Climate change will have far-reaching impacts on biodiversity, including increasing extinction rates. Current approaches to quantifying such impacts focus on measuring exposure to climatic change and ...largely ignore the biological differences between species that may significantly increase or reduce their vulnerability. To address this, we present a framework for assessing three dimensions of climate change vulnerability, namely sensitivity, exposure and adaptive capacity; this draws on species' biological traits and their modeled exposure to projected climatic changes. In the largest such assessment to date, we applied this approach to each of the world's birds, amphibians and corals (16,857 species). The resulting assessments identify the species with greatest relative vulnerability to climate change and the geographic areas in which they are concentrated, including the Amazon basin for amphibians and birds, and the central Indo-west Pacific (Coral Triangle) for corals. We found that high concentration areas for species with traits conferring highest sensitivity and lowest adaptive capacity differ from those of highly exposed species, and we identify areas where exposure-based assessments alone may over or under-estimate climate change impacts. We found that 608-851 bird (6-9%), 670-933 amphibian (11-15%), and 47-73 coral species (6-9%) are both highly climate change vulnerable and already threatened with extinction on the IUCN Red List. The remaining highly climate change vulnerable species represent new priorities for conservation. Fewer species are highly climate change vulnerable under lower IPCC SRES emissions scenarios, indicating that reducing greenhouse emissions will reduce climate change driven extinctions. Our study answers the growing call for a more biologically and ecologically inclusive approach to assessing climate change vulnerability. By facilitating independent assessment of the three dimensions of climate change vulnerability, our approach can be used to devise species and area-specific conservation interventions and indices. The priorities we identify will strengthen global strategies to mitigate climate change impacts.
Protected Areas and Effective Biodiversity Conservation Le Saout, Soizic; Hoffmann, Michael; Shi, Yichuan ...
Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science),
11/2013, Volume:
342, Issue:
6160
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Although protected areas (PAs) cover 13% of Earth's land (1), substantial gaps remain in their coverage of global biodiversity (2). Thus, there has been emphasis on strategic expansion of the global ...PA network (3-5). However, because PAs are often understaffed, underfunded, and beleaguered in the face of external threats (6, 7), efforts to expand PA coverage should be complemented by appropriate management of existing PAs. Previous calls for enhancing PA management have focused on improving operational effectiveness of each PA e.g., staffing and budgets (6). Little guidance has been offered on how to improve collective effectiveness for meeting global biodiversity conservation goals (3). We provide guidance for strategically allocating management efforts among and within existing PAs to strengthen their collective contribution toward preventing global species extinctions.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
The world's governments have committed to preventing the extinction of threatened species and improving their conservation status by 2020. However, biodiversity is not evenly distributed across ...space, and neither are the drivers of its decline, and so different regions face very different challenges. Here, we quantify the contribution of regions and countries towards recent global trends in vertebrate conservation status (as measured by the Red List Index), to guide action towards the 2020 target. We found that>50% of the global deterioration in the conservation status of birds, mammals and amphibians is concentrated in <1% of the surface area, 39/1098 ecoregions (4%) and eight/195 countries (4%) - Australia, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, and the United States. These countries hold a third of global diversity in these vertebrate groups, partially explaining why they concentrate most of the losses. Yet, other megadiverse countries - most notably Brazil (responsible for 10% of species but just 1% of deterioration), plus India and Madagascar - performed better in conserving their share of global vertebrate diversity. Very few countries, mostly island nations (e.g. Cook Islands, Fiji, Mauritius, Seychelles, and Tonga), have achieved net improvements. Per capita wealth does not explain these patterns, with two of the richest countries - United States and Australia - fairing conspicuously poorly. Different countries were affected by different combinations of threats. Reducing global rates of biodiversity loss will require investment in the regions and countries with the highest responsibility for the world's biodiversity, focusing on conserving those species and areas most in peril and on reducing the drivers with the highest impacts.
Professor Dame Georgina Mace (1953–2020) Stuart, Simon N.; Bateman, Ian
Trends in ecology & evolution,
January 2021, 2021-01-00, 20210101, Volume:
36, Issue:
1
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Studies using claims databases reported that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection >30 days earlier was associated with an increase in the incidence of type 1 ...diabetes. Using exact dates of diabetes diagnosis from the national register in Scotland linked to virology laboratory data, we sought to replicate this finding.
A cohort of 1,849,411 individuals aged <35 years without diabetes, including all those in Scotland who subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, was followed from 1 March 2020 to 22 November 2021. Incident type 1 diabetes was ascertained from the national registry. Using Cox regression, we tested the association of time-updated infection with incident diabetes. Trends in incidence of type 1 diabetes in the population from 2015 through 2021 were also estimated in a generalized additive model.
There were 365,080 individuals who had at least one detected SARS-CoV-2 infection during follow-up and 1,074 who developed type 1 diabetes. The rate ratio for incident type 1 diabetes associated with first positive test for SARS-CoV-2 (reference category: no previous infection) was 0.86 (95% CI 0.62, 1.21) for infection >30 days earlier and 2.62 (95% CI 1.81, 3.78) for infection in the previous 30 days. However, negative and positive SARS-CoV-2 tests were more frequent in the days surrounding diabetes presentation. In those aged 0-14 years, incidence of type 1 diabetes during 2020-2021 was 20% higher than the 7-year average.
Type 1 diabetes incidence in children increased during the pandemic. However, the cohort analysis suggests that SARS-CoV-2 infection itself was not the cause of this increase.
