Search

Range shifting is vital for species persistence, but there is little consensus on why individual species vary so greatly in the rates at which their ranges have shifted in response to recent climate warming. Here, using 40 years of distribution data for 291 species from 13 invertebrate taxa in Britain, we show that interactions between habitat availability and exposure to climate change at the range margins explain up to half of the variation in rates of range shift. Habitat generalists expanded faster than more specialised species, but this intrinsic trait explains less of the variation in range shifts than habitat availability, which additionally depends on extrinsic factors that may be rare or widespread at the range margin. Similarly, while climate change likely underlies polewards expansions, we find that more of the between-species variation is explained by differences in habitat availability than by changes in climatic suitability. A model that includes both habitat and climate, and their statistical interaction, explains the most variation in range shifts. We conclude that climate-change vulnerability assessments should focus as much on future habitat availability as on climate sensitivity and exposure, with the expectation that habitat restoration and protection will substantially improve species’ abilities to respond to uncertain future climates.

1. It is necessary to improve knowledge exchange between scientists and decision‐makers so that scientific evidence can be readily accessed to inform policy. 2. To maximise impact of scientific evidence in policy development, the scientific community should engage more fully with decision‐makers, building long‐term working relationships in order to identify and respond to ‘policy windows’ with science that is reframed for policy‐relevance. 3. We illustrate the process and challenges using a case study in which we synthesised evidence from studies of habitat fragmentation to provide information for improved biodiversity conservation in the oil palm sector, resulting in the uptake of this research into new industry guidelines. 4. Policy implications. The case study demonstrates how having an in‐depth understanding of the ‘policy arena’ (the state of policy and the actors and influencing factors that affect policy) and responding with relevant and specific information, enabled effective uptake of science to inform the design of conservation set‐asides in the oil palm industry.

Many species are extending their leading-edge (cool) range margins polewards in response to recent climate change. In the present study, we investigated range margin changes at the northern (cool) range margins of 1573 southerly-distributed species from 21 animal groups in Great Britain over the past four decades of climate change, updating previous work. Depending on data availability, range margin changes were examined over two time intervals during the past four decades. For four groups (birds, butterflies, macromoths, and dragonflies and damselflies), there were sufficient data available to examine range margin changes over both time intervals. We found that most taxa shifted their northern range margins polewards and this finding was not greatly influenced by changes in recorder effort. The mean northwards range margin change in the first time interval was 23 km per decade (N = 13 taxonomic groups) and, in the second interval, was 18 km per decade (N = 16 taxonomic groups) during periods when the British climate warmed by 0.21 and 0.28 °C per decade, respectively. For the four taxa examined over both intervals, there was evidence for higher rate of range margin change in the more recent time interval in the two Lepidoptera groups. Our analyses confirm a continued range margin shift polewards in a wide range of taxonomic groups.

In our recent Research Article “Individualistic sensitivities and exposure to climate change explain variation in species’ distribution and abundance changes” (1), we presented an analysis relating species-specific measures of sensitivity and exposure to climate, to species’ recent population changes. While our measure and interpretation of species’ climate sensitivity remain correct, we now recognize our interpretation of the exposure measure was inaccurate: Our climate models included an intercept, representing a nonzero average population growth rate; thus, the exposure measure incorporated not only climate effects but other nonclimatic—and potentially unmeasured climatic—effects as well. While our results still demonstrate that a significant proportion of variation in population trends can be explained by exposure and sensitivity, the correct interpretation of the exposure measure means that the explained variation is not solely due to climate. As such, our conclusion that a large proportion of variation in population changes can be explained by individualistic responses to climate is misleading. Given this, and to avoid confusion, we are wholly retracting the Research Article, and we apologize that this was not picked up sooner.

