Land can look healthy and productive while offering very different conditions for wildlife. A large European study has now examined how both the type of land and the intensity with which it is managed influence where different species are likely to occur.

The findings show that wildlife does not respond to changing landscapes in one uniform way, with common species and more specialized species often experiencing very different conditions.

A Large Study Across Europe

Researchers from the University of Surrey, the Institute of Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, and the Natural History Museum examined habitat patterns for 229 vertebrate species associated with farmland and forests across Europe. The analysis included 123 bird species, 86 mammals, and 20 reptiles and amphibians.

Instead of looking only at climate conditions, the research focused on how land is used and how intensively it is managed. Scientists applied species distribution models to estimate how different landscapes were associated with the presence of various species across their European ranges.

What Does Land-Use Intensity Mean?

Land-use intensity describes how heavily an area is managed. In agricultural settings, higher intensity can involve greater use of machinery, fertilizers, and pesticides. In forestry, intensive management can include shorter harvesting cycles and more uniform planting patterns.

These differences matter because changing the structure and management of a landscape can alter the conditions available to wildlife. However, the study indicates that the type of land itself generally had a stronger influence on habitat suitability than management intensity alone.

Farmland Shows a Clear Difference

The research found that species associated with cropland and grassland generally tended to have more suitable conditions in lower-intensity agricultural areas than in comparable areas managed more intensively. This pattern suggests that reducing the pressure placed on some agricultural landscapes could create conditions that support a wider range of species. The researchers also highlighted the potential value of restoring water and wetland areas, particularly for species associated with farmland environments.

The result does not mean that every species responds identically. Habitat preferences vary considerably, which makes broad assumptions about wildlife and agriculture difficult.

Forests Reveal Another Pattern

Forest-associated species showed a more complicated relationship with management intensity. According to the study, intensity had its strongest influence among widespread species, which sometimes appeared to benefit from more intensively managed landscapes.

By contrast, rarer and more specialized species tended to have different habitat requirements. This distinction is important because a landscape that supports common wildlife may not necessarily provide the conditions required by species with narrower habitat preferences.

Cities Can Suit Some Species

One of the notable findings involved urban areas. Urban land was identified as the most suitable habitat for many of the species examined, particularly species that are already widespread and able to live alongside people. This does not mean urban expansion automatically benefits biodiversity.

Instead, the result highlights how differently species can respond to human-shaped environments. Common generalist species may adapt to conditions found in cities, while species with more specialized requirements may depend on less-developed landscapes.

Why Rare Species Need Attention

The difference between widespread and specialized species is one of the central points of the research. Species with broad distributions may be capable of using several types of environments, giving them more opportunities as landscapes change.

Species with narrower ranges can have fewer alternatives when suitable conditions disappear. For these species, protecting particular habitat characteristics may be more important than simply maintaining large amounts of green space. The researchers suggest that lowering management intensity in some cropland and grassland, restoring wetland environments, and reducing intensive forestry could provide useful conservation benefits for certain species, especially specialized forest wildlife.

What the Findings Mean

The study demonstrates why habitat conservation cannot rely on a single approach. Two areas may both appear green, yet their value to wildlife can differ because of how the land is used, what grows there, and how strongly it is managed. Understanding these differences can help researchers and land managers identify which environments are most important for particular species. It also reinforces the need to consider less common wildlife when evaluating changes to agricultural, forest, and urban landscapes.

The European research provides a detailed picture of how land-use patterns influence wildlife habitat. Recognizing those differences can make habitat planning more targeted and help protect the variety of species that depend on particular landscapes.