Search

Climate change is acidifying and warming our oceans, at an unprecedented rate posing a challenge for marine invertebrates vital across the globe for ecological services and food security. Here we show it is possible for resilience to climate change in an ecologically and economically significant oyster without detrimental effects to the energy budget. We exposed 24 pair-mated genetically distinct families of the Sydney rock oyster, Saccostrea glomerata to ocean acidification and warming for 4w and measured their resilience. Resilience was identified as the capacity to defend their acid-base balance without a loss of energy available for Scope for Growth (SFG). Of the 24 families, 13 were better able to defend their acid-base balance while eight had no loss of energy availability with a positive SFG. This study has found oyster families with reslience against climate change without a loss of SFG, is an essential mitigation strategy, in a critical mollusc.

28 november 2022, Contains fulltext : 285216.pdf (Author’s version preprint ) (Open Access), Bending the curve of biodiversity loss is a key priority for humanity and requires urgent action. The rapid loss of biological diversity threatens human lives, livelihoods and well-being globally,and is reinforcing, and being reinforced by, climate breakdown2. In December 2022, the 15thConference of the Parties (COP15) of the Convention on Biological Diversity will be held inMontreal. It is essential that an ambitious, specific and measurable Global BiodiversityFramework is agreed at this COP. However, governments alone are unlikely to reverse negativetrends in biodiversity. We suggest that a Biodiversity Action Agenda that mobilizes nature recovery actions from across society -- including businesses, investors, civil society groups, and local communities -- should be included as a complement to governmental efforts. If governments can agree on a strong Framework, an Action Agenda can create productive links between multilateral and transnational actions, for example by leveraging capacities from multiple actors, implementing goals, demonstrating solutions, and spurring national governments towards greater ambition. If, however, governments fail to agree on an ambitious Framework,or the subsequent implementation of the agreement suffers from political backlash or adismantling of national biodiversity policies, the Action Agenda can help sustain action and build momentum.

Earth’s biodiversity and human societies face pollution, overconsumption of natural resources, urbanization, demographic shifts, social and economic inequalities, and habitat loss, many of which are exacerbated by climate change. Here, we review links among climate, biodiversity, and society and develop a roadmap toward sustainability. These include limiting warming to 1.5°C and effectively conserving and restoring functional ecosystems on 30 to 50% of land, freshwater, and ocean “scapes.” We envision a mosaic of interconnected protected and shared spaces, including intensively used spaces, to strengthen self-sustaining biodiversity, the capacity of people and nature to adapt to and mitigate climate change, and nature’s contributions to people. Fostering interlinked human, ecosystem, and planetary health for a livable future urgently requires bold implementation of transformative policy interventions through interconnected institutions, governance, and social systems from local to global levels.

The two most urgent and interlinked environmental challenges humanity faces are climate change and biodiversity loss. We are entering a pivotal decade for both the international biodiversity and climate change agendas with the sharpening of ambitious strategies and targets by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Within their respective Conventions, the biodiversity and climate interlinked challenges have largely been addressed separately. There is evidence that conservation actions that halt, slow or reverse biodiversity loss can simultaneously slow anthropogenic mediated climate change significantly. This review highlights conservation actions which have the largest potential for mitigation of climate change. We note that conservation actions have mainly synergistic benefits and few antagonistic trade-offs with climate change mitigation. Specifically, we identify direct co-benefits in 14 out of the 21 action targets of the draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, notwithstanding the many indirect links that can also support both biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. These relationships are context and scale-dependent; therefore, we showcase examples of local biodiversity conservation actions that can be incentivized, guided and prioritized by global objectives and targets. The close interlinkages between biodiversity, climate change mitigation, other nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life are seldom as integrated as they should be in management and policy. This review aims to re-emphasize the vital relationships between biodiversity conservation actions and climate change mitigation in a timely manner, in support to major Conferences of Parties that are about to negotiate strategic frameworks and international goals for the decades to come.

Chapter 2, building on prior assessments1, provides a global assessment of the observed impacts and projected risks of climate change to terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, including their component species and the services they provide to people. Where possible, differences among regions, taxonomic groups and ecosystem types are presented. Adaptation options to reduce risks to ecosystems and people are assessed.

The IPCC Working Group II contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report addresses the challenges of climate action in the context of sustainable development with a particular focus on climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. This chapter frames the point of departure and key concepts building on the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2014a, b), the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (IPCC, 2018b), the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) (IPCC, 2019b), and the Special Report on Climate Change and Land (SRCCL) (IPCC, 2019a); as well as the WGI contributions to the Sixth Assessment Report (IPCC, 2021a) and complements the contribution of the WGIII Sixth Assessment Report, which will be published after this report (IPCC, 2022).

