Drivers of Biodiversity Loss · 4 Biodiversity Loss The first difficulty facing ecologists concerned with quantifying biodiversity loss is what to measure – it is not possible to
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
A research synthesis for the Tomorrow’s Biodiversity Project
Dr Richard Burkmar Dr Charlie Bell Field Studies Council Head Office Montford Bridge Shrewsbury SY4 1HW [email protected] Tel: (01743) 852125 Tomorrow's Biodiversity Project funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation
sake of human health and wellbeing. Of these nine they argued that one in particular, biodiversity
loss, is currently running way beyond that safe limit (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Beyond the boundary. The inner green shading represents the proposed safe operating space for nine planetary systems. The red wedges represent an estimate of the current position for each variable. The boundaries in three systems (rate of biodiversity loss, climate change and human interference with the nitrogen cycle), have already
been exceeded. (From Rockström et al. 2009) Reproduced by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Nature (Vol 461, p 472-475), copyright (2009).
Notwithstanding that quantifying current biodiversity loss is problematic (see below), all of our
attempts to do so point to an inescapable conclusion: we are losing biodiversity at a rate
unprecedented in recent geological history and many of the drivers behind this loss are
anthropogenic. Biodiversity plays a critical part in maintaining the natural systems of the biosphere
which are fundamental to human existence on the earth. Recently we have started to think about
these systems in terms of ‘ecosystem services’ and to value the critical role that biodiversity plays in
maintaining them (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 ; Bailey et al. 2011). Understanding the
factors which are driving biodiversity loss is crucial if we are to exercise any control over our future
and the health of our planet.
The Tomorrow’s Biodiversity Project is focussed on ways in which the Field Studies Council can
deliver resources and teaching in ways that maximise its contribution to efforts in the UK to create
and manage an inventory of our biodiversity and monitor its health over the coming decades. Doing
this in a strategic manner starts with an understanding of the drivers of biodiversity loss globally and
Sala and Knowlton (2006) listed global warming as one of four major drivers of biodiversity change in
the marine environment and state that when combined with other disturbances to the ecosystems
such as overfishing, the effects of global warming might be more pervasive and unpredictable than
previously thought.
Winn et al. (2011) included climate change (and climate variability) as one of the top five drivers of
ecological change in the UK but consider that, up until now, it has not had the same level of impact
as any of their top three drivers (land use change, direct exploitation of resources and pollution,
including nutrient enrichment). However, they predicted that in it will play a significant role in future
changes, especially by acting in concert with other drivers.
Overall, Bellard et al. (2012) concluded that neither species loss or the qualitative effects on
ecosystem functioning due to climate change can yet be predicted with any confidence. However
despite uncertainties, imprecision and both under and overestimation of species loss, the “very large
underestimations due to co-extinctions, synergies and tipping points are extremely worrisome for the
future of biodiversity”.
8 Driver: eutrophication (nitrogen & phosphorous enrichment) Since the industrial revolution our practice of burning fossil fuels has been releasing nitrogen and
sulphur into the atmosphere which is then deposited over the surface of the land and sea,
sometimes in places very distant from its source. Over the same period, but particularly since the
middle of the 20th century, intensification of farming has lead to widespread use of nitrogen and
phosphorous fertilizers which get into the wider environment, particularly through rainwater runoff.
14 Spatial & temporal patterns, trends and relative importance The relative importance of different drivers, or aspects, of biodiversity change vary depending on
ecosystem and biome. Pereira et al. (2010) asserted that land use change is the dominant driver in
terrestrial systems and over-exploitation in marine systems with climate change being serious and
ubiquitous across realms.
In an influential paper, Sala et al. (2000) reviewed the drivers of biodiversity change across ten
terrestrial biomes and listed the following five drivers of biodiversity change for terrestrial
ecosystems (including freshwater ecosystems), starting with the most important :
land use change (encompassing agricultural conversion & changes of practice);
climate change;
nitrogen deposition (and acid rain);
biotic exchange; and
elevated CO2 levels.
