Search

As the United Nations develops a post-2020 global biodiversity framework for the Convention on Biological Diversity, attention is focusing on how new goals and targets for ecosystem conservation might serve its vision of ‘living in harmony with nature’1,2. Advancing dual imperatives to conserve biodiversity and sustain ecosystem services requires reliable and resilient generalizations and predictions about ecosystem responses to environmental change and management3. Ecosystems vary in their biota4, service provision5 and relative exposure to risks6, yet there is no globally consistent classification of ecosystems that reflects functional responses to change and management. This hampers progress on developing conservation targets and sustainability goals. Here we present the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Ecosystem Typology, a conceptually robust, scalable, spatially explicit approach for generalizations and predictions about functions, biota, risks and management remedies across the entire biosphere. The outcome of a major cross-disciplinary collaboration, this novel framework places all of Earth’s ecosystems into a unifying theoretical context to guide the transformation of ecosystem policy and management from global to local scales. This new information infrastructure will support knowledge transfer for ecosystem-specific management and restoration, globally standardized ecosystem risk assessments, natural capital accounting and progress on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

This dataset includes the current version of the indicative distribution maps and profiles for Ecosystem Functional Groups - Level 3 of IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology (v2.1). Please refer to Keith et al. (2020) and Keith et al. (2022). The descriptive profiles provide brief summaries of key ecological traits and processes for each functional group of ecosystems to enable any ecosystem type to be assigned to a group. Maps are indicative of global distribution patterns and are not intended to represent fine-scale patterns. The maps show areas of the world containing major (value of 1, coloured red) or minor occurrences (value of 2, coloured yellow) of each ecosystem functional group. Minor occurrences are areas where an ecosystem functional group is scattered in patches within matrices of other ecosystem functional groups or where they occur in substantial areas, but only within a segment of a larger region. Most maps were prepared using a coarse-scale template (e.g. ecoregions), but some were compiled from higher resolution spatial data where available (see details in profiles). Higher resolution mapping is planned in future publications. We emphasise that spatial representation of Ecosystem Functional Groups does not follow higher-order groupings described in respective ecoregion classifications. Consequently, when Ecosystem Functional Groups are aggregated into functional biomes (Level 2 of the Global Ecosystem Typology), spatial patterns may differ from those of biogeographic biomes. Differences reflect the distinctions between functional and biogeographic interpretations of the term, “biome”., This dataset includes the current version of the indicative distribution maps and profiles for Ecosystem Functional Groups - Level 3 of IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology (v2.1). Please refer to Keith et al. (2020) and Keith et al. (2022). The descriptive profiles provide brief summaries of key ecological traits and processes for each functional group of ecosystems to enable any ecosystem type to be assigned to a group. Maps are indicative of global distribution patterns and are not intended to represent fine-scale patterns. The maps show areas of the world containing major (value of 1, coloured red) or minor occurrences (value of 2, coloured yellow) of each ecosystem functional group. Minor occurrences are areas where an ecosystem functional group is scattered in patches within matrices of other ecosystem functional groups or where they occur in substantial areas, but only within a segment of a larger region. Most maps were prepared using a coarse-scale template (e.g. ecoregions), but some were compiled from higher resolution spatial data where available (see details in profiles). Higher resolution mapping is planned in future publications. We emphasise that spatial representation of Ecosystem Functional Groups does not follow higher-order groupings described in respective ecoregion classifications. Consequently, when Ecosystem Functional Groups are aggregated into functional biomes (Level 2 of the Global Ecosystem Typology), spatial patterns may differ from those of biogeographic biomes. Differences reflect the distinctions between functional and biogeographic interpretations of the term, “biome”.

An understanding of risks to biodiversity is needed for planning action to slow current rates of decline and secure ecosystem services for future human use. Although the IUCN Red List criteria provide an effective assessment protocol for species, a standard global assessment of risks to higher levels of biodiversity is currently limited. In 2008, IUCN initiated development of risk assessment criteria to support a global Red List of ecosystems. We present a new conceptual model for ecosystem risk assessment founded on a synthesis of relevant ecological theories. To support the model, we review key elements of ecosystem definition and introduce the concept of ecosystem collapse, an analogue of species extinction. The model identifies four distributional and functional symptoms of ecosystem risk as a basis for assessment criteria: a) rates of decline in ecosystem distribution; b) restricted distributions with continuing declines or threats; c) rates of environmental (abiotic) degradation; and d) rates of disruption to biotic processes. A fifth criterion, e) quantitative estimates of the risk of ecosystem collapse, enables integrated assessment of multiple processes and provides a conceptual anchor for the other criteria. We present the theoretical rationale for the construction and interpretation of each criterion. The assessment protocol and threat categories mirror those of the IUCN Red List of species. A trial of the protocol on terrestrial, subterranean, freshwater and marine ecosystems from around the world shows that its concepts are workable and its outcomes are robust, that required data are available, and that results are consistent with assessments carried out by local experts and authorities. The new protocol provides a consistent, practical and theoretically grounded framework for establishing a systematic Red List of the world’s ecosystems. This will complement the Red List of species and strengthen global capacity to report on and monitor the