Hulme et al. (1) question the conclusions of our research on the impact of non-native plants on British plant diversity (2). We clearly state that “some non-native species become common in some locations, and thereby alter the local flora, and there may be local implications for conservation” (2), which seems to be Hulme et al.’s (1) main point, but we found “no evidence that non-native species drive such changes at a national scale or that they do so any more than native species” (2). Management may be required to remove non-native plant species from particular localities, as highlighted by Hulme et al. (1). However, our Countryside Survey (CS) analysis shows that increases in cover by native species were nearly an order-of-magnitude greater than cover increases by non-native species: we should take action based on the impacts of species rather than their origins (3), and specifically, we should do so in locations where those impacts are felt. For example, the maintenance of high-conservation value lowland chalk and limestone grasslands in Britain requires the control of native tree and shrub species (e.g., hawthorn, ash, yew) and tussock-forming grasses (e.g., Brachypodium), even though non-native trees also need removing from some localities (e.g., holm oaks from a limited number of mainly coastal sites). The issue is that these species-rich grasslands are human-created plagioclimaxes, which naturally succeed to woodland unless regularly grazed or cut. The driver of change in this case is land management, not foreign species. Nationality-independent tree removal is required if conservationists wish to maintain this cultural vegetation.

In recent decades, many ungulate populations have changed dramatically in abundance, resulting in cascading effects across ecosystems. However, studies of such effects are often limited in their spatial and temporal scope. Here, we contrast multi-species composite population trends of deer-sensitive and deer-tolerant woodland birds at a national scale, across Britain. We highlight the divergent fates of these two groups between 1994 and 2011 and show a striking association between the calculated divergence and a composite population trend of woodland deer. Our results demonstrate the link between changes in deer populations and changes in bird communities. In a period when composite population trends for deer increased by 46%, the community population trend across deer-sensitive birds (those dependent on understory vegetation) declined much more than the community trend for deer-tolerant birds. Our findings suggest that ongoing changes in the populations of herbivorous ungulates in many countries worldwide may help explain patterns of community restructuring at other trophic levels. Ungulate impacts on other taxa may require more consideration by conservation practitioners than they currently receive.

Plants are commonly listed as invasive species, presuming that they cause harm at both global and regional scales. Approximately 40% of all species listed as invasive within Britain are plants. However, invasive plants are rarely linked to the national or global extinction of native plant species. The possible explanation is that competitive exclusion takes place slowly and that invasive plants will eventually eliminate native species (the “time-to-exclusion hypothesis”). Using the extensive British Countryside Survey Data, we find that changes to plant occurrence and cover between 1990 and 2007 at 479 British sites do not differ between native and non-native plant species. More than 80% of the plant species that are widespread enough to be sampled are native species; hence, total cover changes have been dominated by native species (total cover increases by native species are more than nine times greater than those by non-native species). This implies that factors other than plant “invasions” are the key drivers of vegetation change. We also find that the diversity of native species is increasing in locations where the diversity of non-native species is increasing, suggesting that high diversities of native and non-native plant species are compatible with one another. We reject the time-to-exclusion hypothesis as the reason why extinctions have not been observed and suggest that non-native plant species are not a threat to floral diversity in Britain. Further research is needed in island-like environments, but we question whether it is appropriate that more than three-quarters of taxa listed globally as invasive species are plants.

Analysis of butterfly and moth species shows that responses to climate change may be more predictable than previously recognized., The responses of animals and plants to recent climate change vary greatly from species to species, but attempts to understand this variation have met with limited success. This has led to concerns that predictions of responses are inherently uncertain because of the complexity of interacting drivers and biotic interactions. However, we show for an exemplar group of 155 Lepidoptera species that about 60% of the variation among species in their abundance trends over the past four decades can be explained by species-specific exposure and sensitivity to climate change. Distribution changes were less well predicted, but nonetheless, up to 53% of the variation was explained. We found that species vary in their overall sensitivity to climate and respond to different components of the climate despite ostensibly experiencing the same climate changes. Hence, species have undergone different levels of population “forcing” (exposure), driving variation among species in their national-scale abundance and distribution trends. We conclude that variation in species’ responses to recent climate change may be more predictable than previously recognized.