Conspicuous by its absence from this list is direct exploitation, but this is probably because the
greatest manifestation of that – overfishing – is an important driver in marine rather than terrestrial
ecosystems.
Figure 2. Relative effect of major drivers of changes to terrestrial biodiversity for the year 2100. (After Sala et al. 2000)
The relative importance of these drivers in different biomes has already been alluded to elsewhere
in this review, but were summarised very broadly by Sala et al. (2000) as follows:
tropical and southern temperate forest show large changes in biodiversity mostly driven by
land use change;
arctic ecosystems are largely affected by a single driver – climate change;
Mediterranean ecosystems, savannahs and grasslands are significantly affected by most of
the drivers;
northern temperate forests and deserts are also affected by most drivers, though to a lesser
freshwater ecosystems (across all biomes) show substantial changes in biodiversity –
perhaps more than any other ecosystem group – driven mostly by land use change, biotic
exchange and climate change.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) found that the drivers of biodiversity loss thus:
habitat loss, e.g. through land use change, physical modification of rivers or water withdrawal from rivers, loss of coral reefs, damage to sea floors due to trawling;
climate change;
invasive alien species;
overexploitation of species; and
pollution. This is a similar list to that of Sala et al. (2000), with the obvious difference that it does not include
CO2 increases but adds direct exploitation of species.
The figure below is a reproduction from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) which shows the
relative importance of the drivers of biodiversity change over the last 50-100 years and their
predicted future influence in different major biomes.
Figure 3. Main direct drivers. The cell colour indicates the impact to date of each driver on biodiversity in each biome
over the past 50–100 years. The arrows indicate the trend in the impact of the driver on biodiversity. Horizontal arrows indicate a continuation of the current level of impact; diagonal and vertical arrows indicate progressively increasing
trends in impact. This Figure is based on expert opinion consistent with and based on the analysis of drivers of change in various chapters of the assessment report of the Condition and Trends Working Group. This Figure presents global impacts and trends that may be different from those in specific regions. (From Millennium Ecosystem Assessment,
2005.)
As part of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment, Winn et al. (2011) listed the following main direct
drivers of ecosystem and ecosystem service change in the UK over the last 60 years:
habitat change (particularly conversion of natural and semi-habitats through land use
change or change in the use of the marine environment);
nutrient enrichment and pollution of air, land and water;
overexploitation of terrestrial, marine and freshwater resources;
Note that these are the same five drivers identified by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) as
responsible for driving biodiversity change.
The five drivers are tabulated in a useful figure against the main UK broad habitats to illustrate the
relative current effects of each driver against each habitat and predicted future trends in the
importance of the driver (see below).
Figure 4. Relative importance of, and trends in, the impact of direct drivers on UK NEA Broad Habitat extent and
condition. Cell colour indicates the impact to date of each driver on extent and condition of Broad Habitats since the 1940s. The arrows indicate the current (since the 1990s) and ongoing trend in the impact of the driver on extent and condition of the Broad Habitat. Change in both impacts or trends can be positive or negative. This figure is based on
information synthesized from each Broad Habitat chapter of the UK NEA Technical Report (Chapters 5–12) and expert opinion. This figure presents UK-wide impacts and trends, and so may be different from those in specific sub-habitats or regions; however more details can be found in the individual Broad Habitat chapters. *Habitat change can be a result of
either land use change or deterioration/improvement in the condition of the habitat. (From Winn et al. 2011, UNEP)
Winn et al. (2011) also tabulated the five drivers against the main UK ecosystem services to illustrate the relative current effects of each driver against each service and predicted future trends in the importance of the driver in relation to the service (see below).
