DOI: 10.5061/dryad.n5tb2rc0k
title: A database of Defra statutory biodiversity metric unit values for terrestrial habitat samples across England, with plant, butterfly and bird species data

description: Policies requiring biodiversity no net loss or net gain as an outcome of
 environmental planning have become more prominent worldwide, catalysing
 interest in biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism to compensate for
 development impacts on nature. Offsets rely on credible and evidence-based
 methods to quantify biodiversity losses and gains. Following the
 introduction of the United Kingdom’s Environment Act in November 2021, all
 new developments requiring planning permission in England are expected to
 demonstrate a 10% biodiversity net gain from 2024, calculated using the
 statutory biodiversity metric framework (Defra, 2023). The metric
 is used to calculate both baseline and proposed post-development
 biodiversity units, and is set to play an increasingly prominent role in
 nature conservation nationwide. The metric has so far received limited
 scientific scrutiny. This dataset comprises a database of statutory
 biodiversity metric unit values for terrestrial habitat samples across
 England. For each habitat sample, we present biodiversity units
 alongside five long-established single-attribute proxies for biodiversity
 (species richness, individual abundance, number of threatened species,
 mean species range or population, mean species range or population
 change). Data were compiled for species from three taxa (vascular
 plants, butterflies, birds), from sites across England. The dataset
 includes 24 sites within grassland, wetland, woodland and forest, sparsely
 vegetated land, cropland, heathland and shrub, i.e. all terrestrial broad
 habitats except urban and individual trees. Species data were reused from
 long-term ecological change monitoring datasets (mostly in the public
 domain), whilst biodiversity units were calculated following field visits.
 Fieldwork was carried out in April-October 2022 to calculate biodiversity
 units for the samples. Sites were initially assessed using metric version
 3.1, which was current at the time of survey, and were subsequently
 updated to the statutory metric for analysis using field notes and species
 data. Species data were derived from 24 long-term ecological change
 monitoring sites across the Environmental Change Network (ECN), Long Term
 Monitoring Network (LTMN) and Ecological Continuity Trust (ECT), collected
 between 2010 and 2020.
description: <strong>Study sites</strong> We
 studied 24 sites across the Environmental Change Network (ECN), Long Term
 Monitoring Network (LTMN) and Ecological Continuity Trust (ECT).
 Biodiversity units were calculated following field visits by the authors,
 whilst species data (response variables) were derived from long-term
 ecological change monitoring datasets collected by the sites and mostly
 held in the public domain (Table S1). We used all seven
 ECN sites in England. We selected a complementary 13 LTMN sites to give
 good geographic and habitat representation across England. We included
 four datasets from sites supported by the ECT where 2 x 2m vascular plant
 quadrat data were available for reuse. The 24 sites included samples from
 all terrestrial broad habitats (sensu Defra 2023) in England, except urban
 and individual trees: grassland (8), wetland (6), woodland and forest (5),
 sparsely vegetated land (2), cropland (2), heathland and shrub (1).
 Non-terrestrial broad habitats (rivers and lakes, marine inlets and
 transitional waters) were excluded. Our samples ranged in biodiversity
 unit scores from 2 to 24, the full range of the metric. Not all 24 sites
 had long-term datasets from all taxa: 23 had vascular plant data, 8 had
 bird data, and 13 had butterfly data. We chose these three taxa as they
 are the most comprehensively surveyed taxa in England’s long-term
 biological datasets. Together they represent a taxonomically broad,
 although by no means representative, sample of English nature.
 <strong>Biodiversity unit
 calculation</strong> Baseline biodiversity units
 were attributed to each vegetation quadrat using the statutory
 biodiversity metric (Defra, 2023) (Equation 1). Sites were visited by the
 authors between April and October 2022, i.e. within the optimal survey
 period indicated in the metric guidance. Sites were assessed initially
 using metric version 3.1 (Panks et al., 2022), which was current at the
 time of survey, and were subsequently updated to the statutory metric for
 analysis using field notes and species data.. Following the biodiversity
 metric guidance, we calculated biodiversity units at the habitat parcel
 scale, such that polygons with consistent habitat type and condition are
 the unit of assessment. We assigned habitat type and condition score to
 all quadrats falling within the parcel. Where the current site conditions
 (2022) and quadrat data (2010 to 2020) differed from each other in habitat
 or condition, e.g. the % bracken cover, we deferred to the quadrat data in
 order to match our response and explanatory variables more fairly. Across
 all samples, area was set to 1 ha arbitrarily, and strategic significance
 set to 1 (no strategic significance), to allow comparison between sites.
