Content uploaded by Miguel Ferrer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Miguel Ferrer on Dec 18, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
diversity
Article
Transporting Biodiversity Using Transmission Power
Lines as Stepping-Stones?
Miguel Ferrer 1, * , Manuela De Lucas 1, Elena Hinojosa 1and Virginia Morandini 2
1Applied Ecology Group, Estación Biológica de Doñana (CSIC), Avd. Americo Vespucio s/n,
41092 Sevilla, Spain; manuela@ebd.csic.es (M.D.L.); elenahinojosa@gmail.com (E.H.)
2Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fisheries and Wildlife,
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA; virginia.morandini@oregonstate.edu
*Correspondence: mferrer@ebd.csic.es
Received: 24 September 2020; Accepted: 12 November 2020; Published: 23 November 2020
Abstract:
The most common ecological response to climate change is the shifts in species distribution
ranges. Nevertheless, landscape fragmentation compromises the ability of limited dispersal species
to move following these climate changes. Building connected environments that enable species
to track climate changes is an ultimate goal for biodiversity conservation. Here, we conducted an
experiment to determine if electric power transmission lines could be transformed in a continental
network of biodiversity reserves for small animals. We analysed if the management of the habitat
located inside the base of the transmission electric towers (providing refuge and planting seedlings
of native shrub) allowed to increase local richness of target species (i.e., small mammals and some
invertebrates’ groups). Our results confirmed that by modifying the base of the electric transmission
towers we were able to increase density and diversity of several species of invertebrates and small
mammals as well as number of birds and bird species, increasing local biodiversity. We suggest that
modifying the base of the electric towers would potentially facilitate the connection of fragmented
populations. This idea would be easily applicable in any transmission line network anywhere around
the world, making it possible for the first time to build up continental scale networks of connectivity.
Keywords:
connectivity; climate change; fragmentation; limited dispersal animals; power lines;
stepping-stones; ecological corridors; biodiversity
1. Introduction
Both climate and land-use changes are the major drivers of habitat loss worldwide and dramatically
affect the ecological integrity of many systems as well as species distribution and extinction rates [
1
–
4
].
Global average temperature increased by 0.85
◦
C from 1880 to 2012, and by the end of the XXI century,
it is expected to rise further [
5
] (up to 4.8
◦
C; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
2014). Consequently, climate change is going to cause substantial shifts in the ranges of several
species [
6
] and may surpass habitat loss as the primary threat to global biodiversity over the next
decades [
7
]. Anthropogenic climate change is already affecting ecological systems and biodiversity
distribution [8–12] and has influenced >80% of all biological processes [13].
The most common ecological response to climate change is the shifts in species distribution
ranges [
11
,
12
]. Nevertheless, land-use changes and subsequent landscape fragmentation compromises
the ability of species to move following these climate changes under the current climate velocity [
14
]
(0.42 km yr
−1
). Building connected environments that enable species to follow the pace of climate
changes, decreasing extinction risk for many of them, is the most repeated suggestion to adapt our
conservation strategies [
15
–
17
]. Enhancing connectivity, through the provision of a network of habitat
corridors or stepping-stone patches is, nowadays, a key concept in conservation biology and landscape
Diversity 2020,12, 439; doi:10.3390/d12110439 www.mdpi.com/journal/diversity
Diversity 2020,12, 439 2 of 11
ecology. Connecting populations throughout wildlife corridors would increase the resilience of
the metapopulation facilitating biological processes such as dispersal, gene flow, recovery of small
populations and allow spatial redistribution of populations in response to climate [18–20].
Connectivity is species-specific, depending on the ability of a species to disperse between
patches [
16
]. Some species, such as birds, are less directly dependent on the patchiness of the terrestrial
world due to their high mobility, but others, like amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates and mammals
(particularly micro-mammals), have limited dispersal abilities, increasing their extinction risk in the
face of global warming. Most of these species are unable to track climate velocity without adequate
corridors to overcome fragmentation [3].