Figure 5. Relative importance of, and trends in, the impact of direct drivers on UK ecosystem services. Cell colour indicates the impact to date of each driver on service delivery since the 1940s. The arrows indicate the current (since the
1990s) and ongoing trend in the impact of the driver on service delivery. Change in both impacts or trends can be positive or negative. This figure is based on information synthesized from the biodiversity and ecosystem service
chapters of the UK NEA Technical Report (Chapters 4 and 13–16), as well as expert opinion. This figure presents UK-wide impacts and trends, and so may be different from those for specific final ecosystem services; however more details can be found in the biodiversity and ecosystem service chapters. *Habitat change can be a result of either land use change
or deterioration/improvement in the condition of the habitat. (From Winn et al. 2011, UNEP)
An important conclusion of Winn et al. (2011) is that “there are still significant gaps in our
knowledge of what drives ecosystem change and the impacts that changes within ecosystems have
Sala and Knowlton (2006) noted that human activities are behind all the major divers of marine
biodiversity change.
Winn et al. (2011) drew a distinction between the direct drivers of ecosystem change and the
indirect drivers which affect these in the UK which they classified as follows:
1. demographic changes;
2. economic growth;
3. socio-political changes, especially in policies;
4. cultural and behavioural changes; and
5. advances in science and technology.
Norton and Reid (2013) recognise five ‘ultimate’ drivers of biodiversity change in the agricultural
landscape which are themselves all drivers of land used change:
1. historical legacies;
2. global climate change;
3. technology and knowledge;
4. markets; and
5. social values and awareness.
Figure 6. Relationships between different drivers of change and native biodiversity. While all drivers indirectly affect biodiversity through their effect on land use practices (thin black lines), only global climate change and historical
legacies directly affect biodiversity (thick black lines). Interactions (dotted lines) also occur among the different drivers. (From Norton and Reid, 2013)
Norton and Reid (2013) asserted that global climate change and historical legacies can affect native
biodiversity directly but all five indirectly affect biodiversity by influencing the decisions that land
managers make about the way they use their land and water resources and these land management
decisions have a range of critical effects on biodiversity. They listed three types of ‘historical legacy’
as important drivers of change in agricultural landscapes and biodiversity:
1. effects of past land management on soils (e.g. erosion, salinisation, compaction,
acidification, nutrient decline, seed-bank loss);
2. ongoing adjustment of the remaining biota to historical fragmentation; and
3. the increasing impacts of invasive species already present but yet to realise their full
potential.
16 Concluding remarks & implications for Tomorrow’s Biodiversity The drivers of biodiversity loss are wide-ranging and complex and they interact in ways which we are
only just beginning to appreciate, much less understand. Furthermore, the effects of these drivers
on biodiversity operate through complex, and relatively poorly understood, ecological processes.
Nevertheless, there is general agreement about the importance of the major drivers of biodiversity
change, however their relative importance shifts in different biogeographical realms and in different
types of ecosystem (marine, freshwater and terrestrial). There may be some drivers, e.g. ocean
acidification, that have been, thus far, underestimated in terms of their importance. Our
understanding of the relative importance of drivers that we know of – and new ones that are
emerging – is developing all the time.
Major drivers in terrestrial ecosystems are:
land use change (encompassing habitat loss, degradation & fragmentation);
climate change;
eutrophication; and
biotic exchange.
Major drivers in freshwater ecosystems are:
habitat degradation, including flow modification;
pollution, including eutrophication; and
biotic exchange.
Major drivers in marine ecosystems are:
climate change (especially in coastal areas);
overfishing;
habitat degradation (e.g. from destructive fishing operations);
acidification; and
pollution (including eutrophication of estuaries).
Bailey, M. et al. 2011. Biodiversity in the Context of Ecosystem Services. In The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. Cambridge: UNEP-WCMC, pp. 63–104.
Bellard, C. et al. 2012. Impacts of climate change on the future of biodiversity. Ecology letters, pp.365–377.
Berry, P M et al. 2005. Modelling natural resource responses to climate change (MONARCH): a local approach,
Berry, P M et al. 2007. MONARCH 3,
Berry, P. M. et al. 2002. Modelling potential impacts of climate change on the bioclimatic envelope of species in Britain and Ireland. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 11(6), pp.453–462.
Berry, Pam M. et al. 2003. The sensitivity and vulnerability of terrestrial habitats and species in Britain and Ireland to climate change. Journal for Nature Conservation, 11(1), pp.15–23.
