Ovarian metastases from colorectal carcinoma

L. Knoepp,J. Ray,I. Overby

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02587706

1973-07-01

Diseases of the Colon & Rectum

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Synergies and trade-offs in achieving global biodiversity targets

Moreno Di Marco,Stuart H M Butchart,Piero Visconti,Graeme M Buchanan,Gentile F Ficetola,Carlo Rondinini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12559

Abstract:After their failure to achieve a significant reduction in the global rate of biodiversity loss by 2010, world governments adopted 20 new ambitious Aichi biodiversity targets to be met by 2020. Efforts to achieve one particular target can contribute to achieving others, but different targets may sometimes require conflicting solutions. Consequently, lack of strategic thinking might result, once again, in a failure to achieve global commitments to biodiversity conservation. We illustrate this dilemma by focusing on Aichi Target 11. This target requires an expansion of terrestrial protected area coverage, which could also contribute to reducing the loss of natural habitats (Target 5), reducing human-induced species decline and extinction (Target 12), and maintaining global carbon stocks (Target 15). We considered the potential impact of expanding protected areas to mitigate global deforestation and the consequences for the distribution of suitable habitat for >10,000 species of forest vertebrates (amphibians, birds, and mammals). We first identified places where deforestation might have the highest impact on remaining forests and then identified places where deforestation might have the highest impact on forest vertebrates (considering aggregate suitable habitat for species). Expanding protected areas toward locations with the highest deforestation rates (Target 5) or the highest potential loss of aggregate species' suitable habitat (Target 12) resulted in partially different protected area network configurations (overlapping with each other by about 73%). Moreover, the latter approach contributed to safeguarding about 30% more global carbon stocks than the former. Further investigation of synergies and trade-offs between targets would shed light on these and other complex interactions, such as the interaction between reducing overexploitation of natural resources (Targets 6, 7), controlling invasive alien species (Target 9), and preventing extinctions of native species (Target 12). Synergies between targets must be identified and secured soon and trade-offs must be minimized before the options for co-benefits are reduced by human pressures.
A multi-taxon analysis of European Red Lists reveals major threats to biodiversity

Axel Hochkirch,Melanie Bilz,Catarina C Ferreira,Anja Danielczak,David Allen,Ana Nieto,Carlo Rondinini,Kate Harding,Craig Hilton-Taylor,Caroline M Pollock,Mary Seddon,Jean-Christophe Vié,Keith N A Alexander,Emily Beech,Manuel Biscoito,Yoan Braud,Ian J Burfield,Filippo Maria Buzzetti,Marta Cálix,Kent E Carpenter,Ning Labbish Chao,Dragan Chobanov,Maarten J M Christenhusz,Bruce B Collette,Mia T Comeros-Raynal,Neil Cox,Matthew Craig,Annabelle Cuttelod,William R T Darwall,Benoit Dodelin,Nicholas K Dulvy,Eve Englefield,Michael F Fay,Nicholas Fettes,Jörg Freyhof,Silvia García,Mariana García Criado,Michael Harvey,Nick Hodgetts,Christina Ieronymidou,Vincent J Kalkman,Shelagh P Kell,James Kemp,Sonia Khela,Richard V Lansdown,Julia M Lawson,Danna J Leaman,Joana Magos Brehm,Nigel Maxted,Rebecca M Miller,Eike Neubert,Baudewijn Odé,David Pollard,Riley Pollom,Rob Pople,Juan José Presa Asensio,Gina M Ralph,Hassan Rankou,Malin Rivers,Stuart P M Roberts,Barry Russell,Alexander Sennikov,Fabien Soldati,Anna Staneva,Emilie Stump,Andy Symes,Dmitry Telnov,Helen Temple,Andrew Terry,Anastasiya Timoshyna,Chris van Swaay,Henry Väre,Rachel H L Walls,Luc Willemse,Brett Wilson,Jemma Window,Emma G E Wright,Thomas Zuna-Kratky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293083

IF: 3.7

2023-11-08

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Biodiversity loss is a major global challenge and minimizing extinction rates is the goal of several multilateral environmental agreements. Policy decisions require comprehensive, spatially explicit information on species' distributions and threats. We present an analysis of the conservation status of 14,669 European terrestrial, freshwater and marine species (ca. 10% of the continental fauna and flora), including all vertebrates and selected groups of invertebrates and plants. Our results reveal that 19% of European species are threatened with extinction, with higher extinction risks for plants (27%) and invertebrates (24%) compared to vertebrates (18%). These numbers exceed recent IPBES (Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) assumptions of extinction risk. Changes in agricultural practices and associated habitat loss, overharvesting, pollution and development are major threats to biodiversity. Maintaining and restoring sustainable land and water use practices is crucial to minimize future biodiversity declines.
Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water