 To assign biodiversity units to the bird and butterfly transects, we
 averaged the biodiversity units of plant quadrats within the transect
 routes plus a buffer of 500 m (birds) or 100 m (butterflies). Quadrats
 were positioned to represent the habitats present at each site
 proportionally, and transect routes were also positioned to represent the
 habitats present across each site. Although units have been calculated as
 precisely as possible for all taxa, we recognize that biodiversity units
 are calculated more precisely for the plant dataset than the bird and
 butterfly dataset: the size of transect buffer is subjective, and some
 transects run adjacent to offsite habitat that could not be accessed.
 Further detail about biodiversity unit calculation can be found in the
 Supporting Information. Equation 1. Biodiversity unit
 calculation following the statutory biodiversity metric (Defra,
 2023) Size of habitat parcel × Distinctiveness ×
 Condition × Strategic Significance = Biodiversity Units
 <strong>Species response variable
 calculation</strong> We reused species datasets
 for plants, birds and butterflies recorded by the sites to calculate our
 response variables (Table S1). Plant species presence data were recorded
 using 2 x 2m quadrats of all vascular plant species at approximately 50
 sample locations per site (mean 48.1, sd 3.7), stratified to represent all
 habitat types on site. If the quadrat fell within woodland or scrub, trees
 and shrubs rooted within a 10 x 10 m plot centred on the quadrat were also
 counted and added to the quadrat species records, with any duplicate
 species records removed. We treated each quadrat as a sample point, and
 the most recent census year was analysed (ranging between 2011-2021). Bird
 data were collected annually using the Breeding Birds Survey method of the
 British Trust for Ornithology: two approximately parallel 1 km long
 transects were routed through representative habitat on each site. The
 five most recent census years were analysed (all fell between 2006-2019),
 treating each year as a sample point (Bateman et al., 2013). Butterfly
 data were collected annually using the Pollard Walk method of the UK
 Butterfly Monitoring Scheme: a fixed transect route taking 30 to 90
 minutes to walk (c. 1-2 km) was established through representative habitat
 on each site. The five most recent census years were analysed (all fell
 between 2006-2019), treating each year as a sample point. Full detail of
 how these datasets were originally collected in the field can be found in
 Supporting Information. For species richness estimates
 we omitted any records with vague taxon names not resolved to species
 level. Subspecies records were put back to the species level, as
 infraspecific taxa were recorded inconsistently across sites. Species
 synonyms were standardised across all sites prior to analysis. For bird
 abundance we used the maximum count of individuals recorded per site per
 year for each species as per the standard approach (Bateman et al., 2013).
 For butterfly abundance we used sum abundance over 26 weekly visits each
 year for each species at each site, using a GAM to interpolate missing
 weekly values (Dennis et al., 2013). Designated taxa were identified using
 the Great Britain Red List data held by JNCC (2022); species with any Red
 List designation other than Data Deficient or Least Concern were summed.
 Plant species range and range change index data followed PLANTATT (Hill et
 al., 2004). Range was measured as the number of 10x10 km cells across
 Great Britain that a species is found in. The change index measures the
 relative magnitude of range size change in standardised residuals,
 comparing 1930-1960 with 1987-1999. For birds, species mean population
 size across Great Britain followed Musgrove et al., 2013. We used the
 breeding season population size estimates to match field surveys. Bird
 long-term population percentage change (generally 1970-2014) followed
 Defra (2017). For butterflies, range and change data followed Fox et al.,
 2015. Range data was occupancy of UK 10 km squares 2010-2014. Change was
 percent abundance change 1976-2014. For all taxa, mean range and mean
 change were averaged from all the species present in the sample, not
 weighted by the species’ abundance in the sample.
 ·       Bateman, I. J., Harwood, A. R., Mace, G. M., Watson, R.
 T., Abson, D. J., Andrews, B., et al. (2013). Bringing ecosystem services
 into economic decision-making: Land use in the United Kingdom.
 <em>Science (80-. ).</em> 341, 45–50. doi:
 10.1126/science.1234379. ·       British Trust for
 Ornithology (BTO), 2022. Breeding Bird methodology and survey design.