Bobbink, R. et al. 2010. Global assessment of nitrogen deposition effects on terrestrial plant diversity: a synthesis. Ecological Applications, 20(1), pp.30–59.
Brook, B.W., Sodhi, N.S. & Bradshaw, C.J. a, 2008. Synergies among extinction drivers under global change. Trends in ecology & evolution, 23(8), pp.453–60.
Burns, F. et al. 2013. State of Nature report,
Butchart, S.H.M. et al. 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science (New York, N.Y.), 328(5982), pp.1164–8.
Butler, S.J., Vickery, J. a & Norris, K, 2007. Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science (New York, N.Y.), 315(5810), pp.381–4.
Carson, R., 2002. Silent spring, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
CBD, 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-02 [Accessed May 13, 2013].
De Chazal, J. & Rounsevell, M.D. a., 2009. Land use and climate change within assessments of biodiversity change: A review. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), pp.306–315.
Chen, X. & Schluesener, H.J., 2008. Nanosilver: a nanoproduct in medical application. Toxicology letters, 176(1), pp.1–12.
Cole, M. et al. 2011. Microplastics as contaminants in the marine environment: a review. Marine pollution bulletin, 62(12), pp.2588–97.
Connor, E.F. & McCoy, E.D., 1979. The statistics and biology of the species-area relationship. The American Naturalist, 113(6), pp.791–833.
Costello, M.J., May, R.M. & Stork, N.E., 2013. Can we name Earth’s species before they go extinct? Science (New York, N.Y.), 339(6118), pp.413–6.
Crick, H.Q.P. et al. 1997. UK birds are laying eggs earlier. , 388(6642), p.526.
Crick, H.Q.P. & Sparks, Timothy H., 1999. Climate change related to egg-laying trends. Nature, 399(6735), p.423.
Daszak, P, Cunningham, a a & Hyatt, a D., 2001. Anthropogenic environmental change and the emergence of infectious diseases in wildlife. Acta tropica, 78(2), pp.103–16.
Davis, M. a et al. 2011. Don’t judge species on their origins. Nature, 474(7350), pp.153–4.
Dawson, Terence P et al. 2011. Beyond predictions: biodiversity conservation in a changing climate. Science (New York, N.Y.), 332(6025), pp.53–8.
Didham, R.K. et al. 2005. Are invasive species the drivers of ecological change? Trends in ecology & evolution, 20(9), pp.470–4.
Doney, S.C. et al. 2009. Ocean Acidification: The Other CO 2 Problem. Annual Review of Marine Science, 1(1), pp.169–192.
Dudgeon, D. et al. 2006. Freshwater biodiversity: importance, threats, status and conservation challenges. Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 81(2), pp.163–82.
Dullinger, S. et al. 2013. Europe’s other debt crisis caused by the long legacy of future extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, pp.1–6.
Dynesius, M., Nilsson, C. & others, 1994. Fragmentation and flow regulation of river systems in the northern third of the world. SCIENCE-NEW YORK THEN WASHINGTON-, p.753.
Ellis, C.J. et al. 2007. Response of British lichens to climate change scenarios: Trends and uncertainties in the projected impact for contrasting biogeographic groups. Biological Conservation, 140(3-4), pp.217–235.
Fabry, V. J. et al. 2008. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine fauna and ecosystem processes. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65(3), pp.414–432.
Gallardo, B. & Aldridge, D.C., 2013. Evaluating the combined threat of climate change and biological invasions on endangered species. Biological Conservation, 160, pp.225–233.
Giles, J., 2005. Nitrogen study fertilizes fears of pollution. Nature, 433(7028), p.791.
Harrison, Paula A. et al. 2003. Modelling climate change impacts on the distribution of breeding birds in Britain and Ireland. Journal for Nature Conservation, 11(1), pp.31–42.
Harvell, C Drew et al. 2002. Climate warming and disease risks for terrestrial and marine biota. Science (New York, N.Y.), 296(5576), pp.2158–62.
Heller, N.E. & Zavaleta, E.S., 2009. Biodiversity management in the face of climate change: A review of 22 years of recommendations. Biological Conservation, 142(1), pp.14–32.