In consequence, it is necessary to build up a network of corridors to facilitate shifts in species
ranges as a natural response to climate change in a fragmented landscape. However, the approaches
about how to build a network of corridors vary considerably, and little information exists about
under what conditions and in which places a particular modelling or planning framework is the best
approach to use [
21
]. To buy or rent large areas connecting protected natural areas to allow species
movements in a corridor network would be non-cost-effective, and alternatives such as translocation
projects would be much more interesting from an economical point of view [
21
]. Probably, for these
reasons, among others, there is nothing like a large-scale network of corridors anywhere in the world.
Nothing like continental or even national scale networks of corridors or stepping-stones to facilitate
movements of animals with limited dispersal abilities actually exist. To build functional ecological
networks that shelter metapopulations of several species from extinction due to climate change should
be an ultimate goal for conservation biologists.
Here, we conduct an experiment to determine if electric power transmission lines, that conforms
a huge network in developed countries like United States of America or European Union (Figure 1),
could be transformed in small biodiversity reserves for small animals, creating a kind of rosary of
diversity spots. Electric power transmission is the bulk movement of electrical energy from a generating
site, such as a power plant, to an electrical substation. The interconnected lines, which facilitate this
movement, are known as a transmission network. This is distinct from the electric power distribution,
which consist in local wiring between high-voltage substations and customers. Transmission lines
have a nominal tension of 220–400 kV. Power is usually transmitted through overhead power lines,
supported by transmission towers, generating a huge network of connected lines crossing almost all
the territory in developed countries. Typically, towers are placed at 200 m from each other and with a
base of 10
×
10 m (100 m
2
) on average, depending on the particular design. Nowadays, the EU has a
transmission network of 200,000 km approximately and the USA around 254,000 km, which means
1,000,000 and 1,270,000 towers, respectively. Consequently, we have a surface under the towers of
around 127,000,000 m
2
in the USA and 100,000,000 m
2
in the EU, covering all the country in a network
that we can potentially use to connect populations of species with a limited dispersal capacity in
fragmented landscapes. Only, in Spain, where the transmission network covers 44,000 km, 15% of the
transmission towers are inside the EU Natura 2000 Network (Figure 2), which practically connects
every single natural protected area in the Iberian Peninsula. In the present study, we analysed if
managing the habitat located inside the base of the transmission electric towers would increase local
richness of target species (i.e., small mammals and some invertebrates’ groups).
Diversity 2020,12, 439 3 of 11
Diversity 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the transmission line network (220–999 kV) in the European
Union. The figure highlights how intensively this area is interconnected through transmission lines.
Figure 2. Spanish transmission lines network. In green colour, we represent protected natural areas
inside the Natura 2000 network of the European Union. The black circle indicates the location of the
studied power lines. This figure shows how transmission lines potentially connect most of the
protected natural areas.
Figure 1.
Schematic representation of the transmission line network (220–999 kV) in the European
Union. The figure highlights how intensively this area is interconnected through transmission lines.
Diversity 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 11
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the transmission line network (220–999 kV) in the European
Union. The figure highlights how intensively this area is interconnected through transmission lines.
Figure 2. Spanish transmission lines network. In green colour, we represent protected natural areas
inside the Natura 2000 network of the European Union. The black circle indicates the location of the
studied power lines. This figure shows how transmission lines potentially connect most of the
protected natural areas.
Figure 2.
Spanish transmission lines network. In green colour, we represent protected natural areas
inside the Natura 2000 network of the European Union. The black circle indicates the location of
the studied power lines. This figure shows how transmission lines potentially connect most of the
protected natural areas.
Diversity 2020,12, 439 4 of 11
2. Materials and Methods
In February 2010, for the experiment, we selected two parallel 400 kV transmission lines located
in Andalusia (in Cordoba and Jaen provinces, south of Spain), named the 400 kV Cabra-Guadalquivir
Medio line and 400 kV Guadalquivir Medio-Tajo de la Encantada line (Figure 2). Those transmission
lines were separated from each other by 100 m. The area was mainly man-made steppes, occupied
by dry cereal crops, with some spotted areas of olive trees and bushes, with a typical Mediterranean
climate, characterized by hot and dry summers. We selected a section of 27 km of both lines that cross
a large area of cereal steppes. Inside those lines, we selected six transmission towers (three in each
one of the parallel transmission lines), to manage the habitat located inside the base of the towers.