 Available online at  https://www.bto.org/our-science/projects/breeding-bird-survey/research-conservation/methodology-and-survey-design ·       Defra, 2023. Statutory biodiversity metric tools and guides. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statutory-biodiversity-metric-tools-and-guides.  ·       Dennis, E. B., Freeman, S. N., Brereton, T., and Roy, D. B. (2013). Indexing butterfly abundance whilst accounting for missing counts and variability in seasonal pattern. <em>Methods Ecol. Evol.</em> 4, 637–645. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.12053. ·       Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) 2017. Wild bird populations in the UK. All species, species trends, UK, 1970-2014. http://data.defra.gov.uk/Wildlife/all_species_index_species_trends_UK_1970_to_2014_rev.csv ·       Fox, R., Brereton, T. M., Asher, J., August, T. A., Botham, M. S., Bourn, N. A. D., … Roy, D. B. (2015). <em>The State of the UK’s Butterflies 2015</em>. Wareham, Dorset. ·       Hill, M. O., Preston, C. D., & Roy, D. B. (2004). Plantatt Atributes of British and Irish Plants: Status, Size, Life history, Geography and Habitats. <em>Centre for Ecology and Hydrology</em>, 80. ·       Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), 2022. Conservation designations for UK Taxa 2022. Available online https://hub.jncc.gov.uk/assets/478f7160-967b-4366-acdf-8941fd33850b ·       Musgrove, A., Aebischer, N., Eaton, M., Hearn, R., Newson, S., Noble, D., … Stroud, D. (2013). Population estimates of birds in Great Britain and the UK. <em>British Birds</em>, <em>106</em>(4), 231–232 ·       Natural England (2023a). <em>The Biodiversity Metric 4.0 - User Guide</em>. Retrieved from http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/659370772502937 ·       Natural England (2023b). <em>The Biodiversity Metric 4.0 Technical Annex 2 - Technical Information</em>. Retrieved from http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/file/659370772502937 ·       United Kingdom Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (UKBMS), 2022. Methods for recording butterfly transects. Available online at https://ukbms.org/methods
description: Microsoft Excel/Open Office
description: # A database of Defra statutory biodiversity metric unit values for
 terrestrial habitat samples across England, with plant, butterfly and bird
 species data --- Policies requiring biodiversity no net loss or net gain
 as an outcome of environmental planning have become more prominent
 worldwide, catalysing interest in biodiversity offsetting as a mechanism
 to compensate for development impacts on nature. Offsets rely on credible
 and evidence-based methods to quantify biodiversity losses and gains.
 Following the introduction of the United Kingdom’s Environment Act in
 November 2021, all new developments requiring planning permission in
 England are expected to  demonstrate a 10% biodiversity net gain from
 2024, calculated using the statutory biodiversity metric framework (Defra,
 2023). The metric is used to calculate both baseline and proposed
 post-development biodiversity units, and is set to play an increasingly
 prominent role in nature conservation nationwide. The metric has so far
 received limited scientific scrutiny. This dataset comprises a database of
 statutory biodiversity metric unit values for terrestrial habitat samples
 across England. For each habitat sample, we present biodiversity units
 alongside five long-established single-attribute proxies for biodiversity
 (species richness, individual abundance, number of threatened species,
 mean species range or population, mean species range or population
 change). Data were compiled for species from three taxa (vascular plants,
 butterflies, birds), from sites across England. The dataset includes 24
 sites within grassland, wetland, woodland and forest, sparsely vegetated
 land, cropland, heathland and shrub, i.e. all terrestrial broad habitats
 except urban and individual trees. Species data were reused from long-term
 ecological change monitoring datasets (mostly in the public domain),
 whilst biodiversity units were calculated following field visits.
 Fieldwork was carried out in April-October 2022 to calculate biodiversity
 units for the samples. Sites were initially assessed using metric version
 3.1, which was current at the time of survey, and were subsequently
 updated to the statutory metric for analysis using field notes and species
 data. Species data were derived from 24 long-term ecological change
 monitoring sites across the Environmental Change Network (ECN), Long Term
 Monitoring Network (LTMN) and Ecological Continuity Trust (ECT), collected
 between 2010 and 2020. ## Description of the Data and file structure There
 are 7 .csv files. S1_DataSources.csv gives and overview of the data
 available and references for each site. BirdHeader.csv,
 ButterflyHeader.csv and PlantHeader.csv hold sample-level summary data for
 each site, with one record per sample. BirdData.csv, ButterflyData.csv and
 PlantData.csv hold the species presence (plants) or abundance (birds and
 butterflies) data for each sample (raw values i.e. not interpolated for
 missing values as these are not calculated at the species level). These
 three species data files are in wide format suitable for R's vegan
 package, e.g. for ordination analysis. The missing data value for all
 files is NA. S1_DataSources.csv describes the data available for each
 site. Plants (coarse veg), Plants (woody veg), Breeding Birds and
 Butterflies give the dates of the species data compiled. Majority broad
 habitat and Habitat types summarise the habitats and number of plant
 quadrats at each site. Reference and DOI link describe the original source
 of the species data for each site. In the Header .csv files, SITENAME is
 the site name as in S1_DataSources. TRANSECTCODE is the transect code (or
 PLOTID for plants data); some sites have data from more than one transect.
