Abstract
In response to increasing human pressures on biodiversity, conservation targets have been set to reduce these pressures and halt biodiversity decline. However, consequences of these objectives on common species are rarely studied. We analyse the effect of a range of drivers related to climate, land use and land-use intensity on 265 common bird and 144 common butterfly species from more than 20,000 sites between 2000 and 2021 across 27 European countries. We use land use and land-use intensity scenarios produced previously using the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Nature Futures Framework and climate change scenarios to project biodiversity drivers in Europe up to 2050. We translate these driver changes into abundance variations for common bird and butterfly species and for multi-species indicators used to monitor common biodiversity status in Europe. The projected trends relatively improve, while still declining for birds, notably farmland species, under the scenarios meeting conservation objectives, with few effects on butterflies. No scenario shows a stop or a reversal in the average decline in abundance of bird and butterfly species. Our results therefore question the common biodiversity future under current conservation policies and highlight the need for other anticipatory frameworks not implicitly based on a growing need for natural resources.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access through your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$32.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to the full article PDF.
USD 39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Future scenarios for British biodiversity under climate and land-use change
Anthropogenic climate and land-use change drive short- and long-term biodiversity shifts across taxa
Century-long butterfly range expansions in northern Europe depend on climate, land use and species traits
Subjects
- Biodiversity
- Conservation biology
- Socioeconomic scenarios
Data availability
Monitoring data used in this study are available upon request of the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (https://pecbms.info/) and the European Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (https://butterfly-monitoring.net). The other data used are publicly available and have been cited in the main text and references. The data produced are available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20605816 (ref. 118) and the Shiny application (https://press-com-bio.sk8.inrae.fr/). The figures were produced using the R software (version 4.4.3)119 and formatted using the Inkscape software (version 1.4.2)120.
Code availability
The R script (R software version 4.4.3119) is available via Zenodo at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20605816 (ref. 118).
References
Burns, F. et al. Abundance decline in the avifauna of the European Union reveals cross-continental similarities in biodiversity change. Ecol. Evol. 11, 16647–16660 (2021).
Google Scholar
IPBES. Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6417333 (2019).
Seibold, S. et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574, 671–674 (2019).
Google Scholar
Díaz, S. et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022).
Hermoso, V. The EU biodiversity strategy for 2030: opportunities and challenges on the path towards biodiversity recovery. Environ. Sci. Policy 127, 263–271 (2022).
Google Scholar
Maxwell, S. L. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature 586, 217–227 (2020).
Google Scholar
Kerbiriou, C. et al. Common bats are more abundant within Natura 2000 areas. Biol. Conserv. 217, 66–74 (2018).
Google Scholar
Princé, K., Rouveyrol, P., Pellissier, V., Touroult, J. & Jiguet, F. Long-term effectiveness of Natura 2000 network to protect biodiversity: a hint of optimism for common birds. Biol. Conserv. 253, 108871 (2021).
Google Scholar
Rada, S. et al. Protected areas do not mitigate biodiversity declines: a case study on butterflies. Diversity Distrib. 25, 217–224 (2019).
Google Scholar
Gaston, K. J. & Fuller, R. A. Biodiversity and extinction: losing the common and the widespread. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ. 31, 213–225 (2007).
Google Scholar
Lindenmayer, D. B. et al. How to make a common species rare: a case against conservation complacency. Biol. Conserv. 144, 1663–1672 (2011).
Google Scholar
Sykes, L., Santini, L., Etard, A. & Newbold, T. Effects of rarity form on species’ responses to land use. Conserv. Biol. 34, 688–696 (2020).
Google Scholar
European Red List of Birds (BirdLife International, 2021); https://www.iucnredlist.org/en
van Swaay, C. et al. Measuring the Pulse of European Biodiversity: European Red List of Butterflies (Publications Office of the European Union, 2025); https://doi.org/10.2779/1280375
Gaston, K. J. & Fuller, R. A. Commonness, population depletion and conservation biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 14–19 (2008).
Google Scholar
Elbakidze, M. et al. in The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia (eds Rounsevell, M. et al.) Ch. 4 (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), 2018).
Spangenberg, J. H. Biodiversity pressure and the driving forces behind. Ecol. Econ. 61, 146–158 (2007).
