Below the canopy: global trends in forest vertebrate populations and their drivers.

Global forest assessments use forest area as an indicator of biodiversity status, which may mask below-canopy pressures driving forest biodiversity loss and 'empty forest' syndrome. The status of forest biodiversity is important not only for species conservation but also because species loss can have consequences for forest health and carbon storage. We aimed to develop a global indicator of forest specialist vertebrate populations to improve assessments of forest biodiversity status. Using the Living Planet Index methodology, we developed a weighted composite Forest Specialist Index for the period 1970-2014. We then investigated potential correlates of forest vertebrate population change. We analysed the relationship between the average rate of change of forest vertebrate populations and satellite-derived tree cover trends, as well as other pressures. On average, forest vertebrate populations declined by 53% between 1970 and 2014. We found little evidence of a consistent global effect of tree cover change on forest vertebrate populations, but a significant negative effect of exploitation threat on forest specialists. In conclusion, we found that the forest area is a poor indicator of forest biodiversity status. For forest biodiversity to recover, conservation management needs to be informed by monitoring all threats to vertebrates, including those below the canopy.

Relating characteristics of global biodiversity targets to reported progress.

To inform governmental discussions on the nature of a revised Strategic Plan for Biodiversity of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), we reviewed the relevant literature and assessed the framing of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets in the current strategic plan. We asked international experts from nongovernmental organizations, academia, government agencies, international organizations, research institutes, and the CBD to score the Aichi Targets and their constituent elements against a set of specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic, unambiguous, scalable, and comprehensive criteria (SMART based, excluding time bound because all targets are bound to 2015 or 2020). We then investigated the relationship between these expert scores and reported progress toward the target elements by using the findings from 2 global progress assessments (Global Biodiversity Outlook and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). We analyzed the data with ordinal logistic regressions. We found significant positive relationships (p < 0.05) between progress and the extent to which the target elements were perceived to be measurable, realistic, unambiguous, and scalable. There was some evidence of a relationship between progress and specificity of the target elements, but no relationship between progress and ambition. We are the first to show associations between progress and the extent to which the Aichi Targets meet certain SMART criteria. As negotiations around the post-2020 biodiversity framework proceed, decision makers should strive to ensure that new or revised targets are effectively structured and clearly worded to allow the translation of targets into actionable policies that can be successfully implemented nationally, regionally, and globally.

Relación de las Características de los Objetivos Mundiales de Biodiversidad con el Progreso Reportado Resumen Para informar las discusiones gubernamentales sobre la naturaleza de una revisión del Plan Estratégico para la Biodiversidad del Convenio sobre la Diversidad Biológica (CBD, en inglés), revisamos la literatura relevante y evaluamos el marco de 20 Objetivos de Biodiversidad de Aichi en el plan estratégico actual. Le pedimos a expertos internacionales de organizaciones no gubernamentales, de la academia, de agencias gubernamentales, organizaciones internacionales, de institutos de investigación y de la CBD que puntuaran los Objetivos de Aichi y sus elementos constituyentes frente a un conjunto de criterios específicos, medibles, ambiciosos, realistas (basados en SMART [las iniciales en inglés] y excluyendo aquellos limitados por el tiempo, pues todos los objetivos están limitados al 2015 o al 2020), inequívocos, expansibles y completos (excluyendo aquellos limitados por el tiempo). Después investigamos la relación entre los puntajes de estos expertos y el progreso reportado hacia los elementos objetivo usando los resultados de dos valoraciones mundiales del progreso (el Pronóstico Mundial de la Biodiversidad y la Plataforma Intergubernamental de Ciencia y Política sobre la Biodiversidad y los Servicios Ambientales). Analizamos los datos con regresiones logísticas ordinales. Encontramos relaciones positivas significativas (p < 0.05) entre el progreso y el alcance al que fueron percibidos como medibles, realistas, inequívocos y expansibles los elementos objetivo. Hubo algo de evidencia de la relación entre el progreso y la ambición. Somos los primeros en mostrar las asociaciones entre el progreso y la extensión hasta la que los Objetivos de Aichi cumplen con ciertos criterios SMART. Conforme proceden las negociaciones en torno al marco de trabajo de biodiversidad post-2020, quienes toman las decisiones deberían esforzarse por asegurar que los objetivos nuevos o revisados estén estructurados efectivamente y redactados claramente para permitir la traducción de los objetivos hacia políticas factibles que puedan implementarse exitosamente a nivel nacional, regional y mundial.

Ten-year assessment of the 100 priority questions for global biodiversity conservation.

In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the world's biodiversity. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high-priority questions in the peer-reviewed literature. We took a first step toward reexamining the 100 questions to identify key knowledge gaps that remain. Through a combination of a questionnaire and a literature review, we evaluated each question on the basis of 2 criteria: relevance and effort. We defined highly relevant questions as those that - if answered - would have the greatest impact on global biodiversity conservation and quantified effort based on the number of review publications addressing a particular question, which we used as a proxy for research effort. Using this approach, we identified a set of questions that, despite being perceived as highly relevant, have been the focus of relatively few review publications over the past 10 years. These questions covered a broad range of topics but predominantly tackled 3 major themes: conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems, role of societal structures in shaping interactions between people and the environment, and impacts of conservation interventions. We believe these questions represent important knowledge gaps that have received insufficient attention and may need to be prioritized in future research.