Content uploaded by William J Sutherland
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by William J Sutherland on May 28, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Making Space for Nature: A Review of England's Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network
Abstract and Figures
Lawton, J.H., Brotherton, P.N.M., Brown, V.K., Elphick, C., Fitter, A.H., Forshaw, J., Haddow, R.W., Hilborner, S., Leafe, R.N., Mace, G.M., Southgate, M.P., Sutherland, W.J., Tew, T.E., Varley, J. & Wynne, G.R. (2010) Making Space for Nature: a review of England’s wildlife sites and ecological networks. Report to Defra.
Figures - uploaded by William J Sutherland
Author content
All figure content in this area was uploaded by William J Sutherland
Content may be subject to copyright.
... It is now widely recognised that following decades of agricultural intensification, many UK farmed landscapes are often highly degraded and fragmented (Concepción et al., 2008;Lawton et al., 2010;Batáry et al., 2011;Crick et al., 2020a). This situation is further exacerbated by the differing management practices on neighbouring farms (Donald and Evans, 2006). ...
... This is because ecological processes often occur across different temporal and spatial scales in contrast to individual landholdings, and ignoring such perimeters would continue to have adverse impacts towards conservation (Gottfried et al., 1996;Tscharntke et al., 2005;Gabriel et al., 2010;Batáry et al., 2011). Hence, given that landscape scale conservation would require targeted promotion of landscape connectivity, such as the formation of wildlife corridors though linear features such as rivers or hedgerows, agricultural land will play an important role in achieving these networks in the coming years (Lawton et al., 2010;Frey-Ehrenbold et al., 2013); necessitating collaborations between landholders to ensure such landscape scale approaches are successful (Gottfried et al., 1996;Lawton et al., 2010;Franks, 2019). ...
... This is because ecological processes often occur across different temporal and spatial scales in contrast to individual landholdings, and ignoring such perimeters would continue to have adverse impacts towards conservation (Gottfried et al., 1996;Tscharntke et al., 2005;Gabriel et al., 2010;Batáry et al., 2011). Hence, given that landscape scale conservation would require targeted promotion of landscape connectivity, such as the formation of wildlife corridors though linear features such as rivers or hedgerows, agricultural land will play an important role in achieving these networks in the coming years (Lawton et al., 2010;Frey-Ehrenbold et al., 2013); necessitating collaborations between landholders to ensure such landscape scale approaches are successful (Gottfried et al., 1996;Lawton et al., 2010;Franks, 2019). ...
... Therefore, creating and maintaining well-connected landscapes that facilitate persistence and expansion is key to species conservation; and policy objectives such as Favorable Conservation Status (FCS) for the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) recognize key goals of long-term viable dynamics, a stable or increasing natural range, and a sufficient area of habitat to maintain populations across the range (Mehtälä andVuorisalo 2007, Epstein 2016). Landscape scale approaches to species conservation are promoted for maintaining viable and connected populations across fragmented landscapes (Lawton et al. 2010) and are increasingly advocated in nature recovery strategies, but implementation can involve significant challenges (Donaldson et al. 2017). Local habitat management is an important tool within such approaches, improving conditions for species in situ (Greenwood et al. 2016) with implications for population survival and metapopulation viability (Johansson et al. 2019). ...
... In metapopulation dynamics, patch size is indicative of population size, thus larger patches are assumed to have a lower extinction rate than small patches and well-connected patches a higher likelihood of colonization than isolated patches (Hanski 1998). Landscape-scale management based on these metapopulation principles with a focus on increasing the size, quality and connectivity of sites (bigger, better, more joined up) is widely advocated (Lawton et al. 2010, Isaac et al. 2018) and has been applied in conservation projects (Ellis et al. 2011). However, the practical implementation of landscape-scale conservation remains a focus of discussion (Hodgson et al. 2011a, Donaldson et al. 2017, as creating new patches, or increasing connectivity by forming physical linkages between them, can be difficult to achieve following extensive habitat loss, or where land is limited and subject to competing demands (Balmford et al. 2012). ...
... Conservation interventions to overcome fragmentation by making patches bigger and more connected (Lawton et al. 2010) present practical challenges. Applying snapshots of species distribution and habitat quality to metapopulation models, we linked local habitat conditions to regional dynamics, demonstrating the key role of patch-level habitat quality in landscape-scale conservation. ...
