Search

Human impacts on the Earth’s biosphere are driving the global biodiversity crisis. Governments are preparing to agree on a set of actions intended to halt the loss of biodiversity and put it on a path to recovery by 2050. We provide evidence that the proposed actions can bend the curve for biodiversity, but only if these actions are implemented urgently and in an integrated manner.

An increasing number of voices highlight the need for science itself to transform and to engage in the co-production of knowledge and action, in order to enable the fundamental transformations needed to advance towards sustainable futures. But how can global sustainability-oriented research networks engage in co-production of knowledge and action? The present article introduces a strategic tool called the ‘network compass’ which highlights four generic, interrelated fields of action through which networks can strive to foster co-production. It is based on the networks’ particular functions and how these can be engaged for co-production processes. This tool aims to foster self-reflection and learning within and between networks in the process of (re)developing strategies and activity plans and effectively contributing to sustainability transformations.

Forests across the world stand at a crossroads where climate and land-use changes are shaping their future. Despite demonstrations of political will and global efforts, forest loss, fragmentation, and degradation continue unabated. No clear evidence exists to suggest that these initiatives are working. A key reason for this apparent ineffectiveness could lie in the failure to recognize the agency of all stakeholders involved. Landscapes do not happen. We shape them. Forest transitions are social and behavioral before they are ecological. Decision makers need to integrate better representations of people's agency in their mental models. A possible pathway to overcome this barrier involves eliciting mental models behind policy decisions to allow better representation of human agency, changing perspectives to better understand divergent points of view, and refining strategies through explicit theories of change. Games can help decision makers in all of these tasks. Why are we missing our environmental targets? A key reason might be our failure to recognize the agency of people. Landscapes do not happen. We shape them. Forest transitions are the product of the decisions that humans make. A better representation of agency in the mental models of decision makers can overcome this weakness. Making mental models explicit, changing vantage points, and refining strategies could achieve better results than trying to define common visions. Games can help in all of these tasks.

Forests across the world stand at the crossroad with climate and land use changes shaping their future. Despite the demonstration of political will and global efforts, forest loss, fragmentation and land degradation continue unabated. No clear evidence exists that these initiatives are working. Why are policies designed to halt deforestation and increase restoration of forest landscapes failing? A key reason for this apparent ineffectiveness lies in the failure to recognize the agency of the stakeholders involved and the adaptive capacities of the systems we seek to steer. Landscapes do not happen. We make them. They are the result of the sum of individual actions and decisions made by all stakeholders, and the interactions between these and biophysical processes. Likewise, forest transitions are not ecological, but social and behavioral. They are a product of the way humans manage ecosystems. Decision-makers need to integrate better representations of people’s agency in their mental models. We suggest possible solution pathways to overcome this key current barrier. These involve eliciting mental models behind policy decision, changing perspectives to better understand divergent points of view and refining strategies through explicit theories of change. Games designed to represent the constraints and opportunities that exist in the landscapes can help decision makers in these task.

The complex links and feedbacks between ecosystems and people are now sharply in focus. Our growing understandings of the complex relations between ecosystems and people, the social and ecological drivers of changes in nature, and the different dimensions of a good quality of life, from local to global scales, have made these inter- dependencies ever more visible (IPBES 2019; Díaz et al. 2019). Furthermore, recent studies have revealed how dramatically unsustainable and inequitable the interactions between ecosystems and people are, as a result of a long legacy of consumerism and utilitarianism, patriarchy and colonialism, and the global expansion of production-oriented relationships with nature. Fil: Balvanera, Patricia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; México Fil: Jacobs, Sander. Research Institute for Nature and Forest; Bélgica Fil: Nagendra, Harini. Azim Premji University; India Fil: O'Farrell, Patrick. University of Cape Town; Sudáfrica Fil: Bridgewater, Peter. University of Canberra; Australia. Utrecht University; Países Bajos Fil: Crouzat, Emilie. Universite Grenoble Alpes; Francia Fil: Dendoncker, Nicolas. University of Namur; Bélgica Fil: Goodwin, Sean. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Países Bajos Fil: Gustafsson, Karin M.. Örebro University; Suecia Fil: Kadykalo, Andrew N.. Carleton University; Canadá Fil: Krug, Cornelia B.. Universitat Zurich; Suiza Fil: Matuk, Fernanda Ayaviri. University of Agriculture Wageningen; Países Bajos. Federal Institute of Minas Gerais; Brasil Fil: Pandit, Ram. University of Western Australia; Australia. Hokkaido University; Japón Fil: Sala, Juan Emilio. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Centro Científico Tecnológico Conicet - Centro Nacional Patagónico. Instituto de Biología de Organismos Marinos; Argentina. Universidad Nacional de la Patagonia "San Juan Bosco"; Argentina Fil: Schröter, Matthias. Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; Alemania Fil: Washbourne, Carla Leanne. Colegio Universitario de Londres; Reino Unido

Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales. Departamento de Diversidad Biológica y Ecología. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina. Fil: Díaz, Sandra. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnica. Instituto Multidisciplinario de Biología Vegetal; Argentina. Fil: Zafra Calvo, Noelia. Future Earth; España. Fil: Purvis, Andy. Natural History Museum; Reino Unido. Fil: Verburg, Peter H. VU University Amsterdam. Institute for Environmental Studies: Países Bajos. Fil: Obura, David. Coastal Oceans Research and Development Indian Ocean; Kenia. Fil: Leadley, Paul. Université Paris-Sud. Ecologie Systématique Evolution; Francia. Fil: Chaplin Kramer, Rebecca. Stanford University. Natural Capital Project; Estados Unidos. Fil: De Meester, Luc. Leibniz Institut für Gewässerökologie und Binnenfischerei; Alemania. Fil: Dulloo, Ehsan. Bioversity International; Mauricio. Fil: Martín- López, Berta. Leuphana University of Lüneburg. Faculty of Sustainability; Alemania. Fil: Shaw, Rebecca. The World Wide Fund for Nature; Estados Unidos. Fil: Visconti, Piero. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Ecosystem Services and Management Program; Austria. Fil: Broadgate, Wendy. Future Earth; Suecia. Fil: Bruford, Michael W. Cardiff University. School of Biosciences and Sustainable Places Institute; Reino Unido. Fil: Burgess, Neil D. UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido. Fil: Cavender Bares, Jeannine. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior; Estados Unidos. Fil: DeClerck, Fabrice. EAT Foundation; Noruega. Fil: Fernández Palacios, José María. Universidad de La Laguna. Instituto Universitario de Enfermedades Tropicales y Salud Pública de Canarias; España. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Universidad Nacional de Río Negro. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Garibaldi, Lucas A. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones en Recursos Naturales, Agroecología y Desarrollo Rural. Río Negro, Argentina. Fil: Hill, Samantha L. L. UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre; Reino Unido. Fil: Isbell, Forest. University of Minnesota. Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior; Estados Unidos. Fil: Khoury, Colin K. International Center for Tropical Agriculture; Colombia. Fil: Krug, Cornelia B. University of Zurich. Department of Geography; Suiza. Fil: Liu, Jianguo. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos. Fil: Maron, Martine. The University of Queensland; Australia. Fil: McGowan, Philip J. K. Newcastle University. School of Natural and Environmental Sciences; Reino Unido. Fil: Pereira, Henrique M. German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research; Alemania. Fil: Reyes García, Victoria. Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies; España. Fil: Rocha, Juan. Future Earth; Suecia. Fil: Rondinini, Carlo. Sapienza University of Rome. Department of Biology and Biotechnologies. Global Mammal Assessment Program; Italia. Fil: Shannon, Lynne. University of Cape Town. Department of Biological Sciences; Sudáfrica. Fil: Shin, Yunne-Jai. University of Cape Town. Department of Biological Sciences; Sudáfrica. Fil: Snelgrove, Paul V. R. Memorial University of Newfoundland. Departments of Ocean Sciences and Biology; Canada. Fil: Spehn, Eva M. Swiss Academy of Sciences. Swiss Biodiversity Forum; Suiza. Fil: Strassburg, Bernardo. Pontifical Catholic University. Department of Geography and the Environment. Rio Conservation and Sustainability Science Centre; Brasil. Fil: Subramanian, Suneetha M. United Nations University. Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability; Japón. Fil: Tewksbury, Joshua J. University of Colorado; Estados Unidos. Fil: Watson, James E. M. Wildlife Conservation Society; Estados Unidos. Fil: Zanne, Amy E. George Washington University. Department of Biological Sciences; Estados Unidos. Global biodiversity policy is at a crossroads. Recent global assessments of living nature (1, 2) and climate (3) show worsening trends and a rapidly narrowing window for action. The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has recently announced that none of the 20 Aichi targets for biodiversity it set in 2010 has been reached and only six have been partially achieved (4). Against this backdrop, nations are now negotiating the next generation of the CBD's global goals [see supplementary materials (SM)], due for adoption in 2021, which will frame actions of governments and other actors for decades to come. In response to the goals proposed in the draft post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) made public by the CBD (5), we urge negotiators to consider three points that are critical if the agreed goals are to stabilize or reverse nature's decline. First, multiple goals are required because of nature's complexity, with different facets—genes, populations, species, deep evolutionary history, ecosystems, and their contributions to people—having markedly different geographic distributions and responses to human drivers. Second, interlinkages among these facets mean that goals must be defined and developed holistically rather than in isolation, with potential to advance multiple goals simultaneously and minimize trade-offs between them. Third, only the highest level of ambition in setting each goal, and implementing all goals in an integrated manner, will give a realistic chance of stopping—and beginning to reverse—biodiversity loss by 2050.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES) strengthens the science-policy interface by producing scientific assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services to inform policy. IPBES fosters knowledge exchange across disciplines, between researchers and other knowledge holders, practitioners, societal actors and decision makers working at different geographic scales. A number of avenues for participation of stakeholders across the four functions if IPBES exist. Stakeholders come from diverse backgrounds, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, businesses, and non-governmental organization. They represent multiple sources of information, data, knowledge, and perspectives on biodiversity. Stakeholder engagement in IPBES seeks to 1. communicate, disseminate, and implement the findings of IPBES products; 2. Develop guidelines for biodiversity conservation within member countries; and 3. create linkages between global policy and local actors – all key to the implementation of global agreements on biodiversity. This paper reflects on the role of stakeholders in the first work programme of IPBES (2014–2018). It provides an overview of IPBES processes and products relevant to stakeholders, examines the motivation of stakeholders to engage with IPBES, and explores reflections by the authors (all active participants on the platform) for improved stakeholder engagement and contributions to future work of the platform.

