• Energy Research

To safeguard nature, we must understand the drivers of biodiversity loss. Time-delayed biodiversity responses to environmental changes (ecological lags) are often absent from models of biodiversity change, despite their well-documented existence. We quantify how lagged responses to climate and land-use change have influenced mammal and bird populations around the world, while incorporating effects of direct exploitation and conservation interventions. Ecological lag duration varies between drivers, vertebrate classes and body size groupings—e.g. lags linked to climate-change impacts are 13 years for small birds, rising to 40 years for larger species. Past warming and land conversion generally combine to predict population declines; however, such conditions are associated with population increases for small mammals. Positive effects of management ( > +4% annually for large mammals) and protected areas ( > +6% annually for large birds) on population trends contrast with the negative impact of exploitation ( < −7% annually for birds), highlighting the need to promote sustainable use. Model projections suggest a future with winners (e.g. large birds) and losers (e.g. medium-sized birds), with current/recent environmental change substantially influencing abundance trends to 2050. Without urgent action, including effective conservation interventions and promoting sustainable use, ambitious targets to stop declines by 2030 may already be slipping out of reach.

To safeguard nature, we must understand the drivers of biodiversity loss. Time-delayed biodiversity responses to environmental changes (ecological lags) are often absent from models of biodiversity change, despite their well-documented existence. We quantify how lagged responses to climate and land-use change have influenced mammal and bird populations around the world, while incorporating effects of direct exploitation and conservation interventions. Ecological lag duration varies between drivers, vertebrate classes and body size groupings—e.g. lags linked to climate-change impacts are 13 years for small birds, rising to 40 years for larger species. Past warming and land conversion generally combine to predict population declines; however, such conditions are associated with population increases for small mammals. Positive effects of management ( > +4% annually for large mammals) and protected areas ( > +6% annually for large birds) on population trends contrast with the negative impact of exploitation ( < −7% annually for birds), highlighting the need to promote sustainable use. Model projections suggest a future with winners (e.g. large birds) and losers (e.g. medium-sized birds), with current/recent environmental change substantially influencing abundance trends to 2050. Without urgent action, including effective conservation interventions and promoting sustainable use, ambitious targets to stop declines by 2030 may already be slipping out of reach.

AbstractAimAgriculture is one of the greatest pressures on biodiversity. Regional studies have shown that the presence of natural habitat and landscape heterogeneity are beneficial for biodiversity in agriculture, but it remains unclear whether their importance varies geographically. Here, we use local biodiversity data to determine which local and landscape variables are most associated with biodiversity patterns and whether their association varies between tropical and non‐tropical regions.LocationGlobal terrestrial area in forest biomes.Major taxa studiedMore than 21,000 species of vertebrates, invertebrates, plants and other taxa.MethodsWe used generalized linear mixed‐effects models to analyse the relationships between either community total abundance or species richness (derived from the PREDICTS database) and a number of site‐level (predominant land use and land‐use intensity) and landscape‐level variables (distance to forest, the percentage of natural habitat in the surrounding landscape, landscape homogeneity, the number of land‐cover types in the landscape, and total fertilizer application). We compared the associations of these variables with biodiversity in tropical and non‐tropical regions.ResultsIn most cases, changes in biodiversity associated with landscape‐level variables were greater than those associated with local land use and land‐use intensity. Increased natural habitat availability was associated with the most consistent increases in biodiversity. Landscape homogeneity was also important but showed different directions of biodiversity change between regions. Associations with fertilizer application or the number of land‐cover types were generally weaker, although still of greater magnitude than for the local land‐use measures.Main conclusionsOur results highlight similarities and differences in the association of local‐ and landscape‐scale variables with local biodiversity in tropical and non‐tropical regions. Landscape natural habitat availability had a consistent positive association with biodiversity, highlighting the key role of landscape management in the maintenance of biodiversity in croplands. Landscape‐scale variables were almost always associated with greater changes in biodiversity than the local‐scale measures.

AbstractAimAgriculture is one of the greatest pressures on biodiversity. Regional studies have shown that the presence of natural habitat and landscape heterogeneity are beneficial for biodiversity in agriculture, but it remains unclear whether their importance varies geographically. Here, we use local biodiversity data to determine which local and landscape variables are most associated with biodiversity patterns and whether their association varies between tropical and non‐tropical regions.LocationGlobal terrestrial area in forest biomes.Major taxa studiedMore than 21,000 species of vertebrates, invertebrates, plants and other taxa.MethodsWe used generalized linear mixed‐effects models to analyse the relationships between either community total abundance or species richness (derived from the PREDICTS database) and a number of site‐level (predominant land use and land‐use intensity) and landscape‐level variables (distance to forest, the percentage of natural habitat in the surrounding landscape, landscape homogeneity, the number of land‐cover types in the landscape, and total fertilizer application). We compared the associations of these variables with biodiversity in tropical and non‐tropical regions.ResultsIn most cases, changes in biodiversity associated with landscape‐level variables were greater than those associated with local land use and land‐use intensity. Increased natural habitat availability was associated with the most consistent increases in biodiversity. Landscape homogeneity was also important but showed different directions of biodiversity change between regions. Associations with fertilizer application or the number of land‐cover types were generally weaker, although still of greater magnitude than for the local land‐use measures.Main conclusionsOur results highlight similarities and differences in the association of local‐ and landscape‐scale variables with local biodiversity in tropical and non‐tropical regions. Landscape natural habitat availability had a consistent positive association with biodiversity, highlighting the key role of landscape management in the maintenance of biodiversity in croplands. Landscape‐scale variables were almost always associated with greater changes in biodiversity than the local‐scale measures.

