Search

The extent and impacts of biological invasions on biodiversity are largely shaped by an array of socio-economic and environmental factors, which exhibit high variation among countries. Yet, a global analysis of how these factors vary across countries is currently lacking. Here, we investigate how five broad, country-specific socio-economic and environmental indices (Governance, Trade, Environmental Performance, Lifestyle and Education, Innovation) explain country-level (1) established alien species (EAS) richness of eight taxonomic groups, and (2) proactive or reactive capacity to prevent and manage biological invasions and their impacts. These indices underpin many aspects of the invasion process, including the introduction, establishment, spread and management of alien species. They are also general enough to enable a global comparison across countries, and are therefore essential for defining future scenarios for biological invasions. Models including Trade, Governance, Lifestyle and Education, or a combination of these, best explained EAS richness across taxonomic groups and national proactive or reactive capacity. Historical (1996 or averaged over 1996–2015) levels of Governance and Trade better explained both EAS richness and the capacity of countries to manage invasions than more recent (2015) levels, revealing a historical legacy with important implications for the future of biological invasions. Using Governance and Trade to define a two-dimensional socio-economic space in which the position of a country captures its capacity to address issues of biological invasions, we identified four main clusters of countries in 2015. Most countries had an increase in Trade over the past 25 years, but trajectories were more geographically heterogeneous for Governance. Declines in levels of Governance are concerning as they may be responsible for larger levels of invasions in the future. By identifying the factors influencing EAS richness and the regions most susceptible

In this article, the abstract has been revised such that “30% of the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution” now reads “30% of the total CO2 increase in the atmosphere, or 14% of total emissions, since the Industrial Revolution.” In addition, the second paragraph in the “Priority areas for restoration, and outcomes” section has had additional text inserted after the second sentence: “This corresponds to 15% of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions in this period, of which 55% were absorbed by terrestrial and marine sinks.” The changes have been made to the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

The expert group on scenarios and models of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services initiated the development of the Nature Futures Framework for developing scenarios of positive futures for nature, to help inform assessments of policy options. This new scenarios and modelling Framework seeks to open up diversity and plurality of perspectives by differentiating three main value perspectives on nature – Nature for Nature (intrinsic values of nature), Nature for Society (instrumental values) and Nature as Culture (relational values). This paper describes how the Nature Futures Framework can be applied in modelling to support policy processes by identifying key interventions for change in realizing a diversity of desirable futures. First, the paper introduces and elaborates on key building blocks of the framework for developing qualitative scenarios and translating them into quantitative scenarios: i) multiple value perspectives on nature and the Nature Futures frontier representing diverse preferences, ii) incorporating mutual and key feedbacks of social-ecological systems in Nature Futures scenarios, and iii) indicators describing the evolution of social-ecological systems with complementary knowledge and data. This paper then presents three possible application approaches to modelling Nature Futures scenarios to support the i) review, ii) implementation and iii) design phases of policy processes. The main objective of this paper is to facilitate the integration of the relational values of nature in models, through improved indicators and other forms of evidence, and to strengthen modelled linkages across biodiversity, ecosystems, nature’s contributions to people, and quality of life to identify science- and knowledge-based interventions and to enhance ecological understanding for achieving sustainable futures. The paper aims at stimulating the development of new scenarios and models based on this new framework by a wide c

The Anthropocene is characterized by unparalleled human impact on other species, potentially ushering in the sixth mass extinction. Yet mitigation efforts remain hampered by limited information on the spatial patterns and intensity of the threats driving global biodiversity loss. Here we use expert-derived information from the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List on threats to 23,271 species, representing all terrestrial amphibians, birds and mammals, to generate global maps of the six major threats to these groups: agriculture, hunting and trapping, logging, pollution, invasive species, and climate change. Our results show that agriculture and logging are pervasive in the tropics and that hunting and trapping is the most geographically widespread threat to mammals and birds. Additionally, current representations of human pressure underestimate the overall pressure on biodiversity, due to the exclusion of threats such as hunting and climate change. Alarmingly, this is particularly the case in areas of the highest biodiversity importance.