This paper addresses ‘integration’ at the level of ontology to reflect on the conception and conduct of integrative research in Global Environmental Change (GEC) science. First, it outlines how the Earth system has become the dominant conceptual framework within which to approach GEC, marginalizing other ways of understanding the world. The paper argues that in order to grasp GEC and develop more effective responses to it, it is necessary to move beyond the singular ontology offered by the Earth system and engage with plural ontologies. Second, the paper highlights that scientific knowledge is inherently situated within networks of social and institutional power and oriented towards various social ends, and that as a consequences GEC science needs to reflect more deeply on the politics of its own knowledge production and its relationship to the policy sphere. In conclusion the paper calls for a more critical GEC science that builds these reflections into its scientific practices, and provides some leading questions that integrative research initiatives can use to guide self-reflexive research practices.

Scenarios are important tools to facilitate the communication among scientists, practitioners, and decision-makers, and, thus to support policy and management decisions. The use of scenarios has an enormous potential to reduce ecosystem restoration costs and to optimize benefits, but this potential remains poorly explored. Here, we recommend and illustrate six best practices to guide the use of scenarios for planning native ecosystem restoration. We argue, first, for a participatory process to consider aspirations of multiple stakeholders along the whole scenario building process, from planning to implementation and review phases. Second, targeted restoration outcomes should be defined by key-actors (those who have direct interests in restoration) and directly involved stakeholders, within a clear socio-environmental context and under a well-defined problem statement, considering a broad range of nature and human benefits that can be derived from ecosystem restoration. Third, methodological choices, such as scenario types, spatial and temporal scales, drivers, restoration-related variables, and indicators, should be defined according to the multiple desired outcomes. Fourth, we encourage the consideration of the interactions among variables, within a spatially explicit, and temporally dynamic multi-criteria approach. Fifth, analysis and dissemination of scenario results should highlight the trade-offs and synergies among different restoration outcomes, identifying the scenarios that maximize benefits and minimize costs and resistance (i.e. the cost-effective and most feasible scenario) for multiple targets. Finally, promoting capacity building, through a wider consultation process including interaction with a broader group of stakeholders, is critical for the successful implementation and review of restoration interventions. Scenarios that support ecosystem restoration should follow an adaptive and iterative process, aiming to continuously improve restoration interventions and outcomes.

In the original publication of the article, under the acknowledgments section, the project number was published incorrectly.

Sustainability is a key challenge for humanity in the context of complex and unprecedented global changes. Future Earth, an international research initiative aiming to advance global sustainability science, has recently launched knowledge action networks (KANs) as mechanisms for delivering its research strategy. The research initiative is currently developing a KAN on natural assets to facilitate and enable action-oriented research and synthesis towards natural assets sustainability. Natural assets has been adopted by Future Earth as an umbrella term aiming to translate and bridge across different knowledge systems and different perspectives on peoples relationships with nature. In this paper, we clarify the framing of Future Earth around natural assets emphasizing the recognition on pluralism and identifying the challenges of translating different visions about the role of natural assets, including via policy formulation, for local to global sustainability challenges. This understanding will be useful to develop inter-and transdisciplinary solutions for human environmental problems by (i) embracing richer collaborative decision processes and building bridges across different perspectives; (ii) giving emphasis on the interactions between biophysical and socioeconomic drivers affecting the future trends of investments and disinvestments in natural assets; and (iii) focusing on social equity, power relationships for effective application of the natural assets approach. This understanding also intends to inform the scope of the natural asset KAN s research agenda to mobilize the translation of research into co-designed action for sustainability. © 2018, The Author(s). We thank the University of Bern for hosting the meeting, and Future Earth and SCNAT for providing financial support. MMH and SG are supported by the Centre of Applied Ecology and Sustainability CAPES FB 0002-2014. MMH is supported by Fondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico FONDECYT 318011.

Improving understanding of how biodiversity and ecosystems respond to environmental change is necessary to guide policy and management. To this end, the bioDISCOVERY project of the international programme on global change, Future Earth, initiates and supports international networks of scientists to advance research on monitoring and observations, scenarios and models, and assessments of biodiversity and ecosystems. bioDISCOVERY activities seek collective solutions to key research challenges, and provide support for the international science community by participating in the development of global databases. This global working-group approach is essential for directing cutting-edge science toward supporting international policies, addressing urgent environmental issues, and closing research gaps through transdisciplinary integration and mobilisation of the scientific community.

Renosterveld is a Mediterranean-type shrubland in the south-western Cape of South Africa. It is an exceptionally species-rich habitat and a local biodiversity hotspot. However, it has been strongly fragmented due to land use intensification during the last centuries. We analysed the impact of fragmentation on the genetic variation of a typical renosterveld species, the annual herb Nemesia barbata. For our investigation we selected populations of the species in 20 renosterveld fragments of different sizes in the Cape lowlands and determined genetic variation within and between populations using amplified fragment polymorphsims (AFLPs). We expected genetic pauperisation within small and isolated fragments and a lack of gene flow between these fragments. We observed considerable genetic variation within but only a low level of variation between populations. Genetic variation within populations was not correlated with the size of the fragment or the distance to the nearest adjacent fragment. However, genetic variation between populations was positively correlated with geographic distance between fragments, indicating historical and/or actual gene flow. Based upon our results, we conclude that habitat fragmentation does not yet influence the genetic variation of N. barbata. Historical and possibly actual gene flow, combined with buffering effects of the soil seed bank, appear to have minimized the negative impacts of habitat fragmentation on genetic variation of this renosterveld species.