Landscape‐scale approaches are increasingly advocated for species conservation but ensuring landscape level persistence by enlarging the size of patches or increasing their physical connectivity is often impractical. Here, we test how such barriers can be overcome by management of habitat at the local (site‐based) level, using a rare butterfly as an exemplar. We used four surveys of the entire UK distribution of the Lulworth skipper Thymelicus acteon over 40 years to test how local habitat influences population density and colonization/extinction dynamics, and parameterized, validated and applied a metapopulation model to simulate effects of varying local habitat quality on regional persistence. We found the total number of populations in four distribution snapshots between 1978 and 2017 varied between 59 and 84, and from 1997 to 2017 34% of local populations showed turnover (colonization or extinction). Population density was closely linked to vegetation characteristics indicative of management, namely height and food plant frequency, both of which changed through time. Simulating effects of habitat quality on metapopulation dynamics 40 years into the future suggests coordinated changes to two key components of quality (vegetation height and food plant frequency) would increase patch occupancy above the range observed in the past 40 years (50–80%). In contrast, deterioration of either component below threshold levels leads to metapopulation retraction to core sub‐networks of patches, or eventual extirpation. Our results indicate that changes to habitat quality can overcome constraints imposed by habitat patch area and spatial location on relative rates of colonization and local extinction, demonstrating the sensitivity of regional dynamics to targeted in situ management. Local habitat management therefore plays a key role in landscape‐scale conservation. Monitoring of population density, and the monitoring and management of local (site‐level) habitat quality, therefore represent effective and important components of conservation strategies in fragmented landscapes.
... The addition of this information can transform local conservation strategies (Fig. 3). To decide how to manage or restore sites more effectively (Lawton's 'better';Lawton et al., 2010), an audit determines the fine-scale resources required by the largest numbers of priority species (e.g. vegetation structure, bare ground, hydrological conditions); to prioritize sites for habitat creation or expansion ('bigger', 'more'), auditing quantifies which larger-scale habitat features would most benefit the local species pool; to increase connectivity ('joined 'though crucially, connecting what, to what, with what?), auditing identifies interventions that provide functional connectivity for the largest numbers of regional priorities, given their ecological requirements (Fig. 3). ...
... Schematic showing how the outputs of a biodiversity audit would inform a Local Nature Recovery Strategy, with respect to each of the Lawton Principles that are advocated to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity by creating resilient ecological networks (Lawton et al., 2010). ...
... These advantages may be strengthened via active involvement in initiatives designed to improve the standard or usefulness of greenspace. (Lawton 2010) The goal is to embrace green networks as a planning method and to increase the amount and connectivity of greenspace within the urban environment. Adopting a green networks approach to regionally focus the supply of greenspace and increase connectivity is a more effective solution than simply increasing the amount of greenspace. ...
... Difference Soundscape Index (NDSI) 164 This index relies on the theoretical frequency split between anthrophony (1 -2 kHz) and biophony (2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) (although this may not hold in many systems, see text). ...
Passive acoustic monitoring has great potential as a cost-effective method for long-term
biodiversity monitoring. However, to maximise its efficacy, standardisation of survey protocols is
necessary to ensure data are comparable and permit reliable inferences.
The aim of these guidelines is to outline a basic long-term acoustic monitoring protocol that
can be adapted to suit a range of projects according to specific objectives and size. Here we
summarise some basic recommendations for audible-range terrestrial ecosystem monitoring -
more detail can be found in the following chapters. A ‘Quick start guide’ giving further rationale
for these recommendations can be found in Appendix 1.
... In a similar vein, GI interventions involving larger land areas will not be preferred, as these will be more disruptive to private interests in relation to smaller interventions. This goes against the scientific consensus stated in a recent policy report (Lawton et al., 2010; also see Isaac et al., 2018) as 'Better, Bigger, More and Joined', considering better quality habitats and larger habitats more important for efficient conservation planning (see Hodgson et al., 2011, for a discussion of the scientific basis). ...