The managing measures included (1) the provision of refuges to small mammals and invertebrates,
with medium to large stones (15 kg on average for each one, accumulating between 50 and 80 units
inside each selected tower), and (2) inside the base of these selected towers, we planted seedlings
of native shrub of the species Myrtus communis,Crataegus monogyna,Rosa canina,Rhamnus alaternus,
Phyllirea angustifolia and Retamas phaerocarpa. We only used the inside of the base of the tower to
plant shrub because the surrounding area was intensively used for dry cereal crops. The species
of shrub were selected because their native origin and their ability to support local communities of
invertebrates. We protected the new plants from herbivores by netting the perimeter of the base of the
tower. We provided irrigation during the first four months and survival of the plants was practically
100%.
Additionally, we selected four control sites: the base of two towers without management and two
10
×
10 spots without towers that were 100 m apart from the existing lines (Figure 3). Vegetation in
both types of control sites was mainly grass and short vegetation. Modified towers were inside the
pseudo-steppe area, at 1250 m for the border with olive trees and bushes. We conducted samplings
from February of 2010, just after plantation and modifications inside the base of the towers, to October
2013, with five sampling days per season each year (80 sampling days in total), in each one of the six
modified towers, the two control towers and the two control spots (800 samples in total).
To determine the presence of invertebrates, we used eight pit-fall traps in each sample point over
five days each season, collecting the captured dead animals for their identification. We used Sherman
traps to determine the presence of small mammals in each sampling site, locating eight traps per
tower or control sites over five days per season. We identified the species of each one of the captured
individuals, releasing them without any mark at the same capture point. Additionally, we conducted a
census of the birds observed in each one of the sampled towers during the same days. We did not
mark any individual bird; consequently, potential repeat observations of the same individual were
recorded. In this case, we did not include control sites without towers because we only considered
birds perching or flying from the tower.
We use Generalized Linear Models (GLM) with Poisson distribution and log link to determine the
effect of year, treatment and their interaction on the number of individuals and number of different
species trapped, by comparing modified towers and control sites. Statistica 13.0 software statistical
package was used to perform statistical procedures, and we used an alpha value of 0.05 to assess
significance of results.
Over four years (2010–2013), we were trapping small mammals, arthropods and observing birds
in modified and control towers, in two power lines crossing dry cereal crops, a barrier for the dispersal
of several species (Figure 3).
Diversity 2020,12, 439 5 of 11
Diversity 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 11
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the study area. Yellow zones are dry crops of cereals and white
zone is olive trees with scattered bushes. In green is the location of the towers of the old line and in
red are the new ones. Modified tower: Old line 82, 83 and 84, new line 92, 93 and 94. Control towers:
old line 65 and 74. Control spots outside the line: Area 1 and Area 2.
3. Results
In total, 163 micro-mammals belonging to four species were trapped (Table 1). No differences in
frequency of captures in modified towers between both power lines were found (Wald statistic =
0.024, p = 0.875) nor between the two types of control sites (Wald statistic = 0.125, p = 0.722).
Table 1. List of species or orders found during the study separated by modified tower base or control
sites (total sum of individuals, mean and standard deviation (SD)).
Micro-Mammals Modified Towers Control Sites Total
Mus spretus 62 (10.33 ± 2.66) 10 (2.50 ± 0.98) 72
Apodemus sylvaticus 73 (12.16 ± 5.71) 10 (2.50 ± 1.67) 83
Rattus rattus 7 (1.16 ± 0.33) 0 7
Elyomis quercinus 1 (0.166 ± 0.18) 0 1
Total 143 (23.83 ± 4.34) 20 (5.00 ± 1.19) 163
Arthropods Modified Towers Control Sites Total
Araneae 9 (1.50 ± 0.50) 5 (1.25 ± 0.63) 14
Figure 3. Schematic representation of the study area. Yellow zones are dry crops of cereals and white
zone is olive trees with scattered bushes. In green is the location of the towers of the old line and in
red are the new ones. Modified tower: old line 82, 83 and 84, new line 92, 93 and 94. Control towers:
old line 65 and 74. Control spots outside the line: Area 1 and Area 2.
