Ros M.W. Green , Niall H.K. Burton , Aonghais S.C.P. Cook , Samantha E. Franks , Jonathan A. Green
{"title":"Framework for assessing species vulnerability whilst on migration to a spatially explicit anthropogenic pressure","authors":"Ros M.W. Green , Niall H.K. Burton , Aonghais S.C.P. Cook , Samantha E. Franks , Jonathan A. Green","doi":"10.1016/j.biocon.2025.111118","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Animals are having to adapt to increasing anthropogenic activities and the pressures these create. The impacts experienced when encountering novel pressures on migration may be particularly acute compared to those routinely experienced in other parts of the annual cycle. To mitigate avoidable population declines, stakeholders must rigorously assess which species are vulnerable to these pressures and develop effective management solutions accordingly. However, inconsistent approaches to these assessments often hinder regulatory efficiency and decisions.</div><div>Here we present a consistent assessment framework for quantifying vulnerability to an identified spatially explicit pressure that might impact populations during migration. Standardised terminologies, methods for consistently scoring sensitivity and exposure, and for quantifying and assessing the role of uncertainty on the vulnerability index, are outlined. The framework is demonstrated using the 29 populations of Anatidae that migrate over UK waters annually and may be exposed to collision risk from offshore wind farms. Sawbills and sea ducks were more vulnerable than swans, geese and other ducks. Even with data uncertainty accounted for, the five most vulnerable species remain consistent, indicating future research and conservation could focus on these species.</div><div>This consistent framework makes use of accepted terminologies and can be used to develop vulnerability assessments for any migratory species group to any identified anthropogenic pressure. Outputs can be used to guide research efforts and support the implementation of conservation measures even if uncertainty in data remains. Comparisons between different assessments presented using this framework can be used by regulators to inform strategic planning decisions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":55375,"journal":{"name":"Biological Conservation","volume":"307 ","pages":"Article 111118"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Conservation","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320725001557","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Animals are having to adapt to increasing anthropogenic activities and the pressures these create. The impacts experienced when encountering novel pressures on migration may be particularly acute compared to those routinely experienced in other parts of the annual cycle. To mitigate avoidable population declines, stakeholders must rigorously assess which species are vulnerable to these pressures and develop effective management solutions accordingly. However, inconsistent approaches to these assessments often hinder regulatory efficiency and decisions.
Here we present a consistent assessment framework for quantifying vulnerability to an identified spatially explicit pressure that might impact populations during migration. Standardised terminologies, methods for consistently scoring sensitivity and exposure, and for quantifying and assessing the role of uncertainty on the vulnerability index, are outlined. The framework is demonstrated using the 29 populations of Anatidae that migrate over UK waters annually and may be exposed to collision risk from offshore wind farms. Sawbills and sea ducks were more vulnerable than swans, geese and other ducks. Even with data uncertainty accounted for, the five most vulnerable species remain consistent, indicating future research and conservation could focus on these species.
This consistent framework makes use of accepted terminologies and can be used to develop vulnerability assessments for any migratory species group to any identified anthropogenic pressure. Outputs can be used to guide research efforts and support the implementation of conservation measures even if uncertainty in data remains. Comparisons between different assessments presented using this framework can be used by regulators to inform strategic planning decisions.
期刊介绍:
Biological Conservation is an international leading journal in the discipline of conservation biology. The journal publishes articles spanning a diverse range of fields that contribute to the biological, sociological, and economic dimensions of conservation and natural resource management. The primary aim of Biological Conservation is the publication of high-quality papers that advance the science and practice of conservation, or which demonstrate the application of conservation principles for natural resource management and policy. Therefore it will be of interest to a broad international readership.