Jodey Peyton
Natural Environment Research Council
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Jodey Peyton.
Global Change Biology | 2014
Helen E. Roy; Jodey Peyton; David C. Aldridge; Tristan Bantock; Tim M. Blackburn; Robert Britton; Paul F. Clark; Elizabeth Cook; Katharina Dehnen‐Schmutz; Trevor Dines; Michael Dobson; Francois Edwards; Colin Harrower; Martin Harvey; Dan Minchin; David G. Noble; Dave Parrott; Michael J. O. Pocock; Christopher D. Preston; Sugoto Roy; Andrew Salisbury; Karsten Schönrogge; Jack Sewell; Richard Shaw; Paul Stebbing; Alan J. A. Stewart; Kevin J. Walker
Invasive alien species (IAS) are considered one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, particularly through their interactions with other drivers of change. Horizon scanning, the systematic examination of future potential threats and opportunities, leading to prioritization of IAS threats is seen as an essential component of IAS management. Our aim was to consider IAS that were likely to impact on native biodiversity but were not yet established in the wild in Great Britain. To achieve this, we developed an approach which coupled consensus methods (which have previously been used for collaboratively identifying priorities in other contexts) with rapid risk assessment. The process involved two distinct phases: Preliminary consultation with experts within five groups (plants, terrestrial invertebrates, freshwater invertebrates, vertebrates and marine species) to derive ranked lists of potential IAS. Consensus-building across expert groups to compile and rank the entire list of potential IAS. Five hundred and ninety-one species not native to Great Britain were considered. Ninety-three of these species were agreed to constitute at least a medium risk (based on score and consensus) with respect to them arriving, establishing and posing a threat to native biodiversity. The quagga mussel, Dreissena rostriformis bugensis, received maximum scores for risk of arrival, establishment and impact; following discussions the unanimous consensus was to rank it in the top position. A further 29 species were considered to constitute a high risk and were grouped according to their ranked risk. The remaining 63 species were considered as medium risk, and included in an unranked long list. The information collated through this novel extension of the consensus method for horizon scanning provides evidence for underpinning and prioritizing management both for the species and, perhaps more importantly, their pathways of arrival. Although our study focused on Great Britain, we suggest that the methods adopted are applicable globally.
Science | 2017
Ben A. Woodcock; James M. Bullock; Richard F. Shore; Matthew S. Heard; M.G. Pereira; John W. Redhead; Lucy Ridding; Hannah Dean; Darren Sleep; Peter A. Henrys; Jodey Peyton; S. Hulmes; L. Hulmes; M. Sárospataki; C. Saure; Mike Edwards; E. Genersch; S. Knäbe; Richard F. Pywell
Damage confirmed Early studies of the impacts of neonicotinoid insecticides on insect pollinators indicated considerable harm. However, lingering criticism was that the studies did not represent field-realistic levels of the chemicals or prevailing environmental conditions. Two studies, conducted on different crops and on two continents, now substantiate that neonicotinoids diminish bee health (see the Perspective by Kerr). Tsvetkov et al. find that bees near corn crops are exposed to neonicotinoids for 3 to 4 months via nontarget pollen, resulting in decreased survival and immune responses, especially when coexposed to a commonly used agrochemical fungicide. Woodcock et al., in a multicounty experiment on rapeseed in Europe, find that neonicotinoid exposure from several nontarget sources reduces overwintering success and colony reproduction in both honeybees and wild bees. These field results confirm that neonicotinoids negatively affect pollinator health under realistic agricultural conditions. Science, this issue p. 1395, p. 1393; see also p. 1331 Bee health is affected by neonicotinoids under field-realistic conditions across crops conditions. Neonicotinoid seed dressings have caused concern world-wide. We use large field experiments to assess the effects of neonicotinoid-treated crops on three bee species across three countries (Hungary, Germany, and the United Kingdom). Winter-sown oilseed rape was grown commercially with either seed coatings containing neonicotinoids (clothianidin or thiamethoxam) or no seed treatment (control). For honey bees, we found both negative (Hungary and United Kingdom) and positive (Germany) effects during crop flowering. In Hungary, negative effects on honey bees (associated with clothianidin) persisted over winter and resulted in smaller colonies in the following spring (24% declines). In wild bees (Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis), reproduction was negatively correlated with neonicotinoid residues. These findings point to neonicotinoids causing a reduced capacity of bee species to establish new populations in the year following exposure.