In 2002, world leaders committed, through the Convention on Biological Diversity, to achieve a significant reduction in the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. We compiled 31 indicators to report on ...progress toward this target. Most indicators of the state of biodiversity (covering species' population trends, extinction risk, habitat extent and condition, and community composition) showed declines, with no significant recent reductions in rate, whereas indicators of pressures on biodiversity (including resource consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, overexploitation, and climate change impacts) showed increases. Despite some local successes and increasing responses (including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest management, policy responses to invasive alien species, and biodiversity-related aid), the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, NMLJ, NUK, PNG, SAZU, UL, UM, UPUK
Global pressures on freshwater ecosystems are high and rising. Viewed primarily as a resource for humans, current practices of water use have led to catastrophic declines in freshwater species and ...the degradation of freshwater ecosystems, including their genetic and functional diversity. Approximately three‐quarters of the world's inland wetlands have been lost, one‐third of the 28 000 freshwater species assessed for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List are threatened with extinction, and freshwater vertebrate populations are undergoing declines that are more rapid than those of terrestrial and marine species. This global loss continues unchecked, despite the importance of freshwater ecosystems as a source of clean water, food, livelihoods, recreation, and inspiration.
The causes of these declines include hydrological alterations, habitat degradation and loss, overexploitation, invasive species, pollution, and the multiple impacts of climate change. Although there are policy initiatives that aim to protect freshwater life, these are rarely implemented with sufficient conviction and enforcement. Policies that focus on the development and management of fresh waters as a resource for people almost universally neglect the biodiversity that they contain.
Here we introduce the Alliance for Freshwater Life, a global initiative, uniting specialists in research, data synthesis, conservation, education and outreach, and policymaking. This expert network aims to provide the critical mass required for the effective representation of freshwater biodiversity at policy meetings, to develop solutions balancing the needs of development and conservation, and to better convey the important role freshwater ecosystems play in human well‐being. Through this united effort we hope to reverse this tide of loss and decline in freshwater biodiversity. We introduce several short‐ and medium‐term actions as examples for making positive change, and invite individuals, organizations, authorities, and governments to join the Alliance for Freshwater Life.
Full text
Available for:
FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Funding: The study (13) of the geographic distribution of tiger populations and the costs of protecting source sites was supported by a grant (GEF MSP grant TF093667) from the World Bank acting as ...implementing agency of the Global Environment Facility (GEF). While the scale of the challenge is enormous, we submit that the complexity of effective implementation is not: commitments should shift to focus on protecting tigers at spatially well-defined priority sites, supported by proven best practices of law enforcement, wildlife management, and scientific monitoring. If Russia is excluded from the analysis, 74% of the world's remaining tigers live in less than 4.5% of current tiger range. ...protecting source sites offers the most pragmatic and efficient opportunity to conserve most of the world's remaining wild tigers.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
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. /// La Lista Roja de Especies Amenazadas de la UICN (Unión Internacional para la Conservación de la Naturaleza) fue muy utilizada durante la década de 1980 para evaluar el estatus de conservación de especies para fines políticos y de planificación. Este uso estimuló el desarrollo de un conjunto nuevo de criterios cuantitativos para enlistar especies en las categorías de amenaza: en peligro crítico, en peligro y vulnerable. Estos criterios, que se pretendía fueran aplicables a todas las especies excepto microorganismos, eran parte de un sistema general para clasificar especies amenazadas y fueron implementadas completamente por la UICN en 2000. El sistema y los criterios han sido ampliamente utilizados por practicantes y científicos de la conservación y actualmente apuntalan un indicador utilizado para evaluar el objetivo al 2010 de la Convención de Diversidad Biológica. Describimos el proceso y el respaldo técnico del sistema de la Lista Roja de la IUCN. Los criterios se refieren a los procesos biológicos fundamentales que subyacen en la declinación y extinción de una población. Pero, debido a diferencias mayores entre especies, los procesos de amenaza que los afectan y la escasez de conocimiento sobre la mayoría de las especies, el sistema de la UICN tenía que ser amplio y flexible para ser aplicable a la mayoría de las especies descritas. El sistema fue diseñado para medir los síntomas del riesgo de extinción, y utiliza cinco criterios independientes que relacionan aspectos de la pérdida poblacional y la declinación del rango de distribución. Una especie es asignada a una categoría de amenaza si cumple el umbral cuantitativo por lo menos para un criterio. Los criterios, las reglas acompañantes y las directrices utilizadas por la UICN tienen la intención de incrementar la consistencia, transparencia y validez de su sistema de clasificación, pero requiere algunos compromisos que afectan la aplicabilidad del sistema y las listas de especies que resultan. En particular, se hicieron selecciones por encima de la evaluación de incertidumbre, especies poco conocidas, especies disminuidas, declinación poblacional, rangos restringidos y rareza; todas estas afectan la forma en que las listas rojas deberían ser vistas y usadas. Los procesos relacionados con la definición de prioridades y el desarrollo de las listas rojas nacionales necesitan considerar algunos de los supuestos en la formulación de los criterios.
Full text
Available for:
BFBNIB, FZAB, GIS, IJS, KILJ, NLZOH, NMLJ, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBMB, UL, UM, UPUK
Improvements to the Red List Index Butchart, Stuart H M; Resit Akçakaya, H; Chanson, Janice ...
PloS one,
01/2007, Volume:
2, Issue:
1
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
The Red List Index uses information from the IUCN Red List to track trends in the projected overall extinction risk of sets of species. It has been widely recognised as an important component of the ...suite of indicators needed to measure progress towards the international target of significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss by 2010. However, further application of the RLI (to non-avian taxa in particular) has revealed some shortcomings in the original formula and approach: It performs inappropriately when a value of zero is reached; RLI values are affected by the frequency of assessments; and newly evaluated species may introduce bias. Here we propose a revision to the formula, and recommend how it should be applied in order to overcome these shortcomings. Two additional advantages of the revisions are that assessment errors are not propagated through time, and the overall level extinction risk can be determined as well as trends in this over time.
PDF
