Developing a biodiversity‐based indicator for large‐scale environmental assessment: a case study of proposed shale gas extraction sites in Britain

Abstract

Summary1. Environmental impact assessments are important tools for predicting the consequences of development and changes in land use. These assessments generally use a small subset of total biodiversity -typically rare and threatened species and habitats -as indicators of ecological status. However, these indicators do not necessarily reflect changes in the many more widespread (but increasingly threatened) species, which are important for ecosystem functions. In addition, assessment of threatened species through field surveys is time-consuming and expensive and, therefore, only possible at small spatial scales. In contrast, planning changes in land use over large spatial scales (e.g. national infrastructure projects) require assessment and prioritization of biodiversity over large spatial extents. 2. Here, we provide a method for the assessment of biodiversity, which takes account of species diversity across larger spatial scales, based on occurrence records from 5553 species across 11 taxonomic groups. We compare the efficacy of the biodiversity-based indicator we developed against one based on threatened species only and then use it to consider spatial and temporal patterns in ecological status across Great Britain. Finally, we develop a case study to investigate biodiversity status in regions proposed for shale gas extraction in Great Britain. 3. Our results show a strong relationship between the ecological status of areas defined by all biodiversity versus only threatened species, although they also demonstrate that significant exceptions do exist where threatened species do not always accurately indicate the ecological status of wider biodiversity. 4. Spatial and temporal analyses show large variation in ecological status across Great Britain both within the area made available for shale gas licensing and within individual environmental zones. In total, however, 63% of hectads across Britain have suffered a net reduction in our biodiversity-based indicator since 1970. 5. Synthesis and applications. We provide a method and develop a biodiversity-based indicator for the assessment and prioritization of biodiversity at large spatial scales. We highlight the potential applications of this approach for the prioritization of areas that would benefit from conservation and restoration. We also emphasize the danger of insufficient consideration of more widespread species and not just rare and threatened species and habitats as indicators of ecological status when prioritizing large-scale national infrastructure projects. Our method should be a useful tool to complement existing environmental impact assessment methods.

Potential landscape‐scale pollinator networks across Great Britain: structure, stability and influence of agricultural land cover

“…Occurrence data were modelled to account for spatial bias in recorder effort using the FRESCALO algorithms (Hill 2012), implemented in the SPARTA (v0.1.30 August et al 2015b) package of R (v3.4.0 R Core Team 2017). FRES-CALO weights by recorder effort to estimate trends and probability of occurrence in under-recorded areas (for validation of FRESCALO for different groups and through simulation see Hill 2012;Fox et al 2014;Isaac et al 2014;Dyer et al 2016). We used the CEH Land Cover Map (LCM2007, Morton et al 2011) as input data for FRESCALO's calculation of neighbourhoods of ecologically similar hectads (see August et al 2015b;Dyer et al 2016).…”

“…FRES-CALO weights by recorder effort to estimate trends and probability of occurrence in under-recorded areas (for validation of FRESCALO for different groups and through simulation see Hill 2012;Fox et al 2014;Isaac et al 2014;Dyer et al 2016). We used the CEH Land Cover Map (LCM2007, Morton et al 2011) as input data for FRESCALO's calculation of neighbourhoods of ecologically similar hectads (see August et al 2015b;Dyer et al 2016). For each species, FRESCALO produces a probability of occurrence per hectad.…”

“…; Dyer et al . ), but hitherto their potential as a source of data on ecological networks is untapped (Gray et al . ).…”

“…Methods to control for variation in recorder effort and to infer ecological signals from occurrence data are rapidly emerging (e.g. Isaac et al 2014;Dyer et al 2016), but hitherto their potential as a source of data on ecological networks is untapped (Gray et al 2014).…”

Comparison of different land degradation indicators: Do the world regions really matter?

“…In terms of the spatial distribution, we expected to find differences on the type of indicators used at varying scales. This trend is explained because some indicators are quite expensive to produce at large scales (e.g., SOC, fragmentation, animal indicators, tree density, and tree height; e.g., Dyer et al, 2017) or the results are impossible to extrapolate to larger scales (e.g., ecosystem structure; e.g., Styers et al, 2010). In addition, there are some indicators that are used to fulfill international commitments, especially at the national level (e.g., enhance biodiversity and fragmentation; e.g., Kupfer, 2006).…”