Journal of Applied Ecology | 2015
Michael J. O. Pocock; Stuart E. Newson; Ian G. Henderson; Jodey Peyton; William J. Sutherland; David G. Noble; Stuart G. Ball; Björn C. Beckmann; Jeremy Biggs; Tom Brereton; David J. Bullock; Stephen T. Buckland; Mike Edwards; Mark A. Eaton; Martin Harvey; M. O. Hill; Martin Horlock; David S. Hubble; Angela M. Julian; Edward C. Mackey; Darren J. Mann; Matthew J. Marshall; Jolyon M. Medlock; Elaine O'mahony; Marina Pacheco; Keith Porter; Steve Prentice; Deborah A. Procter; Helen E. Roy; Sue E. Southway
Summary Biodiversity is changing at unprecedented rates, and it is increasingly important that these changes are quantified through monitoring programmes. Previous recommendations for developing or enhancing these programmes focus either on the end goals, that is the intended use of the data, or on how these goals are achieved, for example through volunteer involvement in citizen science, but not both. These recommendations are rarely prioritized. We used a collaborative approach, involving 52 experts in biodiversity monitoring in the UK, to develop a list of attributes of relevance to any biodiversity monitoring programme and to order these attributes by their priority. We also ranked the attributes according to their importance in monitoring biodiversity in the UK. Experts involved included data users, funders, programme organizers and participants in data collection. They covered expertise in a wide range of taxa. We developed a final list of 25 attributes of biodiversity monitoring schemes, ordered from the most elemental (those essential for monitoring schemes; e.g. articulate the objectives and gain sufficient participants) to the most aspirational (e.g. electronic data capture in the field, reporting change annually). This ordered list is a practical framework which can be used to support the development of monitoring programmes. Peoples ranking of attributes revealed a difference between those who considered attributes with benefits to end users to be most important (e.g. people from governmental organizations) and those who considered attributes with greatest benefit to participants to be most important (e.g. people involved with volunteer biological recording schemes). This reveals a distinction between focussing on aims and the pragmatism in achieving those aims. Synthesis and applications. The ordered list of attributes developed in this study will assist in prioritizing resources to develop biodiversity monitoring programmes (including citizen science). The potential conflict between end users of data and participants in data collection that we discovered should be addressed by involving the diversity of stakeholders at all stages of programme development. This will maximize the chance of successfully achieving the goals of biodiversity monitoring programmes.
Journal of Applied Ecology | 2018
Helen E. Roy; Wolfgang Rabitsch; Riccardo Scalera; Alan J. A. Stewart; Belinda Gallardo; Piero Genovesi; Franz Essl; Tim Adriaens; Sven Bacher; Olaf Booy; Etienne Branquart; S. Brunel; Gordon H. Copp; Hannah Dean; Bram D'hondt; Melanie Josefsson; Marc Kenis; Marianne Kettunen; Merike Linnamagi; Frances E. Lucy; Angeliki F. Martinou; Niall Moore; Wolfgang Nentwig; Ana Nieto; Jan Pergl; Jodey Peyton; Alain Roques; Stefan Schindler; Karsten Schönrogge; Wojciech Solarz
1. Biological invasions are a threat to biodiversity, society and the economy. There is an urgent need to provide evidence-based assessments of the risks posed by inva-sive alien species (IAS) to prioritize action. Risk assessments underpin IAS policies in many ways: informing legislation; providing justification of restrictions in trade or consumer activities; prioritizing surveillance and rapid response. There are benefits to ensuring consistency in content of IAS risk assessments globally, and this can be achieved by providing a framework of minimum standards as a checklist for quality assurance. 2. From a review of existing risk assessment protocols, and with reference to the r equirements of the EU Regulation on IAS (1143/2014) and international agreements including the World Trade Organisation, Convention on Biological Diversity and International Plant Protection Convention, coupled with consensus methods, we identified and agreed upon 14 minimum standards (attributes) a risk-assessment scheme should include. 3. The agreed minimum standards were as follows: (1) basic species description; (2) likelihood of invasion; (3) distribution, spread and impacts; (4) assessment of intro-duction pathways; (5) assessment of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems; (6) Assessment of impact on ecosystem services; (7) assessment of socio-economic impacts; (8) consideration of status (threatened or protected) of species or habitat under threat; (9) assessment of effects of future climate change; (10) completion possible even when there is a lack of information; (11) documents information sources; (12) provides a summary in a consistent and interpretable form; (13) includes uncertainty; (14) includes quality assurance. In deriving these minimum standards, gaps in knowledge required for completing risk assessments and the scope of exist-ing risk assessment protocols were revealed, most notably in relation to assessing benefits, socio-economic impacts and impacts on ecosystem services but also inclu-sion of consideration of climate change. 4. Policy implications. We provide a checklist of components that should be within in-vasive alien species risk assessments and recommendations to develop risk assess-ments to meet these proposed minimum standards. Although inspired by implementation of the European Union Regulation on invasive alien species, and as such developed specifically within a European context, the derived framework and minimum standards could be applied globally.