Questions What are the characteristics of soil seed banks in highly endangered renosterveld vegetation and adjacent degraded sites? What is the contribution of the soil seed bank to restoring renosterveld vegetation after degradation through agriculture or afforestation? Location Tygerberg Nature Reserve – one of the largest remaining fragments of Swartland Shale Renosterveld, Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Methods Assessment of vegetation, soil parameters and soil seed banks in three renosterveld sites, two adjacent abandoned fields, one pine plantation and one pine plantation clear-cut site. Smoke primer (i.e. fire surrogate) was applied to soil seed bank samples to evaluate fire as a possible management and restoration tool. Results Abandoned agricultural fields adjacent to renosterveld remnants are characterized by alien grass cover, nutrient enrichment of the soil and depletion of the indigenous soil seed bank. In contrast, pine plantations show less alien species infestation, soil nutrient alteration and have a viable soil seed bank as well as re-development of indigenous renosterveld vegetation after clearance. Seedling recruitment was not significantly influenced by application of a smoke primer compared to the magnitude of fire response in fynbos. Conclusion Abandoned agricultural fields (previously renosterveld) at Tygerberg have a very low restoration potential. In contrast, pine plantation sites should be given priority in restoration, because soil chemistry is less significantly altered and a viable indigenous soil seed bank is still present, which can be successfully activated through clearance management.

Biological monitoring has a long history in freshwaters, where much of the pioneering work in this field was developed over a 100 years ago—but few of the traditional monitoring tools provide the global perspective on biodiversity loss and its consequences for ecosystem functioning that are now needed. Rather than forcing existing monitoring paradigms to respond to questions they were never originally designed to address, we need to take a step back and assess the prospects for novel approaches that could be developed and adopted in the future. To resolve some of the issues with indicators currently used to inform policymakers, we highlight new biological monitoring tools that are being used, or could be developed in the near future, which (1) consider less-studied taxonomic groups, (2) are standardised across regions to allow global comparisons, and (3) measure change over multiple time points. The new tools we suggest make use of some of the key technological and logistical advances seen in recent years—including remote sensing, molecular tools, and local-to-global citizen science networks. We recommend that these new indicators should be considered in future assessments of freshwater ecosystem health and contribute to the evidence base for global to regional (and national) assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services: for example, within the emerging framework of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Areas of abandoned agricultural fields are globally increasing and are also common features in the Cape Lowlands of South Africa. Previous restoration attempts in degraded West Coast renosterveld, a Mediterranean-climate shrubland, have attained limited success and therefore novel approaches are needed for this area. The study reports on two restoration experiments, designed to re-introduce key plant functional types back into this critically endangered habitat. The first experiment concentrated on a common pioneer species in renosterveld vegetation, Otholobium hirtum. Although in vitro experiments showed a significantly elevated germination response after scarification, in vivo experiments failed to produce establishment in an abandoned field. The second restoration experiment focused on bush clumps, a sub-type of renosterveld vegetation that is characterized by broad-leaved shrubs with fleshy bird-dispersed diaspores. The effect of artificial bird perches and their potential to enhance diaspore dispersal by frugivorous birds in two abandoned field communities was tested. Results showed a significant increase in seed dispersal at artificial perch sites. However, in the next fruiting season, and after perch removal, seed germination and establishment in abandoned fields was not successful. The experiments revealed that restoration using early-succession species and natural dispersal vectors appear not to produce demonstrable benefits, despite their promising potential and pre-testing of effectiveness. Before launching large-scale restoration programs in abandoned fields of renosterveld, preliminary studies in-field are strongly recommended.