This Summary for Policymakers (SPM) presents key findings of the Working Group II (WGII) contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the IPCC. The report builds on the WGII contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC, three Special Reports, and the Working Group I (WGI) contribution to the AR6 cycle. This report recognizes the interdependence of climate, ecosystems and biodiversity3, and human societies (Figure SPM.1) and integrates knowledge more strongly across the natural, ecological, social and economic sciences than earlier IPCC assessments. The assessment of climate change impacts and risks as well as adaptation is set against concurrently unfolding non-climatic global trends e.g., biodiversity loss, overall unsustainable consumption of natural resources, land and ecosystem degradation, rapid urbanisation, human demographic shifts, social and economic inequalities and a pandemic.

Our current 1.1°C warmer world is already affecting natural and human systems in Europe (very high confidence1). Since AR5, there has been a substantial increase in detected or attributed impacts of climate change in Europe, including extreme events (high confidence). Impacts of compound hazards of warming and precipitation have become more frequent (medium confidence). Climate change has resulted in losses of, and damages to, people, ecosystems, food systems, infrastructure, energy and water availability, public health and the economy (very high confidence).

Mountains are highly significant regions in the context of climate change and sustainable development. They lie at the intersection of accelerated warming and large populations that depend directly or indirectly on them. They are regions of high biological and cultural diversity and provide vital goods and services to people living in and around mountain regions and in downstream areas. Building on the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), Chapter 2, ‘High Mountain Areas’, of the Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC) (Hock et al., 2019), and the IPCC Working Group I contribution to AR6 (IPCC, 2021), this Cross-Chapter Paper (CCP) assesses new evidence on observed and projected climate change impacts in mountain regions, their associated key risks and adaptation measures.

The cryosphere (including, snow, glaciers, permafrost, lake and river ice) is an integral element of high mountain regions, which are home to roughly 10% of the global population. Widespread cryosphere changes affect physical, biological and human systems in the mountains and surrounding lowlands, with impacts evident even in the ocean. Building on the IPCC’s 5th Assessment Report (AR5), this chapter assesses new evidence on observed recent and projected changes in the mountain cryosphere as well as associated impacts, risks and adaptation measures related to natural and human systems. Impacts in response to climate changes independently of changes in the cryosphere are not assessed in this chapter. Polar mountains are included in Chapter 3, except those in Alaska and adjacent Yukon, Iceland and Scandinavia, which are included in this chapter.

Der Bericht umfasst die Ergebnisse eines gemeinsamen Online-Workshops zwischen ausgewählten Autorinnen und Autoren des Weltbiodiversitätsrates IPBES und des Weltklimarates IPCC. Dieser Workshop fand vom 14. bis 17. De-zember 2020 statt.

Der Erhalt der Biodiversität und intakter Ökosysteme ist überlebenswichtig für Mensch und Natur. Dennoch schreitet der Verlust von Biodiversität sowohl in Deutschland – dem Fokus dieses Papiers – wie auch weltweit dramatisch voran. Die Politik hinkt dem zunehmenden Handlungsdruck allerdings weit hinterher. Bestehende Verpflichtungen wurden bisher nicht erfüllt, gesteckte Ziele nicht erreicht. Daher muss die neue Bundesregierung Verantwortung übernehmen und die Ursachen für den Verlust der Biodiversität, die in verschiedenen Politikfeldern liegen, bereits im Koalitionsvertrag adressieren. Der wirksame Schutz von Biodiversität kann nicht alleine mit der Ausweisung von Schutzgebieten erreicht werden, sondern ist eine Integrationsaufgabe. Die Adressaten dieses Textes sind daher politische Akteure, die Biodiversitätsziele in ihren Verantwortungsbereichen (Ressorts) und in allen relevanten Strategien integrieren sowie die relevanten Stakeholder mitnehmen müssen.Die hier beitragenden und zeichnenden Wissenschaftler*innen aus unterschiedlichsten Disziplinen werben gemeinsam für ein deutlich größeres Engagement für Biodiversität und legen hierfür die folgenden Handlungsempfehlungen für deutsche und europäische Politik vor. Sie appellieren an die politischen Verantwortungsträger*innen, diese vielfältigen Herausforderungen entschlossen anzugehen und unsere natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen wirkungsvoll zu schützen.

The Scientific Outcome was produced by participants in the first-ever IPCC-IPBES co-sponsored workshop which took place in December 2020.  This workshop is placed in the context of recent international agreements including the Paris Agreement, the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 and ongoing preparation for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development that converge on solving the dual crises of climate change and biodiversity loss as essential to support human well-being.The Scientific Outcome further develops and substantiates the conclusions of the Synopsis, summarizes the emerging state of knowledge involving climate change and biodiversity with the objective to inform decision making and highlight options for action, and to identify knowledge gaps to be filled by scientific research. The Scientific Outcome includes seven sections, the references outlining the evidence reviewed within those sections and the report glossary.

