1
|
Butchart SHM, Akçakaya HR, Berryman AJ, Brooks TM, Burfield IJ, Chanson J, Dias MP, Donaldson JS, Hermes C, Hilton-Taylor C, Hoffmann M, Luedtke JA, Martin R, McDougall A, Neam K, Polidoro B, Raimondo D, Rodrigues ASL, Rondinini C, Rutherford C, Scott T, Simkins AT, Stuart SN, Vine J. Measuring trends in extinction risk: a review of two decades of development and application of the Red List Index. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 2025; 380:20230206. [PMID: 39780598 PMCID: PMC11712279 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2023.0206] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2023] [Revised: 02/09/2024] [Accepted: 02/09/2024] [Indexed: 01/11/2025] Open
Abstract
The Red List Index (RLI) is an indicator of the average extinction risk of groups of species and reflects trends in this through time. It is calculated from the number of species in each category on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, with trends influenced by the number moving between categories when reassessed owing to genuine improvement or deterioration in status. The global RLI is aggregated across multiple taxonomic groups and can be disaggregated to show trends for subsets of species (e.g. migratory species), or driven by particular factors (e.g. international trade). National RLIs have been generated through either repeated assessments of national extinction risk in each country or through disaggregating the global index and weighting each species by the proportion of its range in each country. The RLI has achieved wide policy uptake, including by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Future priorities include expanding its taxonomic coverage, applying the RLI to the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, incorporating uncertainty in the underlying Red List assessments, integrating into national RLIs the impact of a country on species' extinction risk abroad, and improving analysis of the factors driving trends.This article is part of the discussion theme issue 'Bending the curve towards nature recovery: building on Georgina Mace's legacy for a biodiverse future'.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stuart H. M. Butchart
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, CambridgeCB2 3QZ, UK
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, CambridgeCB2 3EJ, UK
| | - H. Resit Akçakaya
- Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, New York, NY11794-5245, USA
- International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission, Rue Mauverney 28, Gland1196, Switzerland
| | - Alex J. Berryman
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, CambridgeCB2 3QZ, UK
| | - Thomas M. Brooks
- International Union for Conservation of Nature, Rue Mauverney 28, Gland1196, Switzerland
| | - Ian J. Burfield
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, CambridgeCB2 3QZ, UK
| | - Janice Chanson
- Re:wild, PO Box 129, AustinTX 78767, USA
- IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group, IUCN, Rue Mauverney 28, Gland1196, Switzerland
| | - Maria P. Dias
- Department of Animal Biology, Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Changes & CHANGE - Global Change and Sustainability Institute, Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon, Campo Grande, Lisboa1749-016, Portugal
| | - John S. Donaldson
- Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield, 0028, South Africa
- South African National Biodiversity Institute, Private Bag X101, Pretoria0001, South Africa
| | - Claudia Hermes
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, CambridgeCB2 3QZ, UK
| | - Craig Hilton-Taylor
- International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List Unit, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, CambridgeCB2 83QZ, UK
| | - Mike Hoffmann
- Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, LondonNW1 4RY, UK
| | - Jennifer A. Luedtke
- Re:wild, PO Box 129, AustinTX 78767, USA
- IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group, IUCN, Rue Mauverney 28, Gland1196, Switzerland
| | - Rob Martin
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, CambridgeCB2 3QZ, UK
| | - Amy McDougall
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, CambridgeCB2 3QZ, UK
| | - Kelsey Neam
- Re:wild, PO Box 129, AustinTX 78767, USA
- IUCN SSC Amphibian Specialist Group, IUCN, Rue Mauverney 28, Gland1196, Switzerland
| | - Beth Polidoro
- International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission, Rue Mauverney 28, Gland1196, Switzerland
- School of Mathematical and Natural Sciences, Arizona State University, GlendaleAZ 85306, USA
| | - Domitilla Raimondo
- South African National Biodiversity Institute, Private Bag X101, Pretoria0001, South Africa
| | | | - Carlo Rondinini
- Global Mammal Assessment Program, Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale dell’Università 32, Rome00185, Italy
| | - Claire Rutherford
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, CambridgeCB2 3QZ, UK
| | - Tom Scott
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, CambridgeCB2 3QZ, UK
| | - Ashley T. Simkins
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, CambridgeCB2 3QZ, UK
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, CambridgeCB2 3EJ, UK
| | - Simon N. Stuart
- International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission, Rue Mauverney 28, Gland1196, Switzerland
- Synchronicity Earth, 1 Chancery Lane, LondonWC2A 1LF, UK
- A Rocha International, 180 Piccadilly, LondonW1J 9HF, UK
| | - Jemma Vine
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, CambridgeCB2 3QZ, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Mancini G, Santini L, Cazalis V, Akçakaya HR, Lucas PM, Brooks TM, Foden W, Di Marco M. A standard approach for including climate change responses in IUCN Red List assessments. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2024; 38:e14227. [PMID: 38111977 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.14227] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2023] [Revised: 09/18/2023] [Accepted: 10/05/2023] [Indexed: 12/20/2023]
Abstract
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List is a central tool for extinction risk monitoring and influences global biodiversity policy and action. But, to be effective, it is crucial that it consistently accounts for each driver of extinction. Climate change is rapidly becoming a key extinction driver, but consideration of climate change information remains challenging for the IUCN. Several methods can be used to predict species' future decline, but they often fail to provide estimates of the symptoms of endangerment used by IUCN. We devised a standardized method to measure climate change impact in terms of change in habitat quality to inform criterion A3 on future population reduction. Using terrestrial nonvolant tetrapods as a case study, we measured this impact as the difference between the current and the future species climatic niche, defined based on current and future bioclimatic variables under alternative model algorithms, dispersal scenarios, emission scenarios, and climate models. Our models identified 171 species (13% out of those analyzed) for which their current red-list category could worsen under criterion A3 if they cannot disperse beyond their current range in the future. Categories for 14 species (1.5%) could worsen if maximum dispersal is possible. Although ours is a simulation exercise and not a formal red-list assessment, our results suggest that considering climate change impacts may reduce misclassification and strengthen consistency and comprehensiveness of IUCN Red List assessments.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giordano Mancini
- Department of Biology and Biotechnologies "Charles Darwin,", Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Luca Santini
- Department of Biology and Biotechnologies "Charles Darwin,", Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| | - Victor Cazalis
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany
- Leipzig University, Leipzig, Germany
| | - H Reşit Akçakaya
- Department of Ecology and Evolution, Stony Brook University, New York, New York, USA
- IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), Gland, Switzerland
| | - Pablo M Lucas
- Department of Biology and Biotechnologies "Charles Darwin,", Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
- Departamento de Biología Vegetal y Ecología, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain
| | - Thomas M Brooks
- IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC), Gland, Switzerland
- World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of The Philippines Los Baños, Los Baños, Philippines
- Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | - Wendy Foden
- Cape Research Centre, South African National Parks, Cape Town, South Africa
- Global Change Biology Group, Department of Botany and Zoology, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, South Africa
| | - Moreno Di Marco
- Department of Biology and Biotechnologies "Charles Darwin,", Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Hannah K, Haddaway NR, Fuller RA, Amano T. Language inclusion in ecological systematic reviews and maps: Barriers and perspectives. Res Synth Methods 2024; 15:466-482. [PMID: 38286438 DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1699] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2023] [Revised: 11/19/2023] [Accepted: 11/29/2023] [Indexed: 01/31/2024]
Abstract
Systematic reviews and maps are considered a reliable form of research evidence, but often neglect non-English-language literature, which can be a source of important evidence. To understand the barriers that might limit authors' ability or intent to find and include non-English-language literature, we assessed factors that may predict the inclusion of non-English-language literature in ecological systematic reviews and maps, as well as the review authors' perspectives. We assessed systematic reviews and maps published in Environmental Evidence (n = 72). We also surveyed authors from each paper (n = 32 responses), gathering information on the barriers to the inclusion of non-English language literature. 44% of the reviewed papers (32/72) excluded non-English literature from their searches and inclusions. Commonly cited reasons included constraints related to resources and time. Regression analysis revealed that reviews with larger author teams, authors from diverse countries, especially those with non-English primary languages, and teams with multilingual capabilities searched in a significantly greater number of non-English languages. Our survey exposed limited language diversity within the review teams and inadequate funding as the principal barriers to incorporating non-English language literature. To improve language inclusion and reduce bias in systematic reviews and maps, our study suggests increasing language diversity within review teams. Combining machine translation with language skills can alleviate the financial and resource burdens of translation. Funding applications could also include translation costs. Additionally, establishing language exchange systems would enable access to information in more languages. Further studies investigating language inclusion in other journals would strengthen these conclusions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelsey Hannah
- School of the Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Neal R Haddaway
- Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany
- Africa Centre for Evidence, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa
| | - Richard A Fuller
- School of the Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Tatsuya Amano
- School of the Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Pereira HM, Martins IS, Rosa IMD, Kim H, Leadley P, Popp A, van Vuuren DP, Hurtt G, Quoss L, Arneth A, Baisero D, Bakkenes M, Chaplin-Kramer R, Chini L, Di Marco M, Ferrier S, Fujimori S, Guerra CA, Harfoot M, Harwood TD, Hasegawa T, Haverd V, Havlík P, Hellweg S, Hilbers JP, Hill SLL, Hirata A, Hoskins AJ, Humpenöder F, Janse JH, Jetz W, Johnson JA, Krause A, Leclère D, Matsui T, Meijer JR, Merow C, Obersteiner M, Ohashi H, De Palma A, Poulter B, Purvis A, Quesada B, Rondinini C, Schipper AM, Settele J, Sharp R, Stehfest E, Strassburg BBN, Takahashi K, Talluto L, Thuiller W, Titeux N, Visconti P, Ware C, Wolf F, Alkemade R. Global trends and scenarios for terrestrial biodiversity and ecosystem services from 1900 to 2050. Science 2024; 384:458-465. [PMID: 38662818 DOI: 10.1126/science.adn3441] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/18/2023] [Accepted: 03/28/2024] [Indexed: 05/04/2024]