Google Scholar
Dou, Y., Zagaria, C., O’Connor, L., Thuiller, W. & Verburg, P. H. Using the Nature Futures Framework as a lens for developing plural land use scenarios for Europe for 2050. Glob. Environ. Change 83, 102766 (2023).
Google Scholar
Otero, I. et al. Biodiversity policy beyond economic growth. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12713 (2020).
Google Scholar
Davison, C. W., Rahbek, C. & Morueta-Holme, N. Changes in Danish bird communities over four decades of climate and land-use change. Oikos 2024, e10697 (2024).
Google Scholar
Rigal, S. et al. Farmland practices are driving bird population decline across Europe. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 120, e2216573120 (2023).
Google Scholar
Alexander, P., Henry, R., Rabin, S., Arneth, A. & Rounsevell, M. Mapping the shared socio-economic pathways onto the Nature Futures Framework at the global scale. Sustain. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-023-01415-z (2023).
Google Scholar
Pereira, L. M. et al. Developing multiscale and integrative nature–people scenarios using the Nature Futures Framework. People Nature 2, 1172–1195 (2020).
Google Scholar
Doelman, J. C. et al. Exploring SSP land-use dynamics using the IMAGE model: regional and gridded scenarios of land-use change and land-based climate change mitigation. Glob. Environ. Change 48, 119–135 (2018).
Google Scholar
Finch, T. et al. Bird conservation and the land sharing-sparing continuum in farmland-dominated landscapes of lowland England. Conserv. Biol. 33, 1045–1055 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kremen, C. Reframing the land-sparing/land-sharing debate for biodiversity conservation. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1355, 52–76 (2015).
Google Scholar
Leclère, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).
Google Scholar
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).
Google Scholar
Aschi, F. et al. Can we bend the curve: trends in global biodiversity scenarios. Sci. Adv. 12, eaeb2277 (2026).
Google Scholar
Daskalova, G. N., Myers-Smith, I. H. & Godlee, J. L. Rare and common vertebrates span a wide spectrum of population trends. Nat. Commun. 11, 4394 (2020).
Google Scholar
Martin, P. A., Green, R. E. & Balmford, A. The biodiversity intactness index may underestimate losses. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 862–863 (2019).
Google Scholar
Strassburg, B. B. N. et al. Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature 586, 724–729 (2020).
Google Scholar
Keck, F. et al. The global human impact on biodiversity. Nature 641, 395–400 (2025).
Google Scholar
Devictor, V. et al. Differences in the climatic debts of birds and butterflies at a continental scale. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 121–124 (2012).
Google Scholar
Herrando, S. et al. Assessing impacts of land abandonment on Mediterranean biodiversity using indicators based on bird and butterfly monitoring data. Environ. Conserv. 43, 69–78 (2016).
Google Scholar
Outhwaite, C. L., Gregory, R. D., Chandler, R. E., Collen, B. & Isaac, N. J. B. Complex long-term biodiversity change among invertebrates, bryophytes and lichens. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 384–392 (2020).
Google Scholar
Cooke, R. et al. Future scenarios for British biodiversity under climate and land-use change. Nat. Commun. 17, 2704 (2026).
Google Scholar
EEA Environmental Indicator Report 2018 — In Support to the Monitoring of the Seventh Environment Action Programme (Publications Office of the European Union, 2017); https://doi.org/10.2800/180334
van Swaay, C. A. et al. Assessing Butterflies in Europe-Butterfly Indicators 1990-2018: Technical Report(Butterfly Conservation Europe & ABLE/eBMS, 2020); www.butterfly-monitoring.net
Common bird index in Europe. EEA https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/common-bird-index-in-europe (2024).
Inger, R. et al. Common European birds are declining rapidly while less abundant species’ numbers are rising. Ecol. Lett. 18, 28–36 (2015).
Google Scholar
Warren, M. S. et al. The decline of butterflies in Europe: problems, significance, and possible solutions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 118, e2002551117 (2021).
Google Scholar
Habel, J. C., Schmitt, T., Gros, P. & Ulrich, W. Breakpoints in butterfly decline in Central Europe over the last century. Sci. Total Environ. 851, 158315 (2022).
