Nigel A. D. Bourn

Protected areas facilitate species’ range expansions

The benefits of protected areas (PAs) for biodiversity have been questioned in the context of climate change because PAs are static, whereas the distributions of species are dynamic. Current PAs may, however, continue to be important if they provide suitable locations for species to colonize at their leading-edge range boundaries, thereby enabling spread into new regions. Here, we present an empirical assessment of the role of PAs as targets for colonization during recent range expansions. Records from intensive surveys revealed that seven bird and butterfly species have colonized PAs 4.2 (median) times more frequently than expected from the availability of PAs in the landscapes colonized. Records of an additional 256 invertebrate species with less-intensive surveys supported these findings and showed that 98% of species are disproportionately associated with PAs in newly colonized parts of their ranges. Although colonizing species favor PAs in general, species vary greatly in their reliance on PAs, reflecting differences in the dependence of individual species on particular habitats and other conditions that are available only in PAs. These findings highlight the importance of current PAs for facilitating range expansions and show that a small subset of the landscape receives a high proportion of colonizations by range-expanding species.

The challenge of conserving grassland insects at the margins of their range in Europe

Abstract Insects have experienced higher rates of decline than other popular taxa in the calcareous grasslands of Europe. This paper reviews reasons why insects are so vulnerable to environmental change, particularly at the edges of their range. Case studies of the ant Myrmica sabuleti and the butterflies Polyommatus bellargus and Thymelicus acteon are used to illustrate the mechanisms responsible for this vulnerability and the need for different management regimes to maintain species’ niches in different parts of their range.

Identifying key knowledge needs for evidence-based conservation of wild insect pollinators: A collaborative cross-sectoral exercise

In response to evidence of insect pollinator declines, organisations in many sectors, including the food and farming industry, are investing in pollinator conservation. They are keen to ensure that their efforts use the best available science. We convened a group of 32 ‘conservation practitioners’ with an active interest in pollinators and 16 insect pollinator scientists. The conservation practitioners include representatives from UK industry (including retail), environmental non‐government organisations and nature conservation agencies. We collaboratively developed a long list of 246 knowledge needs relating to conservation of wild insect pollinators in the UK. We refined and selected the most important knowledge needs, through a three‐stage process of voting and scoring, including discussions of each need at a workshop. We present the top 35 knowledge needs as scored by conservation practitioners or scientists. We find general agreement in priorities identified by these two groups. The priority knowledge needs will structure ongoing work to make science accessible to practitioners, and help to guide future science policy and funding. Understanding the economic benefits of crop pollination, basic pollinator ecology and impacts of pesticides on wild pollinators emerge strongly as priorities, as well as a need to monitor floral resources in the landscape.

The potential for lowland heath regeneration following plantation removal

Historical records show that large areas of lowland heath have been planted with coniferous woodland. Such sites will increasingly be targeted for heathland restoration in order to achieve the objectives set by current conservation policy. Therefore information on management to achieve effective restoration is a priority for research. In this study we examined the size, composition and distribution of the seed bank beneath conifer plantations of different ages at two important heathland sites in Britain. Changes in the physical and chemical properties of heathland soil under the plantations were also described. There were significant, exponential declines in the mean density of viable heather seeds with plantation age at both sites. However, relatively large seed banks survived for 40 years and under some circumstances for more than 70 years, suggesting that restoration on first rotation sites is unlikely to be seed limited. There were small, but significant differences in the soil nutrient status under the plantations compared to the adjacent heaths. It was concluded that the main constraint on heathland regeneration is likely to be the burial of the seed bank by a thick layer of conifer leaf litter. The mechanical removal of this layer has been shown to be practically feasible.

Ten challenges for 2010 and beyond to conserve Lepidoptera in Europe

Butterflies and moths have undergone a serious decline in most European countries following rapid changes in land use in recent decades. The main drivers of loss have been agricultural and forestry intensification, abandonment of marginal land (especially in mountainous regions), loss of traditional management of grasslands and woodlands, and urban spread. Over the same period the science and practice of Lepidoptera conservation has developed considerably and concerted action to save biodiversity has been taken in many countries, with vast areas designated as nature reserves or national parks. Despite this effort, Lepidoptera are still declining at an alarming rate and it is clear that the 2010 target of halting biodiversity loss will not be met. We suggest ten challenges that conservationists in Europe need to address if we are to be successful in halting these losses over coming decades. In this continent, Lepidoptera and their habitats often rely on traditional farming and forestry systems. How can these be brought together in harmony to create a healthier environment in which both humans and wildlife can thrive? The ten challenges include reform of agricultural support, identifying and supporting beneficial forestry systems, managing the matrix between habitats, managing habitats on a landscape scale, mitigating for climate change, creating a robust planning system that protects key sites, developing a comprehensive monitoring programme for Europe, securing long term funding for nature conservation, and ensuring both political and public support.