 SAMPNAME is unique per sample. YEAR is the year the species data were
 collected (5 years for each site+transect for birds and butterflies, most
 recent year only for plants). BROADHAB and HABTXT is the broad habitat
 type and habitat type of each sample, following habitats of the statutory
 biodiversity metric. UKHAB is the corresponding UKHab code
 ([www.ukhab.org](http://www.ukhab.org). DISTINCTIVENESS and DISTSCORE for
 each habitat type follows metric. CONDITION and CONDITIONSCORE were
 assigned following field visits and the metric guidance: the dominant
 condition of the site is presented for birds and butterflies. UNITS.HA is
 calculated by multiplying DISTSCORE and CONDSCORE. For birds and
 butterflies, MEANDIST, MEANCOND and MEANUNITS were calculated from all
 plant quadrats available from each site; these are analysed in Marshall et
 al. 2024. MEANPOP is the mean GB population size for all species recorded
 during the sample. MEANCHANGE is the mean change in population size for
 all species recorded during the sample. NDES is the number of GB red
 listed (designated) species recorded during the sample. ABUN is the count
 of individuals recorded during the sample. RICH is the number of species
 recorded during the sample. For PlantHeader.csv, an additional field SDATE
 gives the full survey date for the species data. Additional fields for LAT
 and LONG give coordinates for each quadrat. Fields BIRDSINC and
 BUTTERFLIESINC indicate whether the quadrat unit value was averaged to
 give the average bird and butterfly transect unit values (depending on
 their location relative to the transect plus 500 m buffer for birds, and
 100 m buffer for butterflies). DISTINCTIVENESS, CONDITION and UNITS.HA are
 calculated for each quadrat. MEANCHANGE describes range change. CONDDATE
 gives the date of the field visit to the site to assess condition and
 habitat type. For each quadrat, COND1 - COND13 describe the responses
 recorded by field surveyor against each Metric condition score criterion
 (following the appropriate broad habitat condition sheet). CONDSUM is the
 condition sum and applies only to woodland quadrats. Missing data code: NA
 ## Sharing/access Information Links to other publicly accessible locations
 of the data: Species data were compiled from published sources as below.
 Habitat types, condition scores and biodiversity units for the samples are
 published for the first time with this dataset. Data references Akpnar,
 I., Alday, J. G., Cox, E., McAllister, H. A., Le Duc, M. G., Pakeman, R.