AbstractAnimal populations have undergone substantial declines in recent decades. These declines have occurred alongside rapid, human‐driven environmental change, including climate warming. An association between population declines and environmental change is well established, yet there has been relatively little analysis of the importance of the rates of climate warming and its interaction with conversion to anthropogenic land use in causing population declines. Here we present a global assessment of the impact of rapid climate warming and anthropogenic land use conversion on 987 populations of 481 species of terrestrial birds and mammals since 1950. We collated spatially referenced population trends of at least 5 years’ duration from the Living Planet database and used mixed effects models to assess the association of these trends with observed rates of climate warming, rates of conversion to anthropogenic land use, body mass, and protected area coverage. We found that declines in population abundance for both birds and mammals are greater in areas where mean temperature has increased more rapidly, and that this effect is more pronounced for birds. However, we do not find a strong effect of conversion to anthropogenic land use, body mass, or protected area coverage. Our results identify a link between rapid warming and population declines, thus supporting the notion that rapid climate warming is a global threat to biodiversity.

AbstractAnimal populations have undergone substantial declines in recent decades. These declines have occurred alongside rapid, human‐driven environmental change, including climate warming. An association between population declines and environmental change is well established, yet there has been relatively little analysis of the importance of the rates of climate warming and its interaction with conversion to anthropogenic land use in causing population declines. Here we present a global assessment of the impact of rapid climate warming and anthropogenic land use conversion on 987 populations of 481 species of terrestrial birds and mammals since 1950. We collated spatially referenced population trends of at least 5 years’ duration from the Living Planet database and used mixed effects models to assess the association of these trends with observed rates of climate warming, rates of conversion to anthropogenic land use, body mass, and protected area coverage. We found that declines in population abundance for both birds and mammals are greater in areas where mean temperature has increased more rapidly, and that this effect is more pronounced for birds. However, we do not find a strong effect of conversion to anthropogenic land use, body mass, or protected area coverage. Our results identify a link between rapid warming and population declines, thus supporting the notion that rapid climate warming is a global threat to biodiversity.

AbstractRapid human‐driven environmental changes are impacting animal populations around the world. Currently, land‐use and climate change are two of the biggest pressures facing biodiversity. However, studies investigating the impacts of these pressures on population trends often do not consider potential interactions between climate and land‐use change. Further, a population's climatic position (how close the ambient temperature and precipitation conditions are to the species’ climatic tolerance limits) is known to influence responses to climate change but has yet to be investigated with regard to its influence on land‐use change responses over time. Consequently, important variations across species’ ranges in responses to environmental changes may be being overlooked. Here, we combine data from the Living Planet and BioTIME databases to carry out a global analysis exploring the impacts of land use, habitat loss, climatic position, climate change and the interactions between these variables, on vertebrate population trends. By bringing these datasets together, we analyse over 7,000 populations across 42 countries. We find that land‐use change is interacting with climate change and a population's climatic position to influence rates of population change. Moreover, features of a population's local landscape (such as surrounding land cover) play important roles in these interactions. For example, populations in agricultural land uses where maximum temperatures were closer to their hot thermal limit, declined at faster rates when there had also been rapid losses in surrounding semi‐natural habitat. The complex interactions between these variables on populations highlight the importance of taking intraspecific variation and interactions between local and global pressures into account. Understanding how drivers of change are interacting and impacting populations, and how this varies spatially, is critical if we are to identify populations at risk, predict species’ responses to future environmental changes and produce suitable conservation strategies.

AbstractRapid human‐driven environmental changes are impacting animal populations around the world. Currently, land‐use and climate change are two of the biggest pressures facing biodiversity. However, studies investigating the impacts of these pressures on population trends often do not consider potential interactions between climate and land‐use change. Further, a population's climatic position (how close the ambient temperature and precipitation conditions are to the species’ climatic tolerance limits) is known to influence responses to climate change but has yet to be investigated with regard to its influence on land‐use change responses over time. Consequently, important variations across species’ ranges in responses to environmental changes may be being overlooked. Here, we combine data from the Living Planet and BioTIME databases to carry out a global analysis exploring the impacts of land use, habitat loss, climatic position, climate change and the interactions between these variables, on vertebrate population trends. By bringing these datasets together, we analyse over 7,000 populations across 42 countries. We find that land‐use change is interacting with climate change and a population's climatic position to influence rates of population change. Moreover, features of a population's local landscape (such as surrounding land cover) play important roles in these interactions. For example, populations in agricultural land uses where maximum temperatures were closer to their hot thermal limit, declined at faster rates when there had also been rapid losses in surrounding semi‐natural habitat. The complex interactions between these variables on populations highlight the importance of taking intraspecific variation and interactions between local and global pressures into account. Understanding how drivers of change are interacting and impacting populations, and how this varies spatially, is critical if we are to identify populations at risk, predict species’ responses to future environmental changes and produce suitable conservation strategies.