Habitat preference and mobility of Polia bombycina: are non-tailored agri-environment schemes any good for a rare and localised species?

General agri-environment schemes (AES) have been shown to benefit widespread species, but there is little information on the extent to which rare, more localised, species may also benefit. We tested whether AES options aimed at increasing general biodiversity also benefit a highly endangered moth, Poliabombycina, without species-specific tailoring. We assessed effects on its abundance of two AES options, wide field margins and hedgerow trees, using light traps at the landscape-scale and for mark-release-recapture at the farm-scale. We hypothesized that abundance would be highest at wide field margins and at hedgerow trees, and that if hedgerow trees conferred a positive effect, individuals would be more likely to follow hedgerows than crossing exposed fields while on the move. The results showed that significantly more individuals were captured at sites with a hedgerow tree. Numbers were also higher at wide margins, but this was not statistically significant, and no individuals were caught at field centres. Our study suggests that general options within appropriately designed and implemented AES aimed at increasing overall biodiversity in intensive agricultural landscapes have the potential to not only benefit common, widespread habitat generalists, but some rare and more endangered species as well. P. bombycina serves as an example of how general AES options, existing and novel ones alike, might cater for the needs of rare and localised species. As the precise ecological requirements of most invertebrate species remain unknown, we urge scientists and governments to address the challenge to research and design truly general AES, which options should be able to deliver not only for widespread species but also for the less-widespread counterpart of farmland biodiversity.

The ecology and conservation of butterflies and moths

In 2011, we published the proceedings of Butterfly Conservation’s Sixth International Symposium ‘2010 and beyond for Lepidoptera’ (volume 15:1–365). That meeting attempted to assess whether the Convention on Biological Diversity’s aspiration to significantly reduce the rate of biodiversity loss in the Lepidoptera had been achieved. Sadly the conclusion was that it had not. Nevertheless, the papers in that Special Edition were not uniformly concerned with doom and gloom and many reported important insights into species’ ecology and approaches which could lead to improvements in the future. Now, 4 years on, we publish the written contributions to the Seventh Symposium held in April 2014. The Symposium title was deliberately less focussed than that held in 2010 to attempt to capture a broad snapshot of work on Lepidoptera from around the world—in that it was successful, with over 80 presentations from 28 countries. The Journal is proud to present 20 written papers from that intense and exhilarating 3-day long meeting. Nineteen papers are presented in this edition, one has already been published (Maes et al. 2014). Inevitably the preoccupation of many authors was with the ongoing impacts of climate change and how to overcome them. Parmesan et al. (2015) examined elevational range and hostplant shifts in the quino checkerspot Euphydryas editha quino whilst Wilson et al. (2015) examined turnover, habitat quality and microclimate changes at a contracting range margin of the Apollo Parnassius apollo in the Sierra de Guadarrama mountains of Spain. Indeed, microclimate was something of a theme: Curtis and Isaac (2015) examined the impact of microclimate heterogeneity on the Glanville fritillary Melitaea cinxia, Hindle et al. (2015) scrutinised the value of topographical variation to the marbled white butterfly Melanargia galathea, whilst Suggitt et al. (2015) studied the influence of microclimate in buffering the effects of climate change and contributing to landscape-scale persistence of butterflies and moths. Dispersal studies were also evident ranging from an investigation of threats to the scarce copper (Lycaena virgaureae) from development in Sweden (Haaland 2015) and the impact of altitude (Cassacci et al. 2015). Several papers were concerned with population trends (Swengel and Swengel 2015a, b; Curtis et al. 2015) including monitoring approaches (Roy et al. 2015) or conservation at very different spatial scales such as South Africa (Edge and Mecenero 2015) and the vineyards of Washington State in the USA (James et al. 2015). Autecological studies are always welcome; Edge and Bazin (2015) contributed an indepth study of the Knysna skolly Thestor brachycerus brachycerus, Celik et al. (2015) a paper on the habitat quality determinants for the false ringlet Coenonympha Oedipus, whilst Tjornlov et al. (2015) focussed on & John W. Dover J.W.Dover@staffs.ac.uk

Book review: Introduction to conservation genetics. Frankham, R., Ballou, J.D. and Briscoe, D.A. (2002); Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 617 pp. ISBN 0 531 63985 9 (PB) £34.95; ISBN 0 521 63014 2 (HB) £90.00.

