Search

International audience; There is growing evidence of the interrelationships between ecosystems and public health. This creates opportunities for the development of cross-sectoral policies and interventions that provide dual benefits to public health and to the natural environment. These benefits are increasingly articulated in strategy documents at national and regional level, yet implementation of integrative policies on the ground remains limited and fragmented. Here, we use a workshop approach to identify some features of this evidence-implementation gap based on policy and practice within a number of western European countries. The driving forces behind some recent moves towards more integrative policy development and implementation show important differences between countries, reflecting the non-linear and complex nature of the policy-making process. We use these case studies to illustrate some of the key barriers to greater inte-grative policy development identified in the policy analysis literature. Specific barriers we identify include: institutional barriers; differing time perspectives in public health and ecosystem management; contrasting historical development of public health and natural environment disciplinary policy agendas; an incomplete evidence base relating investment in the natural environment to benefits for public health; a lack of appropriate outcome measures including benefit-cost trade-offs; and finally a lack of integra-tive policy frameworks across the health and natural environment sectors. We also identify opportunities for greater policy integration and examples of good practice from different countries. However, we note there is no single mechanism that will deliver integrative policy for healthier people and ecosystems in all countries and situations. National governments, national public agencies, local governments, research institutions, and professional bodies all share a responsibility to identify and seize opportunities for influencing policy change, whether incremental or abrupt, to ensure that ecosystems and the health of society are managed so that the interests of future generations, as well as present generations, can be protected.

The sustainable development of cities is increasingly recognized as crucial to meeting collectively agreed sustainability goals at local, regional and global scales, and more broadly to securing hu ...

Biodiversity is of critical value to human societies, but recent evidence that biodiversity may mitigate infectious-disease risk has sparked controversy among researchers. The majority of work on this topic has focused on direct assessments of the relationship between biodiversity and endemic-pathogen prevalence, without disentangling intervening mechanisms; thus study outcomes often differ, fuelling more debate. Here, we suggest two critical changes to the approach researchers take to understanding relationships between infectious disease, both endemic and emerging, and biodiversity that may help clarify sources of controversy. First, the distinct concepts of hazards versus risks need to be separated to determine how biodiversity and its drivers may act differently on each. This distinction is particularly important since it illustrates that disease emergence drivers in humans could be quite different to the general relationship between biodiversity and transmission of endemic pathogens. Second, the interactive relationship among biodiversity, anthropogenic change and zoonotic disease risk, including both direct and indirect effects, needs to be recognized and accounted for. By carefully disentangling these interactions between humans' activities and pathogen circulation in wildlife, we suggest that conservation efforts could mitigate disease risks and hazards in novel ways that complement more typical disease control efforts. This article is part of the themed issue ‘Conservation, biodiversity and infectious disease: scientific evidence and policy implications’.

Understanding the ecology of environmentally acquired and multi-host pathogens affecting humans and wildlife has been elusive in part because fluctuations in the abundance of host and pathogen species may feed back onto pathogen transmission. Complexity of pathogen-host dynamics emerges from processes driving local extinction of the pathogen, its hosts and non-hosts. While the extinction of species may entail losses in pathogen-host interactions and decrease the proportion of hosts infected by a pathogen (prevalence), some studies suggest the opposite pattern. Niche-based extinction, based on the species tolerance to environmental conditions, may increase prevalence of infection because the pathogen and its hosts persist, while other species go extinct. Hence, understanding prevalence of infection requires disentangling random-and niche-based extinction processes occurring simultaneously. To contribute to this exercise, we analysed the prevalence of an environmentally acquired, multi-host pathogen, Mycobacterium ulcerans (MU), in a unique dataset of 16 communities of freshwater animals, surveyed during 12 months in Akonolinga, Cameroon in equatorial Africa. Two different ecosystems were identified: rivers (lotic) and swamps and flooded areas (lentic). Increased prevalence of MU infection was correlated with niche-based extinction of aquatic host invertebrates and vertebrates in the lentic ecosystems, whereas decreased prevalence was associated with random disassembly of the lotic ecosystems. This finding suggests that random and niche-based extinction of host taxa are key to assessing the effect of local extinction of species on the ecology of environmentally acquired and multi-host pathogens.