3. Results
In total, 163 micro-mammals belonging to four species were trapped (Table 1). No differences in
frequency of captures in modified towers between both power lines were found (Wald statistic =0.024,
p=0.875) nor between the two types of control sites (Wald statistic =0.125, p=0.722).
Diversity 2020,12, 439 6 of 11
Table 1.
List of species or orders found during the study separated by modified tower base or control
sites (total sum of individuals, mean and standard deviation (SD)).
Micro-Mammals Modified Towers Control Sites Total
Mus spretus 62 (10.33 ±2.66) 10 (2.50 ±0.98) 72
Apodemus sylvaticus
73 (12.16 ±5.71) 10 (2.50 ±1.67) 83
Rattus rattus 7 (1.16 ±0.33) 0 7
Elyomis quercinus 1 (0.166 ±0.18) 0 1
Total 143 (23.83 ±4.34) 20 (5.00 ±1.19) 163
Arthropods Modified Towers Control Sites Total
Araneae 9 (1.50 ±0.50) 5 (1.25 ±0.63) 14
Hymenoptera 26 (4.33 ±2.74) 10 (2.50 ±3.03) 36
Thysanoptera 49 (8.16 ±3.26) 11 (2.75 ±3.95) 60
Diptera 45 (7.50 ±5.45) 14 (3.50 ±2.37) 59
Orthoptera 9 (1.50 ±1.00) 1(0.25 ±0.18) 10
Hemiptera 28 (3.036 ±1.10) 5 (1.25 ±0.44) 36
Coleoptera 15 (2.50 ±0.35) 8 (2.00 ±1.35) 23
Collembola 23 (3.83 ±2.67) 5 (1.25 ±0.54) 28
No identified 37 (6.16 ±2.47) 13 (3.25 ±0.63) 50
Total 241 (40.16 ±9.41) 72 (18.00 ±8.34) 313
Birds Modified Towers Control Sites * Total
Sylvia atricapilla 14 (2.33 ±0.12) 4 (2.00 ±0.20) 18
Corvus corax 58 (9.66 ±2.23) 2 (1.00 ±0.33) 60
Galerida cristata 16 (2.66 ±0.09) 0 16
Lanius senator 32 (5.33 ±0.31) 0 32
Falco naumanni 13 (2.13 ±0.16) 1 (0.50 ±0.14) 14
Elanus caeruleus 1 (0.166 ±0.11) 0 1
Sturnus sp 2 (0.33 ±0.22) 0 2
Buteo buteo 15 (2.50 ±0.18) 4 (2.00 ±0.18) 19
Saxicola torquatus 33 (5.50 ±1.06) 0 33
Falco tinnunculus 17 (2.83 ±0.33) 0 17
Miliaria calandra 18 (4.66 ±0.89) 0 18
Sturnus unicolor 1 (0.166 ±0.09) 0 1
Falco peregrinus 6 (1.00 ±0.76) 0 6
Upupa epops 4 (0.66 ±0.13) 0 4
Carduelis carduelis 4 (0.66 ±0.13) 1 (0.25 ±0.16) 5
Motacilla alba 2 (0.33 ±0.07) 0 2
Carduelis chloris 2 (0.33 ±0.07) 0 2
Parus major 2 (0.33 ±0.07) 0 2
P.phoenicurus 2 (0.33 ±0.07) 0 2
S. melanocephala 2 (0.33 ±0.07) 0 2
Milvus milvus 0 1 (0.25 ±0.16) 1
Circaetus gallicus 1 (0.166 ±0.18) 0 1
Total 243 (40.50 ±11.09) 17 (8.50 ±3.23) 260
* Birds had less control points (we did not consider the two spots outside the towers). For the rest of the animals,
we compared between six modified towers and four control sites (two unmodified tower bases and two control
spots without towers).