Martin Jung,Andy Arnell,Xavier de Lamo,Shaenandhoa García-Rangel,Matthew Lewis,Jennifer Mark,Cory Merow,Lera Miles,Ian Ondo,Samuel Pironon,Corinna Ravilious,Malin Rivers,Dmitry Schepaschenko,Oliver Tallowin,Arnout van Soesbergen,Rafaël Govaerts,Bradley L. Boyle,Brian J. Enquist,Xiao Feng,Rachael Gallagher,Brian Maitner,Shai Meiri,Mark Mulligan,Gali Ofer,Uri Roll,Jeffrey O. Hanson,Walter Jetz,Moreno Di Marco,Jennifer McGowan,D. Scott Rinnan,Jeffrey D. Sachs,Myroslava Lesiv,Vanessa M. Adams,Samuel C. Andrew,Joseph R. Burger,Lee Hannah,Pablo A. Marquet,James K. McCarthy,Naia Morueta-Holme,Erica A. Newman,Daniel S. Park,Patrick R. Roehrdanz,Jens-Christian Svenning,Cyrille Violle,Jan J. Wieringa,Graham Wynne,Steffen Fritz,Bernardo B. N. Strassburg,Michael Obersteiner,Valerie Kapos,Neil Burgess,Guido Schmidt-Traub,Piero Visconti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01528-7

2021-08-23

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

ecology,evolutionary biology
Measuring the Impact of Conservation: The Growing Importance of Monitoring Fauna, Flora and Funga

P. J. Stephenson,Maria Cecilia Londoño-Murcia,Paulo A. V. Borges,Louw Claassens,Heidrun Frisch-Nwakanma,Nicholas Ling,Sapphire McMullan-Fisher,Jessica J. Meeuwig,Kerrigan Marie Machado Unter,Judith L. Walls,Ian J. Burfield,Danilo do Carmo Vieira Correa,Gary N. Geller,Irina Montenegro Paredes,Leonard K. Mubalama,Yaa Ntiamoa-Baidu,Ignacio Roesler,Francesco Rovero,Yash Pal Sharma,Nara Wisesa Wiwardhana,Jun Yang,Luca Fumagalli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/d14100824

2022-10-01

Diversity

Abstract:Many stakeholders, from governments to civil society to businesses, lack the data they need to make informed decisions on biodiversity, jeopardising efforts to conserve, restore and sustainably manage nature. Here we review the importance of enhancing biodiversity monitoring, assess the challenges involved and identify potential solutions. Capacity for biodiversity monitoring needs to be enhanced urgently, especially in poorer, high-biodiversity countries where data gaps are disproportionately high. Modern tools and technologies, including remote sensing, bioacoustics and environmental DNA, should be used at larger scales to fill taxonomic and geographic data gaps, especially in the tropics, in marine and freshwater biomes, and for plants, fungi and invertebrates. Stakeholders need to follow best monitoring practices, adopting appropriate indicators and using counterfactual approaches to measure and attribute outcomes and impacts. Data should be made openly and freely available. Companies need to invest in collecting the data required to enhance sustainability in their operations and supply chains. With governments soon to commit to the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, the time is right to make a concerted push on monitoring. However, action at scale is needed now if we are to enhance results-based management adequately to conserve the biodiversity and ecosystem services we all depend on.

ecology,biodiversity conservation
Roles of the Red List of Ecosystems in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

Emily Nicholson,Angela Andrade,Thomas M. Brooks,Amanda Driver,José R. Ferrer-Paris,Hedley Grantham,Mishal Gudka,David A. Keith,Tytti Kontula,Arild Lindgaard,Maria Cecilia Londono-Murcia,Nicholas Murray,Anne Raunio,Jessica A. Rowland,Michael Sievers,Andrew L. Skowno,Simone L. Stevenson,Marcos Valderrabano,Clare M. Vernon,Irene Zager,David Obura

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-023-02320-5

IF: 19.1

2024-02-08

Nature Ecology & Evolution

Abstract:The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity set the agenda for global aspirations and action to reverse biodiversity loss. The GBF includes an explicit goal for maintaining and restoring biodiversity, encompassing ecosystems, species and genetic diversity (goal A), targets for ecosystem protection and restoration and headline indicators to track progress and guide action 1 . One of the headline indicators is the Red List of Ecosystems 2 , the global standard for ecosystem risk assessment. The Red List of Ecosystems provides a systematic framework for collating, analysing and synthesizing data on ecosystems, including their distribution, integrity and risk of collapse 3 . Here, we examine how it can contribute to implementing the GBF, as well as monitoring progress. We find that the Red List of Ecosystems provides common theory and practical data, while fostering collaboration, cross-sector cooperation and knowledge sharing, with important roles in 16 of the 23 targets. In particular, ecosystem maps, descriptions and risk categories are key to spatial planning for halting loss, restoration and protection (targets 1, 2 and 3). The Red List of Ecosystems is therefore well-placed to aid Parties to the GBF as they assess, plan and act to achieve the targets and goals. We outline future work to further strengthen this potential and improve biodiversity outcomes, including expanding spatial coverage of Red List of Ecosystems assessments and partnerships between practitioners, policy-makers and scientists.

ecology,evolutionary biology
Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines

Stuart H. M. Butchart,Matt Walpole,Ben Collen,Arco van Strien,Jörn P. W. Scharlemann,Rosamunde E. A. Almond,Jonathan E. M. Baillie,Bastian Bomhard,Claire Brown,John Bruno,Kent E. Carpenter,Geneviève M. Carr,Janice Chanson,Anna M. Chenery,Jorge Csirke,Nick C. Davidson,Frank Dentener,Matt Foster,Alessandro Galli,James N. Galloway,Piero Genovesi,Richard D. Gregory,Marc Hockings,Valerie Kapos,Jean-Francois Lamarque,Fiona Leverington,Jonathan Loh,Melodie A. McGeoch,Louise McRae,Anahit Minasyan,Monica Hernández Morcillo,Thomasina E. E. Oldfield,Daniel Pauly,Suhel Quader,Carmen Revenga,John R. Sauer,Benjamin Skolnik,Dian Spear,Damon Stanwell-Smith,Simon N. Stuart,Andy Symes,Megan Tierney,Tristan D. Tyrrell,Jean-Christophe Vié,Reg Watson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1187512

IF: 56.9

2010-05-28

Science

Abstract:Global Biodiversity Target Missed In 2002, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) committed to a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. There has been widespread conjecture that this target has not been met. Butchart et al. (p. 1164 , published online 29 April) analyzed over 30 indicators developed within the CBD's framework. These indicators include the condition or state of biodiversity (e.g., species numbers, population sizes), the pressures on biodiversity (e.g., deforestation), and the responses to maintain biodiversity (e.g., protected areas) and were assessed between about 1970 and 2005. Taken together, the results confirm that we have indeed failed to meet the 2010 targets.

multidisciplinary sciences
Impact of an IUCN national Red List of threatened flora on scientific attention

RS Andrade,L Freitas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/esr01154

2021-11-18

Endangered Species Research

Abstract:Red Lists are thought to attract attention to the conservation of threatened species. Determining the impact of these lists on the attention of scientists is a matter of consequence for biodiversity conservation. We evaluated trends in mentions of Brazilian angiosperm plants in the biodiversity conservation literature and tested the effect of the Red List of Brazilian Flora (RLBF) publication on these mentions. We collected mentions in the literature available in Google Scholar from the years 1990-2020, for 2449 Brazilian angiosperm species assessed in different IUCN categories. We used a Bayesian structural time-series method to test the effect of the RLBF publication on the number of mentions for the set of species in the IUCN categories, angiosperm families, and plants of commercial interest. The results showed a gap in mentions for many threatened and Data Deficient species in the scientific literature. We also found that the mentions were biased toward species of commercial interest and were unrelated to their threat status. Publication of the RLBF positively affected the number of mentions for IUCN threat categories and for more than half of the angiosperm families. These results were obtained after a few species of commercial interest were excluded from each treated group. This study suggests that the Red List assessments are essential to determine priorities for resource allocation to scientific activities. However, this effect was not sufficient to reduce the bias in scientific attention. Our findings support the need to stimulate more effective programs to fund research on threatened plant species.

biodiversity conservation
Indicators to monitor the status of the tree of life

Rikki Gumbs,Abhishek Chaudhary,Félix Forest,Aida Kowalska,Roseli Pellens,Sebastian Pipins,James Rosindell,Barnabas H. Daru,Daniel P. Faith,Claudia L. Gray,Who‐Seung Lee,Laura J. Pollock,Rosa A. Scherson,Nisha R. Owen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14138

IF: 7.563

2023-06-29

Conservation Biology

Abstract:Following our failure to fully achieve any of the 20 Aichi biodiversity targets, the future of biodiversity rests in the balance. The Convention on Biological Diversity's Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) presents us with the opportunity to preserve Nature's Contributions to People (NCPs) for current and future generations through conserving biodiversity and averting extinctions. Here we call attention to our need to safeguard the tree of life—the unique and shared evolutionary history of life on Earth—to maintain the benefits it bestows into the future. We outline two indicators adopted in the GBF to monitor our progress towards safeguarding the tree of life, and apply both to the world's mammals, birds, and cycads to show their utility at the global and national scale. The GBF's Phylogenetic Diversity indicator can be used to monitor the overall conservation status of large parts of the evolutionary tree of life, a measure of biodiversity's capacity to maintain NCPs for future generations. The EDGE (Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered) Index monitors how well we are performing at averting the greatest losses across the tree of life by conserving the most distinctive species. By strengthening our commitment to safeguarding the tree of life post‐2020, we can reduce biodiversity loss and thus preserve nature's capacity to provide benefits to humanity now and into the future. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

environmental sciences,biodiversity conservation,ecology
Quantification of Extinction Risk: IUCN's System for Classifying Threatened Species

GEORGINA M. MACE,NIGEL J. COLLAR,KEVIN J. GASTON,CRAIG HILTON‐TAYLOR,H. RESIT AKÇAKAYA,NIGEL LEADER‐WILLIAMS,E.J. MILNER‐GULLAND,SIMON N. STUART,CRAIG HILTON-TAYLOR,NIGEL LEADER-WILLIAMS,E.J. MILNER-GULLAND