Species with effective thermal adaptation mechanisms allowing them to thrive within a wide temperature range can benefit from climatic changes as they can displace highly specialized species. Here, we studied the adaptive capabilities of the Baikal endemic amphipods Eulimnogammarus verrucosus (Gerstfeld, 1858) and Eulimnogammarus cyaneus (Dybowsky, 1874) compared to the potential Holarctic Baikal invader Gammarus lacustris Sars, 1863 at the cellular level including the energy metabolism and the antioxidant system. All species were long-term exposed to a range of temperatures (1.5 °C to mimic winter conditions and the three species-specific preferred temperatures (i.e., 6 °C for E. verrucosus, 12 °C for E. cyaneus and 15 °C for G. lacustris). At 1.5 °C, we found species-specific metabolic alterations (i.e., significantly reduced ATP content and lactate dehydrogenase activity) indicating limitations on the activity level in the Holarctic G. lacustris. Although the two Baikal endemic amphipod species largely differ in thermal tolerance, no such limitations were found at 1.5 °C. However, the cold-stenothermal Baikal endemic E. verrucosus showed changes indicating a higher involvement of anaerobic metabolism at 12 °C and 15 °C, while the metabolic responses of the more eurythermal Baikal endemic E. cyaneus may support aerobic metabolism and an active lifestyle at all exposure temperatures. Rising temperatures in summer may provide a competitive advantage for G. lacustris compared to the Baikal species but the inactive lifestyle in the cold is likely preventing G. lacustris from establishing a stable population in Lake Baikal.

Lake Baikal is inhabited by more than 300 endemic amphipod species, which are narrowly adapted to certain thermal niches due to the high interspecific competition. In contrast, the surrounding freshwater fauna is commonly represented by species with large-scale distribution and high phenotypic thermal plasticity. Here, we investigated the thermal plasticity of the energy metabolism in two closely-related endemic amphipod species from Lake Baikal (Eulimnogammarus verrucosus; stenothermal and Eulimnogammarus cyaneus; eurythermal) and the ubiquitous Holarctic amphipod Gammarus lacustris (eurythermal) by exposure to a summer warming scenario (6–23.6 °C; 0.8 °C d−1). In concert with routine metabolic rates, activities of key metabolic enzymes increased strongly with temperature up to 15 °C in E. verrucosus, whereupon they leveled off (except for lactate dehydrogenase). In contrast, exponential increases were seen in E. cyaneus and G. lacustris throughout the thermal trial (Q10-values: 1.6–3.7). Cytochrome-c-oxidase, lactate dehydrogenase, and 3-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase activities were found to be higher in G. lacustris than in E. cyaneus, especially at the highest experimental temperature (23.6 °C). Decreasing gene expression levels revealed some thermal compensation in E. cyaneus but not in G. lacustris. In all species, shifts in enzyme activities favored glycolytic energy generation in the warmth. The congruent temperature-dependencies of enzyme activities and routine metabolism in E. verrucosus indicate a strong feedback-regulation of enzymatic activities by whole organism responses. The species-specific thermal reaction norms reflect the different ecological niches, including the spatial distribution, distinct thermal behavior such as temperature-dependent migration, movement activity, and mating season.

Der Erhalt der Biodiversität und intakter Ökosysteme ist überlebenswichtig für Mensch und Natur. Dennoch schreitet der Verlust von Biodiversität sowohl in Deutschland – dem Fokus dieses Papiers – wie auch weltweit dramatisch voran. Die Politik hinkt dem zunehmenden Handlungsdruck allerdings weit hinterher. Bestehende Verpflichtungen wurden bisher nicht erfüllt, gesteckte Ziele nicht erreicht. Daher muss die neue Bundesregierung Verantwortung übernehmen und die Ursachen für den Verlust der Biodiversität, die in verschiedenen Politikfeldern liegen, bereits im Koalitionsvertrag adressieren. Der wirksame Schutz von Biodiversität kann nicht alleine mit der Ausweisung von Schutzgebieten erreicht werden, sondern ist eine Integrationsaufgabe. Die Adressaten dieses Textes sind daher politische Akteure, die Biodiversitätsziele in ihren Verantwortungsbereichen (Ressorts) und in allen relevanten Strategien integrieren sowie die relevanten Stakeholder mitnehmen müssen.Die hier beitragenden und zeichnenden Wissenschaftler*innen aus unterschiedlichsten Disziplinen werben gemeinsam für ein deutlich größeres Engagement für Biodiversität und legen hierfür die folgenden Handlungsempfehlungen für deutsche und europäische Politik vor. Sie appellieren an die politischen Verantwortungsträger*innen, diese vielfältigen Herausforderungen entschlossen anzugehen und unsere natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen wirkungsvoll zu schützen.