We found a significant effect of the treatment, time and their interaction (Table 2), with number
of individuals of small mammal being ten times higher in modified tower bases than in control
sites. These differences emerged one year after the treatment, staying until the end of the experiment
(Figure 4). After removing the first year from analyses, no differences among years in modified towers
were found (Wald statistic =1.17, p=0.555), showing that the mean number of captured individuals
remained stable after the significant increases experimented during the first year. In control sites,
no differences among the 4-year study were found (Wald statistic =3.77, p=0.286). Not only number
of trapped individuals but also species richness was significantly affected by modifications in the base
Diversity 2020,12, 439 7 of 11
of the towers (Wald statistic =50.95, p<0.0001), finding 9 times more different species in modified
towers than in control sites.
Table 2.
Results of the GLM analyses of factors affecting number of individuals observed. Treatment was
if the tower base was modified or not. In all animal groups, modification and modification x year
interaction was always significant (p<0.05).
Small Mammals: GLM Poisson Distribution and Log Link
Effect df Wald Statistic p
Intercept 1 210.23 <0.0001
Treatment 1 76.17 <0.0001
Year 3 9.61 0.0221
Treatment x Year 3 8.16 0.0427
Arthropods: GLM Poisson Distribution and Log Link Function
Effect df
Wald Statistic.
p
Intercept 1 5.02 0.0249
Treatment 1 180.93 <0.0001
Year 3 11.41 0.0096
Treatment x Year 3 37.85 <0.0001
Birds: GLM Poisson Distribution and Log Link Function
Effect df
Wald Statistic.
p
Intercept 1 126.13 <0.0001
Treatment 1 36.24 <0.0001
Year 3 5.66 0.1293
Treatment x Year 3 11.69 0.0085
A total of 313 invertebrates of eight different orders were captured during the study period
(Table 1). Again, no differences in frequency of captures in modified towers between the studied power
lines were found (Wald statistic =0.102, p=0.801) nor between control sites (Wald statistic =0.895,
p=0.886
). We found a significant effect of treatment, time and their interaction (Table 2), with captured
invertebrates being four times higher in modified tower bases than in control sites. These differences
appeared one year after the treatment, remaining significant until the end of the experiment (Figure 4).
Removing the first year from analyses, no differences among years in the modified tower were found
(Wald statistic =1.29, p=0.522), showing that the mean number of captured individuals remains stable
after the significant increases experimented during the first year. In control sites, no differences among
the 4-year study were found (Wald statistic =4.58, p=0.204). Orders’ richness was significantly higher
in modified tower bases than in control sites (Wald statistic =32.487, p<0.0001), with three times more
orders found in modified ones.
We observed 260 individuals of 23 different species of birds perching on the towers (Table 1).
Highly significant effects of treatment, time and their interactions were found again (Table 2),
with observed birds being 7.5 times higher in modified towers than in control ones. These differences
follow the same pattern as in invertebrates and micro-mammals, arising one year after the treatment
and staying significant until the end of the experiment (Figure 4). Removing the first year from analyses,
no differences among years in modified towers were found (Wald statistic =0.36,
p=0.834
), showing that
the mean number of birds observed remains stable after the significant increase experimented during
the first year. In control sites, no differences among the 4-year study were found (Wald statistic =1.90,
p=0.591). Again, treatment significantly increased the species richness, with 6 times more different
species in modified towers (Wald statistic =30.780, p<0.0001) than in control towers (Figure 4).
Diversity 2020,12, 439 8 of 11
Diversity 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 11
Figure 4. Differences between modified towers (continuous line) and control towers (dotted line)
during the study period in number of individuals and species richness of small mammals, arthropods
and birds. The modifications at the base of the towers were implemented in the first year (2010) of the
experiment.