Aichi Target 12 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) contains the aim to ‘prevent extinctions of known threatened species’. To measure the degree to which this was achieved, we used expert elicitation to estimate the number of bird and mammal species whose extinctions were prevented by conservation action in 1993–2020 (the lifetime of the CBD) and 2010–2020 (the timing of Aichi Target 12). We found that conservation action prevented 21–32 bird and 7–16 mammal extinctions since 1993, and 9–18 bird and two to seven mammal extinctions since 2010. Many remain highly threatened and may still become extinct. Considering that 10 bird and five mammal species did go extinct (or are strongly suspected to) since 1993, extinction rates would have been 2.9–4.2 times greater without conservation action. While policy commitments have fostered significant conservation achievements, future biodiversity action needs to be scaled up to avert additional extinctions.

To meet the ambitious objectives of biodiversity and climate conventions, the international community requires clarity on how these objectives can be operationalized spatially and how multiple targets can be pursued concurrently. To support goal setting and the implementation of international strategies and action plans, spatial guidance is needed to identify which land areas have the potential to generate the greatest synergies between conserving biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people. Here we present results from a joint optimization that minimizes the number of threatened species, maximizes carbon retention and water quality regulation, and ranks terrestrial conservation priorities globally. We found that selecting the top-ranked 30% and 50% of terrestrial land area would conserve respectively 60.7% and 85.3% of the estimated total carbon stock and 66% and 89.8% of all clean water, in addition to meeting conservation targets for 57.9% and 79% of all species considered. Our data and prioritization further suggest that adequately conserving all species considered (vertebrates and plants) would require giving conservation attention to ~70% of the terrestrial land surface. If priority was given to biodiversity only, managing 30% of optimally located land area for conservation may be sufficient to meet conservation targets for 81.3% of the terrestrial plant and vertebrate species considered. Our results provide a global assessment of where land could be optimally managed for conservation. We discuss how such a spatial prioritization framework can support the implementation of the biodiversity and climate conventions.

In 2018, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted a decision on protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs). It contains the definition of an OECM and related scientific and technical advice that has broadened the scope of governance authorities and areas that can be engaged and recognised in global conservation efforts. The voluntary guidance on OECMs and protected areas, also included in the decision, promotes the use of diverse, effective and equitable governance models, the integration of protected areas and OECMs into wider landscapes and seascapes, and mainstreaming of biodiversity conservation across sectors. Taken as a whole, the advice and voluntary guidance provides further clarity about the CBD Parties’ understanding of what constitutes equitable and effective area-based conservation measures within and beyond protected areas and provides standardised criteria with which to measure and report areas’ attributes and performance. This policy perspective suggests that this CBD decision represents further evidence of the evolution from the ‘new paradigm for protected areas’ to a broader ‘conserved areas paradigm’ that embodies good governance, equity and effective conservation outcomes and is inclusive of a diversity of contributions to conservation within and beyond protected areas.

As a source of emerging infectious diseases, wildlife assemblages (and related spatial patterns) must be quantitatively assessed to help identify high-risk locations. Previous assessments have largely focussed on the distributions of individual species; however, transmission dynamics are expected to depend on assemblage composition. Moreover, disease–diversity relationships have mainly been studied in the context of species loss, but assemblage composition and disease risk (e.g. infection prevalence in wildlife assemblages) can change without extinction. Based on the predicted distributions and abundances of 4466 mammal species, we estimated global patterns of disease risk through the calculation of the community-level basic reproductive ratio R0, an index of invasion potential, persistence, and maximum prevalence of a pathogen in a wildlife assemblage. For density-dependent diseases, we found that, in addition to tropical areas which are commonly viewed as infectious disease hotspots, northern temperate latitudes included high-risk areas. We also forecasted the effects of climate change and habitat loss from 2015 to 2035. Over this period, many local assemblages showed no net loss of species richness, but the assemblage composition (i.e. the mix of species and their abundances) changed considerably. Simultaneously, most areas experienced a decreased risk of density-dependent diseases but an increased risk of frequency-dependent diseases. We further explored the factors driving these changes in disease risk. Our results suggest that biodiversity and changes therein jointly influence disease risk. Understanding these changes and their drivers and ultimately identifying emerging infectious disease hotspots can help health officials prioritize resource distribution.