Green infrastructure (GI) is increasingly used in policymaking to promote biodiversity and enhance ecosystem services through the protection, creation, restoration and connection of natural and man‐made green areas.
The EU Commission adopted in 2013, the concept as a strategy. When member states apply the policy, it is translated into specific bureaucratic and political systems, creating different ‘policy assemblages’ of ideas and institutional features.
We analyse the Swedish GI policy to draw conclusions about how it has been assembled in one particular member state and what that particular assemblage will imply for biodiversity conservation. In combination with understanding policies as assemblages, we use the ‘What's the problem represented to be’‐approach as method.
We show that the Swedish GI policy assemblage consists of a mix of policy ideas developed in Sweden and the EU. Despite the current strong focus on biodiversity conservation, the notion of land's multifunctionality, characterizing the EU strategy and the possibility to conserve biodiversity on land used for purposes other than conservation increasingly influence the Swedish policy as it is formed.
Although the policy has the potential to mainstream biodiversity conservation measures across different sectors, based on our analysis of current discourse, its implementation will likely promote GI measures less disruptive to existing land use activities, making its capacity to halt biodiversity loss marginal.
Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.
... But what is clear is that it is timely for landscape-scale conservation projects to take up the challenge and cater simultaneously for both threatened specialists and generalists alike (e.g. Lawton et al., 2010), and for conservation biologists to provide evidence on how best to do so. ...
European ecosystems and species remain under pressure from intensive agriculture and forestry, fishing, pollution, urban sprawl, invasive species and climate change. This book provides a detailed description and critical analysis of nature conservation responses, achievements and failures, motivated by the concerning state of nature and missed biodiversity targets. It summarises Europe's nature and the impact of human activities, and then gives an overview of relevant international biodiversity treaties and the EU nature conservation policy and legislative framework. The core of the book comprises chapters written by national experts, which cover the UK and twenty-five EU Member States, providing comparative case studies from which valuable lessons are drawn. Covering wide-ranging topics such as biodiversity pressures, legislation and governance, biodiversity strategies, species protection, protected areas, habitat management, and funding, this book is of interest to a wide audience, including academics and professionals involved in nature conservation and related environmental fields.
European ecosystems and species remain under pressure from intensive agriculture and forestry, fishing, pollution, urban sprawl, invasive species and climate change. This book provides a detailed description and critical analysis of nature conservation responses, achievements and failures, motivated by the concerning state of nature and missed biodiversity targets. It summarises Europe's nature and the impact of human activities, and then gives an overview of relevant international biodiversity treaties and the EU nature conservation policy and legislative framework. The core of the book comprises chapters written by national experts, which cover the UK and twenty-five EU Member States, providing comparative case studies from which valuable lessons are drawn. Covering wide-ranging topics such as biodiversity pressures, legislation and governance, biodiversity strategies, species protection, protected areas, habitat management, and funding, this book is of interest to a wide audience, including academics and professionals involved in nature conservation and related environmental fields.
The UK, and England in particular, is the stronghold for chalk rivers, streams and wetlands in Europe. A number of sites are recognised as being important for nature conservation and have been designated under UK and European legislation. However, as the chalk is also an important aquifer for southern and eastern England, there have been significant impacts on these groundwater dependent ecosystems from abstraction. Chalk rivers and streams have been used for centuries for mills and water meadows, so impacts have not just occurred in recent times. Intensification of agriculture in the 20 th century has added to the pressure by increasing levels of pollution, especially nitrate, with significant levels now being recorded. Moves have been made, however, to resolve some of these issues, with investigations into the effects of abstraction and options for reducing these impacts, research into the nature of the chalk aquifer so that it can be modelled more accurately, and assessment made of pollution pathways and the timescales over which they may take. Associated projects have characterised the ecosystems associated with the chalk in more detail, enabling the mechanism for impacts to be better understood. While the extent of impacts are increasingly understood, action is also being taken to reduce their effects and restore chalk ecosystems.
This guidance is aimed at those who plan and deliver conservation of terrestrial biodiversity.