Abstract
Based on an extensive model intercomparison, we assessed trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services from historical reconstructions and future scenarios of land-use and climate change. During the 20th century, biodiversity declined globally by 2 to 11%, as estimated by a range of indicators. Provisioning ecosystem services increased several fold, and regulating services decreased moderately. Going forward, policies toward sustainability have the potential to slow biodiversity loss resulting from land-use change and the demand for provisioning services while reducing or reversing declines in regulating services. However, negative impacts on biodiversity due to climate change appear poised to increase, particularly in the higher-emissions scenarios. Our assessment identifies remaining modeling uncertainties but also robustly shows that renewed policy efforts are needed to meet the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Henrique M Pereira
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig 04103, Germany
- Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale) 06108, Germany
- BIOPOLIS, CIBIO/InBIO, Universidade do Porto, Vairão 4485-661, Portugal
| | - Inês S Martins
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig 04103, Germany
- Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale) 06108, Germany
- Leverhulme Centre for Anthropocene Biodiversity, Department of Biology, University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK
| | - Isabel M D Rosa
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig 04103, Germany
- Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale) 06108, Germany
- Kenvue Portugal, JNTL Consumer Health Ltd, Porto Salvo 2740-262, Portugal
| | - HyeJin Kim
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig 04103, Germany
- Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale) 06108, Germany
- UK Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Lancaster LA1 4AP, UK
| | - Paul Leadley
- Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Université Paris-Saclay, CNRS, AgroParisTech, Gif-sur-Yvette 91190, France
| | - Alexander Popp
- Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam 14473, Germany
- Faculty of Organic Agricultural Sciences, University of Kassel, Witzenhausen D-37213, Germany
| | - Detlef P van Vuuren
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Hague 2500 GH, Netherlands
- Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht 3584 CB, Netherlands
| | - George Hurtt
- Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
| | - Luise Quoss
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig 04103, Germany
- Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale) 06108, Germany
| | - Almut Arneth
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Department of Meteorology and Climate/Atmospheric Environmental Research, Garmisch-Partenkirchen 82467, Germany
| | - Daniele Baisero
- Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome I-00185, Italy
- KBA Secretariat, BirdLife International, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK
| | - Michel Bakkenes
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Hague 2500 GH, Netherlands
| | - Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer
- Global Science, World Wildlife Fund, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA
- Institute on the Environment, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA
| | - Louise Chini
- Department of Geographical Sciences, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
| | - Moreno Di Marco
- Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome I-00185, Italy
| | | | - Shinichiro Fujimori
- Department of Environmental Engineering, Katsura Campus, Kyoto University, Kyoto-city 615-8540, Japan
- National Institute for Environmental Studies, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan
| | - Carlos A Guerra
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig 04103, Germany
- Universidade de Coimbra, Coimbra 3004-530, Portugal
| | - Michael Harfoot
- United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK
| | - Thomas D Harwood
- CSIRO Environment, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
- Environmental Change Institute, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
| | - Tomoko Hasegawa
- National Institute for Environmental Studies, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan
- Ritsumeikan University, Shiga 525-8577, Japan
| | | | - Petr Havlík
- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg 2361, Austria
| | - Stefanie Hellweg
- Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zurich, Zurich 8093, Switzerland
| | - Jelle P Hilbers
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Hague 2500 GH, Netherlands
- Radboud University, Radboud Institute for Biological and Environmental Sciences, Nijmegen 6500 GL, Netherlands
| | - Samantha L L Hill
- United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK
- Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, UK
| | - Akiko Hirata
- Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Forest Research and Management Organization, Ibaraki 305-8687, Japan
- Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan
| | - Andrew J Hoskins
- CSIRO Environment, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
- James Cook University, Townsville, 4811 Queensland, Australia
| | - Florian Humpenöder
- Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz Association, Potsdam 14473, Germany
| | - Jan H Janse
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Hague 2500 GH, Netherlands
- Netherlands Institute of Ecology NIOO-KNAW, Wageningen 6700AB, Netherlands
| | - Walter Jetz
- Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA
- Center for Biodiversity and Global Change, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA
| | - Justin A Johnson
- Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN 55108, USA
| | - Andreas Krause
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Department of Meteorology and Climate/Atmospheric Environmental Research, Garmisch-Partenkirchen 82467, Germany
- Technical University of Munich, TUM School of Life Sciences, Freising 85354, Germany
| | - David Leclère
- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg 2361, Austria
| | - Tetsuya Matsui
- Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Forest Research and Management Organization, Ibaraki 305-8687, Japan
- Faculty of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan
| | - Johan R Meijer
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Hague 2500 GH, Netherlands
| | - Cory Merow
- Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269, USA
| | - Michael Obersteiner
- Environmental Change Institute, Oxford OX1 3QY, UK
- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg 2361, Austria
| | - Haruka Ohashi
- Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Forest Research and Management Organization, Ibaraki 305-8687, Japan
| | - Adriana De Palma
- Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, UK
| | - Benjamin Poulter
- Biospheric Sciences Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA
| | - Andy Purvis
- Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, UK
- Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot SL5 7PY, UK
| | - Benjamin Quesada
- Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Department of Meteorology and Climate/Atmospheric Environmental Research, Garmisch-Partenkirchen 82467, Germany
- "Interactions Climate-Ecosystems (ICE)" Research Group, Earth System Science Program, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Universidad del Rosario, Bogotá DC 63B-48, Colombia
| | - Carlo Rondinini
- Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza Università di Roma, Rome I-00185, Italy
| | - Aafke M Schipper
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Hague 2500 GH, Netherlands
- Radboud University, Radboud Institute for Biological and Environmental Sciences, Nijmegen 6500 GL, Netherlands
| | - Josef Settele
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig 04103, Germany
- Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Conservation Biology and Social-Ecological Systems, Halle 06210, Germany
- Institute of Biological Sciences, University of the Philippines, Laguna 4031, Philippines
| | - Richard Sharp
- Global Science, World Wildlife Fund, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA
| | - Elke Stehfest
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Hague 2500 GH, Netherlands
| | - Bernardo B N Strassburg
- re.green, Rio de Janeiro 22470-060, Brazil
- Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre, Department of Geography and the Environment, Pontifícia Universidade Católica, Rio de Janeiro 22451-900, Brazil
| | - Kiyoshi Takahashi
- National Institute for Environmental Studies, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan
| | - Lauren Talluto
- Department of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck 6020, Austria
| | - Wilfried Thuiller
- Université Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Université Savoie Mont Blanc, LECA, Laboratoire d'Écologie Alpine, Grenoble F-38000, France
| | - Nicolas Titeux
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig 04103, Germany
- Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Department of Conservation Biology and Social-Ecological Systems, Halle 06210, Germany
- Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Environmental Research and Innovation Department, Observatory for Climate, Environment and Biodiversity, Belvaux 4422, Luxembourg
| | - Piero Visconti
- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg 2361, Austria
- Luxembourg Institute of Science and Technology, Environmental Research and Innovation Department, Observatory for Climate, Environment and Biodiversity, Belvaux 4422, Luxembourg
- Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, University College London, London C1E6BT, UK
| | | | - Florian Wolf
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig 04103, Germany
- Institute of Biology, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale) 06108, Germany
| | - Rob Alkemade
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Hague 2500 GH, Netherlands
- Earth System and Global Change Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen 6708PB Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Nicholson E, Andrade A, Brooks TM, Driver A, Ferrer-Paris JR, Grantham H, Gudka M, Keith DA, Kontula T, Lindgaard A, Londono-Murcia MC, Murray N, Raunio A, Rowland JA, Sievers M, Skowno AL, Stevenson SL, Valderrabano M, Vernon CM, Zager I, Obura D. Roles of the Red List of Ecosystems in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Nat Ecol Evol 2024; 8:614-621. [PMID: 38332025 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-023-02320-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/28/2023] [Accepted: 12/14/2023] [Indexed: 02/10/2024]
Abstract
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity set the agenda for global aspirations and action to reverse biodiversity loss. The GBF includes an explicit goal for maintaining and restoring biodiversity, encompassing ecosystems, species and genetic diversity (goal A), targets for ecosystem protection and restoration and headline indicators to track progress and guide action1. One of the headline indicators is the Red List of Ecosystems2, the global standard for ecosystem risk assessment. The Red List of Ecosystems provides a systematic framework for collating, analysing and synthesizing data on ecosystems, including their distribution, integrity and risk of collapse3. Here, we examine how it can contribute to implementing the GBF, as well as monitoring progress. We find that the Red List of Ecosystems provides common theory and practical data, while fostering collaboration, cross-sector cooperation and knowledge sharing, with important roles in 16 of the 23 targets. In particular, ecosystem maps, descriptions and risk categories are key to spatial planning for halting loss, restoration and protection (targets 1, 2 and 3). The Red List of Ecosystems is therefore well-placed to aid Parties to the GBF as they assess, plan and act to achieve the targets and goals. We outline future work to further strengthen this potential and improve biodiversity outcomes, including expanding spatial coverage of Red List of Ecosystems assessments and partnerships between practitioners, policy-makers and scientists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emily Nicholson
- School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
- IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Gland, Switzerland.