In June 2012, Brazil hosted Rio+20, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) marking the 20th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit. The Rio+20 outcome document entitled The future we want provides general guidance to shape sustainable development policies, but fell short of providing legally binding agreements or pragmatic goals. Negotiators agreed to develop a process for the establishment of new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), building upon the Millennium Development Goals, and setting the foundation for the post-2015 UN development agenda. Our objective is to argue that discussions beyond Rio+20 and toward the adoption of SDGs offer a critical opportunity to re-assess the major challenges for global health and sustainable development. There is an urgent need to translate the general aspirations put forth by Rio+20 into concrete health outcomes and greater health equity. The way toward the post-2015 SDGs will likely be more effective if it highlights the full gamut of linkages between ecosystem processes, anthropogenic environmental changes (climate change, biodiversity loss, and land use), socio-economic changes, and global health. Negotiations beyond Rio+20 should strongly acknowledge the global health benefits of biodiversity protection and climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies, which reduce diseases of poverty and protect the health of the most vulnerable. We argue that health and ecosystems are inextricably linked to all development sectors and that health should remain a critical priority for the upcoming SDGs in the context of global environmental change.

After the collective failure to achieve the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD's) 2010 target to substantially reduce biodiversity losses, the CBD adopted a plan composed of five strategic goals and 20 “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Ambitious, Realistic, and Time-bound) targets, to be achieved by 2020. Here, an interdisciplinary group of scientists from DIVERSITAS – an international program that focuses on biodiversity science – evaluates these targets and considers the implications of an ecosystem-services-based approach for their implementation. We describe the functional differences between the targets corresponding to distinct strategic goals and identify the interdependency between targets. We then discuss the implications for supporting research and target indicators, and make several specific suggestions for target implementation.

Ecosystem services have become a mainstream concept for the expression of values assigned by people to various functions of ecosystems. Even though the introduction of the concept has initiated a vast amount of research, progress in using this knowledge for sustainable resource use remains insufficient. We see a need to broaden the scope of research to answer three key questions that we believe will improve incorporation of ecosystem service research into decision-making for the sustainable use of natural resources to improve human well-being: (i) how are ecosystem services co-produced by social–ecological systems, (ii) who benefits from the provision of ecosystem services, and (iii) what are the best practices for the governance of ecosystem services? Here, we present these key questions, the rationale behind them, and their related scientific challenges in a globally coordinated research programme aimed towards improving sustainable ecosystem management. These questions will frame the activities of ecoSERVICES, formerly a DIVERSITAS project and now a project of Future Earth, in its role as a platform to foster global coordination of multidisciplinary sustainability science through the lens of ecosystem services. Fil: Bennett, E. M.. McGill University; Canadá Fil: Cramer, Wolfgang. Aix Marseille Université; Francia. Avignon Université; Francia Fil: Begossi, Alpina. Universidade Estadual de Campinas; Brasil. Universidade Santa Cecília; Brasil Fil: Cundill, Georgina. Rhodes University; Sudáfrica Fil: Díaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Egoh, Benis N.. University of KwaZulu-Natal; Sudáfrica Fil: Geijzendorffer, Ilse R.. Aix Marseille Université; Francia. Avignon Université; Francia Fil: Krug, Cornelia B.. Université de Paris XI; Francia Fil: Lavorel, Sandra. Université Grenoble Alpes; Francia. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique; Francia Fil: Lazos, Elena. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; México Fil: Lebel, Louis. Chiang Mai University; Tailandia Fil: Martín López, Berta. Universidad Autónoma de Madrid; España. Universidad de Copenhagen; Dinamarca Fil: Meyfroidt, Patrick. Université Catholique de Louvain; Bélgica Fil: Mooney, Harold A.. University of Stanford; Estados Unidos Fil: Nel, Jeanne L.. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research; Sudáfrica Fil: Pascual, Unai. Basque Centre for Climate Change; España. University of Cambridge; Reino Unido Fil: Payet, Karine. Aix Marseille Université; Francia. Avignon Université; Francia Fil: Pérez Harguindeguy, Natalia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Peterson, Garry D.. Stockholms Universitet; Suecia Fil: Prieur Richard, Anne Hélène. Museum National D; Francia Fil: Reyers, Belinda. Council for Scientific and Industrial Research; Sudáfrica Fil: Roebeling, Peter. University of Aveiro; Portugal Fil: Seppelt, Ralf. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania Fil: Solan, Martin. University of Southampton; Reino Unido Fil: Tschakert, Petra. State University of Pennsylvania; Estados Unidos Fil: Tscharntke, Teja. Georg August University; Alemania Fil: Turner II, B. L.. Arizona State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Verburg, Peter H.. University of Amsterdam; Países Bajos Fil: Viglizzo, Ernesto Francisco. Instituto Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria. Centro Regional La Pampa-San Luis; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina Fil: White, Piran C. L.. University of York; Reino Unido Fil: Woodward, Guy. Imperial College London; Reino Unido