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01044.x

IF: 7.563

2008-12-01

Conservation Biology

Abstract:The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species was increasingly used during the 1980s to assess the conservation status of species for policy and planning purposes. This use stimulated the development of a new set of quantitative criteria for listing species in the categories of threat: critically endangered, endangered, and vulnerable. These criteria, which were intended to be applicable to all species except microorganisms, were part of a broader system for classifying threatened species and were fully implemented by IUCN in 2000. The system and the criteria have been widely used by conservation practitioners and scientists and now underpin one indicator being used to assess the Convention on Biological Diversity 2010 biodiversity target. We describe the process and the technical background to the IUCN Red List system. The criteria refer to fundamental biological processes underlying population decline and extinction. But given major differences between species, the threatening processes affecting them, and the paucity of knowledge relating to most species, the IUCN system had to be both broad and flexible to be applicable to the majority of described species. The system was designed to measure the symptoms of extinction risk, and uses 5 independent criteria relating to aspects of population loss and decline of range size. A species is assigned to a threat category if it meets the quantitative threshold for at least one criterion. The criteria and the accompanying rules and guidelines used by IUCN are intended to increase the consistency, transparency, and validity of its categorization system, but it necessitates some compromises that affect the applicability of the system and the species lists that result. In particular, choices were made over the assessment of uncertainty, poorly known species, depleted species, population decline, restricted ranges, and rarity; all of these affect the way red lists should be viewed and used. Processes related to priority setting and the development of national red lists need to take account of some assumptions in the formulation of the criteria.

environmental sciences,biodiversity conservation,ecology
Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact

Molly K Grace,H Resit Akçakaya,Elizabeth L Bennett,Thomas M Brooks,Anna Heath,Simon Hedges,Craig Hilton-Taylor,Michael Hoffmann,Axel Hochkirch,Richard Jenkins,David A Keith,Barney Long,David P Mallon,Erik Meijaard,E J Milner-Gulland,Jon Paul Rodriguez,P J Stephenson,Simon N Stuart,Richard P Young,Pablo Acebes,Joanna Alfaro-Shigueto,Silvia Alvarez-Clare,Raphali Rodlis Andriantsimanarilafy,Marina Arbetman,Claudio Azat,Gianluigi Bacchetta,Ruchi Badola,Luís M D Barcelos,Joao Pedro Barreiros,Sayanti Basak,Danielle J Berger,Sabuj Bhattacharyya,Gilad Bino,Paulo A V Borges,Raoul K Boughton,H Jane Brockmann,Hannah L Buckley,Ian J Burfield,James Burton,Teresa Camacho-Badani,Luis Santiago Cano-Alonso,Ruth H Carmichael,Christina Carrero,John P Carroll,Giorgos Catsadorakis,David G Chapple,Guillaume Chapron,Gawsia Wahidunnessa Chowdhury,Louw Claassens,Donatella Cogoni,Rochelle Constantine,Christie Anne Craig,Andrew A Cunningham,Nishma Dahal,Jennifer C Daltry,Goura Chandra Das,Niladri Dasgupta,Alexandra Davey,Katharine Davies,Pedro Develey,Vanitha Elangovan,David Fairclough,Mirko Di Febbraro,Giuseppe Fenu,Fernando Moreira Fernandes,Eduardo Pinheiro Fernandez,Brittany Finucci,Rita Földesi,Catherine M Foley,Matthew Ford,Michael R J Forstner,Néstor García,Ricardo Garcia-Sandoval,Penny C Gardner,Roberto Garibay-Orijel,Marites Gatan-Balbas,Irene Gauto,Mirza Ghazanfar Ullah Ghazi,Stephanie S Godfrey,Matthew Gollock,Benito A González,Tandora D Grant,Thomas Gray,Andrew J Gregory,Roy H A van Grunsven,Marieka Gryzenhout,Noelle C Guernsey,Garima Gupta,Christina Hagen,Christian A Hagen,Madison B Hall,Eric Hallerman,Kelly Hare,Tom Hart,Ruston Hartdegen,Yvette Harvey-Brown,Richard Hatfield,Tahneal Hawke,Claudia Hermes,Rod Hitchmough,Pablo Melo Hoffmann,Charlie Howarth,Michael A Hudson,Syed Ainul Hussain,Charlie Huveneers,Hélène Jacques,Dennis Jorgensen,Suyash Katdare,Lydia K D Katsis,Rahul Kaul,Boaz Kaunda-Arara,Lucy Keith-Diagne,Daniel T Kraus,Thales Moreira de Lima,Ken Lindeman,Jean Linsky,Edward Louis Jr,Anna Loy,Eimear Nic Lughadha,Jeffrey C Mangel,Paul E Marinari,Gabriel M Martin,Gustavo Martinelli,Philip J K McGowan,Alistair McInnes,Eduardo Teles Barbosa Mendes,Michael J Millard,Claire Mirande,Daniel Money,Joanne M Monks,Carolina Laura Morales,Nazia Naoreen Mumu,Raquel Negrao,Anh Ha Nguyen,Md Nazmul Hasan Niloy,Grant Leslie Norbury,Cale Nordmeyer,Darren Norris,Mark O'Brien,Gabriela Akemi Oda,Simone Orsenigo,Mark Evan Outerbridge,Stesha Pasachnik,Juan Carlos Pérez-Jiménez,Charlotte Pike,Fred Pilkington,Glenn Plumb,Rita de Cassia Quitete Portela,Ana Prohaska,Manuel G Quintana,Eddie Fanantenana Rakotondrasoa,Dustin H Ranglack,Hassan Rankou,Ajay Prakash Rawat,James Thomas Reardon,Marcelo Lopes Rheingantz,Stephen C Richter,Malin C Rivers,Luke Rollie Rogers,Patrícia da Rosa,Paul Rose,Emily Royer,Catherine Ryan,Yvonne J Sadovy de Mitcheson,Lily Salmon,Carlos Henrique Salvador,Michael J Samways,Tatiana Sanjuan,Amanda Souza Dos Santos,Hiroshi Sasaki,Emmanuel Schutz,Heather Ann Scott,Robert Michael Scott,Fabrizio Serena,Surya P Sharma,John A Shuey,Carlos Julio Polo Silva,John P Simaika,David R Smith,Julia L Y Spaet,Shanjida Sultana,Bibhab Kumar Talukdar,Vikash Tatayah,Philip Thomas,Angela Tringali,Hoang Trinh-Dinh,Chongpi Tuboi,Aftab Alam Usmani,Aída M Vasco-Palacios,Jean-Christophe Vié,Jo Virens,Alan Walker,Bryan Wallace,Lauren J Waller,Hongfeng Wang,Oliver R Wearn,Merlijn van Weerd,Simon Weigmann,Daniel Willcox,John Woinarski,Jean W H Yong,Stuart Young