| | - Angela Andrade
- IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Gland, Switzerland
- Conservation International Colombia, Bogota, Colombia
| | - Thomas M Brooks
- IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
- World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines
- Institute for Marine & Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
| | | | - José R Ferrer-Paris
- IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Gland, Switzerland
- Centre for Ecosystem Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- UNSW Data Science Hub, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Hedley Grantham
- Centre for Ecosystem Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
- Bush Heritage, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Mishal Gudka
- School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
- CORDIO East Africa, Mombasa, Kenya
| | - David A Keith
- IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Gland, Switzerland
- Centre for Ecosystem Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | | | - Arild Lindgaard
- Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre (Artsdatabanken), Trondheim, Norway
| | | | - Nicholas Murray
- College of Science and Engineering, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
| | - Anne Raunio
- Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Jessica A Rowland
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
- IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Gland, Switzerland
| | - Michael Sievers
- Coastal and Marine Research Centre, Australian Rivers Institute, School of Environment and Science, Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia
| | - Andrew L Skowno
- South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Town, South Africa
- Department of Biological Science, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
| | - Simone L Stevenson
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
| | | | - Clare M Vernon
- School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia
| | - Irene Zager
- IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management, Gland, Switzerland
- Provita, Caracas, Venezuela
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Zarate S, Cimadori I, Jones MS, Roca MM, Barnhill-Dilling SK. Assessing agricultural gene editing regulation in Latin America: an analysis of how policy windows and policy entrepreneurs shape agricultural gene editing regulatory regimes. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2023; 11:1209308. [PMID: 37362213 PMCID: PMC10289227 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2023.1209308] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2023] [Accepted: 05/26/2023] [Indexed: 06/28/2023] Open
Abstract
This article explores the new developments and challenges of agricultural Gene Editing (GED) regulation in primarily nine countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) Region: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay and Peru. As Gene Editing technology develops, Latin America and the Caribbean regulatory regimes struggle to keep pace. Developers and regulators face challenges such as consumer perceptions, intellectual property, R&D funding (private and public), training, environmental and social impact, and access to domestic and international markets. Some Latin America and the Caribbean countries (e.g., Argentina) interpret existing legislation to promulgate regulations for biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), while others (e.g., Brazil and Honduras) have specific legislation for Genetically Modified Organisms. In both those cases, often a case-by-case approach is chosen to determine whether a Gene Editing organism is subject to Genetically Modified Organisms regulations or not. Other countries such as Peru have opted to ban the technology due to its perceived resemblance to transgenic Genetically Modified Organisms. After presenting the regulatory landscape for agricultural Gene Editing in Latin America and the Caribbean, this article addresses some of the differences and similarities across the region. Some countries have had more foresight and have dedicated resources to increase capacity and develop regulations (e.g., Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico before 2018) while others struggle with bureaucratic limitations and partisanship of policymaking (e.g., Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Mexico after 2018). We propose that the differences and similarities between these regulatory regimes have emerged in part as a result of policy entrepreneurs (influential individuals actively involved in policy making) taking advantage of policy windows (opportunities for shaping policy and regulation). The third and remaining sections of this study discuss our main findings. Based on 41 semi structured interviews with regulators, scientists, product developers, NGOs and activists, we arrived at three main findings. First, there seems to be a consensus among most regulators interviewed that having harmonized regimes is a positive step to facilitate product development and deployment, leading to commercialization. Second, reducing bureaucracy (e.g., paper work) and increasing flexibility in regulation go hand in hand to expedite the acquisition of key lab materials required by developers in countries with less robust regimes such as Peru and Bolivia. Finally, developing public and private partnerships, fostering transparency, and increasing the involvement of marginalized groups may increase the legitimacy of Gene Editing regulation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sebastian Zarate
- Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States
- Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States
| | - Ilaria Cimadori
- Yale School of the Environment, Yale University, New Haven, CT, United States
| | - Michael S. Jones
- Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage, AK, United States
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ledger SEH, Loh J, Almond R, Böhm M, Clements CF, Currie J, Deinet S, Galewski T, Grooten M, Jenkins M, Marconi V, Painter B, Scott-Gatty K, Young L, Hoffmann M, Freeman R, McRae L. Past, present, and future of the Living Planet Index. NPJ BIODIVERSITY 2023; 2:12. [PMID: 39242663 PMCID: PMC11332142 DOI: 10.1038/s44185-023-00017-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/08/2022] [Accepted: 05/05/2023] [Indexed: 09/09/2024]
Abstract
As we enter the next phase of international policy commitments to halt biodiversity loss (e.g., Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework), biodiversity indicators will play an important role in forming the robust basis upon which targeted, and time sensitive conservation actions are developed. Population trend indicators are one of the most powerful tools in biodiversity monitoring due to their responsiveness to changes over short timescales and their ability to aggregate species trends from global down to sub-national or even local scale. We consider how the project behind one of the foremost population level indicators - the Living Planet Index - has evolved over the last 25 years, its value to the field of biodiversity monitoring, and how its components have portrayed a compelling account of the changing status of global biodiversity through its application at policy, research and practice levels. We explore ways the project can develop to enhance our understanding of the state of biodiversity and share lessons learned to inform indicator development and mobilise action.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie E H Ledger
- Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London (ZSL), London, UK.
| | - Jonathan Loh
- School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
| | - Rosamunde Almond
- WWF Netherlands - World Wide Fund for Nature, Zeist, Netherlands
| | - Monika Böhm
- Global Center for Species Survival, Indianapolis Zoo, Indianapolis, USA
| | | | - Jessica Currie
- WWF Canada - World Wildlife Fund Canada, Toronto, Canada
| | - Stefanie Deinet
- Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London (ZSL), London, UK
| | - Thomas Galewski
- Institut de recherche pour la conservation des zones humides méditerranéennes, Tour du Valat, Arles, France
| | - Monique Grooten
- WWF Netherlands - World Wide Fund for Nature, Zeist, Netherlands
| | | | - Valentina Marconi
- Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London (ZSL), London, UK
| | - Brett Painter
- Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), Government of Canada, Gatineau, Canada
| | - Kate Scott-Gatty
- Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London (ZSL), London, UK
| | - Lucy Young
- WWF UK - World Wide Fund for Nature, Woking, UK
| | - Michael Hoffmann
- Conservation and Policy, Zoological Society of London (ZSL), London, UK
| | - Robin Freeman
- Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London (ZSL), London, UK
| | - Louise McRae
- Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London (ZSL), London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Sze JS, Childs DZ, Carrasco LR, Edwards DP. Indigenous lands in protected areas have high forest integrity across the tropics. Curr Biol 2022; 32:4949-4956.e3. [PMID: 36302386 DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.09.040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/30/2022] [Revised: 08/04/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Abstract
Intact tropical forests have a high conservation value.1 Although perceived as wild,2 they have been under long-term human influence.3 As global area-based conservation targets increase, the ecological contributions of Indigenous peoples through their governance institutions and practices4 are gaining mainstream interest. Indigenous lands-covering a quarter of Earth's surface5 and overlapping with a third of intact forests6-often have reduced deforestation, degradation, and carbon emissions, compared with non-protected areas and protected areas.7,8 A key question with implications for the design of more equitable and effective conservation policies is to understand the impacts of Indigenous lands on forest integrity and long-term use, as critical measures of ecosystem health included within the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.9 Using the forest landscape integrity index10 and Anthromes11 datasets, we find that high-integrity forests tend to be located within the overlap of protected areas and Indigenous lands (protected-Indigenous areas). After accounting for location biases through statistical matching and regression, protected-Indigenous areas had the highest protective effect on forest integrity and the lowest land-use intensity relative to Indigenous lands, protected areas, and non-protected controls pan-tropically. The protective effect of Indigenous lands on forest integrity was lower in Indigenous lands than in protected areas and non-protected areas in the Americas and Asia. The combined positive effects of state legislation and Indigenous presence in protected-Indigenous areas may contribute to maintaining tropical forest integrity. Understanding management and governance in protected-Indigenous areas can help states to appropriately support community-governed lands.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jocelyne S Sze
- School of Biosciences, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.
| | - Dylan Z Childs
- School of Biosciences, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK
| | - L Roman Carrasco
- Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore 119077, Singapore
| | - David P Edwards
- School of Biosciences, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Thorn JPR, Bignoli DJ, Mwangi B, Marchant RA. The African Development Corridors Database: a new tool to assess the impacts of infrastructure investments. Sci Data 2022; 9:679. [PMID: 36351928 PMCID: PMC9646820 DOI: 10.1038/s41597-022-01771-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2021] [Accepted: 10/12/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
The large-scale expansion of built infrastructure is profoundly reshaping the geographies of Africa, generating lock-in patterns of development for future generations. Understanding the impact of these massive investments can allow development opportunities to be maximised and therefore be critical for attaining the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals and African Union's Agenda 2063 aims. However, until now information on the types, scope, and timing of investments, their evolution and spatial-temporal impact was dispersed amongst various agencies. We developed a database of 79 development corridors across Africa, synthesizing data from multiple sources covering 184 projects on railways, wet and dry ports, pipelines, airports, techno-cities, and industrial parks. The georeferenced interlinked tabular and spatial database includes 22 attributes. We expect this database will improve coordination, efficiency, monitoring, oversight, strategic planning, transparency, and risk assessments, among other uses for investment banks, governments, impact assessment practitioners, communities, conservationists, economists, and regional economic bodies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica P R Thorn
- School of Geography and Sustainable Development, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom.
- York Institute of Tropical Ecosystems, Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
- African Climate and Development Initiative, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
- Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Namibia, Windhoek, Namibia.
