Abstract
Ecologists often state that weak dispersers are particularly at risk from land use intensification, and that they therefore should be prioritized for conservation. We reviewed the empirical evidence, to evaluate whether this idea should be used as a general rule in conservation. While 89% of authors predicted that weak dispersers are more vulnerable to land use intensification (80 out of 90 papers), only 56% of reported tests (235 out of 422) were consistent with this prediction. Thirty per cent of tests (128 out of 422) were consistent with the opposite prediction, that strong dispersers are more vulnerable to intensification, and 60% of articles (45 out of 75) had at least one test where strong dispersers were most vulnerable. The likelihood of finding that weak dispersers are more vulnerable to intensification than strong dispersers varied with latitude, taxonomic group and type of land use intensification. Notably, the odds of finding that weak dispersers are more vulnerable to intensification than strong dispersers was higher if the study was nearer to the equator. Taken together, our results show that the prediction that weak dispersers are more vulnerable than strong dispersers to intensification is not sufficiently supported to justify using weak dispersal as a general indicator of species risk in human-modified landscapes.