Unpacking the concept of land degradation neutrality and addressing its operation through the Rio Conventions.

The world's commitment towards land degradation neutrality (LDN) became enshrined in various international agreements and decisions throughout the year 2015. The challenge now becomes one of addressing its operation, in order to achieve these new policy goals and targets by the year 2030. Advancing LDN demands attention to what the concept seeks to achieve, as well as unravelling the perspectives of the key multi-lateral environmental agreements through which progress can be made. The three Rio Conventions (the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)) all play key roles in shaping the international LDN governance and implementation context. Their different but related foci create a number of challenges and opportunities for advancing LDN. In this paper we critically analyze the literature to elucidate potential challenges and opportunities in moving LDN towards implementation, considering the mandates and objectives of all three Rio Conventions. We first unpack the concept of LDN's aspirations. We highlight the importance of the definitions and terminology used, and the relationships between those definitions, terms and the actors using them, as well as their implications in framing the range of policy actions and synergies that could benefit progress towards multiple Sustainable Development Goals. We then examine the LDN pilot project spearheaded by the UNCCD to identify key lessons for LDN implementation. Synthesizing these lessons, we present a portfolio of blended interventions that seeks to address the aspirations of the UNCCD, UNFCCC and CBD in the LDN space, identifying synergistic options for national actions to move towards LDN. Overall, our analysis provides insights in advancing LDN from its current position as a policy target, towards synergetic action.

Priority Questions and Horizon Scanning for Conservation: A Comparative Study.

Several projects aimed at identifying priority issues for conservation with high relevance to policy have recently been completed in several countries. Two major types of projects have been undertaken, aimed at identifying (i) policy-relevant questions most imperative to conservation and (ii) horizon scanning topics, defined as emerging issues that are expected to have substantial implications for biodiversity conservation and policy in the future. Here, we provide the first overview of the outcomes of biodiversity and conservation-oriented projects recently completed around the world using this framework. We also include the results of the first questions and horizon scanning project completed for a Mediterranean country. Overall, the outcomes of the different projects undertaken (at the global scale, in the UK, US, Canada, Switzerland and in Israel) were strongly correlated in terms of the proportion of questions and/or horizon scanning topics selected when comparing different topic areas. However, some major differences were found across regions. There was large variation among regions in the percentage of proactive (i.e. action and response oriented) versus descriptive (non-response oriented) priority questions and in the emphasis given to socio-political issues. Substantial differences were also found when comparing outcomes of priority questions versus horizon scanning projects undertaken for the same region. For example, issues related to climate change, human demography and marine ecosystems received higher priority as horizon scanning topics, while ecosystem services were more emphasized as current priority questions. We suggest that future initiatives aimed at identifying priority conservation questions and horizon scanning topics should allow simultaneous identification of both current and future priority issues, as presented here for the first time. We propose that further emphasis on social-political issues should be explicitly integrated into future related projects.

Weight changes of cross-desert migrants at an oasis -do energetic considerations alone determine the length of stopover?

Trans-Saharan insectivorous passerine night migrants stopping-over at a small oasis in Sinai were weighed as frequently as possible, throughout the entire length of fall and spring migration passages. Due to the small size of the oasis and the intensive trapping effort, most stopping-over birds were captured and weighed throughout a sizeable portion of their stopover period. Weights at first capture were either similar in both seasons, or greater in fall than in spring. In some species fall migrants that stayed one day were heavier than those staying longer. In other species, and for all species in spring, weights of birds that stayed one day did not differ from those staying longer. In most species the weight of birds that stayed for more than one day did not vary significantly between arrival and departure, and cases of weight gains were commoner in fall than in spring. Trends of weight changes of an individual during stopover were usually inconsistent, but the longer it stayed, more it gained (in fall), or less it lost (in spring). It is proposed that stopping-over birds do not always resume their migration only after their fat reserves have been replenished, but that their decision to take off, or the reappearance of the migration impulse, are also controlled by a time program incorporated into their endogenous migration scheme, which constantly updates the time left for sampling and refuelling. It seems that in spring less time is allotted for the whole migration program, hence the time constraint overrides then all other tactical considerations, such as the state of fat reserves, and the weather.

Why do fleshy-fruit plants of the mediterranean scrub intercept fall-but not spring-passage of seed-dispersing migratory birds?

Production of fleshy fruits by 8 tree and shrub species, and patterns of their utilization by 6 resident and 6 transient bird species, were assessed in an Israeli Mediterranean scrub. Whereas more than half the ripe crop of plants that fruit in one relatively short burst is not removed by birds, the greater part of the crop of species that fruit throughout a long period, is removed. Of two plant species that fruit simultaneously, the one with an inconspicuous fruit is utilized by a single, year-round resident frugivorous bird, whereas the species with bright fruits is utilized by several non-resident and omnivorous bird species. A further two simultaneously fruiting species differ in fat content and the color of their conspicuous ripe fruits; the low-fat fruit being taken by a resident species and the high-fat fruit by a transient congener, just prior to the desert-crossing portion of its Fall-passage.Though more migrants pass through in Spring than in Fall, none of the fleshy-fruit plants fruit in Spring, and most fruit during the Fall. Two non-exclusive explanations for this phenomenon are (a) Fall dispersal ensures immediate germination, with least exposure to desiccation and predation; (b) Spring transients approaching their breeding territories may either be reluctant to spend much time on feeding, or mostly require proteins, amply supplied by the Spring flush of insects, typical of the Mediterranean region. Fall transients approaching the desert require mostly fats and carbohydrates, supplied by fruits. Fruits attract birds easily in the Fall, when insects are scarce.