Introduction to conservation genetics. Frankham, R., Ballou, J.D. and Briscoe, D.A. (2002); Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 617 pp. ISBN 0 531 63985 9 (PB) £34.95; ISBN 0 521 63014 2 (HB) £90.00. I have a confession tomake; when asked to review this book (some considerable time ago) my heart sank. As an insect conservationist on the coalface of the sixth mass extinction (Thomas et al. 2004), I felt conservation genetics would be of little practical relevance to me. However, I was wrong. This excellent textbook provides a comprehensive introduction to genetic principles and practices involved in conservation. Without doubt, as the authors warn, extinction due to genetic factors is, and will continue to become, increasingly important. Many species are threatened with extinction because of environmental change (e.g. habitat loss or change, over exploitation, pollution and the impact of introduced exotic species), and this process is driven by economics and politics. The authors thus had a difficult task to convince me that those threats associated with small populations, (demographic and environmental fluctuations and catastrophes), and genetic threats (inbreeding depression, loss of genetic diversity and mutational accumulation) are also of overriding importance. In other words, that genetic considerations should affect our conservation priorities and actions, which are set by the need to manage our remaining threatened species and habitats. The book has 18 chapters in three broad sections; these follow 2 introductory chapters that put into context conservation genetics and its role in providing us with an understanding of the processes of inbreeding and extinction. In section I quantitative genetics is reviewed, dealing with the fundamental principles of population and evolutionary genetics. Section II discusses the genetic consequences of small populations, inbreeding and the effects of population size reduction, as well as detecting the manifestation of these consequences. The authors demonstrate that essentially all well-studied naturally outbreeding species show reduced reproduction and survival in inbred individuals and that this increases their vulnerability to extinction. It is perhaps with Section III, putting theory into practice, that the book becomes of most interest to conservationists, discussing the role of genetics in resolving taxonomic status, forensics (i.e. with evidence on hunting and collecting) and the management of wild or captive populations. Of particular practical help to me was the chapter on the genetic management of re-introduced populations, as I am frequently asked to comment on re-introduction schemes that rarely seem to take more than a cursory look at the genetics of captive breeding. The book is very readable and has many interesting case studies, and the regular précis in the margins of the text were tremendously helpful in absorbing the main points along the way. The book has helped to convince me that genetics should matter and that perhaps more importantly the lessons of conservation genetics, particularly the application of population viability analysis does tell us exciting and useful new things; particularly about the scale that we need to operate at if we are to conserve not only the pattern of biodiversity, but also the processes that produce and maintain it. Introduction to Conservation Genetics is an important book; it is ambitious in scope and scale and is likely to be the standard text and reference for years to come.

Overcoming the challenges of public data archiving for citizen science biodiversity recording and monitoring schemes

Public data archiving (PDA) is widely advocated as a means of achieving open data standards, leading to improved data preservation, increased scientific reproducibility, and transparency, as well as additional data use. Public data archiving was primarily conceived to archive data from short‐term, single‐purpose scientific studies. It is now more widely applied, including to large‐scale citizen science biodiversity recording and monitoring schemes which combine the efforts of volunteers with professional scientists. This may affect the financial security of such schemes by reducing income from data and analytical services. Communication between scheme organizers and researchers may be disrupted, reducing scientific quality and impeding scheme development. It may also have an impact on the participation of some volunteers. Synthesis and applications. In response to the challenges of public data archiving for citizen science biodiversity recording and monitoring schemes, the archive function of scheme organizations should be better recognized by those promoting open data principles. Increased financial support from the public sector or from commercial or academic data users may offset financial risk. Those in favour of public data archiving should do more to facilitate communication between nonscheme users and the originating schemes, while a more flexible approach to data archiving may be required to address potential impacts on volunteer participation.