Google Scholar
Pellissier, V. et al. Effects of Natura 2000 on nontarget bird and butterfly species based on citizen science data. Conserv. Biol. 34, 666–676 (2020).
Google Scholar
Dou, Y. et al. A new European land systems representation accounting for landscape characteristics. Landscape Ecol. 36, 2215–2234 (2021).
Google Scholar
Rega, C., Short, C., Pérez-Soba, M. & Luisa Paracchini, M. A classification of European agricultural land using an energy-based intensity indicator and detailed crop description. Landscape Urban Plann. 198, 103793 (2020).
Google Scholar
Daskalova, G. N. & Kamp, J. Abandoning land transforms biodiversity. Science 380, 581–583 (2023).
Google Scholar
IPCC Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability (eds Pörtner, H.-O. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2023); https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009325844
Pereira, H. M. et al. Global trends and scenarios for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services from 1900 to 2050. Science 384, 458–465 (2024).
Google Scholar
Titeux, N. et al. Biodiversity scenarios neglect future land-use changes. Glob. Change Biol. 22, 2505–2515 (2016).
Google Scholar
Rigal, S. & Knape, J. Investigating the heterogeneity within wild bird indices in Europe. Biol. Conserv. 290, 110452 (2024).
Google Scholar
Regulation (EU) 2024/1991 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 June 2024 on Nature Restoration and Amending Regulation (EU) 2022/869 (Text with EEA Relevance) (Official Journal of the European Union, 2024).
IPCC in Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report(eds Lee, H. et al.) 42–66 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2023).
Verburg, P. European land use scenarios for 2050: using the Nature Futures Framework as a lens for developing alternative visions for a sustainable Europe. DataverseNL https://doi.org/10.34894/NWGCBY (2023).
IPBES. The Nature Futures Framework, a flexible tool to support the development of scenarios and models of desirable futures for people, nature and Mother Earth, and its methodological guidance. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17530778 (2025).
Donald, P. F., Green, R. E. & Heath, M. F. Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 268, 25–29 (2001).
Google Scholar
Riva, F. et al. Addressing gaps in butterfly population monitoring to catalyze global Insect Conservation. Conserv. Lett. 19, e70037 (2026).
Google Scholar
Swaay, C. EU grassland butterfly indicator 1990-2023 technical report. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16281873 (2025).
Donald, P. F., Sanderson, F. J., Burfield, I. J. & Bommel, F. P. J. Further evidence of continent-wide impacts of agricultural intensification on European farmland birds, 1990–2000. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 116, 189–196 (2006).
Google Scholar
Habel, J. C., Trusch, R., Schmitt, T., Ochse, M. & Ulrich, W. Long-term large-scale decline in relative abundances of butterfly and burnet moth species across south-western Germany. Sci. Rep. 9, 14921 (2019).
Google Scholar
Reif, J., Voříšek, P., Šastný, K., Bejček, V. & Petr, J. Agricultural intensification and farmland birds: new insights from a central European country. Ibis 150, 596–605 (2008).
Google Scholar
Traba, J. & Morales, M. B. The decline of farmland birds in Spain is strongly associated to the loss of fallowland. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–6 (2019).
Google Scholar
Ubach, A., Páramo, F., Gutiérrez, C. & Stefanescu, C. Vegetation encroachment drives changes in the composition of butterfly assemblages and species loss in Mediterranean ecosystems. Insect Conserv. Diversity 13, 151–161 (2020).
Google Scholar
Dyck, H., Strien, A. J., Maes, D. & Swaay, C. A. M. Declines in common, widespread butterflies in a landscape under intense human use. Conserv. Biol. 23, 957–965 (2009).
Google Scholar
Hällfors, M. H. Recent range shifts of moths, butterflies, and birds are driven by the breadth of their climatic niche. Evol. Lett. 8, 89–100 (2024).
Google Scholar
Pearce-Higgins, J. W., Eglington, S. M., Martay, B. & Chamberlain, D. E. Drivers of climate change impacts on bird communities. J. Animal Ecol. 84, 943–954 (2015).
Google Scholar
Stephens, P. A. Consistent response of bird populations to climate change on two continents. Science 352, 84–87 (2016).
Google Scholar
Sunde, J. Century-long butterfly range expansions in northern Europe depend on climate, land use and species traits. Commun. Biol. 6, 1–14 (2023).
