Global inequities and political borders challenge nature conservation under climate change.

Underlying sociopolitical factors have emerged as important determinants of wildlife population trends and the effectiveness of conservation action. Despite mounting research into the impacts of climate change on nature, there has been little consideration of the human context in which these impacts occur, particularly at the global scale. We investigate this in two ways. First, by modeling the climatic niches of terrestrial mammals and birds globally, we show that projected species loss under climate change is greatest in countries with weaker governance and lower Gross Domestic Product, with loss of mammal species projected to be greater in countries with lower CO2 emissions. Therefore, climate change impacts on species may be disproportionately significant in countries with lower capacity for effective conservation and lower greenhouse gas emissions, raising important questions of international justice. Second, we consider the redistribution of species in the context of political boundaries since the global importance of transboundary conservation under climate change is poorly understood. Under a high-emissions scenario, we find that 35% of mammals and 29% of birds are projected to have over half of their 2070 climatic niche in countries in which they are not currently found. We map these transboundary range shifts globally, identifying borders across which international coordination might most benefit conservation and where physical border barriers, such as walls and fences, may be an overlooked obstacle to climate adaptation. Our work highlights the importance of sociopolitical context and the utility of a supranational perspective for 21st century nature conservation.

Scientific research on animal biodiversity is systematically biased towards vertebrates and temperate regions.

Over the last 25 years, research on biodiversity has expanded dramatically, fuelled by increasing threats to the natural world. However, the number of published studies is heavily weighted towards certain taxa, perhaps influencing conservation awareness of and funding for less-popular groups. Few studies have systematically quantified these biases, although information on this topic is important for informing future research and conservation priorities. We investigated: i) which animal taxa are being studied; ii) if any taxonomic biases are the same in temperate and tropical regions; iii) whether the taxon studied is named in the title of papers on biodiversity, perhaps reflecting a perception of what biodiversity is; iv) the geographical distribution of biodiversity research, compared with the distribution of biodiversity and threatened species; and v) the geographical distribution of authors' countries of origin. To do this, we used the search engine Web of Science to systematically sample a subset of the published literature with 'biodiversity' in the title. In total 526 research papers were screened-5% of all papers in Web of Science with biodiversity in the title. For each paper, details on taxonomic group, title phrasing, number of citations, study location, and author locations were recorded. Compared to the proportions of described species, we identified a considerable taxonomic weighting towards vertebrates and an under-representation of invertebrates (particularly arachnids and insects) in the published literature. This discrepancy is more pronounced in highly cited papers, and in tropical regions, with only 43% of biodiversity research in the tropics including invertebrates. Furthermore, while papers on vertebrate taxa typically did not specify the taxonomic group in the title, the converse was true for invertebrate papers. Biodiversity research is also biased geographically: studies are more frequently carried out in developed countries with larger economies, and for a given level of species or threatened species, tropical countries were understudied relative to temperate countries. Finally, biodiversity research is disproportionately authored by researchers from wealthier countries, with studies less likely to be carried out by scientists in lower-GDP nations. Our results highlight the need for a more systematic and directed evaluation of biodiversity studies, perhaps informing more targeted research towards those areas and taxa most depauperate in research. Only by doing so can we ensure that biodiversity research yields results that are relevant and applicable to all regions and that the information necessary for the conservation of threatened species is available to conservation practitioners.