A better, more effective dialogue is needed between biodiversity science and policy to underpin the sustainable use and conservation of biodiversity. Many initiatives exist to improve communication, but these largely conform to a 'linear' or technocratic model of communication in which scientific ''facts'' are transmitted directly to policy advisers to ''solve problems''. While this model can help start a dialogue, it is, on its own, insufficient, as decision taking is complex, iterative and often selective in the information used. Here, we draw on the literature, interviews and a workshop with individuals working at the interface between biodiversity science and government policy development to Building on these recommendations, we stress the need to: (a) frame research and policy jointly; (b) promote inter-and trans-disciplinary research and ''multi-domain'' working groups that include both scientists and policy makers from various fields and sectors; (c) put in place structures and incentive schemes that support interactive dialogue in the long-term. These are changes that are needed in light of continuing loss of biodiversity and its consequences for societal dependence on and benefits from nature.

Summary1. Breeding birds, vegetation and moorland management were surveyed in 320 1-km squares on 122 estates in upland areas of eastern Scotland and northern England where red grouse shooting is a widespread land use. We assessed whether population densities of 11 species of breeding birds differed between heather-dominated moorland managed for red grouse shooting and other moorland with similar vegetation. 2. We classified estates that had a full-time equivalent moorland gamekeeper as grouse moors. The mean density of red grouse shot per year was four times higher and the mean density of gamekeepers was three times higher on grouse moors than on other moors. Rotational burning of ground vegetation covered a 34% larger area on grouse moors than on other moors. 3. Selection of heather-dominated squares resulted in similar composition of vegetation on grouse moors and other moors (about 76% heath, 12% grass, 8% bog, 2% flush and < 1% bracken on both types). However, grouse moors tended to have less tall vegetation than other moors and differed significantly in some other characteristics of the vegetation, topography and soil type. 4. Densities of breeding golden plover and lapwing were five times higher and those of red grouse and curlew twice as high on grouse moors as on other moors, while meadow pipit, skylark, whinchat and carrion/hooded crow were 1·5, 2·3, 3·9 and 3·1 times less abundant, respectively, on grouse moors. The differences in density between moorland types remained significant ( P < 0·001) for golden plover and crow and approached significance ( P < 0·10) for lapwing and meadow pipit after allowing for variation among regions. 5. We used Poisson regression models to relate bird density to vegetation cover, topography, climate and soil type. After adjusting for significant effects of these habitat variables, significant differences in bird density between the two moorland types remained for six species, although their magnitude was reduced. 6. Correlations of adjusted bird density with measures of different aspects of grouse moor management provided evidence of a possible positive influence of predator control (assessed using crow density) on red grouse, golden plover and lapwing. The control of crows by gamekeepers is the most probable cause of the low densities of crows on grouse moors. There was evidence of a positive effect of heather burning on the density of red grouse and golden plover and a negative effect on meadow pipit. Multiple Poisson regression indicated that predator control and heather burning had significant separate effects on red grouse density. Significant relationships between adjusted breeding bird densities and the abundance of raptors and ravens were few and predominantly positive.

Summary 1.There is an urgent need for climate change mitigation, of which the promotion of renewable energy, such as from wind farms, is an important component. Birds are expected to be sensitive to wind farms, although effects vary between sites and species. Using data from 12 upland wind farms in the UK, we examine whether there is reduced occurrence of breeding birds close to wind farm infrastructure (turbines, access tracks and overhead transmission lines). To our knowledge, this is the first such multi-site comparison examining wind farm effects on the distribution of breeding birds. 2. Bird distribution was assessed using regular surveys during the breeding season. We took a conservative analytical approach, with bird occurrence modelled as a function of habitat, before examining the additional effects of wind farm proximity. 3. Seven of the 12 species studied exhibited significantly lower frequencies of occurrence close to the turbines, after accounting for habitat variation, with equivocal evidence of turbine avoidance in a further two. No species were more likely to occur close to the turbines. There was no evidence that raptors altered flight height close to turbines. Turbines were avoided more strongly than tracks, whilst there was no evidence for consistent avoidance of overhead transmission lines connecting sites to the national grid. 4. Levels of turbine avoidance suggest breeding bird densities may be reduced within a 500-m buffer of the turbines by 15-53%, with buzzard Buteo buteo, hen harrier Circus cyaneus, golden plover Pluvialis apricaria, snipe Gallinago gallinago, curlew Numenius arquata and wheatear Oenanthe oenanthe most affected. 5. Despite being a correlative study, with potential for Type I error, we failed to detect any systematic bias in our likelihood of detecting significant effects. 6. Synthesis and applications. This provides the first evidence for consistent and significant effects of wind farms on a range of upland bird species, emphasizing the need for a strategic approach to ensure such development avoids areas with high densities of potentially vulnerable species. Our results reduce the uncertainty over the magnitude of such effects, and will improve future environmental impacts assessments.

Summary Horizon scanning is an essential tool for environmental scientists if they are to contribute to the evidence base for Government, its agencies and other decision makers to devise and implement environmental policies. The implication of not foreseeing issues that are foreseeable is illustrated by the contentious responses to genetically modified herbicide‐tolerant crops in the UK, and by challenges surrounding biofuels, foot and mouth disease, avian influenza and climate change. A total of 35 representatives from organizations involved in environmental policy, academia, scientific journalism and horizon scanning were asked to use wide consultation to identify the future novel or step changes in threats to, and opportunities for, biodiversity that might arise in the UK up to 2050, but that had not been important in the recent past. At least 452 people were consulted. Cases for 195 submitted issues were distributed to all participants for comments and additions. All issues were scored (probability, hazard, novelty and overall score) prior to a 2‐day workshop. Shortlisting to 41 issues and then the final 25 issues, together with refinement of these issues, took place at the workshop during another two rounds of discussion and scoring. We provide summaries of the 25 shortlisted issues and outline the research needs. We suggest that horizon scanning incorporating wide consultation with providers and users of environmental science is used by environmental policy makers and researchers. This can be used to identify gaps in knowledge and policy, and to identify future key issues for biodiversity, including those arising from outside the domains of ecology and biodiversity. Synthesis and applications. Horizon scanning can be used by environmental policy makers and researchers to identify gaps in knowledge and policy. Drawing on the experience, expertise and research of policy advisors, academics and journalists, this exercise helps set the agenda for policy, practice and research.