4. Discussion
We did not find any difference in modified towers between the two power lines, nor among
control sites, allowing us to directly compare among treatments. At the beginning of the experiment,
all the towers and the two control spots showed similar values in number of individuals and diversity
of small mammals, invertebrates and in birds perching. But one year after the modification in the
tower bases, all these measured parameters increased significantly in modified towers remaining
thereafter, however control sites remained at the same low values all throughout the following three
years of the study. Consequently, modifications implemented at the base of the towers increased local
species richness in a significant way and maintained these higher levels during the whole study
period without any further intervention. In modified towers, all differences among years were due
to differences between the first and second years. Indeed, there were no differences in any of the
studied animal groups among 2–3–4 study years, but very significant between 1 and 2 years. In
Figure 4.
Differences between modified towers (continuous line) and control towers (dotted line) during
the study period in number of individuals and species richness of small mammals, arthropods and birds.
The modifications at the base of the towers were implemented in the first year (2010) of the experiment.
4. Discussion
We did not find any difference in modified towers between the two power lines, nor among
control sites, allowing us to directly compare among treatments. At the beginning of the experiment,
all the towers and the two control spots showed similar values in number of individuals and diversity
of small mammals, invertebrates and in birds perching. But one year after the modification in the
tower bases, all these measured parameters increased significantly in modified towers remaining
thereafter, however control sites remained at the same low values all throughout the following three
years of the study. Consequently, modifications implemented at the base of the towers increased
local species richness in a significant way and maintained these higher levels during the whole study
period without any further intervention. In modified towers, all differences among years were due to
differences between the first and second years. Indeed, there were no differences in any of the studied
animal groups among 2–3–4 study years, but very significant between 1 and 2 years. In control sites, no
differences among any year of the entire period were found, with all remaining in the same low values
throughout the experiment. A decrease in captures at the control sites would be expected if small
Diversity 2020,12, 439 9 of 11
mammals and invertebrates moved from non-modified towers to modified ones, inducing decreases
in the former. This did not happen, suggesting that individuals trapped in modified towers were
coming from some other places. A potential explanation would be that they were moving mainly from
nearby olive trees and bush areas, and taking into account the distance from modified towers to the
border of the fragmentation (the end of the dry cereal crops and beginning of olive trees and bushes,
see Figure 3). All the study groups seem to have been able to move at least at 1.25 km yr
−1
, and this
dispersal speed would be around three times faster than the current estimation for climate change
velocity [14] (0.42 km yr−1).
Among invertebrates, some of the orders comprise species that are mainly seed-dispersers
and pollinizers, included among what we consider species providing ecosystem services, with a
huge influence in ecosystems’ functionality. Thus, with adequate refuge and nidification structures,
tower transmission lines could increase pollination and seed dispersal in large areas, and, what is more
important, it could facilitate connectivity among fragmented habitats.
Bird numbers were also affected by tower base modifications. Presumably, increases in
number of invertebrates and small mammals after modifications could facilitate the increase of
bird numbers. The increase in bird numbers might affect potential risks, like bird collisions
against power wires. Bird mortality caused by collisions with power lines is well known [
22
–
24
].
Nevertheless, species attracted to the modified tower in this experiment were not included among
those more prone to collisions [
24
] and, in any case, effective systems to mitigate collision risk have
been developed during the last 20 years [
23
], achieving reductions as important as 81%. To mark
ground wires in modified lines would be a good suggestion, because making the cables more visible to
birds seems the most appropriate method for mitigating mortality. Bird diverter devices have been
developed to improve power line visibility for birds, thus reducing collision risk [23].
Our experiment showed that by modifying the base of the towers we were able to increase density
and diversity of several species of invertebrates and small mammals and, probably as a response to
that, bird species and numbers. Nevertheless, we can design different kinds of modifications at the
base of the towers to favour different target animals. For example, the presence of points of water
would facilitate amphibian movements though the power lines. Amphibians are among the groups
most affected by global warming and landscape fragmentation [
25
]. Installing structures to facilitate
bumblebees, bees or other pollinizer nesting would enhance their dispersion. A relevant effect of power
lines in seed dispersal by birds has been previously reported, showing that electricity pylons may play
an important role in the succession of fleshy-fruited shrubs and trees in intensive farmland [26,27].