Google Scholar
Gregory, R. D. Drivers of the changing abundance of European birds at two spatial scales. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London Ser. B 378, 20220198 (2023).
Google Scholar
Maes, D., Calster, H., Herremans, M. & Dyck, H. Challenges and bottlenecks for butterfly conservation in a highly anthropogenic region: Europe’s worst case scenario revisited. Biol. Conserv. 274, 109732 (2022).
Google Scholar
Tammaru, T. Landscape-level determinants of butterfly species richness in northern Europe: a country-wide survey reveals the paramount importance of forest land. Biol. Conserv. 286, 110294 (2023).
Google Scholar
Habel, J. C., Teucher, M., Gros, P., Gfrerer, V. & Eberle, J. The importance of dynamic open-canopy woodlands for the conservation of a specialist butterfly species. Landscape Ecol. 37, 2121–2129 (2022).
Google Scholar
Ram, D., Lindström, Å, Pettersson, L. B. & Caplat, P. Forest clear-cuts as habitat for farmland birds and butterflies. For. Ecol. Manage. 473, 118239 (2020).
Google Scholar
Sanderson, F. J., Wilson, J. D., Franks, S. E. & Buchanan, G. M. Benefits of protected area networks for breeding bird populations and communities. Animal Conserv. 26, 279–289 (2023).
Google Scholar
Pflüger, F. J. Semi-structured citizen science data reveal mixed effectiveness of EU Special Protection Areas (SPA) in Germany. Biol. Conserv. 299, 110801 (2024).
Google Scholar
O’Neill, B. C. The roads ahead: narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 169–180 (2017).
Google Scholar
Alexander, P. et al. Assessing uncertainties in land cover projections. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 767–781 (2017).
Google Scholar
Popp, A. et al. Land-use futures in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 331–345 (2017).
Google Scholar
Riahi, K. et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).
Google Scholar
Pérez-Granados, C. Key conservation actions for European steppes in the context of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Sustain. Sci. 20, 499–509 (2025).
Google Scholar
Emmerson, M. Advances in Ecological Research (eds Dumbrell, A. J. et al.) 43–97 (Academic Press, 2016).
Cerullo, G. The global impact of EU forest protection policies. Science 381, 740–740 (2023).
Google Scholar
Cours, J. Changes in abundance and distribution of European forest bird populations depend on biome, ecological specialisation and traits. Ecography 2025, e07582 (2025).
Google Scholar
Gregory, R. D., Skorpilova, J., Vorisek, P. & Butler, S. An analysis of trends, uncertainty and species selection shows contrasting trends of widespread forest and farmland birds in Europe. Ecol. Indic. 103, 676–687 (2019).
Google Scholar
Paillet, Y. Biodiversity differences between managed and unmanaged forests: meta-analysis of species richness in Europe. Conserv. Biol. 24, 101–112 (2010).
Google Scholar
Reif, J. Accelerated farmland bird population declines in European countries after their recent EU accession. Sci. Total Environ. 946, 174281 (2024).
Google Scholar
Reif, J. & Vermouzek, Z. Collapse of farmland bird populations in an Eastern European country following its EU accession. Conserv. Lett. 12, 12585 (2019).
Google Scholar
Sanderson, F. J., Kucharz, M., Jobda, M. & Donald, P. F. Impacts of agricultural intensification and abandonment on farmland birds in Poland following EU accession. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 168, 16–24 (2013).
Google Scholar
Mills, S. C. European butterfly populations vary in sensitivity to weather across their geographical ranges. Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 26, 1374–1385 (2017).
Google Scholar
Urban, M. C. Improving the forecast for biodiversity under climate change. Science 353, 8466 (2016).
Google Scholar
Garcia, R. A., Cabeza, M., Rahbek, C. & Araújo, M. B. Multiple dimensions of climate change and their implications for biodiversity. Science 344, 1247579 (2014).
Google Scholar
Johnston, A. North American bird declines are greatest where species are most abundant. Science 388, 532–537 (2025).
Google Scholar
Chapron, G. Reverse EU’s growing greenlash. Science 383, 1161–1161 (2024).
Google Scholar
O’Brien, K., Garibaldi, L. & Agrawal, A. (eds) Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity (IPBES Secretariat, 2024).