Hickling, R. et al. 2005. A northward shift of range margins in British Odonata. Global Change Biology, 11(3), pp.502–506.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science (New York, N.Y.), 318(5857), pp.1737–42.
Hof, C. et al. 2011. Additive threats from pathogens, climate and land use change for global amphibian diversity. Nature, 480(7378), pp.516–9.
b e , I. et al. 2006. Predicting biodiversity change: outside the climate envelope, beyond the species–area curve. Ecology, 87(8), pp.1896–1906.
Immerzeel, D.J. et al. 2013. Biodiversity impacts of bioenergy crop production: a state-of-the-art review. GCB Bioenergy.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers, IPCC Secretariat.
JNCC, 2013. UK Habitat Classification. Available at: http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-1425 [Accessed May 13, 2013].
Jones, M.L.M. et al. 2004. Changes in vegetation and soil characteristics in coastal sand dunes along a gradient of atmospheric nitrogen deposition. Plant biology (Stuttgart, Germany), 6(5), pp.598–605.
Malcolm, J.R. et al. 2006. Global Warming and Extinctions of Endemic Species from Biodiversity Hotspots. Conservation Biology, 20(2), pp.538–548.
Martens, P., Rotmans, J. & Groot, D. De, 2003. Biodiversity: luxury or necessity? Global Environmental Change, 13(2), pp.75–81.
Maskell, L.C. et al. 2010. Nitrogen deposition causes widespread loss of species richness in British habitats. Global Change Biology, 16(2), pp.671–679.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis, Washington DC: World Resources Institute.
Monteith, D.T. et al. 2005. Biological responses to the chemical recovery of acidified fresh waters in the UK. Environmental pollution, 137(1), pp.83–101.
Mooney, H A et al. 1991. Predicting Ecosystem Responses to Elevated CO 2 Concentrations. Bioscience, 41(2), pp.96–104.
Norton, D. & Reid, N., 2013. Nature and Farming: Sustaining Native Biodiversity in Agricultural Landscapes, Csiro Publishing.
Orr, James C et al. 2005. Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms. Nature, 437(7059), pp.681–6.
Paolucci, E.M., MacIsaac, H.J. & Ricciardi, A., 2013. Origin matters: alien consumers inflict greater damage on prey populations than do native consumers. Diversity and Distributions, pp.1–8.
Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G., 2003. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature, 421(6918), pp.37–42.
Pereira, H.M. et al. 2010. Scenarios for global biodiversity in the 21st century. Science, 330(6010), pp.1496–501.
Phoenix, G.K. et al. 2006. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition in world biodiversity hotspots: the need for a greater global perspective in assessing N deposition impacts. Global Change Biology, 12(3), pp.470–476.
Potts, S.G., 2012. The Decline of England ’ s Bees Policy Review and Recommendations,
Powell, K.I., Chase, J.M. & Knight, T.M., 2011. A synthesis of plant invasion effects on biodiversity across spatial scales. American journal of botany, 98(3), pp.539–48.
Rands, M.R.W. et al. 2010. Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science (New York, N.Y.), 329(5997), pp.1298–303.
Ratcliffe, D.A., 1967. Decrease in Eggshell Weight in Certain Birds of Prey. Nature, 215(5097), pp.208–210.
Reaka-Kudla, M.L., Wilson, D.E. & Wilson, E.O., 1996. Biodiversity II: Understanding and Protecting Our Biological Resources (Google eBook), Joseph Henry Press.
Reidsma, P. et al. 2006. Impacts of land use change on biodiversity: An assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the European Union. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 114(1), pp.86–102.
Ridgwell, A. & Schmidt, D.N., 2010. Past constraints on the vulnerability of marine calcifiers to massive carbon dioxide release. Nature Geoscience, 3(3), pp.196–200.
Rinawati, F., Stein, K. & Lindner, A., 2013. Climate Change Impacts on Biodiversity—The Setting of a Lingering Global Crisis. Diversity, 5(1), pp.114–123.
Rockström, J. et al. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), pp.472–475.
