Search

•1. Long-term data are beneficial for monitoring the conservation status of species. Assessments of population change over recent periods of fixed duration will, however, be subject to ‘shifting baselines’, where the accepted norm for the population at the start of the period already represents a reduction from historical levels. International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List criteria for categorizing conservation threat rely on assessing declines against quantitative thresholds, generally measured over 10 years, as indications of the likelihood of extinction in the near future. By contrast, legal frameworks such as the European Habitats Directive require states to achieve and sustain ‘Favourable Conservation Status’ for protected species, while domestic conservation legislation can have more diverse objectives and mechanisms, based on local contexts that extend beyond biological or quantitative criteria. •2. We explore the challenges associated with assessing the risk of extinction and the conservation status that arise from the availability of long-term monitoring data for hazel dormice Muscardinus avellanarius in the United Kingdom. •3. Numbers of adult dormice counted in the National Dormouse Monitoring Programme are in ongoing decline, amounting to an overall decline of 78% (95% confidence interval = 72%–84%) over 27 years, 1994–2020. If the observed annual rate of decline of 5.7% (95% CI = 4.7%–6.8%) were to continue unabated, dormouse counts would decline by >90% from 1994 to 2034. Despite this, the species would never be categorized as Endangered, under IUCN criteria, which specify a reduction of >50% within 10 years. •4. While such chronic decline may not indicate imminent risk of extinction, justifying a higher Red List category, it is a demonstration of unfavourable conservation status at a national scale. Prioritization based on demonstration of such chronic declines might direct more effective action towards species conservation at a point when

Action to reduce anthropogenic impact on the environment and species within it will be most effective when targeted towards activities that have the greatest impact on biodiversity. To do this effectively we need to better understand the relative importance of different activities and how they drive changes in species’ populations. Here, we present a novel, flexible framework that reviews evidence for the relative importance of these drivers of change and uses it to explain recent alterations in species’ populations. We review drivers of change across four hundred species sampled from a broad range of taxonomic groups in the UK. We found that species’ population change (~1970–2012) has been most strongly impacted by intensive management of agricultural land and by climatic change. The impact of the former was primarily deleterious, whereas the impact of climatic change to date has been more mixed. Findings were similar across the three major taxonomic groups assessed (insects, vascular plants and vertebrates). In general, the way a habitat was managed had a greater impact than changes in its extent, which accords with the relatively small changes in the areas occupied by different habitats during our study period, compared to substantial changes in habitat management. Of the drivers classified as conservation measures, low-intensity management of agricultural land and habitat creation had the greatest impact. Our framework could be used to assess the relative importance of drivers at a range of scales to better inform our policy and management decisions. Furthermore, by scoring the quality of evidence, this framework helps us identify research gaps and needs.

We describe the development of two complementary priority species indicators (PSIs) to help the UK to report progress towards Aichi target 12 on the status of known threatened species. Based on species identified as national conservation priorities, the indicators present average changes in (i) 213 species for which trends in relative abundance are available from structured monitoring schemes, and (ii) 179 species for which trends in frequency of occurrence were modelled from data sets of unstructured biological records. Both indicators show substantial declines in priority species since 1970, of 67% and 40%, respectively, although the rate of decline in the relative abundance-based PSI may have lessened over the last five years (2007–2012). We discuss the biases and weaknesses of the indicators at present, and put forward suggestions as how these may be addressed, including through the development of a third PSI.