Otero, I. et al. Degrowth scenarios for biodiversity? Key methodological steps and a call for collaboration. Sustain. Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01483-9 (2024).
Soergel, B. et al. Multiple pathways towards sustainable development goals and climate targets. Environ. Res. Lett. 19, 124009 (2024).
Google Scholar
van Swaay, C. A. M., Brereton, T. M., Kirkland, P. & Warren, M. S. Manual for Butterfly Monitoring (De Vlinderstichting/Dutch Butterfly Conservation, Butterfly Conservation UK & Butterfly Conservation Europe, 2012).
Renetzeder, C., Eupen, M., Mücher, S. & Wrbka, T. in Sustainability Impact Assessment of Land Use Changes (eds Helming, K. et al.) 249–268 (Springer, 2008); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78648-1_13
Cornes, R. C., Schrier, G., Besselaar, E. J. M. & Jones, P. D. An ensemble version of the E-OBS temperature and precipitation data sets. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 9391–9409 (2018).
Google Scholar
Estay, S. A., Lima, M. & Bozinovic, F. The role of temperature variability on insect performance and population dynamics in a warming world. Oikos 123, 131–140 (2014).
Google Scholar
Herrando, S. et al. Contrasting impacts of precipitation on Mediterranean birds and butterflies. Sci. Rep. 9, 5680 (2019).
Google Scholar
Maresh Nelson, S. B., Ribic, C. A., Niemuth, N. D., Bernath-Plaisted, J. & Zuckerberg, B. Sensitivity of North American grassland birds to weather and climate variability. Conserv. Biol. 38, e14143 (2024).
Google Scholar
Eurostat. Grid of the European land territory (1 km). Eurostat https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/gisco/geodata/grids/ (2021).
Baston, D. exactextractr: Fast Extraction from Raster Datasets using Polygons (ISciences, 2023).
Copernicus Climate Change Service. Climate Indicators for Europe from 1940 to 2100 Derived from Reanalysis and Climate Projections. (Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) Climate Data Store, 2024); https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/datasets/sis-ecde-climate-indicators
High Resolution Layer Imperviousness Available for the Reference Years 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, and 2018 (EEA, 2020).
High Resolution Layer Tree Cover Density Available for the 2012, 2015 and 2018 Reference Years (EEA, 2020).
Corine Land Cover Accounting Layer (EEA, 2019).
Dou, Y. European land system map. DataverseNL https://doi.org/10.34894/XNC5KA (2021).
Martínez-Núñez, C., Martínez-Prentice, R. & García-Navas, V. Land-use diversity predicts regional bird taxonomic and functional richness worldwide. Nat. Commun. 14, 1320 (2023).
Google Scholar
Protected area profile from the World Database on Protected Areas. UNEP-WCMC www.protectedplanet.net (2024).
O’Connor, L. Spatial priorities for vertebrate species and nature’s contributions to people in Europe. DataverseNL (2021); https://doi.org/10.34894/TCNKPJ
O’Connor, L. M. J. Balancing conservation priorities for nature and for people in Europe. Science 372, 856–860 (2021).
Google Scholar
JRC. Dry Matter Productivity 1999-2020 (raster 1 km), global, 10-daily – version 2. Copernicus Land Monitoring Service https://land.copernicus.eu/en/products/vegetation/dry-matter-productivity-v2-0-1km (2018).
Wood, S. N. Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R 2nd edn (Chapman and Hall/CRC, 2017).
van Swaay, C. A. M. et al. EU grassland butterfly index 1991-2024 technical report. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18414228 (2026).
Rigal, S. Script and data produced. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19218625 (2026).
R Core Team R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2025).
Harrington, B., Gould, T., Hurst, N. & MenTaLgu Y. Inkscape (Inkscape, 2004); http://www.inkscape.org
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to all the volunteers who provided data to the programme, without whom this research would not have been possible. We would also like to thank the European and national programme coordinators for organizing the monitoring programmes in their countries and collecting the data that directly contributed to this research and national funding agencies for financially supporting these programmes. We would finally like to thank M. Baragatti for helpful methodological discussions.