 J., & Marrs, R. H. (2023). How long do bracken (Pteridium aquilinum
 (L.) Kuhn) control treatments maintain effectiveness? Ecological
 Engineering, 186(June 2022), 106842. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106842
 British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), 2022. Breeding Bird methodology and
 survey design. Available online at
 [https://www.bto.org/our-science/projects/breeding-bird-survey/research-conservation/methodology-and-survey-design](https://www.bto.org/our-science/projects/breeding-bird-survey/research-conservation/methodology-and-survey-design) Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) 2017. Wild bird populations in the UK. All species, species trends, UK, 1970-2014. [http://data.defra.gov.uk/Wildlife/all_species_index_species_trends_UK_1970_to_2014_rev.csv](http://data.defra.gov.uk/Wildlife/all_species_index_species_trends_UK_1970_to_2014_rev.csv) Hull. R., Sarah Perryman, Jonathan Storkey (2022). Dataset: Broadbalk Weed Survey Data 1991-2020 Electronic Rothamsted Archive, Rothamsted Research [https://doi.org/10.23637/rbk1-weeds_1991-2020_01](https://doi.org/10.23637/rbk1-weeds_1991-2020_01) Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), 2022. Conservation designations for UK Taxa 2022. Available online [https://hub.jncc.gov.uk/assets/478f7160-967b-4366-acdf-8941fd33850b](https://hub.jncc.gov.uk/assets/478f7160-967b-4366-acdf-8941fd33850b) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Braunton Burrows 2019 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6595637696004096?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6595637696004096?category=5316639066161152) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Bure Marshes NNR 2019 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4836419091562496?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4836419091562496?category=5316639066161152) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Chippenham Fen NNR 2018 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4629828211834880?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4629828211834880?category=5316639066161152) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Dark Peak 2018 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5216825636814848?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5216825636814848?category=5316639066161152) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Derbyshire Dales NNR 2016 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5962318998405120?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5962318998405120?category=5316639066161152) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Dersingham Bog NNR 2018 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5520555842207744?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5520555842207744?category=5316639066161152) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Epping Forest 2018 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6513934214365184?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6513934214365184?category=5316639066161152) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Kielderhead NNR 2018 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5034342676955136?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5034342676955136?category=5316639066161152) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Lindisfarne NNR 2017 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4668959608537088?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4668959608537088?category=5316639066161152) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Ludham & Potter Heigham Marshes NNR 2018 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4619368624291840?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4619368624291840?category=5316639066161152) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Monks Wood NNR 2017 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4842304488603648?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/4842304488603648?category=5316639066161152) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Woodwalton Fen NNR 2019 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5601342834868224?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/5601342834868224?category=5316639066161152) Natural England Long Term Monitoring Network. 