| | - Diego Juffe Bignoli
- United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK
- Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
| | - Ben Mwangi
- Institute of Climate Change and Adaptation, University of Nairobi, Nairobi, Kenya
| | - Robert A Marchant
- York Institute of Tropical Ecosystems, Department of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Wang S, Yang C, Li Z. Green Total Factor Productivity Growth: Policy-Guided or Market-Driven? INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:ijerph191710471. [PMID: 36078187 PMCID: PMC9518477 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710471] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/08/2022] [Revised: 08/12/2022] [Accepted: 08/19/2022] [Indexed: 06/01/2023]
Abstract
The green growth mode of modern economy is affected by both policy and market, but previous studies have lacked a comparison between the two effects on green economy development. Which is the leading factor of green growth: policy or market? Using the Panel Smooth Transition Regression (PSTR) model and the twelve-year data of more than 200 prefecture-level cities in China, we compared and analyzed the linear and non-linear effects of environmental regulation and marketization degree on green total factor productivity (GTFP). The results show that: (1) both environmental regulation and marketization degree have a non-linear promoting effect on GTFP. (2) GTFP is mainly market-driven rather than policy-guided. (3) Environmental regulation and marketization promote the improvement of GTFP through the industrial upgrading effect and the innovation development effect, respectively. This paper makes up for the comparative analysis gap of factors in the field of green growth and extends from the single determination of influencing factors to the importance of the comparison of influencing factors with the transition perspective. The conclusions provide a reference for the green development of countries and regions, emphasizing the importance of green development policies adapting to local conditions and time and providing evidence for market-oriented green economy development.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shuai Wang
- School of Econimics, Central South University of Forestry and Technology, Changsha 410004, China
| | - Cunyi Yang
- Lingnan College, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510275, China
| | - Zhenghui Li
- Guangzhou Institute of International Finance, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510405, China
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Patoine G, Eisenhauer N, Cesarz S, Phillips HRP, Xu X, Zhang L, Guerra CA. Drivers and trends of global soil microbial carbon over two decades. Nat Commun 2022; 13:4195. [PMID: 35858886 PMCID: PMC9300697 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-022-31833-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/17/2021] [Accepted: 07/04/2022] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
Soil microorganisms are central to sustain soil functions and services, like carbon and nutrient cycling. Currently, we only have a limited understanding of the spatial-temporal dynamics of soil microorganisms, restricting our ability to assess long-term effects of climate and land-cover change on microbial roles in soil biogeochemistry. This study assesses the temporal trends in soil microbial biomass carbon and identifies the main drivers of biomass change regionally and globally to detect the areas sensitive to these environmental factors. Here, we combined a global soil microbial biomass carbon data set, random forest modelling, and environmental layers to predict spatial-temporal dynamics of microbial biomass carbon stocks from 1992 to 2013. Soil microbial biomass carbon stocks decreased globally by 3.4 ± 3.0% (mean ± 95% CI) between 1992 and 2013 for the predictable regions, equivalent to 149 Mt being lost over the period, or ~1‰ of soil C. Northern areas with high soil microbial carbon stocks experienced the strongest decrease, mostly driven by increasing temperatures. In contrast, land-cover change was a weaker global driver of change in microbial carbon, but had, in some cases, important regional effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guillaume Patoine
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
- Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Puschstraße 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
| | - Nico Eisenhauer
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany
- Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Puschstraße 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Simone Cesarz
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany
- Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Puschstraße 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany
| | - Helen R P Phillips
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany
- Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Puschstraße 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany
- Department of Environmental Science, Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
- Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, UK
- Department of Terrestrial Ecology, Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), 6700 AB, Wageningen, Netherlands
| | - Xiaofeng Xu
- Biology Department, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 92182, USA
| | - Lihua Zhang
- College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Minzu University of China, Beijing, 100081, China
| | - Carlos A Guerra
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Puschstraße 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany
- Institute of Biology, Leipzig University, Puschstraße 4, 04103, Leipzig, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Marsh SME, Hoffmann M, Burgess ND, Brooks TM, Challender DWS, Cremona PJ, Hilton‐Taylor C, de Micheaux FL, Lichtenstein G, Roe D, Böhm M. Prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use of wild species inferred from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2022; 36:e13844. [PMID: 34605070 PMCID: PMC9299080 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13844] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2020] [Revised: 07/13/2021] [Accepted: 07/23/2021] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
Unsustainable exploitation of wild species represents a serious threat to biodiversity and to the livelihoods of local communities and Indigenous peoples. However, managed, sustainable use has the potential to forestall extinctions, aid recovery, and meet human needs. We analyzed species-level data for 30,923 species from 13 taxonomic groups on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Threatened Species to investigate patterns of intentional biological resource use. Forty percent of species (10,098 of 25,009 species from 10 data-sufficient taxonomic groups) were used. The main purposes of use were pets, display animals, horticulture, and human consumption. Intentional use is currently contributing to elevated extinction risk for 28-29% of threatened or near threatened (NT) species (2752-2848 of 9753 species). Intentional use also affected 16% of all species used (1597-1631 of 10,098). However, 72% of used species (7291 of 10,098) were least concern, of which nearly half (3469) also had stable or improving population trends. The remainder were not documented as threatened by biological resource use, including at least 172 threatened or NT species with stable or improving populations. About one-third of species that had use documented as a threat had no targeted species management actions to directly address this threat. To improve use-related red-list data, we suggest small amendments to the relevant classification schemes and required supporting documentation. Our findings on the prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use, and variation across taxa, can inform international policy making, including the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie M. E. Marsh
- Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, Department of Genetics, Evolution and EnvironmentUniversity College LondonLondonUK
| | - Michael Hoffmann
- Conservation and PolicyZoological Society of London, Regent's ParkLondonUK
| | - Neil D. Burgess
- UNEP‐WCMCCambridgeUK
- CMEC, GLOBE InstituteUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
| | - Thomas M. Brooks
- International Union for Conservation of NatureGlandSwitzerland
- World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF)University of the PhilippinesLos BañosThe Philippines
- Institute for Marine and Antarctic StudiesUniversity of TasmaniaHobartTasmaniaAustralia
| | | | | | | | - Flore Lafaye de Micheaux
- International Union for Conservation of NatureGlandSwitzerland
- Institute of Geography and SustainabilityUniversity of LausanneLausanneSwitzerland
- French Institute of PondicherryPondicherryIndia
| | - Gabriela Lichtenstein
- Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano (INAPL)/CONICETBuenos AiresArgentina
| | - Dilys Roe
- International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and IUCN Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group (SULi)LondonUK
| | - Monika Böhm
- Institute of ZoologyZoological Society of LondonLondonUK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Baisero D, Schuster R, Plumptre AJ. Redefining and mapping global irreplaceability. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY : THE JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR CONSERVATION BIOLOGY 2022; 36:e13806. [PMID: 34254360 DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13806] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2020] [Revised: 07/01/2021] [Accepted: 07/09/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
Irreplaceability is a concept used to describe how close a site is to being essential for achieving conservation targets. Current methods for measuring irreplaceability are based on representative combinations of sites, giving them an extrinsic nature and exponential computational requirements. Surrogate measures based on efficiency (complementarity) are often used as alternatives, but they were never intended for this purpose and do not measure irreplaceability. Current approaches used to estimate irreplaceability have key limitations. Some of these are a result of the tools used, but some are due to the nature of the current definition of irreplaceability. For irreplaceability to be stable and useful for conservation purposes and to resolve limitations, irreplaceability measures should adhere to five axioms; baseline coherence, monotonic responsiveness, proportional responsiveness, intrinsic stability, and bounded outputs. We designed a robust method for measuring a site's proximity to irreplaceability that adheres to these requirements and used it to develop the first systematic global map of irreplaceability based on data for terrestrial vertebrates (n = 29,837 species, >1 million grid cells). At least 3.5% of land surface was highly irreplaceable, and 47.6% of highly irreplaceable cells were contained in 12 countries. More generous thresholds of irreplaceability flag greater portions of land surface that would still be realistic to protect under current global objectives. Irreplaceable sites should form a critical component of any global conservation plan and should be part of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity's post2020 Global Biodiversity Framework strategy, forming part of the 30% protection by 2030 target that is gaining support. The reliable identification of irreplaceable sites will be crucial to halting extinctions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniele Baisero
- Key Biodiversity Areas Secretariat, c/o BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK
- Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, New York, USA
| | - Richard Schuster
- Department of Biology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Andrew J Plumptre
- Key Biodiversity Areas Secretariat, c/o BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK
- Conservation Science Group, Zoology Department, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Abstract
The high-altitude region of Asia is prone to natural resource degradation caused by a variety of natural and anthropogenic factors that also threaten the habitat of critical top predator species, the snow leopard (Panthera uncia). The snow leopard’s landscape encompasses parts of the twelve Asian countries and is dominated by pastoral societies within arid mountainous terrain. However, no investigation has assessed the vulnerability and pathways towards long-term sustainability on the global snow leopard landscape scale. Thus, the current study reviewed 123 peer-reviewed scientific publications on the existing knowledge, identified gaps, and proposed sustainable mitigation options for the longer term and on larger landscape levels in the range countries. The natural resource degradation in this region is caused by various social, economic, and ecological threats that negatively affect its biodiversity. The factors that make the snow leopard landscapes vulnerable include habitat fragmentation through border fencing, trade corridor infrastructure, non-uniform conservation policies, human–snow leopard conflict, the increasing human population, climatic change, land use and cover changes, and unsustainable tourism. Thus, conservation of the integrated Socio-Ecological System (SES) prevailing in this region requires a multi-pronged approach. This paper proposes solutions and identifies the pathways through which to implement these solutions. The prerequisite to implementing such solutions is the adoption of cross-border collaboration (regional cooperation), the creation of peace parks, readiness to integrate transnational and cross-sectoral conservation policies, a focus on improving livestock management practices, a preparedness to control human population growth, a readiness to mitigate climate change, initiating transboundary landscape-level habitat conservation, adopting environment-friendly trade corridors, and promoting sustainable tourism. Sustainable development in this region encompasses the political, social, economic, and ecological landscapes across the borders.
Collapse
|
15
|
Hebblewhite M, Hilty JA, Williams S, Locke H, Chester C, Johns D, Kehm G, Francis WL. Can a l
arge‐landscape
conservation vision contribute to achieving biodiversity targets? CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.588] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Mark Hebblewhite
- Wildlife Biology Program, Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana Missoula Montana USA
| | - Jodi A. Hilty
- Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative Canmore Alberta Canada
| | - Sara Williams
- Wildlife Biology Program, Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana Missoula Montana USA
| | - Harvey Locke
- Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative Banff Alberta Canada
| | - Charles Chester
- Fletcher School Tufts University Cambridge Massachusetts USA
| | - David Johns
- Hatfield School College of Urban and Public Affairs, Portland State University Portland Oregon USA
| | - Gregory Kehm
- Gregory Kehm Associates Vancouver British Columbia Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
16
|
Pouteau R, Brunel C, Dawson W, Essl F, Kreft H, Lenzner B, Meyer C, Pergl J, Pyšek P, Seebens H, Weigelt P, Winter M, Kleunen M. Environmental and socioeconomic correlates of extinction risk in endemic species. DIVERS DISTRIB 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/ddi.13438] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Robin Pouteau
- Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Plant Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Taizhou University Taizhou China
- AMAP IRD CNRS CIRAD INRA Univ Montpellier Montpellier France
| | - Caroline Brunel
- Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Plant Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Taizhou University Taizhou China
| | - Wayne Dawson
- Department of Biosciences Durham University Durham UK
| | - Franz Essl
- BioInvasions, Global Change, Macroecology‐Group Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research University of Vienna Vienna Austria
| | - Holger Kreft
- Biodiversity, Macroecology & Biogeography University of Goettingen Göttingen Germany
- Centre of Biodiversity and Sustainable Land Use (CBL) University of Goettingen Göttingen Germany
| | - Bernd Lenzner
- BioInvasions, Global Change, Macroecology‐Group Department of Botany and Biodiversity Research University of Vienna Vienna Austria
| | - Carsten Meyer
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle‐Jena‐Leipzig Leipzig Germany
- Institute of Biology Leipzig University Leipzig Germany
- Institute for Geosciences and Geography Martin Luther University Halle‐Wittenberg Halle (Saale) Germany
| | - Jan Pergl
- Institute of Botany Department of Invasion Ecology Czech Academy of Sciences Průhonice Czech Republic
| | - Petr Pyšek
- Institute of Botany Department of Invasion Ecology Czech Academy of Sciences Průhonice Czech Republic
- Department of Ecology Faculty of Science Charles University Prague 2 Czech Republic
| | - Hanno Seebens
- Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre Frankfurt am Main Germany
| | - Patrick Weigelt
- Biodiversity, Macroecology & Biogeography University of Goettingen Göttingen Germany
- Campus‐Institut Data Science Göttingen Germany
| | - Marten Winter
- German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle‐Jena‐Leipzig Leipzig Germany
| | - Mark Kleunen
- Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory of Plant Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Taizhou University Taizhou China
- Department of Biology University of Konstanz Konstanz Germany
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
De Palma A, Hoskins A, Gonzalez RE, Börger L, Newbold T, Sanchez-Ortiz K, Ferrier S, Purvis A. Annual changes in the Biodiversity Intactness Index in tropical and subtropical forest biomes, 2001-2012. Sci Rep 2021; 11:20249. [PMID: 34642362 PMCID: PMC8511124 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-98811-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2019] [Accepted: 09/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/09/2022] Open
Abstract
Few biodiversity indicators are available that reflect the state of broad-sense biodiversity—rather than of particular taxa—at fine spatial and temporal resolution. One such indicator, the Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII), estimates how the average abundance of the native terrestrial species in a region compares with their abundances in the absence of pronounced human impacts. We produced annual maps of modelled BII at 30-arc-second resolution (roughly 1 km at the equator) across tropical and subtropical forested biomes, by combining annual data on land use, human population density and road networks, and statistical models of how these variables affect overall abundance and compositional similarity of plants, fungi, invertebrates and vertebrates. Across tropical and subtropical biomes, BII fell by an average of 1.9 percentage points between 2001 and 2012, with 81 countries seeing an average reduction and 43 an average increase; the extent of primary forest fell by 3.9% over the same period. We did not find strong relationships between changes in BII and countries’ rates of economic growth over the same period; however, limitations in mapping BII in plantation forests may hinder our ability to identify these relationships. This is the first time temporal change in BII has been estimated across such a large region.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adriana De Palma
- Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, SW7 5BD, UK.