The cost of implementing modifications used in this experiment was around 450 Euros per tower.
That means that to build up a network of potential stepping-stones would cost around 1700 Euros
per Km, with no maintenance costs after implementation. However, for this purpose, it is not necessary
to adapt all the towers of a line, but just those that surpass barriers fragmenting the landscape for the
target species in each case. The property of the base of the tower depends on the country and power
company policies. However, generally speaking, the power company usually pays a rent to the owner
for the right of use. Typically, owners of the land, due to difficulties to work the area inside the towers
with farm equipment, do not use this space. This situation facilitates the use of these bases for other
purposes, like to increase local biodiversity and to connect populations without any additional rent
cost to the power company. However, in some places in Europe, space under the power lines would be
intensively used by humans (like parking places, landfills etc.), making their use difficult.
As far as we know, this is the first time that the potential of the transmission network to preserve
biodiversity has been evaluated. Our results suggest the huge potential of the power transmission
lines network to be adapted as stepping-stones for small fauna. Modifying the base of the electric
towers would allow not only to increase local biodiversity but also to connect fragmented populations.
Transmission lines are widespread, especially in developed countries—exactly the same places where
habitats’ fragmentation due to land use changes is greater—making it possible for the first time to
build up a continental scale network of connectivity for limited dispersal animals.
Diversity 2020,12, 439 10 of 11
Author Contributions:
M.F. conceived the idea, designed and supervised the project, analysed the data and wrote
the first draft of the manuscript. M.D.L. collected field data, supervised the project, discussed, and commented on
the first draft. E.H. collected filed data, and V.M. revised the data analyses, and discussed and corrected the first
draft. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Red Eléctrica de España.
Acknowledgments:
We thank Red Electrica de Espana (REE) that supported this research and specifically,
A. Calvo, M. Gil, M. Gonzalez and R. Arranz.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the
study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to
publish the results.
References
1.
Thomas, C.D.; Cameron, A.; Green, R.E.; Bakkenes, M.; Beaumont, L.J.; Collingham, Y.C.; Erasmus, B.F.N.;
De Siqueira, M.F.; Grainger, A.; Hannah, L.; et al. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature
2004
,427,
145–148. [PubMed]
2.
VanDerWal, J.; Murphy, H.T.; Kutt, A.S.; Perkins, G.C.; Bateman, B.L.; Perry, J.J.; Reside, A.E. Focus on
poleward shifts in species’ distribution underestimates the fingerprint of climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang.
2013,3, 239.
3. Urban, M.C. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science 2015,348, 571–573.
4.
Barton, A.D.; Irwin, A.J.; Finkel, Z.V.; Stock, C.A. Anthropogenic climate change drives shift and shuffle in
North Atlantic phytoplankton communities. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2016,113, 2964–2969. [PubMed]
5.
IPCC. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Pachauri, R.K., Meyeer, L.A., Eds.; IPCC: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2014.
6.
Berg, M.P.; Kiers, E.T.; Driessen, G.; Van Der Heijden, M.; Kooi, B.W.; Kuenen, F.; Liefting, M.; Verhoef, H.A.;
Ellers, J. Adapt or disperse: Understanding species persistence in a changing world. Glob. Chang. Biol.
2010
,
16, 587–598.
7.
Leadley, P. Biodiversity Scenarios: Projections of 21st Century Change in Biodiversity, and Associated
Ecosystem Services: A Technical Report for the Global Biodiversity Outlook 3 (No. 50); UNEP/Earthprint:
Montreal, QC, Canada, 2010.
8.
Hughes, L. Biological consequences of global warming: Is the signal already apparent? Trends Ecol. Evol.
2000,15, 56–61.
9. Wuethrich, B. How climate change alters rhythms of the wild. Science 2000,287, 793–795.
10. McCarty, J.P. Ecological consequences of recent climate change. Conserv. Biol. 2001,15, 320–331.
11.