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13756

Abstract:Recognizing the imperative to evaluate species recovery and conservation impact, in 2012 the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) called for development of a "Green List of Species" (now the IUCN Green Status of Species). A draft Green Status framework for assessing species' progress toward recovery, published in 2018, proposed 2 separate but interlinked components: a standardized method (i.e., measurement against benchmarks of species' viability, functionality, and preimpact distribution) to determine current species recovery status (herein species recovery score) and application of that method to estimate past and potential future impacts of conservation based on 4 metrics (conservation legacy, conservation dependence, conservation gain, and recovery potential). We tested the framework with 181 species representing diverse taxa, life histories, biomes, and IUCN Red List categories (extinction risk). Based on the observed distribution of species' recovery scores, we propose the following species recovery categories: fully recovered, slightly depleted, moderately depleted, largely depleted, critically depleted, extinct in the wild, and indeterminate. Fifty-nine percent of tested species were considered largely or critically depleted. Although there was a negative relationship between extinction risk and species recovery score, variation was considerable. Some species in lower risk categories were assessed as farther from recovery than those at higher risk. This emphasizes that species recovery is conceptually different from extinction risk and reinforces the utility of the IUCN Green Status of Species to more fully understand species conservation status. Although extinction risk did not predict conservation legacy, conservation dependence, or conservation gain, it was positively correlated with recovery potential. Only 1.7% of tested species were categorized as zero across all 4 of these conservation impact metrics, indicating that conservation has, or will, play a role in improving or maintaining species status for the vast majority of these species. Based on our results, we devised an updated assessment framework that introduces the option of using a dynamic baseline to assess future impacts of conservation over the short term to avoid misleading results which were generated in a small number of cases, and redefines short term as 10 years to better align with conservation planning. These changes are reflected in the IUCN Green Status of Species Standard.
Prioritizing threat management across terrestrial and freshwater realms for species conservation and recovery

Abbey E. Camaclang,Jessica Currie,Emily Giles,Graham J. Forbes,Christopher B. Edge,Wendy A. Monk,Joseph J. Nocera,Graeme Stewart‐Robertson,Constance Browne,Zoe G. O'Malley,James Snider,Tara G. Martin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.300

2020-12-09

Conservation Science and Practice

Abstract:The need to manage threats to biodiversity, and to do so cost‐effectively, is urgent. Cross‐realm conservation management is recognized as a cost‐effective approach, but it requires collaboration between agencies and jurisdictions, and local knowledge of anthropogenic threats to biodiversity. With its emphasis on stakeholder engagement and use of structured expert elicitation, Priority Threat Management (PTM) facilitates rapid, cross‐realm planning at the regional scale. We used PTM to identify cost‐effective management strategies with the aim of securing nine ecological groups, comprised of 45 species and one ecological community of conservation concern, across terrestrial and freshwater realms within the Wolastoq|Saint John River watershed in Canada. Under business‐as‐usual, four of nine groups are expected to have >50% probability of persistence over the next 25 years. Investment of $141 million over 25 years in three management strategies could secure seven groups across both realms with >50% probability of persistence. Achieving higher levels of persistence comes at a cost—securing six groups with >60% probability of persistence requires investing $218 million over 25 years in seven strategies. Through a structured, iterative process, whereby stakeholders cooperate to clarify objectives, devise management strategies, and collate data, PTM can support timely and cost‐effective management across multiple realms.

biodiversity conservation
Comprehensive conservation assessments reveal high extinction risks across Atlantic Forest trees

Renato A F de Lima,Gilles Dauby,André L de Gasper,Eduardo P Fernandez,Alexander C Vibrans,Alexandre A de Oliveira,Paulo I Prado,Vinícius C Souza,Marinez F de Siqueira,Hans Ter Steege,Renato A. F. de Lima,André L. de Gasper,Eduardo P. Fernandez,Alexander C. Vibrans,Alexandre A. de Oliveira,Paulo I. Prado,Vinícius C. Souza,Marinez F. de Siqueira,Hans ter Steege