| | - Andrew Hoskins
- CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, ACT, Australia.,CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Townsville, Qld, Australia
| | - Ricardo E Gonzalez
- Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot, SL5 7PY, UK
| | - Luca Börger
- Department of Biosciences, University of Swansea, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK
| | - Tim Newbold
- Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, Centre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, UK
| | - Katia Sanchez-Ortiz
- Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, SW7 5BD, UK.,Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot, SL5 7PY, UK
| | | | - Andy Purvis
- Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London, SW7 5BD, UK.,Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot, SL5 7PY, UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Di Minin E, Correia RA, Toivonen T. Quantitative conservation geography. Trends Ecol Evol 2021; 37:42-52. [PMID: 34526226 DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2021.08.009] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/30/2020] [Revised: 08/11/2021] [Accepted: 08/18/2021] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
Ongoing biodiversity loss represents the erosion of intrinsic value of living nature, reduces the contributions nature provides to people, and undermines efforts to move towards sustainability. We propose the recognition of quantitative conservation geography as a subfield of conservation science that studies where, when, and what conservation actions could be implemented in order to mitigate threats and promote sustainable people-nature interactions. We outline relevant methods and data needed in quantitative conservation geography. We also discuss the importance of filling information gaps, for example by using emerging technologies and digital data sources, for the further advancement of this subfield. Quantitative conservation geography can help inform the implementation of national and international conservation actions and policy to help stem the global biodiversity crisis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enrico Di Minin
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland; Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland; School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa.
| | - Ricardo A Correia
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland; Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland; DBIO & CESAM - Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies, University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, Aveiro, Portugal
| | - Tuuli Toivonen
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland; Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Shennan‐Farpón Y, Visconti P, Norris K. Detecting ecological thresholds for biodiversity in tropical forests: Knowledge gaps and future directions. Biotropica 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/btp.12999] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Yara Shennan‐Farpón
- ZSL Institute of Zoology Regent’s Park Outer Circle London UK
- Department of Anthropology University College London London UK
| | - Piero Visconti
- International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis Laxenburg Austria
| | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Abstract
Despite best efforts, the loss of biodiversity has continued at a pace that constitutes a major threat to the efficient functioning of ecosystems. Curbing the loss of biodiversity and assessing its local and global trends requires a vast amount of datasets from a variety of sources. Although the means for generating, aggregating and analyzing big datasets to inform policies are now within the reach of the scientific community, the data-driven nature of a complex multidisciplinary field such as biodiversity science necessitates an overarching framework for engagement. In this review, we propose such a schematic based on the life cycle of data to interrogate the science. The framework considers data generation and collection, storage and curation, access and analysis and, finally, communication as distinct yet interdependent themes for engaging biodiversity science for the purpose of making evidenced-based decisions. We summarize historical developments in each theme, including the challenges and prospects, and offer some recommendations based on best practices.
Collapse
|
21
|
McCay SD, Lacher TE. National level use of International Union for Conservation of Nature knowledge products in American National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans and National Reports to the Convention on Biological Diversity. CONSERVATION SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2021. [DOI: 10.1111/csp2.350] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Shelby D. McCay
- Texas A&M Natural Resources Institute, Texas A&M University College Station Texas USA
- Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Texas A&M University College Station Texas USA
| | - Thomas E. Lacher
- Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences Texas A&M University College Station Texas USA
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Heberling JM, Miller JT, Noesgaard D, Weingart SB, Schigel D. Data integration enables global biodiversity synthesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2021; 118:e2018093118. [PMID: 33526679 PMCID: PMC8017944 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2018093118] [Citation(s) in RCA: 111] [Impact Index Per Article: 27.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
The accessibility of global biodiversity information has surged in the past two decades, notably through widespread funding initiatives for museum specimen digitization and emergence of large-scale public participation in community science. Effective use of these data requires the integration of disconnected datasets, but the scientific impacts of consolidated biodiversity data networks have not yet been quantified. To determine whether data integration enables novel research, we carried out a quantitative text analysis and bibliographic synthesis of >4,000 studies published from 2003 to 2019 that use data mediated by the world's largest biodiversity data network, the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Data available through GBIF increased 12-fold since 2007, a trend matched by global data use with roughly two publications using GBIF-mediated data per day in 2019. Data-use patterns were diverse by authorship, geographic extent, taxonomic group, and dataset type. Despite facilitating global authorship, legacies of colonial science remain. Studies involving species distribution modeling were most prevalent (31% of literature surveyed) but recently shifted in focus from theory to application. Topic prevalence was stable across the 17-y period for some research areas (e.g., macroecology), yet other topics proportionately declined (e.g., taxonomy) or increased (e.g., species interactions, disease). Although centered on biological subfields, GBIF-enabled research extends surprisingly across all major scientific disciplines. Biodiversity data mobilization through global data aggregation has enabled basic and applied research use at temporal, spatial, and taxonomic scales otherwise not possible, launching biodiversity sciences into a new era.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J Mason Heberling
- Section of Botany, Carnegie Museum of Natural History, Pittsburgh, PA 15213;
| | - Joseph T Miller
- Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Secretariat, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
| | - Daniel Noesgaard
- Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Secretariat, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
| | - Scott B Weingart
- Digital Humanities Program, University Libraries, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213
| | - Dmitry Schigel
- Global Biodiversity Information Facility, Secretariat, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Seidl A, Mulungu K, Arlaud M, van den Heuvel O, Riva M. The effectiveness of national biodiversity investments to protect the wealth of nature. Nat Ecol Evol 2021; 5:530-539. [PMID: 33462490 DOI: 10.1038/s41559-020-01372-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/19/2019] [Accepted: 11/26/2020] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
Finance will be among the priority concerns when the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity launches the post-2020 framework for global biodiversity conservation (Global Biodiversity Framework) in 2021. The Biodiversity Finance Initiative provides a means for countries to account systematically for their biodiversity expenditures. A sample of 30 countries facilitated the construction of a panel to better understand the effectiveness of public biodiversity investments. Overall, the results show a positive trend in national public biodiversity investments and that larger economies invest more in biodiversity in gross magnitude and as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) (0.30% of GDP among wealthy countries versus 0.29%) and of national budgets (1.78% versus 1.14%). Controlling for GDP, wealthier countries invest proportionately less than less wealthy countries. The relationship between GDP and public biodiversity expenditure is an inverted-U curve. All biodiversity-related variables (threatened species, protected area and the presence of a hotspot) were positively correlated with public biodiversity investments. Funds allocated to biodiversity are associated with a reduction in the number of threatened species and the rate of biodiversity loss of about 1% per year. Each US$1 billion investment in biodiversity is associated with an annual reduction in the proportion of threatened to total species of about 0.57%. Population growth is associated with lower financial support for biodiversity and an increase in the proportion of threatened to total species in a country.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrew Seidl
- Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA. .,Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, NY, USA.
| | - Kelvin Mulungu
- Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
| | | | - Onno van den Heuvel
- Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, NY, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
24
|
Abstract
How can the governance of nature areas foster the sustainability of ecosystems? This is discussed with regard to larger threats on ecosystems despite larger global nature areas that reach 19 million km2 of land along with larger costs per area unit. Moreover, monetization of nature with payments for ecosystem services is sometimes demanded for justification of the nature areas; however, this does not resolve the threats but faces scientific and ethical scrutiny. An alternative is the governance that incubates sustainable innovations in the nature areas for broad dissemination which generates interests in the sustainability of ecosystems. Opportunities are due to demands for ethical products, ecotourism and images of nature which generate USD 1100 billion in global markets. Sustainable innovations of using reed for insulation walls, furniture panels and upholstery in the EU can generate a few hundred million dollars in addition to present roof thatching, fodder and fuels if good functional qualities of the reed products are developed. Their functionalities can be supported by the inclusive economics, CO2 storage, treatment of water pollution, richer biodiversity, and other ethical qualities. The governance of nature areas can prevent the present deadlock but needs the development of technical and entrepreneurial capabilities.