Funding
This study was partially funded by the BioAgora project funded by the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Programme (grant agreement number 101059438), the Horizon Europe project ECO2ADAPT (grant agreement number 101059498) and wildE (GAP-101081251) and the Beyonds project funded by the French Research Foundation on Biodiversity.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
S.R.: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis and writing–original draft. M.L.: conceptualization, methodology and writing–review and editing. L.T.: conceptualization and writing–review and editing. S.L.: conceptualization, supervision, writing–review and editing and funding acquisition. T.B.: methodology and writing–review and editing. H.A., A.A., M.B., M.P.B., L.B., T.C., B.F., Z.F.F., A.G., S.H., J.A.K., J.K., P.K., M.K., A.L., D.M., X.M., M.M., I.J.Ø., L.B.P., J. Reif, J. Rüdisser, M.Š., J.S., R.S., C.S., B.G.S., N.S., N.T., S.T. and C.v.S.: provide national monitoring database and writing–review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Ecology and Evolution thanks Nina Farwig, Stephanie Roilo and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended data
Extended Data Fig. 1 Geometric mean of species temporal trend between 2000 and 2021 (Past) and in the different scenarios (BAU, SSP1, NFN, NFS, NAC).
a) Common Birds index (n = 223), b) Farmland Bird index (n = 34), c) Forest Bird index (n = 29), d) Common Butterfly index (n = 135), e) Grassland Butterfly index (n = 12) and f) Woodland Butterfly index (n = 28). 95% confidence intervals from geometric standard error and the significant differences between scenarios are displayed (two-sample t-test, * p-value < 0.05, ** p-value < 0.01, *** p-value < 0.001).
Extended Data Fig. 2 Climate variable and changes by biophysical region.
a) Mean spring temperature (°C) in recent period (2016-2021), b) amount of spring precipitation (mm) in recent period, c) mean spring temperature variance in recent period, d) expected change in mean spring temperature (°C) between 2050 and recent period, e) expected change in amount of spring precipitation (mm) between 2050 and recent period, f) expected change in mean spring temperature variance between 2050 and recent period. Outline area of the study from Eurostat104 under a Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Landscape diversity and changes by biophysical region.
a) Current landscape Shannon diversity, b) change in landscape diversity in SSP1, c) NFN, d) NFS, e) NAC. Outline area of the study from Eurostat104 under a Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Share of area cover by forests under low and medium intensity management and changes by biophysical region.
a) Current cover of low and medium intensity forest, b) change in cover of low and medium intensity forest in SSP1, c) NFN, d) NFS, e) NAC. Outline area of the study from Eurostat104 under a Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0.
Extended Data Fig. 5 Share of area cover by forests under high intensity management and changes by biophysical region.
a) Current cover of high intensity forest, b) change in cover of high intensity forest in SSP1, c) NFN, d) NFS, e) NAC. Outline area of the study from Eurostat104 under a Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0.
Extended Data Fig. 6 Share of area cover by farmland under low intensity management and changes by biophysical region.
a) Current cover of low intensity farmland, b) change in cover of low intensity farmland in SSP1, c) NFsN, d) NFS, e) NAC. Outline area of the study from Eurostat104 under a Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0.
Extended Data Fig. 7 Share of area cover by farmland under high intensity management and changes by biophysical region.
a) Current cover of high intensity farmland, b) change in cover of high intensity farmland in SSP1, c) NFN, d) NFS, e) NAC. Outline area of the study from Eurostat104 under a Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0.
Extended Data Fig. 8 Distribution of monitoring sites and transects included in this study.
a) Sites from the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme (15,731 sites in 27 countries) and b) transects from the European Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (4,959 transects in 15 countries). This corresponds to sites and transects visited more than 5 years and for the last time in 2011 or later. The grey area represents the European countries included in this study. Outline area of the study from Eurostat104 under a Creative Commons license CC BY 4.0.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information (download PDF )
Supplementary Materials 1–4.
Reporting Summary (download PDF )
Peer Review File (download PDF )
Supplementary Data 1 (download CSV )
Bird species lists and coefficients.
Supplementary Data 2 (download CSV )
Butterfly species lists and coefficients.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rigal, S., Lenormand, M., Tardieu, L. et al. Predicted decline in common bird and butterfly species even under conservation policy scenarios in Europe.
Nat Ecol Evol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-026-03139-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-026-03139-6
Source: Ecology - nature.com
