KEVIN J GASTON

Phillips, B.B., Bullock, J.M., Osborne, J.L. & Gaston, K.J. 2020. Ecosystem service provision by road verges. Journal of Applied Ecology, in press.

1. Roads form a vast, rapidly growing global network that has diverse, detrimental ecological impacts. However, the habitats that border roads (‘road verges’) form a parallel network that might help mitigate these impacts and provide additional benefits (ecosystem services; ES).

2. We evaluate the capacity of road verges to provide ES by reviewing existing research and considering their relevant characteristics; area, connectivity, shape, and contextual ES supply and demand. We consider the present situation, and how this is likely to change based on future projections for growth in road extent, traffic densities and urban populations.

3. Road verges provide a wide range of ES, including biodiversity provision, regulating services (e.g. air and water filtration) and cultural services (e.g. health and aesthetic benefits by providing access to nature), but also displace other habitats and provide ecosystem disservices (e.g. plant allergens and damage to infrastructure). Globally, road verges may currently cover 270,000 km² and store 0.015 Gt C year^‐1, which will further increase with 70% projected growth in the global road network.

4. Road verges are well placed to mitigate traffic pollution and address demand for ES in surrounding ES‐impoverished landscapes, thereby improving human health and wellbeing in urban areas, and improving agricultural production and sustainability in farmland. Demand for ES provided by road verges will likely increase due to projected growth in traffic densities and urban populations, though traffic pollution will be reduced by technological advances (e.g. electric vehicles). Road verges form a highly connected network, which may enhance ES provision but facilitate the dispersal of invasive species and increase vehicle‐wildlife collisions.

5. Synthesis and applications. Road verges offer a significant opportunity to mitigate the negative ecological effects of roads and to address demand for ecosystem services (ES) in urban and agricultural landscapes. Their capacity to provide ES might be enhanced considerably if they were strategically designed and managed for environmental outcomes, namely by optimizing the selection, position and management of plant species and habitats. Specific opportunities include reducing mowing frequencies and planting trees in large verges. Road verge management for ES must consider safety guidelines, financial costs and ecosystem disservices, but is likely to provide long‐term financial returns if environmental benefits are considered.

Gardner, A.S., Maclean, I.M.D. & Gaston, K.J. 2019. Climatic predictors of species distributions neglect biophysiologically meaningful variables. Diversity and Distributions 25, 1318-1333.

Species distribution models (SDMs) have played a pivotal role in predicting how species might respond to climate change. To generate reliable and realistic predictions from these models requires the use of climate variables that adequately capture physiological responses of species to climate and therefore provide a proximal link between climate and their distributions. Here, we examine whether the climate variables used in plant SDMs are different from those known to influence directly plant physiology.

We carry out an extensive, systematic review of the climate variables used to model the distributions of plant species and provide comparison to the climate variables identified as important in the plant physiology literature. We calculate the top 10 SDM and physiology variables at 2.5° spatial resolution for the globe and use principal component analyses and multiple regression to assess similarity between the climatic variation described by both variable sets.

We find that the most commonly used SDM variables do not reflect the most important physiological variables and differ in two main ways: (a) SDM variables rely on seasonal or annual rainfall as simple proxies of water available to plants and neglect more direct measures such as soil water content; and (b) SDM variables are typically averaged across seasons or years and overlook the importance of climatic events within the critical growth period of plants. We identify notable differences in their spatial gradients globally and show where distal variables may be less reliable proxies for the variables to which species are known to respond.

There is a growing need for the development of accessible, fine resolution global climate surfaces of physiological variables. This would provide a means to improve the reliability of future range predictions from SDMs and support efforts to conserve biodiversity in a changing climate.

Shanahan, D.F., Astell-Burt, T., Barber^, E.A., Brymer, E., Cox, D.T.C., Dean, J., Depledge, M., Fuller, R.A., Hartig, T., Irvine, K.N., Jones, A., Kikilus, H., Lovell, R., Mitchell, R., Niemelä, J., Nieuwenhuijsen, M., Pretty, J., Townsend, M., van Heezik, Y., Warber, S. & Gaston, K.J. 2019. Nature-based interventions for improving health and wellbeing: the purpose, the people and the outcomes. Sports 7, 141.

Engagement with nature is an important part of many people’s lives, and the health and wellbeing benefits of nature–based activities are becoming increasingly recognised across disciplines from city planning to medicine. Despite this, urbanisation, challenges of modern life and environmental degradation are leading to a reduction in both the quantity and the quality of nature experiences. Nature–based health interventions (NBIs) can facilitate behavioural change through a somewhat structured promotion of nature–based experiences and, in doing so, promote improved physical, mental and social health and wellbeing. We conducted a Delphi expert elicitation process with 19 experts from seven countries (all named authors on this paper) to identify the different forms that such interventions take, the potential health outcomes and the target beneficiaries. In total, 27 NBIs were identified, aiming to prevent illness, promote wellbeing and treat specific physical, mental or social health and wellbeing conditions. These interventions were broadly categorized into those that change the environment in which people live, work, learn, recreate or heal (for example, the provision of gardens in hospitals or parks in cities) and those that change behaviour (for example, engaging people through organized programmes or other activities). We also noted the range of factors (such as socioeconomic variation) that will inevitably influence the extent to which these interventions succeed. We conclude with a call for research to identify the drivers influencing the effectiveness of NBIs in enhancing health and wellbeing.