Priority threat management of invasive animals to protect biodiversity under climate change.

Climate change is a major threat to global biodiversity, and its impacts can act synergistically to heighten the severity of other threats. Most research on projecting species range shifts under climate change has not been translated to informing priority management strategies on the ground. We develop a prioritization framework to assess strategies for managing threats to biodiversity under climate change and apply it to the management of invasive animal species across one-sixth of the Australian continent, the Lake Eyre Basin. We collected information from key stakeholders and experts on the impacts of invasive animals on 148 of the region's most threatened species and 11 potential strategies. Assisted by models of current distributions of threatened species and their projected distributions, experts estimated the cost, feasibility, and potential benefits of each strategy for improving the persistence of threatened species with and without climate change. We discover that the relative cost-effectiveness of invasive animal control strategies is robust to climate change, with the management of feral pigs being the highest priority for conserving threatened species overall. Complementary sets of strategies to protect as many threatened species as possible under limited budgets change when climate change is considered, with additional strategies required to avoid impending extinctions from the region. Overall, we find that the ranking of strategies by cost-effectiveness was relatively unaffected by including climate change into decision-making, even though the benefits of the strategies were lower. Future climate conditions and impacts on range shifts become most important to consider when designing comprehensive management plans for the control of invasive animals under limited budgets to maximize the number of threatened species that can be protected.

How Healthy Are Non-Traditional Dietary Proteins? The Effect of Diverse Protein Foods on Biomarkers of Human Health.

Future food security for healthy populations requires the development of safe, sustainably-produced protein foods to complement traditional dietary protein sources. To meet this need, a broad range of non-traditional protein foods are under active investigation. The aim of this review was to evaluate their potential effects on human health and to identify knowledge gaps, potential risks, and research opportunities. Non-traditional protein sources included are algae, cereals/grains, fresh fruit and vegetables, insects, mycoprotein, nuts, oil seeds, and legumes. Human, animal, and in vitro data suggest that non-traditional protein foods have compelling beneficial effects on human health, complementing traditional proteins (meat/poultry, soy, eggs, dairy). Improvements in cardiovascular health, lipid metabolism, muscle synthesis, and glycaemic control were the most frequently reported improvements in health-related endpoints. The mechanisms of benefit may arise from their diverse range of minerals, macro- and micronutrients, dietary fibre, and bioactive factors. Many were also reported to have anti-inflammatory, antihypertensive, and antioxidant activity. Across all protein sources examined, there is a strong need for quality human data from randomized controlled intervention studies. Opportunity lies in further understanding the potential effects of non-traditional proteins on the gut microbiome, immunity, inflammatory conditions, DNA damage, cognition, and cellular ageing. Safety, sustainability, and evidence-based health research will be vital to the development of high-quality complementary protein foods that enhance human health at all life stages.

Building a stakeholder-led common vision increases the expected cost-effectiveness of biodiversity conservation.

Uniting diverse stakeholders through communication, education or building a collaborative 'common vision' for biodiversity management is a recommended approach for enabling effective conservation in regions with multiple uses. However, socially focused strategies such as building a collaborative vision can require sharing scarce resources (time and financial resources) with the on-ground management actions needed to achieve conservation outcomes. Here we adapt current prioritisation tools to predict the likely return on the financial investment of building a stakeholder-led vision along with a portfolio of on-ground management strategies. Our approach brings together and analyses expert knowledge to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a common vision strategy and on-ground management strategies, before any investments in these strategies are made. We test our approach in an intensively-used Australian biodiversity hotspot with 179 threatened or at-risk species. Experts predicted that an effective stakeholder vision for the region would have a relatively low cost and would significantly increase the feasibility of on-ground management strategies. As a result, our analysis indicates that a common vision is likely to be a cost-effective investment, increasing the expected persistence of threatened species in the region by 9 to 52%, depending upon the strategies implemented. Our approach can provide the maximum budget that is worth investing in building a common vision or another socially focused strategy for building support for on-ground conservation actions. The approach can assist with decisions about whether and how to allocate scarce resources amongst social and ecological actions for biodiversity conservation in other regions worldwide.