Archive | 2018
S. E. Harris; Jodey Peyton; M. Onete; A. F. Martinou; Jo Mountford
Throughout history the values and meanings attached to habitats and species in particular places have seen considerable change. Such shifts in perspective are of particular relevance to the biology of invasions, with human attention and values often determining both the initial movement of species around the world, and the decision that subsequent independent spread should be considered damaging to the environment. This chapter examines such a case for the Akrotiri peninsula, Cyprus, where a particular colonial story about the degraded state of the environment, and the need to combat malaria, led to the introduction of various Australian trees for sanitation and other purposes. Today, some of these non-native species are considered invasive, and are having impacts on valued wetland habitats on the peninsula. We use archival research to investigate the changes in policy towards these habitats and the non-native species that affect them, and field research to describe the ecological context. Our study illustrates the complex interactions between ideas, practical aims, and values that lie behind the planned and invaded habitats at Akrotiri.
Nature Communications | 2018
Ashish Malik; Jérémy Puissant; Kate M. Buckeridge; Tim Goodall; Nico Jehmlich; Somak Chowdhury; Hyun S. Gweon; Jodey Peyton; Kelly E. Mason; Maaike van Agtmaal; Aimeric Blaud; Ian Clark; Jeanette Whitaker; Richard F. Pywell; Nick Ostle; Gerd Gleixner; Robert I. Griffiths
Soil microorganisms act as gatekeepers for soil–atmosphere carbon exchange by balancing the accumulation and release of soil organic matter. However, poor understanding of the mechanisms responsible hinders the development of effective land management strategies to enhance soil carbon storage. Here we empirically test the link between microbial ecophysiological traits and topsoil carbon content across geographically distributed soils and land use contrasts. We discovered distinct pH controls on microbial mechanisms of carbon accumulation. Land use intensification in low-pH soils that increased the pH above a threshold (~6.2) leads to carbon loss through increased decomposition, following alleviation of acid retardation of microbial growth. However, loss of carbon with intensification in near-neutral pH soils was linked to decreased microbial biomass and reduced growth efficiency that was, in turn, related to trade-offs with stress alleviation and resource acquisition. Thus, less-intensive management practices in near-neutral pH soils have more potential for carbon storage through increased microbial growth efficiency, whereas in acidic soils, microbial growth is a bigger constraint on decomposition rates.Land use intensification could modify microbial activity and thus ecosystem function. Here, Malik et al. sample microbes and carbon-related functions across a land use gradient, demonstrating that microbial biomass and carbon use efficiency are reduced in human-impacted near-neutral pH soils.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment | 2010
Ben A. Woodcock; John W. Redhead; Adam J. Vanbergen; L. Hulmes; S. Hulmes; Jodey Peyton; Marek Nowakowski; Richard F. Pywell; Matthew S. Heard
Biological Conservation | 2012
Joanna T. Staley; Tim H. Sparks; P. J. Croxton; Katherine C. R. Baldock; Matthew S. Heard; S. Hulmes; L. Hulmes; Jodey Peyton; Sam R. Amy; Richard F. Pywell
Archive | 2014
Helen E. Roy; Karsten Schönrogge; Hannah Dean; Jodey Peyton; Etienne Branquart; Sonia Vanderhoeven; Gordon H. Copp; Paul Stebbing; Marc Kenis; Wolfgang Rabitsch; Franz Essl; Stefan Schindler; S. Brunel; Marianne Kettunen; Leonardo Mazza; Ana Nieto; James Kemp; Piero Genovesi; Riccardo Scalera; Alan J. A. Stewart
Biological Conservation | 2015
Joanna T. Staley; Sam R. Amy; Nigel P. Adams; Roselle E. Chapman; Jodey Peyton; Richard F. Pywell