Need for global conservation assessments and frameworks to include airspace habitat

Perspectives and pitfalls in preserving subterranean biodiversity through protected areas

Subterranean ecosystems (comprising terrestrial, semi-aquatic, and aquatic components) are increasingly threatened by human activities; however, the current network of surface-protected areas is inadequate to safeguard subterranean biodiversity. Establishing protected areas for subterranean ecosystems is challenging. First, there are technical obstacles in mapping three-dimensional ecosystems with uncertain boundaries. Second, the rarity and endemism of subterranean organisms, combined with a scarcity of taxonomists, delays the accumulation of essential biodiversity knowledge. Third, establishing agreements to preserve subterranean ecosystems requires collaboration among multiple actors with often competing interests. This perspective addresses the challenges of preserving subterranean biodiversity through protected areas. Even in the face of uncertainties, we suggest it is both timely and critical to assess general criteria for subterranean biodiversity protection and implement them based on precautionary principles. To this end, we examine the current status of European protected areas and discuss solutions to improve their coverage of subterranean ecosystems.

X,Y, and Z: A bird's eye view on light pollution

The global increase in light pollution is being viewed with growing concern, as it has been reported to have negative effects ranging from the individual to the ecosystem level.Unlike movement on the ground, flying and swimming allows vertical motion. Here, we demonstrate that flight altitude change is crucial to the perception and susceptibility of artificial light at night of air-borne organisms. Because air-borne species can propagate through the airspace and easily across ecotones, effects might not be small-scale. Therefore, we propose including airspace as a vital habitat in the concept of ecological light pollution.The interplay between flight altitude and the effects of light pollution may not only be crucial for understanding flying species but may also provide valuable insights into the mechanisms of responses to artificial light at night in general.

Flying wildlife may mask the loss of ecological functions due to terrestrial habitat fragmentation

Land use change alters wildlife critical animal behaviours such as movement, becoming the main driver threatening wildlife ecological functions (WEF) and nature's contribution to people (NCP) provided by terrestrial species. Despite the negative impacts of current rates of terrestrial fragmentation on WEF, many ecological processes can be still occurring through aerial habitats. Here, we propose and discuss that the movement capabilities of aerial species, as well their functional redundancy with non-flying wildlife, are the mechanisms by which some ecological processes can be still occurring. We show examples of how the movements of aerial wildlife may be masking the loss of important functions and contributions by compensating for the lost ecosystem functions previously provided by terrestrial wildlife. We also highlight the implications of losing aerial wildlife in areas where that functional redundancy was already lost due to the impacts of land use change on terrestrial wildlife. We suggest to consider flying wildlife as a biological insurance against the loss of WEF and NCP due to terrestrial fragmentation and proposed some aeroconservation measures.

Global Aerial Habitat Conservation Post-COVID-19 Anthropause

Aerial habitat is increasingly threatened. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) anthropause shows that a decrease in human mobility and goods production for even a short period reduces the global anthropogenic impact on airspace fragmentation and pollution. Economic and environmental post-COVID-19 agendas should consider the changes observed in the aerial habitat during the anthropause.