2020. Long term monitoring network vegetation survey Wyre Forest NNR 2014 [online], URL: [http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6130748019965952?category=5316639066161152](http://publications.naturalengland.org.uk/publication/6130748019965952?category=5316639066161152) Perryman, S. & Storkey, J. (2022). Dataset: Park Grass Species, Fertilizer and Lime Treatments 2010-2012 Electronic Rothamsted Archive, Rothamsted Research [https://doi.org/10.23637/rpg5-species_2010-2012-01](https://doi.org/10.23637/rpg5-species_2010-2012-01) Rennie, S.; Adamson, J.; Anderson, R.; Andrews, C.; Bater, J.; Bayfield, N.; Beaton, K.; Beaumont, D.; Benham, S.; Bowmaker, V.; Britt, C.; Brooker, R.; Brooks, D.; Brunt, J.; Common, G.; Cooper, R.; Corbett, S.; Critchley, N.; Dennis, P.; Dick, J.; Dodd, B.; Dodd, N.; Donovan, N.; Easter, J.; Eaton, E.; Flexen, M.; Gardiner, A.; Hamilton, D.; Hargreaves, P.; Hatton-Ellis, M.; Howe, M.; Kahl, J.; Lane, M.; Langan, S.; Lloyd, D.; McElarney, Y.; McKenna, C.; McMillan, S.; Milne, F.; Milne, L.; Morecroft, M.; Murphy, M.; Nelson, A.; Nicholson, H.; Pallett, D.; Parry, D.; Pearce, I.; Pozsgai, G.; Rose, R.; Schafer, S.; Scott, T.; Sherrin, L.; Shortall, C.; Smith, R.; Smith, P.; Tait, R.; Taylor, C.; Taylor, M.; Thurlow, M.; Turner, A.; Tyson, K.; Watson, H.; Whittaker, M. (2016). UK Environmental Change Network (ECN) coarse grain vegetation data: 1993-2012. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre. (Dataset). [https://doi.org/10.5285/d349babc-329a-4d6e-9eca-92e630e1be3f](https://doi.org/10.5285/d349babc-329a-4d6e-9eca-92e630e1be3f) Rennie, S.; Adamson, J.; Anderson, R.; Andrews, C.; Bater, J.; Bayfield, N.; Beaton, K.; Beaumont, D.; Benham, S.; Bowmaker, V.; Britt, C.; Brooker, R.; Brooks, D.; Brunt, J.; Common, G.; Cooper, R.; Corbett, S.; Critchley, N.; Dennis, P.; Dick, J.; Dodd, B.; Dodd, N.; Donovan, N.; Easter, J.; Flexen, M.; Gardiner, A.; Hamilton, D.; Hargreaves, P.; Hatton-Ellis, M.; Howe, M.; Kahl, J.; Lane, M.; Langan, S.; Lloyd, D.; McCarney, B.; McElarney, Y.; McKenna, C.; McMillan, S.; Milne, F.; Milne, L.; Morecroft, M.; Murphy, M.; Nelson, A.; Nicholson, H.; Pallett, D.; Parry, D.; Pearce, I.; Pozsgai, G.; Rose, R.; Schafer, S.; Scott, T.; Sherrin, L.; Shortall, C.; Smith, R.; Smith, P.; Tait, R.; Taylor, C.; Taylor, M.; Thurlow, M.; Tilbury, C. ; Turner, A.; Tyson, K.; Watson, H.; Whittaker, M.; Wood, C. (2017a). UK Environmental Change Network (ECN) butterfly data: 1993-2015. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre. (Dataset). [https://doi.org/10.5285/5aeda581-b4f2-4e51-b1a6-890b6b3403a3](https://doi.org/10.5285/5aeda581-b4f2-4e51-b1a6-890b6b3403a3) Rennie, S.; Adamson, J.; Anderson, R.; Andrews, C.; Bater, J.; Bayfield, N.; Beaton, K.; Beaumont, D.; Benham, S.; Bowmaker, V.; Britt, C.; Brooker, R.; Brooks, D.; Brunt, A.; Brunt, J.; Clawson, S.; Common, G.; Cooper, R.; Corbett, S.; Critchley, N.; Dennis, P.; Dick, J.; Dodd, B.; Dodd, N.; Donovan, N.; Easter, J.; Flexen, M.; Gardiner, A.; Hamilton, D.; Hargreaves, P.; Hatton-Ellis, M.; Howe, M.; Kahl, J.; Lane, M.; Langan, S.; Lloyd, D.; McElarney, Y.; McKenna, C.; McMillan, S.; Milne, F.; Milne, L.; Morecroft, M.; Murphy, M.; Nelson, A.; Nicholson, H.; Pallett, D.; Parry, D.; Pearce, I.; Pozsgai, G.; Rose, R.; Schafer, S.; Scott, T.; Sherrin, L.; Shortall, C.; Smith, R.; Smith, P.; Tait, R.; Taylor, C.; Taylor, M.; Thurlow, M.; Turner, A.; Tyson, K.; Watson, H.; Whittaker, M.; Wood, C. (2017b). UK Environmental Change Network (ECN) bird data: 1995-2015. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre. (Dataset). [https://doi.org/10.5285/5886c3ba-1fa5-49c0-8da8-40e69a10d2b5](https://doi.org/10.5285/5886c3ba-1fa5-49c0-8da8-40e69a10d2b5) Rennie, S.; Adamson, J.; Anderson, R.; Andrews, C.; Bater, J.; Bayfield, N.; Beaton, K.; Beaumont, D.; Benham, S.; Bowmaker, V.; Britt, C.; Brooker, R.; Brooks, D.; Brunt, J.; Common, G.; Cooper, R.; Corbett, S.; Critchley, N.; Dennis, P.; Dick, J.; Dodd, B.; Dodd, N.; Donovan, N.; Easter, J.; Flexen, M.; Gardiner, A.; Hamilton, D.; Hargreaves, P.; Hatton-Ellis, M.; Howe, M.; Kahl, J.; Lane, M.; Langan, S.; Lloyd, D.; McElarney, Y.; McKenna, C.; McMillan, S.; Milne, F.; Milne, L.; Morecroft, M.; Murphy, M.; Nelson, A.; Nicholson, H.; Pallett, D.; Parry, D.; Pearce, I.; Pozsgai, G.; Rose, R.; Schafer, S.; Scott, T.; Sherrin, L.; Shortall, C.; Smith, R.; Smith, P.; Tait, R.; Taylor, C.; Taylor, M.; Thurlow, M.; Turner, A.; Tyson, K.; Watson, H.; Whittaker, M.; Wood, C. (2017c). UK Environmental Change Network (ECN) woodland vegetation data: 1993-2014. NERC Environmental Information Data Centre. (Dataset). [https://doi.org/10.5285/94aef007-634e-42db-bc52-9aae86adbd33](https://doi.org/10.5285/94aef007-634e-42db-bc52-9aae86adbd33) Simkin, J., Peacock, S. Palace Leas Meadow Hay Plots vegetation data, 2015. [https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/r.s.shiel/Palace_Leas/](https://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/r.s.shiel/Palace_Leas/) United Kingdom Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (UKBMS), 2022. Methods for recording butterfly transects. Available online at [https://ukbms.org/methods](https://ukbms.org/methods) Was data derived from another source? Yes If yes, list source(s): see references above