International audience; The potential for disease transmission at the interface of wildlife, domestic animals and humans has become a major concern for public health and conservation biology. Research in this subject is commonly conducted at local scales while the regional context is neglected. We argue that prevalence of infection at local and regional levels is influenced by three mechanisms occurring at the landscape level in a metacommunity context. First, (1) dispersal, colonization, and extinction of pathogens, reservoir or vector hosts, and nonreservoir hosts, may be due to stochastic and niche‐based processes, thus determining distribution of all species, and then their potential interactions, across local communities (metacommunity structure). Second, (2) anthropogenic processes may drive environmental filtering of hosts, nonhosts, and pathogens. Finally, (3) phylogenetic diversity relative to reservoir or vector host(s), within and between local communities may facilitate pathogen persistence and circulation. Using a metacommunity approach, public heath scientists may better evaluate the factors that predispose certain times and places for the origin and emergence of infectious diseases. The multidisciplinary approach we describe fits within a comprehensive One Health and Ecohealth framework addressing zoonotic infectious disease outbreaks and their relationship to their hosts, other animals, humans, and the environment.

International audience; High-profile epidemics such as Ebola, avian influenza, and severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) repeatedly thrust infectious diseases into the limelight. Because the emergence of dis-eases involves so many factors, the need for interdisciplinary approaches to studying emerging infections, particularly those originating from animals (i.e., zoonoses), is frequently discussed. However, effective integration across disciplines is challenging in practice. Ecological ideas, for example, are rarely considered in biomedical research, while insights from biomedicine are often neglected in ecological studies of infectious diseases. One practical reason for this is that researchers in these fields focus on vastly different scales of biological organization, which are difficult to bridge both intellectually and methodologically. Nevertheless, integration across biological scales is increasingly needed for solving the complex problems zoonotic diseases pose to human and animal well-being. Motivated by current events, we use Ebola virusas a case study to highlight fundamental questions about zoonoses that can be addressed by integrating insights and approaches across scales.

Specialization can become detrimental to a discipline if it fosters intellectual isolation. A bibliographic analysis of several research areas in plant ecology (invasion biology, succession ecology, gap/patch dynamics, and global change effects on plants) revealed that plant ecologists do not regularly make use of the findings and insights of very similar studies being conducted in other research subdisciplines, nor do they try to make their findings and insights easily accessible to researchers in other areas. Invasion papers were least likely to be cross-linked (6%) with other fields, whereas gap/patch dynamics papers were most likely to be cross-linked (15%). This tendency toward intellectual isolation may be impeding efforts to achieve more powerful generalizations in ecology by reducing the number of potentially productive exchanges among researchers. In this paper, we illustrate this problem using the example of several speciality areas that study vegetation change. We argue that, rather than characterizing studies of vegetation change on the basis of what distinguishes them from one another, plant ecologists would benefit from concentrating on what such studies have in common. As an example, we propose that several speciality areas of plant ecology could be reunified under the term ecology of vegetation change. Individual researchers, journals, and ecological societies all can take specific steps to increase the useful exchange of ideas and information among research areas. Promoting rapid and more effective communication among diverse researchers may reduce the proliferation of narrow theories, concepts, and terminologies associated with particular research areas. In this way, we can expedite our understanding of the ecological mechanisms and consequences associated with plant communities. (c) 2004 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Recent studies have shown that a high species or functional group richness may not always lead to a greater resistance of plant communities to invasion, whereas species and/or functional group composition can more reliably predict invasion resistance. The aim of this study was to understand the mechanisms through which functional group composition can influence the resistance of Mediterranean annual communities to invasion by the exotic Conyza bonariensis. To analyse the effects of functional composition on the performance of individuals introduced as seedlings we first examined the relationships between the demographic and vegetative parameters of C. bonariensis and the biomass achieved by each functional group (grasses, legumes and Asteraceae rosettes) in synthetic communities. As a further step to approach the mechanisms involved in community resistance to invasion, we included in the analyses measurements of functional variables taken within the synthetic communities. In agreement with earlier results and theory suggesting that high nutrient availability can favour invasions, an abundant legume biomass in communities increased the final biomass and net fecundity of C. bonariensis, due to positive effects on soil nitrate concentration. Survival and establishment of C. bonariensis were mainly favoured by a high biomass of Asteraceae. Additional results from measurements of herbivory suggested that C. bonariensis survival wasn't related to abiotic conditions but may be owed to a protection against herbivores in plots with abundant Asteraceae. Establishment was on the other hand likely to be hindered by the effects of abundant grass and legume foliage on light quality, and therefore easier within an Asteraceae canopy. We conclude that invasion of Mediterranean old fields by species with biologies similar to C. bonariensis could be limited by favouring communities dominated by annual grasses.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 413 St. Jacques St. W, Suite 800, Montreal, QC H2Y 1N9, Canada DIVERSITAS, c/o Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN), 57 Rue Cuvier—CP41, 75231 Paris Cedex 05, France DIVERSITAS ecoHEALTH Cross-cutting Network, c/o EcoHealth Alliance, 460 West 34th Street, New York, NY 10001 Public Health and Environment Department, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland EcoHealth Alliance, 460 West 34th Street, New York, NY IUCN Species Survival Commission Wildlife Health Specialist Group, c/o EcoHealth Alliance, 460 West 34th Street, New York, NY World Organization for Animal Health, Working Group on Wildlife Diseases, 12 Rue du Prony, 75017 Paris, France

