google scholar: lookup

Citations

This article has been cited 0 times.
Subscribe to our newsletter
Join 99,344 horse owners like you who receive our email updates on horse health and nutrition.