Search

For decades, China has implemented restoration programs on a large scale, thanks to its capacity to set policy and mobilize funding resources. An understanding of China's restoration achievements and remaining challenges will help to guide future efforts to restore 30% of its diverse ecosystems under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Here we summarize the major transitions in China's approach to ecosystem restoration since the 1970s, with a focus on the underlying motivations for restoration, approaches to ecosystem management, and financing mechanisms. Whereas China's restoration efforts were predominantly guided by the delivery of certain ecosystem functions and services in earlier decades, more recently it has come to emphasize the restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. Accordingly, the focal ecosystems, approaches, and financing mechanisms of restoration have also been considerably diversified. This evolution is largely guided by the accumulation of scientific evidence and past experiences. We highlight the key challenges facing China's restoration efforts and propose future directions to improve restoration effectiveness, with regard to goal setting, monitoring, stakeholder involvement, adaptive management, resilience under climate change, and financing., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Accurate maps of species ranges are essential to inform conservation, but time-consuming to produce and update. Given the pace of change of knowledge about species distributions and shifts in ranges under climate change and land use, a need exists for timely mapping approaches that enable batch processing employing widely available data. We develop a systematic approach of batch-processing range maps and derived Area of Habitat maps for terrestrial bird species with published ranges below 125,000 km2 in Central and South America. (Area of Habitat is the habitat available to a species within its range.) We combine existing range maps with the rapidly expanding crowd-sourced eBird data of presences and absences from frequently surveyed locations, plus readily accessible, high resolution satellite data on forest cover and elevation to map the Area of Habitat available to each species. Users can interrogate the maps produced to see details of the observations that contributed to the ranges. Previous estimates of Areas of Habitat were constrained within the published ranges and thus were, by definition, smaller-typically about 30%. This reflects how little habitat within suitable elevation ranges exists within the published ranges. Our results show that on average, Areas of Habitat are 12% larger than published ranges, reflecting the often-considerable extent that eBird records expand the known distributions of species. Interestingly, there are substantial differences between threatened and non-threatened species. Some 40% of Critically Endangered, 43% of Endangered, and 55% of Vulnerable species have Areas of Habitat larger than their published ranges, compared with 31% for Near Threatened and Least Concern species. The important finding for conservation is that threatened species are generally more widespread than previously estimated., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN.

Habitat degradation and land-use change driven by the livestock sector are among the major causes of global biodiversity loss. Forests are crucial in maintaining biodiversity and mitigating climate change. Apart from continuing deforestation, forests also face increasing pressure from livestock grazing in the system, which is less understood compared to grasslands. Through a meta-analysis of 156 articles with 1936 data entries, this study assesses the effect of livestock on forest biodiversity, structure, and functions, varying with livestock types, livestock density, grazing history, and climatic factors. Our results show that livestock overall had a negative impact on the forest structure and functions, reduced species abundance but increased richness. Medium and large mammals, plant communities, and soil were more negatively affected compared to other groups such as birds and invertebrates. Livestock also influenced the role of forests in mitigating climate change. They changed forest carbon stock by reducing plant biomass; however, they did not significantly impact the soil carbon stock or soil greenhouse gas emissions. Ecosystem attributes were more affected in warmer and drier regions and by single species grazing than the mixed grazing. Past livestock grazing history moderates the impacts of livestock, with the strongest negative effect occurred with a history of 1-5 years. Nonetheless, livestock activities also had a positive impact on forest management, such as reducing forest flammability. Our results also indicate the lack of studies on how higher trophic levels respond to livestock disturbances and how grazing intensity moderates the effect, which includes grazing duration and livestock density. The complex responses of forests to livestock in different conditions call for more adaptive management depending on the conservation targets and evolution history., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

How has the global network of protected areas developed - and which decisions have guided this development? Answering these questions may give insight into what might be possible in the next decade. In 2021, China will host the Convention of Biological Diversity's Conference, which will influence the coming decade's agenda. We consider how China expanded its protected areas in the last half-century. Did concerns about biodiversity protection drive those decisions, or were other factors responsible? Like other countries, China has protected remote places with few people that are unusually cold or dry or both. Despite that, species with small geographical ranges that have the highest risk of extinction are better protected than expected. Importantly, while the growth of total area and number of protected areas has slowed for the last decade, increases in protection of forested ecosystems and the species they contain have steadily increased. China's future reserve expansion must consider where to protect biodiversity, not just how much area to protect., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Protecting land to save biodiversity is a cornerstone of conservation. But how effective are protected areas? Two new studies on panda conservation reveal that protection is efficient and suggest ways for improving biodiversity protection., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

It is theoretically possible to protect large fractions of species in relatively small regions. For plants, 85% of species occur entirely within just over a third of the Earth's land surface, carefully optimized to maximize the species captured. Well-known vertebrate taxa show similar patterns. Protecting half of Earth might not be necessary, but would it be sufficient given the current trends of protection? The predilection of national governments is to protect areas that are "wild," that is, typically remote, cold, or arid. Unfortunately, those areas often hold relatively few species. Wild places likely afford the easier opportunities for the future expansion of protected areas, with the expansion into human-dominated landscapes the greater challenge. We identify regions that are not currently protected, but that are wild, and consider which of them hold substantial numbers of especially small-ranged vertebrate species. We assess how successful the strategy of protecting the wilder half of Earth might be in conserving biodiversity. It is far from sufficient. (Protecting large wild places for reasons other than biodiversity protection, such as carbon sequestration and other ecosystem services, might still have importance.) Unexpectedly, we also show that, despite the bias in establishing large protected areas in wild places to date, numerous small protected areas are in biodiverse places. They at least partially protect significant fractions of especially small-ranged species. So, while a preoccupation with protecting large areas for the sake of getting half of Earth might achieve little for biodiversity, there is more progress in protecting high-biodiversity areas than currently appreciated. Continuing to prioritize the right parts of Earth, not just the total area protected, is what matters for biodiversity.

The IUCN Red List has assessed the global distributions of the majority of the world's amphibians, birds and mammals. Yet these assessments lack explicit reference to widely available, remotely-sensed data that can sensibly inform a species' risk of extinction. Our first goal is to add additional quantitative data to the existing standardised process that IUCN employs. Secondly, we ask: do our results suggest species of concern-those at considerably greater risk than hitherto appreciated? Thirdly, these assessments are not only important on a species-by-species basis. By combining distributions of species of concern, we map conservation priorities. We ask to what degree these areas are currently protected and how might knowledge from remote sensing modify the priorities? Finally, we develop a quick and simple method to identify and modify the priority setting in a landscape where natural habitats are disappearing rapidly and so where conventional species' assessments might be too slow to respond. Tropical, mainland Southeast Asia is under exceptional threat, yet relatively poorly known. Here, additional quantitative measures may be particularly helpful. This region contains over 122, 183, and 214 endemic mammals, birds, and amphibians, respectively, of which the IUCN considers 37, 21, and 37 threatened. When corrected for the amount of remaining natural habitats within the known elevation preferences of species, the average sizes of species ranges shrink to