Search

In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the world's biodiversity [Sutherland et al. (2009) Conservation Biology, 23, 557–567]. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high-priority questions in the peer-reviewed literature. Here we take a first step toward re-examining the 100 questions and identify key knowledge gaps that still remain. Through a combination of a questionnaire and a literature review, we evaluated each of the 100 questions on the basis of two criteria: relevance and effort. We defined highly-relevant questions as those which – if answered – would have the greatest impact on global biodiversity conservation, while effort was quantified based on the number of review publications addressing a particular question, which we used as a proxy for research effort. Using this approach we identified a set of questions that, despite being perceived as highly relevant, have been the focus of relatively few review publications over the past ten years. These questions covered a broad range of topics but predominantly tackled three major themes: the conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems, the role of societal structures in shaping interactions between people and the environment, and the impacts of conservation interventions. We see these questions as important knowledge gaps that have so far received insufficient attention and may need to be prioritised in future research. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the world's biodiversity ?Sutherland et al. (2009) Conservation Biology, 23, 557?567?. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high?priority questions in the peer?reviewed literature. Here we take a first step toward re?examining the 100 questions and identify key knowledge gaps that still remain. Through a combination of a questionnaire and a literature review, we evaluated each of the 100 questions on the basis of two criteria: relevance and effort. We defined highly?relevant questions as those which ? if answered ? would have the greatest impact on global biodiversity conservation, while effort was quantified based on the number of review publications addressing a particular question, which we used as a proxy for research effort. Using this approach we identified a set of questions that, despite being perceived as highly relevant, have been the focus of relatively few review publications over the past ten years. These questions covered a broad range of topics but predominantly tackled three major themes: the conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems, the role of societal structures in shaping interactions between people and the environment, and the impacts of conservation interventions. We see these questions as important knowledge gaps that have so far received insufficient attention and may need to be prioritised in future research.

Extensive afforestation is currently being widely promoted as a key nature-based solution for climate change mitigation. Fundamental to this strategy is the sequestration of carbon into long-term stable storage, either in wood products or the soil. However, the long-term effects of tree planting on soil carbon, or other soil properties, has rarely been examined. Importantly, afforestation can take many different forms, with differing effects on soil properties. Here, we evaluate how the historical afforestation of sandy heathland adopting a range of management options – including different combinations of conifers and broadleaves in monocultures and mixtures – have affected soil pH, total carbon and nitrogen concentrations, the C:N ratio, and carbon and nitrogen stocks almost a century later. We analyse these properties at a range of soil depths through the organic (litter, F and grass layers) and upper mineral soil profiles (0-5 cm, 5-10 cm and 10-20 cm depth). In comparison to the historical heathland sites, afforestation decreased soil pH, most dramatically under conifers, and increased the C:N ratio. However, there was overall little difference in carbon and nitrogen concentrations between alternative management options. While the total carbon and nitrogen concentrations were much higher in the organic layers of the forest options compared to the open sites, this did not translate into differences in the mineral layers. Furthermore, although we found some evidence of the transferral of carbon and nitrogen into the uppermost soil mineral layers, this was minimal in comparison to the concentrations of the organic layers. The soils at our study site are low quality and sandy, and are therefore unfavourable for incorporating organic matter, but it is still notable how little was incorporated after nearly a century of afforestation. Given the current emphasis on tree planting as a means to tackle climate change, these results demonstrate the fundamental importance of the appropriate consideration of both the afforestation management option and underlying soil type., For this research E.R.T. was supported by an Industrial CASE studentship, funded by the Natural Environment Research Council and Forestry England [NE/M010287/1; NE/L002507/1]. W.J.S. is funded by Arcadia.

Funder: Arcadia Fund; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100012088, Funder: University of Cambridge; Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000735, Funder: Forestry England, Widespread afforestation is a crucial component of climate mitigation strategies worldwide. This presents a significant opportunity for biodiversity conservation if forests are appropriately managed. Within forests, structural and habitat diversity are known to be critical for biodiversity but pragmatic management recommendations are lacking. We make a comprehensive assessment of the effects of habitat variables on bird populations using data from over 4000 ha of forested landscape. We combine high-resolution remote sensing data with comprehensive management databases to classify habitat attributes and measure the response of six taxonomic and functional diversity metrics: species richness, Shannon diversity, functional richness, functional evenness, functional divergence, and functional dispersion. We use a novel approach that combines hierarchical partitioning analysis with linear models to determine the relative importance of different habitat variables for each bird diversity metric. The age class of forest stands was consistently the most important variable across all bird diversity metrics, outperforming other structural measures such as horizontal and vertical heterogeneity and canopy density. Shrub density and gap fraction were each significantly associated with one bird diversity metric. In contrast, variables describing within-stand structural heterogeneity (vertical and horizontal) were generally less important while tree species identity (e.g., conifer or broadleaved) was not significant for any bird diversity metric. Each of the six bird diversity metrics had different patterns of independent variable importance and significance, emphasizing the need to consider multiple diversity metrics in biodiversity assessments. Similarly, the optimal resolution for remote sensing metrics varied between structural variables and bird diversity metrics, suggesting that the use of remote sensing data in biodiversity studies could be greatly improved by first exploring different resolutions and data aggregations. Based on the results from this comprehensive study, we recommend that managers focus on creating habitat diversity at the between-, rather than exclusively within-stand scale, such as by creating a matrix of different age classes, to maximize bird diversity. This recommendation for forest managers is powerful yet pragmatic in its simplicity.