DIVERSITAS, the international programme on biodiversity science, is releasing a strategic vision presenting scientific challenges for the next decade of research on biodiversity and ecosystem services: “Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Science for a Sustainable Planet”. This new vision is a response of the biodiversity and ecosystem services scientific community to the accelerating loss of the components of biodiversity, as well as to changes in the biodiversity science-policy landscape (establishment of a Biodiversity Observing Network — GEO BON, of an Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services — IPBES, of the new Future Earth initiative; and release of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020). This article presents the vision and its core scientific challenges. Fil: Larigauderie, Anne. DIVERSITAS. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle; Francia Fil: Prieur Richard, Anne Helene. DIVERSITAS. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle; Francia Fil: Mace, Georgina. Imperial College London. Center for Population Biology; Reino Unido Fil: Londsdale, Mark. CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences; Australia Fil: Mooney, Harold A.. Stanford University. Department of Biological Sciences; Estados Unidos Fil: Brussaard, Lijbert. Wageningen University, Soil Quality Department; Países Bajos Fil: Cooper, David. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity; Canadá Fil: Wolfgang, Cramer. Institut Méditerranéen de Biodiversité et d’Ecologie marine et continentale; Francia Fil: Daszak, Peter. EcoHealth Alliance. Wildlife Trust; Estados Unidos Fil: Diaz, Sandra Myrna. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Córdoba. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas Físicas y Naturales. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina Fil: Duraiappah, Anantha. International Human Dimensions Programme; Alemania Fil: Elmqvist, Thomas. University of Stockholm. Department of Systems Ecology and Stockholm Resilience Center; Suecia Fil: Faith, Daniel. The Australian Museum; Australia Fil: Jackson, Louise. University of California; Estados Unidos Fil: Krug, Cornelia. DIVERSITAS. Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle; Francia Fil: Leadley, Paul. Université Paris. Laboratoire Ecologie Systématique Evolution, Ecologie des Populations et Communautés; Francia Fil: Le Prestre, Philippe. Laval University; Canadá Fil: Matsuda, Hiroyuki. Yokohama National University; Japón Fil: Palmer, Margaret. University of Maryland; Estados Unidos Fil: Perrings, Charles. Arizona State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Pulleman, Mirjam. Wageningen University; Países Bajos Fil: Reyers, Belinda. Natural Resources and Environment; Sudáfrica Fil: Rosa, Eugene A.. Washington State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Scholes, Robert J.. Natural Resources and Environment; Sudáfrica Fil: Spehn, Eva. Universidad de Basilea; Suiza Fil: Turner II, B. L.. Arizona State University; Estados Unidos Fil: Yahara, Tetsukazu. Kyushu University; Japón

