Search

Action to reduce anthropogenic impact on the environment and species within it will be most effective when targeted towards activities that have the greatest impact on biodiversity. To do this effectively we need to better understand the relative importance of different activities and how they drive changes in species' populations. Here, we present a novel, flexible framework that reviews evidence for the relative importance of these drivers of change and uses it to explain recent alterations in species' populations. We review drivers of change across four hundred species sampled from a broad range of taxonomic groups in the UK. We found that species' population change (~1970-2012) has been most strongly impacted by intensive management of agricultural land and by climatic change. The impact of the former was primarily deleterious, whereas the impact of climatic change to date has been more mixed. Findings were similar across the three major taxonomic groups assessed (insects, vascular plants and vertebrates). In general, the way a habitat was managed had a greater impact than changes in its extent, which accords with the relatively small changes in the areas occupied by different habitats during our study period, compared to substantial changes in habitat management. Of the drivers classified as conservation measures, low-intensity management of agricultural land and habitat creation had the greatest impact. Our framework could be used to assess the relative importance of drivers at a range of scales to better inform our policy and management decisions. Furthermore, by scoring the quality of evidence, this framework helps us identify research gaps and needs.

We describe the development of two complementary priority species indicators (PSIs) to help the UK to report progress towards Aichi target 12 on the status of known threatened species. Based on species identified as national conservation priorities, the indicators present average changes in (i) 213 species for which trends in relative abundance are available from structured monitoring schemes, and (ii) 179 species for which trends in frequency of occurrence were modelled from data sets of unstructured biological records. Both indicators show substantial declines in priority species since 1970, of 67% and 40%, respectively, although the rate of decline in the relative abundance-based PSI may have lessened over the last five years (2007–2012). We discuss the biases and weaknesses of the indicators at present, and put forward suggestions as how these may be addressed, including through the development of a third PSI. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]