Der Erhalt der Biodiversität und intakter Ökosysteme ist überlebenswichtig für Mensch und Natur. Dennoch schreitet der Verlust von Biodiversität sowohl in Deutschland – dem Fokus dieses Papiers – wie auch weltweit dramatisch voran. Die Politik hinkt dem zunehmenden Handlungsdruck allerdings weit hinterher. Bestehende Verpflichtungen wurden bisher nicht erfüllt, gesteckte Ziele nicht erreicht. Daher muss die neue Bundesregierung Verantwortung übernehmen und die Ursachen für den Verlust der Biodiversität, die in verschiedenen Politikfeldern liegen, bereits im Koalitionsvertrag adressieren. Der wirksame Schutz von Biodiversität kann nicht alleine mit der Ausweisung von Schutzgebieten erreicht werden, sondern ist eine Integrationsaufgabe. Die Adressaten dieses Textes sind daher politische Akteure, die Biodiversitätsziele in ihren Verantwortungsbereichen (Ressorts) und in allen relevanten Strategien integrieren sowie die relevanten Stakeholder mitnehmen müssen.Die hier beitragenden und zeichnenden Wissenschaftler*innen aus unterschiedlichsten Disziplinen werben gemeinsam für ein deutlich größeres Engagement für Biodiversität und legen hierfür die folgenden Handlungsempfehlungen für deutsche und europäische Politik vor. Sie appellieren an die politischen Verantwortungsträger*innen, diese vielfältigen Herausforderungen entschlossen anzugehen und unsere natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen wirkungsvoll zu schützen.

Der Erhalt der Biodiversität und intakter Ökosysteme ist überlebenswichtig für Mensch und Natur. Dennoch schreitet der Verlust von Biodiversität sowohl in Deutschland – dem Fokus dieses Papiers – wie auch weltweit dramatisch voran. Die Politik hinkt dem zunehmenden Handlungsdruck allerdings weit hinterher. Bestehende Verpflichtungen wurden bisher nicht erfüllt, gesteckte Ziele nicht erreicht. Daher muss die neue Bundesregierung Verantwortung übernehmen und die Ursachen für den Verlust der Biodiversität, die in verschiedenen Politikfeldern liegen, bereits im Koalitionsvertrag adressieren. Der wirksame Schutz von Biodiversität kann nicht alleine mit der Ausweisung von Schutzgebieten erreicht werden, sondern ist eine Integrationsaufgabe. Die Adressaten dieses Textes sind daher politische Akteure, die Biodiversitätsziele in ihren Verantwortungsbereichen (Ressorts) und in allen relevanten Strategien integrieren sowie die relevanten Stakeholder mitnehmen müssen.Die hier beitragenden und zeichnenden Wissenschaftler*innen aus unterschiedlichsten Disziplinen werben gemeinsam für ein deutlich größeres Engagement für Biodiversität und legen hierfür die folgenden Handlungsempfehlungen für deutsche und europäische Politik vor. Sie appellieren an die politischen Verantwortungsträger*innen, diese vielfältigen Herausforderungen entschlossen anzugehen und unsere natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen wirkungsvoll zu schützen.

Der Erhalt der Biodiversität und intakter Ökosysteme ist überlebenswichtig für Mensch und Natur. Dennoch schreitet der Verlust von Biodiversität sowohl in Deutschland – dem Fokus dieses Papiers – wie auch weltweit dramatisch voran. Die Politik hinkt dem zunehmenden Handlungsdruck allerdings weit hinterher. Bestehende Verpflichtungen wurden bisher nicht erfüllt, gesteckte Ziele nicht erreicht. Daher muss die neue Bundesregierung Verantwortung übernehmen und die Ursachen für den Verlust der Biodiversität, die in verschiedenen Politikfeldern liegen, bereits im Koalitionsvertrag adressieren. Der wirksame Schutz von Biodiversität kann nicht alleine mit der Ausweisung von Schutzgebieten erreicht werden, sondern ist eine Integrationsaufgabe. Die Adressaten dieses Textes sind daher politische Akteure, die Biodiversitätsziele in ihren Verantwortungsbereichen (Ressorts) und in allen relevanten Strategien integrieren sowie die relevanten Stakeholder mitnehmen müssen.Die hier beitragenden und zeichnenden Wissenschaftler*innen aus unterschiedlichsten Disziplinen werben gemeinsam für ein deutlich größeres Engagement für Biodiversität und legen hierfür die folgenden Handlungsempfehlungen für deutsche und europäische Politik vor. Sie appellieren an die politischen Verantwortungsträger*innen, diese vielfältigen Herausforderungen entschlossen anzugehen und unsere natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen wirkungsvoll zu schützen.