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

Rhabdomys pumilio (Sparmann 1784) is a small mammal species with a wide spread distribution in Southern Africa, and occurs in a wide range of habitats. The species also occurs in the Namib Desert, but does not have the specific physiological adaptations to the arid climate that other desert rodents show. In a 2-year study of Rhabdomys, the striped mouse, it was examined how this species adapts to the extreme arid climate of the Namib Desert. Due to the general lack of plant cover in the Namib, striped mice are forced to aggregate under nara (Acanthosicyos horridus) plants. By modulating their diurnal activity pattern, animals avoid the midday hours when solar radiation is most intense. The population investigated was herbivorous, feeding mostly on nara plants which have a high water and protein content. Female reproduction is opportunistic, and tied to the availability of food high in protein.

In 2010, the international community, under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity, agreed on 20 biodiversity-related “Aichi Targets” to be achieved within a decade. We provide a comprehensive mid-term assessment of progress toward these global targets using 55 indicator data sets. We projected indicator trends to 2020 using an adaptive statistical framework that incorporated the specific properties of individual time series. On current trajectories, results suggest that despite accelerating policy and management responses to the biodiversity crisis, the impacts of these efforts are unlikely to be reflected in improved trends in the state of biodiversity by 2020. We highlight areas of societal endeavor requiring additional efforts to achieve the Aichi Targets, and provide a baseline against which to assess future progress.

In 2010, the parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 with the mission of halting biodiversity loss and enhance the benefits it provides to people. The 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets (Aichi Targets), which are included in the Strategic Plan, are organized under five Strategic Goals, and provide coherent guidance on how to achieve it. Halfway through the Strategic Plan, it is time to prioritize actions in order to achieve the best possible outcomes for the Aichi Targets in 2020. Actions to achieve one target may influence other targets (downstream interactions); in turn a target may be influenced by actions taken to attain other targets (upstream interactions). We explore the interactions among targets and the time-lags between implemented measures and desired outcomes to develop a framework that can reduce the overall burden associated with the implementation of the Strategic Plan. We identified the targets addressing the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss and the targets aimed at enhancing the implementation of the Strategic Plan as having the highest level of downstream interactions. Targets aimed at improving the status of biodiversity and safeguarding ecosystems followed by targets aimed at reducing the direct pressures on biodiversity and enhancing the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services, were identified as having the highest levels of upstream interactions. Perhaps one of the most challenging aspects of the Strategic Plan is the need to balance actions for its long-term sustainability with the need for urgent actions to halt biodiversity loss.

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

The critically endangered Renosterveld shrubland of the Cape Floristic Region in South Africa is one of the most transformed vegetation types in the world. The mostly small patches that remain after the extensive fragmentation are potentially vulnerable to edge effects and therefore, information on the extent of edge effects in this vegetation type is urgently required for conservation planning. To provide this information, we studied edge effects at two sites in each of five larger fragments of Swartland Shale Renosterveld near Cape Town surveying the vegetation composition along three 10 m wide and 200 m long belt transects. There was little indication of edge effects among the dominant woody species. However, abundance and/ or species richness of the petaloid monocotyledonous plants, which contribute a disproportionally high fraction of the vegetation type’s high biodiversity, as well as the ferns, had a clear negative correlation with edge proximity. For these taxa, effects did not level off at the end of the transect at 200 m. This extent of impact is much larger than those reported in most other studies on edge effects among plants. In contrast, species indicative of high disturbance levels generally decreased within the first 30 m. Consequently, Swartland Shale Renosterveld fragments would be likely to benefit from being enlarged to over 400 m width, while corridors or stepping stones should have a width of over 60 m to minimize major edge effects., Horn Anne, Krug Cornelia B., Newton Ian P., Esler Karen J. Specific edge effects in highly endangered Swartland Shale Renosterveld in the Cape Region. In: Ecologia mediterranea, tome 37 n°2, 2011. Numéro spécial, 7e conférence européenne SER en écologie de la restauration, 23-27 août 2010, Avignon, France. pp. 63-74.