Summary Horizon scanning is an essential tool for environmental scientists if they are to contribute to the evidence base for Government, its agencies and other decision makers to devise and implement environmental policies. The implication of not foreseeing issues that are foreseeable is illustrated by the contentious responses to genetically modified herbicide‐tolerant crops in the UK, and by challenges surrounding biofuels, foot and mouth disease, avian influenza and climate change. A total of 35 representatives from organizations involved in environmental policy, academia, scientific journalism and horizon scanning were asked to use wide consultation to identify the future novel or step changes in threats to, and opportunities for, biodiversity that might arise in the UK up to 2050, but that had not been important in the recent past. At least 452 people were consulted. Cases for 195 submitted issues were distributed to all participants for comments and additions. All issues were scored (probability, hazard, novelty and overall score) prior to a 2‐day workshop. Shortlisting to 41 issues and then the final 25 issues, together with refinement of these issues, took place at the workshop during another two rounds of discussion and scoring. We provide summaries of the 25 shortlisted issues and outline the research needs. We suggest that horizon scanning incorporating wide consultation with providers and users of environmental science is used by environmental policy makers and researchers. This can be used to identify gaps in knowledge and policy, and to identify future key issues for biodiversity, including those arising from outside the domains of ecology and biodiversity. Synthesis and applications. Horizon scanning can be used by environmental policy makers and researchers to identify gaps in knowledge and policy. Drawing on the experience, expertise and research of policy advisors, academics and journalists, this exercise helps set the agenda for policy, practice and research.

No abstract

Abstract. The spatial organisation of male and female wood mice, Apodemus sylvaticus, was investigated in a large-scale radio-tracking study on arable farmland near Oxford, United Kingdom, during the breeding season. Both sexes had significantly larger home ranges in the breeding season than at other times, and the breeding season home ranges of male (X = 1.44 ha) were significantly larger than those of females (X = 0.49 ha). Home range overlap was significantly greater between males, and between males and females, than it was between females. Overlap between males tended to be greatest in heavily utilised areas. Except during sexual consortship, there was minimal evidence of dynamic interaction among individuals. Home range sizes of breeding males varied widely, as did their body weights. There was no relationship between male body weight and home range size or any other movement parameter. However, males with the largest home ranges had the highest scores on all other movement parameters, indicating that they expended more energy in movement. These more 'vigorous' males had access to the home ranges of more females than did males with small home ranges.

Wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus were radio-tracked in an area covering three cereal ®elds, which was notionally divided into 565 m squares; each of these squares was classi®ed to one of four habitat types (hedgerow, wheat, barley and oil-seed rape). From a sample of 79 radio-tracked wood mice, yielding 8500 ®xes, we de®ned home-range boundaries and estimated for two seasons: (a) the extent to which each habitat was present in each individual's home range relative to its overall availability in the surrounding landscape; (b) the extent to which each habitat was used by the mice relative to its abundance within a home range. Hedgerow ranked highest in preference (as distinct from use) for all comparisons made in both winter and summer. In winter, home ranges contained signi®cantly more hedgerow than barley and wheat, and signi®cantly more rape than wheat. Animals also used the habitats within their home ranges non-randomly, with a signi®cant preference for hedgerow. In summer, home ranges contained signi®cantly less rape than other habitats. Habitats within home ranges were used at random. Seasonal patterns in habitat use appeared to be largely a response to seasonal disturbance and the availability of cover in the ®elds.