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abq5099

IF: 56.9

2024-01-12

Science

Abstract:Biodiversity is declining globally, yet many biodiversity hotspots still lack comprehensive species conservation assessments. Using multiple International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List criteria to evaluate extinction risks and millions of herbarium and forest inventory records, we present automated conservation assessments for all tree species of the Atlantic Forest biodiversity hotspot, including ~1100 heretofore unassessed species. About 65% of all species and 82% of endemic species are classified as threatened. We rediscovered five species classified as Extinct on the IUCN Red List and identified 13 endemics as possibly extinct. Uncertainties in species information had little influence on the assessments, but using fewer Red List criteria severely underestimated threat levels. We suggest that the conservation status of tropical forests worldwide is worse than previously reported.

multidisciplinary sciences
Mapping the planet’s critical areas for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people

Rachel A. Neugarten,Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer,Richard P. Sharp,Richard Schuster,Matthew Strimas-Mackey,Patrick R. Roehrdanz,Mark Mulligan,Arnout van Soesbergen,David Hole,Christina M. Kennedy,James R. Oakleaf,Justin A. Johnson,Joseph Kiesecker,Stephen Polasky,Jeffrey O. Hanson,Amanda D. Rodewald

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-43832-9

IF: 16.6

2024-01-10

Nature Communications

Abstract:Abstract Meeting global commitments to conservation, climate, and sustainable development requires consideration of synergies and tradeoffs among targets. We evaluate the spatial congruence of ecosystems providing globally high levels of nature’s contributions to people, biodiversity, and areas with high development potential across several sectors. We find that conserving approximately half of global land area through protection or sustainable management could provide 90% of the current levels of ten of nature’s contributions to people and meet minimum representation targets for 26,709 terrestrial vertebrate species. This finding supports recent commitments by national governments under the Global Biodiversity Framework to conserve at least 30% of global lands and waters, and proposals to conserve half of the Earth. More than one-third of areas required for conserving nature’s contributions to people and species are also highly suitable for agriculture, renewable energy, oil and gas, mining, or urban expansion. This indicates potential conflicts among conservation, climate and development goals.

multidisciplinary sciences
A metric for tradable biodiversity credits quantifying impacts on global extinction risk

Axel G. Rossberg,Jacob D. O'Sullivan,Svetlana Malysheva,Nadav M. Shnerb

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13518

2024-06-27

Journal of Industrial Ecology

Abstract:The difficulty in identifying appropriate metrics for the impacts organizations have on biodiversity remains a major barrier to the inclusion of biodiversity considerations in environmentally responsible investment. We derive and analyze a simple metric: the sum of the proportional changes in the global abundances of species caused by an organization, with a regularization to cover the case of species close to extinction. We argue mathematically that this metric quantifies changes in the mean long‐term global survival probability of species. The metric thus supports the objective "to significantly reduce extinction risk" of the 2022 Global Biodiversity Framework and allows organizations to set themselves corresponding science‐based targets. We show that in a perfect market trade in biodiversity credits quantified by our metric would lead to near‐optimal allocation of resources to species conservation. We further show that metric values are quantitatively convertible to several other metrics and indices already in use. Barriers to adoption are therefore low. Used in conjunction with metrics addressing ecosystem services and integrity, potential areas of application include biodiversity related financial disclosures and voluntary or legislated biodiversity credit or no net loss policies.

environmental sciences,green & sustainable science & technology,engineering, environmental
Threat management priorities for conserving Antarctic biodiversity

Jasmine R. Lee,Aleks Terauds,Josie Carwardine,Justine D. Shaw,Richard A. Fuller,Hugh P. Possingham,Steven L. Chown,Peter Convey,Neil Gilbert,Kevin A. Hughes,Ewan McIvor,Sharon A. Robinson,Yan Ropert-Coudert,Dana M. Bergstrom,Elisabeth M. Biersma,Claire Christian,Don A. Cowan,Yves Frenot,Stéphanie Jenouvrier,Lisa Kelley,Michael J. Lee,Heather J. Lynch,Birgit Njåstad,Antonio Quesada,Ricardo M. Roura,E. Ashley Shaw,Damon Stanwell-Smith,Megumu Tsujimoto,Diana H. Wall,Annick Wilmotte,Iadine Chadès

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001921

IF: 9.8

2022-12-24

PLoS Biology

Abstract:Antarctic terrestrial biodiversity faces multiple threats, from invasive species to climate change. Yet no large-scale assessments of threat management strategies exist. Applying a structured participatory approach, we demonstrate that existing conservation efforts are insufficient in a changing world, estimating that 65% (at best 37%, at worst 97%) of native terrestrial taxa and land-associated seabirds are likely to decline by 2100 under current trajectories. Emperor penguins are identified as the most vulnerable taxon, followed by other seabirds and dry soil nematodes. We find that implementing 10 key threat management strategies in parallel, at an estimated present-day equivalent annual cost of US$23 million, could benefit up to 84% of Antarctic taxa. Climate change is identified as the most pervasive threat to Antarctic biodiversity and influencing global policy to effectively limit climate change is the most beneficial conservation strategy. However, minimising impacts of human activities and improved planning and management of new infrastructure projects are cost-effective and will help to minimise regional threats. Simultaneous global and regional efforts are critical to secure Antarctic biodiversity for future generations.

biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change

Almut Arneth,Yunne-Jai Shin,Paul Leadley,Carlo Rondinini,Elena Bukvareva,Melanie Kolb,Guy F. Midgley,Thierry Oberdorff,Ignacio Palomo,Osamu Saito

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2009584117

IF: 11.1

2020-12-07

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract:Recent assessment reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) have highlighted the risks to humanity arising from the unsustainable use of natural resources. Thus far, land, freshwater, and ocean exploitation have been the chief causes of biodiversity loss. Climate change is projected to be a rapidly increasing additional driver for biodiversity loss. Since climate change and biodiversity loss impact human societies everywhere, bold solutions are required that integrate environmental and societal objectives. As yet, most existing international biodiversity targets have overlooked climate change impacts. At the same time, climate change mitigation measures themselves may harm biodiversity directly. The Convention on Biological Diversity’s post-2020 framework offers the important opportunity to address the interactions between climate change and biodiversity and revise biodiversity targets accordingly by better aligning these with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. We identify the considerable number of existing and proposed post-2020 biodiversity targets that risk being severely compromised due to climate change, even if other barriers to their achievement were removed. Our analysis suggests that the next set of biodiversity targets explicitly addresses climate change-related risks since many aspirational goals will not be feasible under even lower-end projections of future warming. Adopting more flexible and dynamic approaches to conservation, rather than static goals, would allow us to respond flexibly to changes in habitats, genetic resources, species composition, and ecosystem functioning and leverage biodiversity’s capacity to contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation.

multidisciplinary sciences
Threats from urban expansion, agricultural transformation and forest loss on global conservation priority areas

Victoria Veach,Atte Moilanen,Enrico Di Minin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0188397

IF: 3.7

2017-11-28

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Including threats in spatial conservation prioritization helps identify areas for conservation actions where biodiversity is at imminent risk of extinction. At the global level, an important limitation when identifying spatial priorities for conservation actions is the lack of information on the spatial distribution of threats. Here, we identify spatial conservation priorities under three prominent threats to biodiversity (residential and commercial development, agricultural expansion, and forest loss), which are primary drivers of habitat loss and threaten the persistence of the highest number of species in the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List, and for which spatial data is available. We first explore how global priority areas for the conservation of vertebrate (mammals, birds, and amphibians) species coded in the Red List as vulnerable to each threat differ spatially. We then identify spatial conservation priorities for all species vulnerable to all threats. Finally, we identify the potentially most threatened areas by overlapping the identified priority areas for conservation with maps for each threat. We repeat the same with four other well-known global conservation priority area schemes, namely Key Biodiversity Areas, Biodiversity Hotspots, the global Protected Area Network, and Wilderness Areas. We find that residential and commercial development directly threatens only about 4% of the global top 17% priority areas for species vulnerable under this threat. However, 50% of the high priority areas for species vulnerable to forest loss overlap with areas that have already experienced some forest loss. Agricultural expansion overlapped with ~20% of high priority areas. Biodiversity Hotspots had the greatest proportion of their total area under direct threat from all threats, while expansion of low intensity agriculture was found to pose an imminent threat to Wilderness Areas under future agricultural expansion. Our results identify areas where limited resources should be allocated to mitigate risks to vertebrate species from habitat loss.

multidisciplinary sciences
Biodiversity and threats in non-protected areas: A multidisciplinary and multi-taxa approach focused on the Atlantic Forest

Esteban Avigliano,Juan Jose Rosso,Dario Lijtmaer,Paola Ondarza,Luis Piacentini,Matías Izquierdo,Adriana Cirigliano,Gonzalo Romano,Ezequiel Nuñez Bustos,Andres Porta,Ezequiel Mabragaña,Emanuel Grassi,Jorge Palermo,Belen Bukowski,Pablo Tubaro,Nahuel Schenone

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e02292

IF: 3.776

2019-08-27

Heliyon

Abstract:Along many decades, protected environments were targeted by the scientific community for ecological research and for the collection of scientific information related to environmental aspects and biodiversity. However, most of the territory in hotspot regions with weak or even non legal protection has been left aside. These non-protected areas (NPA) could host high biodiversity values. This paper addresses how scientific effort on a NPA (CIAR) of 700 ha from the Atlantic Rain Forest, generates new information and tools for large-scale environmental and biodiversity management in NPAs. Information published during the last decade was summarized and complemented with subsequent novel data about biodiversity (new species, first records, DNA and chemical analyses, etc.). The results showed: 1 new genus (arachnid), 6 new species and several putative new species (fish and arthropod), 6 vulnerable species (bird and mammal) and 36 first records for Argentina (fish, arthropod, platyhelminth and fungi). When compared with protected natural areas of the same biome, the CIAR showed highly valuable aspects for fauna and environment conservation, positioning this NPA as a worldwide hotspot for some taxa. Indeed, when compared to international hotspots in a coordinated Malaise trap program, the CIAR showed 8,651 different barcode index numbers (∼species) of arthropods, 80% of which had not been previously barcoded. Molecules like Inoscavin A, with antifungal activity against phytopathogens, was isolated for the first time in Phellinus merrillii fungi. The study of major threats derived from anthropic activities measured 20 trace elements, 18 pesticides (i.e. endosulfans, chlorpyrifos, DDTs, HCHs) and 27 pharmaceuticals and drugs (i.e. benzoylecgonine and norfluoxetine) in different biotic and abiotic matrices (water, sediment, fish and air biomonitors). This integrated data analysis shows that biodiversity research in NPA is being undervalued and how multidisciplinary and multi-taxa surveys creates a new arena for research and a pathway towards sustainable development in emerging countries with biodiversity hotspots.
Identifying Potential Cropland Losses When Conserving 30% and 50% Earth with Different Approaches and Spatial Scales