Collapse
|
25
|
Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 2020; 585:551-556. [PMID: 32908312 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-020-2705-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 235] [Impact Index Per Article: 47.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/27/2018] [Accepted: 08/11/2020] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
Increased efforts are required to prevent further losses to terrestrial biodiversity and the ecosystem services that it provides1,2. Ambitious targets have been proposed, such as reversing the declining trends in biodiversity3; however, just feeding the growing human population will make this a challenge4. Here we use an ensemble of land-use and biodiversity models to assess whether-and how-humanity can reverse the declines in terrestrial biodiversity caused by habitat conversion, which is a major threat to biodiversity5. We show that immediate efforts, consistent with the broader sustainability agenda but of unprecedented ambition and coordination, could enable the provision of food for the growing human population while reversing the global terrestrial biodiversity trends caused by habitat conversion. If we decide to increase the extent of land under conservation management, restore degraded land and generalize landscape-level conservation planning, biodiversity trends from habitat conversion could become positive by the mid-twenty-first century on average across models (confidence interval, 2042-2061), but this was not the case for all models. Food prices could increase and, on average across models, almost half (confidence interval, 34-50%) of the future biodiversity losses could not be avoided. However, additionally tackling the drivers of land-use change could avoid conflict with affordable food provision and reduces the environmental effects of the food-provision system. Through further sustainable intensification and trade, reduced food waste and more plant-based human diets, more than two thirds of future biodiversity losses are avoided and the biodiversity trends from habitat conversion are reversed by 2050 for almost all of the models. Although limiting further loss will remain challenging in several biodiversity-rich regions, and other threats-such as climate change-must be addressed to truly reverse the declines in biodiversity, our results show that ambitious conservation efforts and food system transformation are central to an effective post-2020 biodiversity strategy.
Collapse
|
26
|
Local Community Perceptions on Landscape Change, Ecosystem Services, Climate Change, and Livelihoods in Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. SUSTAINABILITY 2020. [DOI: 10.3390/su12114610] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Understanding humanity’s relationship with nature is crucial for the well-being and sustainable development of mankind in the face of global environmental change. Communities depend on landscapes for survival and landscapes determine if sustainable development is to be achieved. The links between landscapes, ecosystem services, livelihoods, and climate change are often complex, misunderstood, and barely studied in rural areas of Africa, where communities live side-by-side with conservation areas. Our study surveyed the perception of the nexus of landscape change, climate change, ecosystem services, and livelihoods in Gonarezhou, a national park in southeastern Zimbabwe. We also used Landsat satellite imagery to map the landscape change over 20 years to validate and to correlate with the survey data. The survey results indicated that people relied on rainfed agriculture as a means of livelihood, but droughts as a result of climate change force communities to engage in other means of livelihoods such as small-scale poaching of small game such as impala and harvesting of natural resources such as edible shrubs. Crops and livestock as provisional ecosystem services have been negatively affected by climate change and landscape change. Landsat data confirmed that there was a negative transformation of the landscape as a result of agriculture, growth in settlements, and large herbivores. However, there was also a positive landscape transformation resulting from the conservation efforts by the Gonarezhou Conservation Trust (GCT). Cultural services about education and awareness of the environment and provisional services such as wild fruits are booming. Challenges such as soil erosion, human–wildlife conflict, and minimal community benefits from conservation efforts hindered sustainable development in the study area. While changes in landscape, climate, livelihoods, and ecosystem services happened at a local scale, the underlying drivers such as politics and the economy were also identified as drivers of landscape change.
Collapse
|
27
|
Schipper AM, Hilbers JP, Meijer JR, Antão LH, Benítez‐López A, de Jonge MMJ, Leemans LH, Scheper E, Alkemade R, Doelman JC, Mylius S, Stehfest E, van Vuuren DP, van Zeist W, Huijbregts MAJ. Projecting terrestrial biodiversity intactness with GLOBIO 4. GLOBAL CHANGE BIOLOGY 2020; 26:760-771. [PMID: 31680366 PMCID: PMC7028079 DOI: 10.1111/gcb.14848] [Citation(s) in RCA: 47] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2018] [Accepted: 08/09/2019] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
Scenario-based biodiversity modelling is a powerful approach to evaluate how possible future socio-economic developments may affect biodiversity. Here, we evaluated the changes in terrestrial biodiversity intactness, expressed by the mean species abundance (MSA) metric, resulting from three of the shared socio-economic pathways (SSPs) combined with different levels of climate change (according to representative concentration pathways [RCPs]): a future oriented towards sustainability (SSP1xRCP2.6), a future determined by a politically divided world (SSP3xRCP6.0) and a future with continued global dependency on fossil fuels (SSP5xRCP8.5). To this end, we first updated the GLOBIO model, which now runs at a spatial resolution of 10 arc-seconds (~300 m), contains new modules for downscaling land use and for quantifying impacts of hunting in the tropics, and updated modules to quantify impacts of climate change, land use, habitat fragmentation and nitrogen pollution. We then used the updated model to project terrestrial biodiversity intactness from 2015 to 2050 as a function of land use and climate changes corresponding with the selected scenarios. We estimated a global area-weighted mean MSA of 0.56 for 2015. Biodiversity intactness declined in all three scenarios, yet the decline was smaller in the sustainability scenario (-0.02) than the regional rivalry and fossil-fuelled development scenarios (-0.06 and -0.05 respectively). We further found considerable variation in projected biodiversity change among different world regions, with large future losses particularly for sub-Saharan Africa. In some scenario-region combinations, we projected future biodiversity recovery due to reduced demands for agricultural land, yet this recovery was counteracted by increased impacts of other pressures (notably climate change and road disturbance). Effective measures to halt or reverse the decline of terrestrial biodiversity should not only reduce land demand (e.g. by increasing agricultural productivity and dietary changes) but also focus on reducing or mitigating the impacts of other pressures.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aafke M. Schipper
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands
- Department of Environmental ScienceInstitute for Water and Wetland ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
| | - Jelle P. Hilbers
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands
| | - Johan R. Meijer
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands
| | - Laura H. Antão
- Centre for Biological DiversityUniversity of St AndrewsSt AndrewsUK
- Research Centre for Ecological ChangeOrganismal and Evolutionary Biology Research ProgrammeUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
| | - Ana Benítez‐López
- Department of Environmental ScienceInstitute for Water and Wetland ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
- Integrative Ecology GroupEstación Biológica de Doñana, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (EBD‐CSIC)SevillaSpain
| | - Melinda M. J. de Jonge
- Department of Environmental ScienceInstitute for Water and Wetland ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
| | - Luuk H. Leemans
- Department of Environmental ScienceInstitute for Water and Wetland ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
| | | | - Rob Alkemade
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands
- Environmental Systems Analyses GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
| | | | - Sido Mylius
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands
| | - Elke Stehfest
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands
| | - Detlef P. van Vuuren
- PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyThe HagueThe Netherlands
- Faculty of GeosciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
| | | | - Mark A. J. Huijbregts
- Department of Environmental ScienceInstitute for Water and Wetland ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
28
|
Rowland JA, Bland LM, Keith DA, Juffe‐Bignoli D, Burgman MA, Etter A, Ferrer‐Paris JR, Miller RM, Skowno AL, Nicholson E. Ecosystem indices to support global biodiversity conservation. Conserv Lett 2019. [DOI: 10.1111/conl.12680] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Jessica A. Rowland
- Centre of Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin University Victoria Australia
| | - Lucie M. Bland
- Centre of Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin University Victoria Australia
| | - David A. Keith
- Centre for Ecosystem ScienceUniversity of NSW Sydney Australia
- New South Wales Department of PlanningIndustry and Environment
- IUCN Commission on Ecosystem Management Gland Switzerland
| | - Diego Juffe‐Bignoli
- United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP‐WCMC) Cambridge UK
| | - Mark A. Burgman
- Centre for Environmental PolicyImperial College London London UK
| | - Andres Etter
- Departmento de Ecología y Territorio, Facultad de Estudios Ambientales y RuralesPontificia Universidad Javeriana Bogotá DC Colombia
| | | | | | - Andrew L. Skowno
- South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)Kirstebosch Research Centre Cape Town South Africa
- Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of Cape Town Cape Town South Africa
| | - Emily Nicholson
- Centre of Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental SciencesDeakin University Victoria Australia
| |
Collapse
|
29
|
Abstract
AbstractThe USA is the largest consumer of legally, internationally-traded wildlife. A proportion of this trade consists of species listed in the Appendices of CITES, and recorded in the CITES Trade Database. Using this resource, we quantified wildlife entering the USA for 82 of the most frequently recorded wildlife products and a range of taxonomic groups during 1979–2014. We examined trends in legal trade and seizures of illegally traded items over time, and relationships between trade and four national measures of biodiversity. We found that: (1) there is an overall positive relationship between legal imports and seizures; (2) Asia was the main region exporting CITES-listed wildlife products to the USA; (3) bears, crocodilians and other mammals (i.e. other than Ursidae, Felidae, Cetacea, Proboscidea, Primates or Rhinocerotidae) increased in both reported legal trade and seizures over time; (4) legal trade in live specimens was reported to be primarily from captive-produced, artificially-propagated or ranched sources, whereas traded meat was primarily wild sourced; (5) both seizures and legally traded items of felids and elephants decreased over time; and (6) volumes of both legally traded and seized species were correlated with four attributes of exporting countries: species endemism, species richness, number of IUCN threatened species, and country size. The goal of our analysis was to inform CITES decision-making and species conservation efforts.