Sabine, C.L. et al. 2004. The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2. Science (New York, N.Y.), 305(5682), pp.367–71.
Sala, E. & Knowlton, Nancy, 2006. Global Marine Biodiversity Trends. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), pp.93–122.
Sala, O.E. et al. 2000. Global Biodiversity Scenarios for the Year 2100. Science, 287(5459), pp.1770–1774.
Saunders, D.A., Hobbs, R.J. & Margules, C.R., 1991. Biological Consequences of Ecosystem Fragmentation: A Review. Conservation Biology, 5(1), pp.18–32.
Schmalensee, R., Stoker, T.M. & Judson, R.A., 1998. World Carbon Dioxide Emissions: 1950–2050. Review of Economics and Statistics, 80(1), pp.15–27.
Schweiger, O. et al. 2008. Climate change can cause spatial mismatch of trophically interacting species. Ecology, 89(12), pp.3472–9.
Smith, V.H., 2003. Eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems: a global problem. Environmental science and pollution research international, 10(2), pp.126–39.
Smith, V.H., Joye, S.B. & Howarth, R.W., 2006. Eutrophication of freshwater and marine ecosystems. Limnology and Oceanography, 51(1_part_2), pp.351–355.
Southon, G.E. et al. 2013. Nitrogen Deposition Reduces Plant Diversity and Alters Ecosystem Functioning: Field-Scale Evidence from a Nationwide Survey of UK Heathlands. PloS one, 8(4).
Sparks, T H & Carey, P.D., 1995. The responses of species to climate over two centuries: an analysis of the Marsham phenological record, 1736-1947. Journal of Ecology, pp.321–329.
Stevens, C.J. et al. 2004. Impact of nitrogen deposition on the species richness of grasslands. Science (New York, N.Y.), 303(5665), pp.1876–9.
Stevens, C.J. et al. 2010. Nitrogen deposition threatens species richness of grasslands across Europe. Environmental pollution, 158(9), pp.2940–5.
Sutherland, W.J. et al. 2010. A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2010. Trends in ecology & evolution, 25(1), pp.1–7.
Sutherland, W.J. et al. 2012. A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2012. Trends in ecology & evolution, 27(1), pp.12–18.
Sutherland, W.J. et al. 2013. A horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2013. Trends in ecology & evolution, 28(1), pp.16–22.
Sutherland, W.J. et al. 2011. Horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2011. Trends in ecology & evolution, 26(1), pp.10–6.
Swift, M.J. et al. 1998. Global change, soil biodiversity, and nitrogen cycling in terrestrial ecosystems: three case studies. Global Change Biology, 4(7), pp.729–743.
Thomas, Chris D et al. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change. Nature, 427(6970), pp.145–8.
Thuiller, W., 2007. Climate change and the ecologist. Nature, 448(7153), pp.550–552.
Tilman, D. et al. 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science (New York, N.Y.), 292(5515), pp.281–4.
Vitousek, P.M. et al. 1996. Biological invasions as global environmental change. American Scientist, 84(5), pp.468–478.
Vitousek, P.M. et al. 1997. Human Domination of Earth’s Ecosystems J. M. Mar luff et al. eds. Science, 277(5325), pp.494–499.
Vittoz, P. et al. 2013. Climate change impacts on biodiversity in Switzerland: A review. Journal for Nature Conservation.
Warren, M.S. et al. 2001. Rapid responses of British butterflies to opposing forces of climate and habitat change. Nature, 414(6859), pp.65–9.
Whitehorn, P.R. et al. 2012. Neonicotinoid pesticide reduces bumble bee colony growth and queen production. Science (New York, N.Y.), 336(6079), pp.351–2.
Wilson, R.J. et al. 2005. Changes to the elevational limits and extent of species ranges associated with climate change. Ecology letters, 8(11), pp.1138–46.
Winn, J. et al. 2011. The Drivers of Change in UK Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services. In The UK National Ecosystem Assessment Technical Report. pp. 27–62.
Woolf, D. et al. 2010. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nature communications, 1(5), p.56.