Which landscape features affect species movement? A systematic review in the context of climate change. Forest Research & Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation 29th August 2008 Final report for DEFRA Research Contract CR0389 Sponsored by: Authors: Amy Eycott Forest Research Kevin Watts Forest Research Gemma Brandt Forest Research Lisette Buyung-Ali Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation Diana Bowler Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation Gavin Stewart Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation Andrew Pullin Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation Steering Group: Jim Latham Countryside Council for Wales Clive Walmsley Countryside Council for Wales Helen Pontier (Defra project co-ordinator) Defra Andrew Stott Defra Nicholas Macgregor Defra Kathryn Humphrey Defra William Pryer Defra Department of Environment Northern Georgina Thurgate Ireland Mark Diamond Environment Agency Sallie Bailey Forestry Commission Tony Sangwine Highways Agency Karen Dickinson Joint Nature Conservation Committee Ed Mountford Joint Nature Conservation Committee David Viner Natural England Roger Catchpole Natural England John Hopkins Natural England Peter Brotherton Natural England Olly Watts Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Duncan Stone Scottish Natural Heritage Phil Baarda Scottish Natural Heritage Ed Mackey Scottish Natural Heritage Chris Thomas University of York Richard Evans Welsh Assembly Government Richard Smithers Woodland Trust The authors gratefully acknowledge input from the steering group and two anonymous reviewers of the protocol. We are very grateful to those who sent us their raw data and helped out with interpreting their studies for the meta-analysis. 2 Contents Contents ...............................................................................................................3 1. Executive summary .......................................................................................5 2. Introduction....................................................................................................8 2.1 Background..............................................................................................8 2.2 Objective................................................................................................11 2.3 The systematic review approach ...........................................................11 3. Review methods ..........................................................................................13 3.1 Question and search word formulation ..................................................13 3.2 Systematic data search and retrieval.....................................................14 3.3 Study characterisation & organisation into pools ...................................18 3.4 Analyses ................................................................................................20 4. Quantitative meta-analysis...........................................................................21 4.1 Meta-analytical methods........................................................................21 4.2 Results...................................................................................................28 4.3 Summary of meta-analyses ...................................................................36 5. Qualitative synthesis of studies on UK species............................................37 5.1 Introduction............................................................................................37 5.2 Scale......................................................................................................38 5.3 Species..................................................................................................42 5.4 Study Pools............................................................................................44 5.5 Effects of landscape features.................................................................49 5.6 Section summary ...................................................................................51 6. Data limitations ............................................................................................52 7. Knowledge gaps ..........................................................................................54 7.1 The size of the gap ...............................................................................54 7.2 What are the immediate research priorities? ........................................54 7.3 How can we meet some of the research priorities? ..............................54 8. Discussion and conclusion...........................................................................57 8.1 Discussion .............................................................................................57 8.2 Recommendations for good landscape design......................................58 8.3 Summary against key objectives of project specification. ......................59 8.4 Relation to development of connectivity indicator..................................60 8.5 Concluding Remarks .............................................................................61 9. Glossary ......................................................................................................62 10. References...............................................................................................71 Appendix 1. Review protocol (including scoping searches) ................................84 Appendix 2. Studies retained after full-text assessment which included UK species..............................................................................................................100 Appendix 3. Synthesis of papers including UK species by habitat and landscape feature. Numbers in superscript refere to row numbers of Appendix 2. ............124 Appendix 4. Details of studies, data extraction methods for meta-analyses of corridors & matrix impacts. ...............................................................................130 3 Figure 1. The number of studies at each stage of the selection process. ...........18 Figure 2. Criteria for the division of studies into pools.........................................19 Figure 3. Conceptual diagram of experimental design of studies in pool 1a.......22 Figure 4. Risk ratios of movement between patches with and without corridors.29 Figure 5. Relationship between corridor length and risk ratio .............................29 Figure 6. Risk ratios for the rodent subgroup in the corridor analysis. ...............30 Figure 7. Risk ratios for the insect subgroup in the corridor analysis. ..............30 Figure 8. Risk ratios for corridor data aggregated within independent studies...31 Figure 9. Funnel plot of data points included in the corridor meta-analysis. ......31 Figure 10. Risk ratios for comparing individual movement between patches separated by more favourable or less favourable matrix. .................................33 Figure 11. The relationship between inter-patch distance and risk ratio. ...........34 Figure 12. Figure 10 expressed by species. ......................................................34 Figure 13. Risk ratios for comparing individual movement between patches separated by more favourable or less favourable matrix, aggregated into each study. ..................................................................................................................35 Figure 14. Funnel plot of studies directly comparing inter-patch movement between matrix types ..........................................................................................35 Figure 15. The relationship between the temporal and spatial scale of studies. .41 Table 1. Studies included in the meta-analysis with experimental designs.........24 Table 2. Temporal and spatial ranges of studies by taxonomic group and by pool ............................................................................................................................40 Table 3. List of BAP priority species and non-native UK species........................43 Table 4. The number of papers by pool and taxonomic grouping. ......................47 Table 5. The number of papers by pool and taxonomic grouping for BAP priority species................................................................................................................48 Table 6. Outcome synthesis of limited evidence from papers including UK species arranged by landscape feature.. ............................................................50 Box 1. Key Policy Statements & Extracts..............................................................9 Box 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. ...............................................................17 Box 3. List of data syntheses undertaken relating to wider issue of landscape ecology. ..............................................................................................................56 4 1. Executive summary Introduction 1. There is increasing evidence that climate change is having a direct impact on UK biodiversity. These impacts include: changes in seasonal events such as flowering and species migration; changes in species abundance, habitat preferences and range, and alteration to ecosystem functions such as carbon and nutrient cycling. It is likely that many species, including some UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) priority species, will need to alter their range and distribution in response to changes in their “climate space” – the geographical area within which the climate is suitable for population survival – and the distribution of habitat