Evolutionary biologists have long endeavored to document how many species exist on Earth, to understand the processes by which biodiversity waxes and wanes, to document and interpret spatial patterns of biodiversity, and to infer evolutionary relationships. Despite the great potential of this knowledge to improve biodiversity science, conservation, and policy, evolutionary biologists have generally devoted limited attention to these broader implications. Likewise, many workers in biodiversity science have underappreciated the fundamental relevance of evolutionary biology. The aim of this article is to summarize and illustrate some ways in which evolutionary biology is directly relevant. We do so in the context of four broad areas: (1) discovering and documenting biodiversity, (2) understanding the causes of diversification, (3) evaluating evolutionary responses to human disturbances, and (4) implications for ecological communities, ecosystems, and humans. We also introduce bioGENESIS, a new project within DIVERSITAS launched to explore the potential practical contributions of evolutionary biology. In addition to fostering the integration of evolutionary thinking into biodiversity science, bioGENESIS provides practical recommendations to policy makers for incorporating evolutionary perspectives into biodiversity agendas and conservation. We solicit your involvement in developing innovative ways of using evolutionary biology to better comprehend and stem the loss of biodiversity.

The vast majority of nations have fallen far short of the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD's) 2010 target: to reduce the rate of loss of biodiversity ( 1 , 2 ). This prompted the CBD to develop a new plan of action, supported by 20 “SMART” (specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic, and time-bound) targets for 2020 ( 3 , 4 ). As the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP) of the CBD meets in Nagoya, Japan, to negotiate both plan and targets, it is critical that targets also be grounded in the real interests that people have in benefits provided by biodiversity. To evaluate targets on this basis, we use the ecosystem services framework developed by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) ( 5 ). This framework balances resource conservation and use according to how societies value consumptive (e.g., food and fuel) and nonconsumptive (e.g., health and aesthetics) services provided by ecosystems.

Freshwater biodiversity is the over-riding conservation priority during the International Decade for Action - 'Water for Life' - 2005 to 2015. Fresh water makes up only 0.01% of the World's water and approximately 0.8% of the Earth's surface, yet this tiny fraction of global water supports at least 100000 species out of approximately 1.8 million - almost 6% of all described species. Inland waters and freshwater biodiversity constitute a valuable natural resource, in economic, cultural, aesthetic, scientific and educational terms. Their conservation and management are critical to the interests of all humans, nations and governments. Yet this precious heritage is in crisis. Fresh waters are experiencing declines in biodiversity far greater than those in the most affected terrestrial ecosystems, and if trends in human demands for water remain unaltered and species losses continue at current rates, the opportunity to conserve much of the remaining biodiversity in fresh water will vanish before the 'Water for Life' decade ends in 2015. Why is this so, and what is being done about it? This article explores the special features of freshwater habitats and the biodiversity they support that makes them especially vulnerable to human activities. We document threats to global freshwater biodiversity under five headings: overexploitation; water pollution; flow modification; destruction or degradation of habitat; and invasion by exotic species. Their combined and interacting influences have resulted in population declines and range reduction of freshwater biodiversity worldwide. Conservation of biodiversity is complicated by the landscape position of rivers and wetlands as 'receivers' of land-use effluents, and the problems posed by endemism and thus non-substitutability. In addition, in many parts of the world, fresh water is subject to severe competition among multiple human stakeholders. Protection of freshwater biodiversity is perhaps the ultimate conservation challenge because it is influenced by the upstream drainage network, the surrounding land, the riparian zone, and - in the case of migrating aquatic fauna - downstream reaches. Such prerequisites are hardly ever met. Immediate action is needed where opportunities exist to set aside intact lake and river ecosystems within large protected areas. For most of the global land surface, trade-offs between conservation of freshwater biodiversity and human use of ecosystem goods and services are necessary. We advocate continuing attempts to check species loss but, in many situations, urge adoption of a compromise position of management for biodiversity conservation, ecosystem functioning and resilience, and human livelihoods in order to provide a viable long-term basis for freshwater conservation. Recognition of this need will require adoption of a new paradigm for biodiversity protection and freshwater ecosystem management - one that has been appropriately termed 'reconciliation ecology'.

Global health catastrophes have complex origins, often rooted in social disruption, poverty, conflict, and environmental collapse. Avoiding them will require a new integrative analysis of the links between disease, armed conflict, and environmental degradation within a socioecological vulnerability and human security context. Exploring these connections was the aim of Avoiding Catastrophe: Linking Armed Conflict, Harm to Ecosystems, and Public Health, an expert workshop held in May 4–6, 2016, at Concordia University in Montreal, QC, Canada.