Jianqiao Zhao,Yue Cao,Le Yu,Xiaoxuan Liu,Yichuan Shi,Xiaoping Liu,Rui Yang,Peng Gong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/land10070704

IF: 3.905

2021-07-04

Land

Abstract:Biodiversity conservation is the cornerstone for sustainable development. Bold conservation targets provide the last opportunities to halt the human-driven mass extinction. Recently, bold conservation targets have been proposed to protect 30% or 50% of Earth. However, little is known about its potential impacts on cropland. We identify potential cropland losses when 30% and 50% of global terrestrial area is given back to nature by 2030/2050, at three spatial scales (global, biome and country) and using two approaches (“nature-only landscapes” and “shared landscapes”). We find that different targets, applied scales and approaches will lead to different cropland losses: (1) At the global scale, it is possible to protect 50% of the Earth while having minimum cropland losses. (2) At biome scale, 0.64% and 8.54% cropland will be lost globally in 2030 and 2050 under the nature-only approach while by contrast, the shared approach substantially reduces the number of countries confronted by cropland losses, demanding only 0% and 2.59% of global cropland losses in 2030 and 2050. (3) At the national scale, the nature-only approach causes losses of 3.58% and 10.73% of global cropland in 2030 and 2050, while the shared approach requires 0.77% and 7.55% cropland in 2030 and 2050. Our results indicate that bold conservation targets could be considered, especially when adopting the shared approach, and we suggest adopting ambitious targets (protecting at least 30% by 2030) at the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP 15) to ensure a sustainable future for Earth.

environmental studies
Towards a practical threat assessment methodology for crop landraces

Maria João Almeida,Ana Maria Barata,Stef De Haan,Bal Krishna Joshi,Joana Magos Brehm,Mariana Yazbek,Nigel Maxted

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2024.1336876

IF: 5.6

2024-02-23

Frontiers in Plant Science

Abstract:Crop landraces (LR), the traditional varieties of crops that have been maintained for millennia by repeated cycles of planting, harvesting, and selection, are genetically diverse compared to more modern varieties and provide one of the key components for crop improvement due to the ease of trait transfer within the crop species. However, LR diversity is increasingly threatened with genetic erosion and extinction by replacement with improved cultivars, lack of incentives for farmers to maintain traditional agricultural systems, and rising threats from climate change. Their active conservation is necessary to maintain this critical resource. However, as there are hundreds of thousands of LR and millions of LR populations for crops globally, active conservation is complex and resource-intensive. To assist in implementation, it is useful to be able to prioritise LR for conservation action and an obvious means of prioritisation is based on relative threat assessment. There have been several attempts to propose LR threat assessment methods, but none thus far has been widely accepted or applied. The aim of this paper is to present a novel, practical, standardised, and objective methodology for LR threat assessment derived from the widely applied IUCN Red Listing for wild species, involving the collation of time series information for LR population range, LR population trend, market, and farmer characteristics and LR context information. The collated information is compared to a set of threat criteria and an appropriate threat category is assigned to the LR when a threshold level is reached. The proposed methodology can be applied at national, regional, or global levels and any crop group.

plant sciences

Ovarian metastases from colorectal carcinoma

Synergies and trade-offs in achieving global biodiversity targets

A multi-taxon analysis of European Red Lists reveals major threats to biodiversity

Areas of global importance for conserving terrestrial biodiversity, carbon and water

Measuring the Impact of Conservation: The Growing Importance of Monitoring Fauna, Flora and Funga

Roles of the Red List of Ecosystems in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework

Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines

Impact of an IUCN national Red List of threatened flora on scientific attention

Indicators to monitor the status of the tree of life

Quantification of Extinction Risk: IUCN's System for Classifying Threatened Species

Testing a global standard for quantifying species recovery and assessing conservation impact

Prioritizing threat management across terrestrial and freshwater realms for species conservation and recovery

Comprehensive conservation assessments reveal high extinction risks across Atlantic Forest trees

Mapping the planet’s critical areas for biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people

A metric for tradable biodiversity credits quantifying impacts on global extinction risk

Threat management priorities for conserving Antarctic biodiversity

Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change

Threats from urban expansion, agricultural transformation and forest loss on global conservation priority areas

Biodiversity and threats in non-protected areas: A multidisciplinary and multi-taxa approach focused on the Atlantic Forest

Identifying Potential Cropland Losses When Conserving 30% and 50% Earth with Different Approaches and Spatial Scales

Towards a practical threat assessment methodology for crop landraces