The six guiding principles described in this document summarise current thinking on how to
reduce the impacts of climate change on biodiversity and how to adapt existing plans and projects
in the light of climate change. Although this guidance is intended to inform implementation of the
UK Biodiversity Action Plan, taking account of climate change is also relevant to the fulfilment of
many international agreements and obligations affecting the UK, including the EU target to halt
biodiversity loss by 2010.2 Proposals for policy change are beyond the scope of this document but
because actions are ultimately linked to policy frameworks, there is also much to be done to
review and strengthen policy at a country, UK and international level.
Two types of action need to be taken to address the challenge of climate change and biodiversity
conservation. The first is adaptation, which means increasing the ability of natural systems to
absorb and respond to change, given that the world is irrevocably committed to some degree of
climate change. This guidance suggests what conservationists can do to contribute to this aim
through the conservation plans and activities within their control.
The second type of action is mitigation, that is controlling and reducing emissions of greenhouse
gases, the root cause of climate change. Although this is not the subject of this guide, it is
recognised that hugely important decisions made about land management may exacerbate or
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and some actions suggested here may contribute to mitigation.
The objective of this study was to complile lists of UK BAP species relevant to priority habitats in England; collate and analyse the habitat niche and resource requirements for each species; and to produce guidance to stakeholders on how species requirements can be best integrated into habitat management. Our findings suggest that for BAP species conservation to be properly integrated into habitat-based approaches we need to place much greater emphasis on creating the component niches and resources required by these species, rather than managing habitats in a generic way. publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/61078
Over the past 20 years dramatic declines have taken place in UK insect populations. Eventually, such declines must have knock-on effects for other animals, especially high profile groups such as birds and mammals. This authoritative, yet accessible account details the current state of the wildlife in Britain and Ireland and offers an insight into the outlook for the future. Written by a team of the country's leading experts, it appraises the changes that have occurred in a wide range of wildlife species and their habitats and outlines urgent priorities for conservation. It includes chapters on each of the vertebrate and major invertebrate groups, with the insects covered in particular depth. Also considered are the factors that drive environmental change and the contribution at local and government level to national and international wildlife conservation. Essential reading for anyone who is interested in, and concerned about, UK wildlife.
Summary The bird fauna of Britain and Ireland has been studied for over 500 years and changes in numbers over the last 40 years are well documented by a range of surveys, mostly undertaken by volunteers. Britain and Ireland are home to internationally important numbers of seabirds in the breeding season and many species of wildfowl and waders in the winter. Although there has been little overall change in total bird numbers, about half of bird species in Britain and Ireland are of conservation concern because of small or declining populations. In the last 30 years, declines in farmland birds have been well documented, but declines in many woodland and migratory birds are just beginning to be recognised. Conversely, there have been increases in numbers of many raptors, seabirds and waterbirds. In general, habitat specialists have tended to decline most, while more adaptable, generalist species are increasing in number. Climate change threatens bird populations in all habitats, but loss of habitat and deterioration in habitat quality are more pressing threats. Conservationists have been successful at increasing populations of rarer species, but the greater challenge will be conserving birds in the wider countryside, which will require the integration of conservation goals with wider social and landscape policies. Introduction More is known about the birds of Britain than the vertebrate fauna of virtually any other country.
Summary The freshwater fish fauna of Britain and Ireland is an impoverished one compared to much of the rest of Europe, due to the effect of the last Ice Age some 10,000 years ago and to the more recent separation of Britain from the continental land mass. For the same reasons there is a significant difference from north to south in local fish faunas. The major pattern of change in freshwater fish populations in these islands over the last 200 years has been a decline in native, especially northern, species and a parallel increase in non-native and some southern species. Some native species like Burbot and Houting are now extinct, whilst others, for example Vendace, Smelt, Allis and Twaite Shad, and even European Eel, are declining. In contrast, southern species like Ruffe, Dace and Rudd are extending their range into northern catchments, thanks to introductions by coarse anglers, and increasing numbers of non-native species, for example Sunbleak, Topmouth Gudgeon and Black Bullhead, are being successfully introduced. Climate change appears to be enhancing these changes. Of the 57 freshwater fish species known from Britain and Ireland, 14 are alien. Only in the last few decades has there been any attempt to reverse these changes through legislation, habitat restoration, catchment management and conservation management of rare species. It is emphasised that habitat protection and restoration are the principal means through which successful sustainable fish conservation and restoration of biodiversity will be achieved.