Walther, G.R.; Post, E.; Convey, P.; Menzel, A.; Parmesan, C.; Beebee, T.J.C.; Fromentin, J.-M.;
Hoegh-Guldberg, O.; Bairlein, F. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature 2002,416, 389.
12.
Pecl, G.T.; Ara
ú
jo, M.B.; Bell, J.D.; Blanchard, J.L.; Bonebrake, T.C.; Chen, I.-C.; Clark, T.D.; Colwell, R.K.;
Danielsen, F.; Evengård, B.; et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems
and human well-being. Science 2017,355, eaai9214.
13.
Scheffers, B.R.; De Meester, L.; Bridge, T.C.L.; Hoffmann, A.A.; Pandolfi, J.M.; Corlett, R.T.; Butchart, S.H.M.;
Pearce-Kelly, P.; Kovacs, K.M.; Dudgeon, D.; et al. The broad footprint of climate change from genes to
biomes to people. Science 2016,354, aaf7671. [PubMed]
14. Loarie, S.R.; Duffy, P.B.; Hamilton, H.; Asner, G.P.; Field, C.B.; Ackerly, D.D. The velocity of climate change.
Nature 2009,462, 24–31.
15. Forman, R.T.T.; Godron, M. Landscape Ecology; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1986.
16.
Crooks, K.R.; Sanjayan, M. Connectivity Conservation; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
17.
Heller, N.E.; Zavaleta, E.S. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of
recommendations. Biol. Conserv. 2009,142, 14–32.
18.
Hilty, J.A.; Lidicker, W.Z., Jr.; Merenlender, A.M. Corridor Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes
for Biodiversity Conservation; Island Press: Washington, WA, USA, 2012.
19.
Chen, I.C.; Hill, J.K.; Ohlemüller, R.; Roy, D.B.; Thomas, C.D. Rapid range shifts of species associated with
high levels of climate warming. Science 2011,333, 1024–1026.
Diversity 2020,12, 439 11 of 11
20.
Haddad, N.M.; Brudvig, L.A.; Clobert, J.; Davies, K.F.; Gonzalez, A.; Holt, R.D.; Lovejoy, T.E.; Sexton, J.O.;
Austin, M.P.; Collins, C.D.; et al. Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems.
Sci. Adv.
2015,1, e1500052.
21.
Hodgson, J.A.; Thomas, C.D.; Wintle, B.A.; Moilanen, A. Climate change, connectivity and conservation
decision making: Back to basics. J. Appl. Ecol. 2009,46, 964–969.
22.
Janss, G.F.E.; Ferrer, M. Rate of bird collision with power lines: Effects of conductor-marking and static wire
marking. J. Field Ornithol. 1998,69, 8–17.
23.
Ferrer, M.; Morandini, V.; Baumbush, R.; Muriel, R.; De Lucas, M.; Calabuig, C. Efficacy of different
types of “bird flight diverter” in reducing bird mortality due to collision with transmission power lines.
Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 2020,23, e01130.
24.
Janss, G.F.E. Avian mortality from power lines: A morphologic approach of a species-specific mortality.
Biol. Conserv. 2000,95, 353–359.
25.
Enriquez-Urzelai, U.; Bernardo, N.; Moreno-Rueda, G.; Montori, A.; Llorente, G. Are amphibians tracking
their climatic niches in response to climate warming? A test with Iberian amphibians. Clim. Chang.
2019
,
154, 289–301.
26.
Tryjanowski, P.; Sparks, T.H.; Jerzak, L.; Rosin, Z.M.; Sk
ó
rka, P. A paradox for conservation: Electricity pylons
may benefit avian diversity in intensive farmland. Conserv. Lett. 2014,7, 34–40.
27.
Dylewski, Ł.; Kurek, P.; Wiatrowska, B.; Jerzak, L.; Tryjanowski, P. Man-made perching sites–electricity
pylons accelerate fleshy-fruited plants succession in farmlands. Flora 2017,231, 51–56.
Publisher’s Note:
MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