Collapse
|
30
|
Maes D, Brosens D, T'jollyn F, Desmet P, Piesschaert F, Van Hoey S, Adriaens T, Dekoninck W, Devos K, Lock K, Onkelinx T, Packet J, Speybroeck J, Thomaes A, Van Den Berge K, Van Landuyt W, Verreycken H. A database of threat statuses and life-history traits of Red List species in Flanders (northern Belgium). Biodivers Data J 2019; 7:e34089. [PMID: 31048982 PMCID: PMC6477847 DOI: 10.3897/bdj.7.e34089] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/25/2019] [Accepted: 03/28/2019] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Red Lists estimate the extinction risk of species at global or regional levels and are important instruments in conservation policies. Global Red List assessments are readily available via the IUCN website (https://www.iucnredlist.org) and are regularly updated by (taxonomic) experts. Regional Red Lists, however, are not always easy to find and often use local criteria to assess the local extinction risk of species. New information Here, we publish a database with the outcome of 38 Red List assessments in Flanders (northern Belgium) between 1994 and 2018. In total, the database contains 6,224 records of 5,039 unique taxa pertaining to 24 different taxonomic groups. Using a quality control procedure, we evaluated the criteria used, the number of records, the temporal and spatial distribution of the data and the up-to-dateness of the Red Lists. This way, nineteen Red Lists were approved as being of sufficient high quality (i.e. validated) and nineteen others were not. Once validated, Red Lists are approved by the regional Minister of Environment and published in the Belgian Official Gazette acquiring legal status. For the validated Red Lists, we additionally compiled (life-history) traits that are applicable to a wide variety of species groups (taxonomic kingdom, environment, biotope, nutrient level, dispersal capacity, lifespan and cuddliness). The publication of this dataset allows comparison of Red List statuses with other European regions and countries and permits analyses about how certain (life-history) traits can explain the Red List status of species. The dataset will be regularly updated by adding new Red List (re)assessments and/or additional (life-history) traits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dirk Maes
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| | - Dimitri Brosens
- Belgian Biodiversity Platform, Brussels, Belgium Belgian Biodiversity Platform Brussels Belgium.,Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| | - Filiep T'jollyn
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| | - Peter Desmet
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium.,Belgian Biodiversity Platform, Brussels, Belgium Belgian Biodiversity Platform Brussels Belgium.,Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences Brussels Belgium.,Ugent, Ghent, Belgium Ugent Ghent Belgium.,Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Geraardsbergen, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Geraardsbergen Belgium
| | - Frederic Piesschaert
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| | - Stijn Van Hoey
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| | - Tim Adriaens
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| | - Wouter Dekoninck
- Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences Brussels Belgium
| | - Koen Devos
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| | - Koen Lock
- Ugent, Ghent, Belgium Ugent Ghent Belgium
| | - Thierry Onkelinx
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| | - Jo Packet
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| | - Jeroen Speybroeck
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| | - Arno Thomaes
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Geraardsbergen, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Geraardsbergen Belgium
| | - Koen Van Den Berge
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| | - Wouter Van Landuyt
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| | - Hugo Verreycken
- Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO), Brussels, Belgium Research Institute for Nature and Forest (INBO) Brussels Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
31
|
Sixty years of tracking conservation progress using the World Database on Protected Areas. Nat Ecol Evol 2019; 3:737-743. [DOI: 10.1038/s41559-019-0869-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 34] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/08/2018] [Accepted: 03/11/2019] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
|
32
|
Carvalho WF, Ruiz de Arcaute C, Pérez-Iglesias JM, Laborde MRR, Soloneski S, Larramendy ML. DNA damage exerted by mixtures of commercial formulations of glyphosate and imazethapyr herbicides in Rhinella arenarum (Anura, Bufonidae) tadpoles. ECOTOXICOLOGY (LONDON, ENGLAND) 2019; 28:367-377. [PMID: 30826955 DOI: 10.1007/s10646-019-02029-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/20/2019] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
Glyphosate (GLY) and imazethapyr (IMZT) are two herbicides commonly used worldwide, either alone or in mixtures. They represent key pesticides in modern agricultural management. The toxicity that results when employed as mixtures has not been characterized so far. Acute toxicity of the 48% GLY-based herbicide (GBH) Credit® and the 10.59% IMZT-based herbicide (IBH) Pivot® H alone and their binary combinations was analyzed in Rhinella arenarum tadpoles exposed in a semi-static renewal test. Lethal effects were determined using mortality as the end-point, whereas sublethal effects were determined employing the single-cell gel electrophoresis (SCGE) bioassay. Based on mortality experiments, results revealed LC5096 h values of 78.18 mg/L GBH and 0.99 mg/L IBH for Credit® and Pivot® H, respectively. An increase in the genetic damage index (GDI) was found after exposure to Credit® or Pivot® H at 5 and 10% of LC5096 h values. The combinations of 5% Credit®-5% Pivot® H LC5096 h and 10% Credit®-10% Pivot® H LC5096 h concentrations significantly enhanced the GDI in comparison with tadpoles exposed only to Credit® or Pivot® H. Thus, the effect of interaction between GBH and IBH inducing DNA damage in R. arenarum blood cells can be considered to be synergistic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Wanessa F Carvalho
- Cátedra de Citología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Calle 64 N° 3, La Plata, 1900, Argentina
- Departamento de Genética, Instituto de Ciências Biológicas, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, Brazil
| | - Celeste Ruiz de Arcaute
- Cátedra de Citología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Calle 64 N° 3, La Plata, 1900, Argentina
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Juan Manuel Pérez-Iglesias
- Cátedra de Citología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Calle 64 N° 3, La Plata, 1900, Argentina
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Milagros R R Laborde
- Cátedra de Citología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Calle 64 N° 3, La Plata, 1900, Argentina
- Agencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica (ANPCyT), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Sonia Soloneski
- Cátedra de Citología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Calle 64 N° 3, La Plata, 1900, Argentina
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | - Marcelo L Larramendy
- Cátedra de Citología, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Calle 64 N° 3, La Plata, 1900, Argentina.
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET), Buenos Aires, Argentina.
| |
Collapse
|
33
|
Di Minin E, Brooks TM, Toivonen T, Butchart SHM, Heikinheimo V, Watson JEM, Burgess ND, Challender DWS, Goettsch B, Jenkins R, Moilanen A. Identifying global centers of unsustainable commercial harvesting of species. SCIENCE ADVANCES 2019; 5:eaau2879. [PMID: 30949571 PMCID: PMC6447386 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aau2879] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2018] [Accepted: 02/13/2019] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
Overexploitation is one of the main threats to biodiversity, but the intensity of this threat varies geographically. We identified global concentrations, on land and at sea, of 4543 species threatened by unsustainable commercial harvesting. Regions under high-intensity threat (based on accessibility on land and on fishing catch at sea) cover 4.3% of the land and 6.1% of the seas and contain 82% of all species threatened by unsustainable harvesting and >80% of the ranges of Critically Endangered species threatened by unsustainable harvesting. Currently, only 16% of these regions are covered by protected areas on land and just 6% at sea. Urgent actions are needed in these centers of unsustainable harvesting to ensure that use of species is sustainable and to prevent further species' extinctions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Enrico Di Minin
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa
| | - Thomas M. Brooks
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 28 Rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
- World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna 4031, Philippines
- Institute for Marine & Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
| | - Tuuli Toivonen
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
| | - Stuart H. M. Butchart
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, UK
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EJ, UK
| | - Vuokko Heikinheimo
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
- Helsinki Institute of Sustainability Science, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
| | - James E. M. Watson
- Wildlife Conservation Society, New York, NY, USA
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Neil D. Burgess
- UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, UK
- CMEC, Natural History Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Daniel W. S. Challender
- Department of Zoology and Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, 11a Mansfield Road, Oxford OX1 3SZ, UK
| | | | | | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Geosciences and Geography, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
- Finnish Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 17, University of Helsinki, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland
| |
Collapse
|
34
|
Allan JR, Watson JEM, Di Marco M, O’Bryan CJ, Possingham HP, Atkinson SC, Venter O. Hotspots of human impact on threatened terrestrial vertebrates. PLoS Biol 2019; 17:e3000158. [PMID: 30860989 PMCID: PMC6413901 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000158] [Citation(s) in RCA: 43] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2018] [Accepted: 02/05/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Conserving threatened species requires identifying where across their range they are being impacted by threats, yet this remains unresolved across most of Earth. Here, we present a global analysis of cumulative human impacts on threatened species by using a spatial framework that jointly considers the co-occurrence of eight threatening processes and the distribution of 5,457 terrestrial vertebrates. We show that impacts to species are widespread, occurring across 84% of Earth's surface, and identify hotspots of impacted species richness and coolspots of unimpacted species richness. Almost one-quarter of assessed species are impacted across >90% of their distribution, and approximately 7% are impacted across their entire range. These results foreshadow localised extirpations and potential extinctions without conservation action. The spatial framework developed here offers a tool for defining strategies to directly mitigate the threats driving species' declines, providing essential information for future national and global conservation agendas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- James R. Allan
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - James E. M. Watson
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Wildlife Conservation Society, Global Conservation Program, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Moreno Di Marco
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- CSIRO Land & Water, EcoSciences Precinct, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Christopher J. O’Bryan
- School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
| | - Hugh P. Possingham
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia, United States of America
| | - Scott C. Atkinson
- Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
- United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Oscar Venter
- Natural Resource and Environmental Studies Institute, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
35
|
Abstract
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) emphasises the role of biodiversity in delivering benefits essential for all people and, as a result, seeks to safeguard all life-forms. The indices that are used to measure progress towards international conservation and sustainability goals, however, focus solely on the ‘native’ component of biodiversity. A subset of non-native species can cause undesirable economic, social, or biological effects. But non-native species also contribute to regional biodiversity (species richness and biotic interactions) and ecosystem services. In some regions and cities, non-native species make up more than half of all species. Currently, the contributions of these species to biodiversity and ecosystem services are overlooked. Here, I argue that biodiversity and sustainability indices should include all species. This is not only consistent with definitions of biodiversity but also will promote the idea that long-term, sustainable, human well-being is intricately tied to benefits derived from nature.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martin A. Schlaepfer
- Institute of Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
36
|
Deguignet M, Arnell A, Juffe-Bignoli D, Shi Y, Bingham H, MacSharry B, Kingston N. Measuring the extent of overlaps in protected area designations. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0188681. [PMID: 29176888 PMCID: PMC5703568 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188681] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2017] [Accepted: 11/11/2017] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Over the past decades, a number of national policies and international conventions have been implemented to promote the expansion of the world’s protected area network, leading to a diversification of protected area strategies, types and designations. As a result, many areas are protected by more than one convention, legal instrument, or other effective means which may result in a lack of clarity around the governance and management regimes of particular locations. We assess the degree to which different designations overlap at global, regional and national levels to understand the extent of this phenomenon at different scales. We then compare the distribution and coverage of these multi-designated areas in the terrestrial and marine realms at the global level and among different regions, and we present the percentage of each county’s protected area extent that is under more than one designation. Our findings show that almost a quarter of the world’s protected area network is protected through more than one designation. In fact, we have documented up to eight overlapping designations. These overlaps in protected area designations occur in every region of the world, both in the terrestrial and marine realms, but are more common in the terrestrial realm and in some regions, notably Europe. In the terrestrial realm, the most common overlap is between one national and one international designation. In the marine realm, the most common overlap is between any two national designations. Multi-designations are therefore a widespread phenomenon but its implications are not well understood. This analysis identifies, for the first time, multi-designated areas across all designation types. This is a key step to understand how these areas are managed and governed to then move towards integrated and collaborative approaches that consider the different management and conservation objectives of each designation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marine Deguignet
- UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, United Kingdom
- * E-mail:
| | - Andy Arnell
- UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Diego Juffe-Bignoli
- UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Yichuan Shi
- UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, United Kingdom
- International Union for Nature Conservation (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland
| | - Heather Bingham
- UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Brian MacSharry
- UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Naomi Kingston
- UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
37
|
Veach V, Moilanen A, Di Minin E. Threats from urban expansion, agricultural transformation and forest loss on global conservation priority areas. PLoS One 2017; 12:e0188397. [PMID: 29182662 PMCID: PMC5705113 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188397] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/24/2017] [Accepted: 11/06/2017] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Including threats in spatial conservation prioritization helps identify areas for conservation actions where biodiversity is at imminent risk of extinction. At the global level, an important limitation when identifying spatial priorities for conservation actions is the lack of information on the spatial distribution of threats. Here, we identify spatial conservation priorities under three prominent threats to biodiversity (residential and commercial development, agricultural expansion, and forest loss), which are primary drivers of habitat loss and threaten the persistence of the highest number of species in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, and for which spatial data is available. We first explore how global priority areas for the conservation of vertebrate (mammals, birds, and amphibians) species coded in the Red List as vulnerable to each threat differ spatially. We then identify spatial conservation priorities for all species vulnerable to all threats. Finally, we identify the potentially most threatened areas by overlapping the identified priority areas for conservation with maps for each threat. We repeat the same with four other well-known global conservation priority area schemes, namely Key Biodiversity Areas, Biodiversity Hotspots, the global Protected Area Network, and Wilderness Areas. We find that residential and commercial development directly threatens only about 4% of the global top 17% priority areas for species vulnerable under this threat. However, 50% of the high priority areas for species vulnerable to forest loss overlap with areas that have already experienced some forest loss. Agricultural expansion overlapped with ~20% of high priority areas. Biodiversity Hotspots had the greatest proportion of their total area under direct threat from all threats, while expansion of low intensity agriculture was found to pose an imminent threat to Wilderness Areas under future agricultural expansion. Our results identify areas where limited resources should be allocated to mitigate risks to vertebrate species from habitat loss.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria Veach
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Department of Biosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
| | - Enrico Di Minin
- Department of Geosciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
- School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
| |
Collapse
|
38
|
Abstract
AbstractA controversy at the 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress on the topic of closing domestic ivory markets (the 007, or so-called James Bond, motion) has given rise to a debate on IUCN's value proposition. A cross-section of authors who are engaged in IUCN but not employed by the organization, and with diverse perspectives and opinions, here argue for the importance of safeguarding and strengthening the unique technical and convening roles of IUCN, providing examples of what has and has not worked. Recommendations for protecting and enhancing IUCN's contribution to global conservation debates and policy formulation are given.
Collapse
|
39
|
Funk SM, Conde D, Lamoreux J, Fa JE. Meeting the Aichi targets: Pushing for zero extinction conservation. AMBIO 2017; 46:443-455. [PMID: 28144903 PMCID: PMC5385670 DOI: 10.1007/s13280-016-0892-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2016] [Revised: 12/23/2016] [Accepted: 12/26/2016] [Indexed: 05/15/2023]
Abstract
Effective protection of the ~19 000 IUCN-listed threatened species has never been more pressing. Ensuring the survival of the most vulnerable and irreplaceable taxa and places, such as those identified by the Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) species and their associated sites (AZEs&s), is an excellent opportunity to achieve the Aichi 2020 Targets T11 (protected areas) and T12 (preventing species extinctions). AZE taxa have small, single-site populations that are especially vulnerable to human-induced extinctions, particularly for the many amphibians. We show that AZEs&s can be protected feasibly and cost-effectively, but action is urgent. We argue that the Alliance, whose initial main aim was to identify AZEs&s, must be followed up by a second-generation initiative that directs and co-ordinates AZE conservation activities on the ground. The prominent role of zoos, conservation NGOs, and governmental institutions provides a combination of all-encompassing knowhow that can, if properly steered, maximize the long-term survival of AZEs&s.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephan M. Funk
- Centro de Excelencia en Medicina Traslacional, Universidad de La Frontera, Piso 4, Av Alemania 0458, Temuco, Chile
- Nature Heritage, St. Lawrence, Jersey
| | - Dalia Conde
- Department of Biology, Max Planck Odense Center, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230 Odense M, Denmark
- Species 360, 7900 International DriveSuite 1040, Bloomington, MN 55425 USA
| | | | - Julia E. Fa
- Division of Biology and Conservation Ecology, School of Science & The Environment, Manchester Metropolitan University, All Saints Building, All Saints, Manchester, M15 6BH UK
| |
Collapse
|
40
|
Veach V, Di Minin E, Pouzols FM, Moilanen A. Species richness as criterion for global conservation area placement leads to large losses in coverage of biodiversity. DIVERS DISTRIB 2017. [DOI: 10.1111/ddi.12571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria Veach
- Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology; Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; Helsinki Finland
| | - Enrico Di Minin
- Department of Geosciences and Geography; University of Helsinki; Helsinki Finland
- School of Life Sciences; University of KwaZulu-Natal; Durban South Africa
| | - Federico M. Pouzols
- Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology; Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; Helsinki Finland
| | - Atte Moilanen
- Finnish Centre of Excellence in Metapopulation Biology; Department of Biosciences; University of Helsinki; Helsinki Finland
| |
Collapse
|
41
|
Juffe-Bignoli D, Brooks TM, Butchart SHM, Jenkins RB, Boe K, Hoffmann M, Angulo A, Bachman S, Böhm M, Brummitt N, Carpenter KE, Comer PJ, Cox N, Cuttelod A, Darwall WRT, Di Marco M, Fishpool LDC, Goettsch B, Heath M, Hilton-Taylor C, Hutton J, Johnson T, Joolia A, Keith DA, Langhammer PF, Luedtke J, Nic Lughadha E, Lutz M, May I, Miller RM, Oliveira-Miranda MA, Parr M, Pollock CM, Ralph G, Rodríguez JP, Rondinini C, Smart J, Stuart S, Symes A, Tordoff AW, Woodley S, Young B, Kingston N. Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge. PLoS One 2016; 11:e0160640. [PMID: 27529491 PMCID: PMC4986939 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160640] [Citation(s) in RCA: 36] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2016] [Accepted: 07/24/2016] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116–204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278–308 person-years) valued at US$ 14 million (range US$12–16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2–6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diego Juffe-Bignoli
- United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, CB3 0DL Cambridge, United Kingdom
- * E-mail:
| | - Thomas M. Brooks
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 28 rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
- World Agroforestry Center (ICRAF), University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna 4031, Philippines
- Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart TAS 7001, Australia
| | - Stuart H. M. Butchart
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
- Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, United Kingdom
| | - Richard B. Jenkins
- IUCN Global Species Programme, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
| | - Kaia Boe
- Nature-based Solutions Group, IUCN, 28 Rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
| | - Michael Hoffmann
- United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, CB3 0DL Cambridge, United Kingdom
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 28 rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
| | - Ariadne Angulo
- IUCN Species Survival Commission, Amphibian Specialist Group, Toronto M8W 1R2, Canada
| | - Steve Bachman
- Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, United Kingdom
| | - Monika Böhm
- Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, United Kingdom
| | - Neil Brummitt
- Department of Life Sciences, Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, United Kingdom
| | - Kent E. Carpenter
- IUCN Marine Biodiversity Unit, Global Species Programme/ Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, United States of America
| | - Pat J. Comer
- NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203, United States of America
| | - Neil Cox
- IUCN CI Biodiversity Assessment Unit, IUCN Global Species Programme, c/o Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, United States of America
| | - Annabelle Cuttelod
- IUCN Global Species Programme, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
| | - William R. T. Darwall
- IUCN Global Species Programme, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
| | - Moreno Di Marco
- ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, 4072 Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
- School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management, The University of Queensland, 4072 Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| | - Lincoln D. C. Fishpool
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
| | - Bárbara Goettsch
- IUCN Global Species Programme, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
| | - Melanie Heath
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
| | - Craig Hilton-Taylor
- IUCN Global Species Programme, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
| | - Jon Hutton
- United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, CB3 0DL Cambridge, United Kingdom
- Luc Hoffmann Institute, WWF International, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
| | - Tim Johnson
- United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, CB3 0DL Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Ackbar Joolia
- IUCN Global Species Programme, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
| | - David A. Keith
- Centre for Ecosystem Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia
- New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage, Hurstville, New South Wales 2220, Australia
| | - Penny F. Langhammer
- School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, P.O. Box 874501, Tempe, AZ 85287, United States of America
| | - Jennifer Luedtke
- IUCN Species Survival Commission, Amphibian Specialist Group, Toronto M8W 1R2, Canada
| | | | - Maiko Lutz
- Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB, United Kingdom
| | - Ian May
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
| | - Rebecca M. Miller
- Nature-based Solutions Group, IUCN, 28 Rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
- IUCN Global Ecosystem Management Programme, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
| | | | - Mike Parr
- American Bird Conservancy, 1731 Connecticut Avenue, Washington DC 20009, United States of America
| | - Caroline M. Pollock
- IUCN Global Species Programme, The David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
| | - Gina Ralph
- IUCN Marine Biodiversity Unit, Global Species Programme/ Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, United States of America
| | - Jon Paul Rodríguez
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 28 rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
- Provita, Apdo. 47552, Caracas 1041-A, Venezuela
- Centro de Ecología, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Científicas, Apdo. 20632, Caracas 1020-A, Venezuela
| | - Carlo Rondinini
- Global Mammal Assessment Program, Department of Biology and Biotechnologies, Sapienza University of Rome, Viale dell'Università 32, I-00185 Rome, Italy
| | - Jane Smart
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 28 rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
- Biodiversity Conservation Group, IUCN, 28 Rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
| | - Simon Stuart
- United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, CB3 0DL Cambridge, United Kingdom
- International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 28 rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
| | - Andy Symes
- BirdLife International, David Attenborough Building, Pembroke Street, Cambridge CB2 3QZ, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew W. Tordoff
- Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202, United States of America
| | - Stephen Woodley
- World Commission on Protected Areas IUCN, 64 Juniper Road, Chelsea, QC J9B1T3, Canada
| | - Bruce Young
- NatureServe, 4600 N. Fairfax Dr., Arlington, VA 22203, United States of America
| | - Naomi Kingston
- United Nations Environment Programme, World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, CB3 0DL Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
42
|
Maxwell SL, Fuller RA, Brooks TM, Watson JEM. Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 2016; 536:143-5. [DOI: 10.1038/536143a] [Citation(s) in RCA: 704] [Impact Index Per Article: 78.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
|