Key tropical crops at risk from pollinator loss due to climate change and land use.

Insect pollinator biodiversity is changing rapidly, with potential consequences for the provision of crop pollination. However, the role of land use-climate interactions in pollinator biodiversity changes, as well as consequent economic effects via changes in crop pollination, remains poorly understood. We present a global assessment of the interactive effects of climate change and land use on pollinator abundance and richness and predictions of the risk to crop pollination from the inferred changes. Using a dataset containing 2673 sites and 3080 insect pollinator species, we show that the interactive combination of agriculture and climate change is associated with large reductions in insect pollinators. As a result, it is expected that the tropics will experience the greatest risk to crop production from pollinator losses. Localized risk is highest and predicted to increase most rapidly, in regions of sub-Saharan Africa, northern South America, and Southeast Asia. Via pollinator loss alone, climate change and agricultural land use could be a risk to human well-being.

The importance of multi-year studies and commercial yield metrics in measuring pollinator dependence ratios: A case study in UK raspberries Rubus idaeus L.

The benefit of pollinators to crop production is normally calculated using "pollinator dependence ratios," which reflect the proportion of yield lost (here reported as a value between 0 and 1) in the absence of pollinators; these ratios are quantified experimentally using pollinator exclusion experiments. Pollinator dependence ratio estimates can vary considerably for a single crop, creating large, frequently overlooked, uncertainty in economic valuations of pollinators. The source of this variation is usually unclear. We experimentally measured the pollinator dependence ratio of two UK commercial cultivars of raspberry Rubus idaeus L., using a range of yield metrics-fruit set, marketable fruit set, fruit weight, and marketable fruit weight-over 3 years (2019-2021), to quantify the effects of yield metric, interannual variation, and cultivar on pollinator dependence ratio estimates. We found a difference in the pollinator dependence ratio for fruit set of 0.71 between 2019 and 2020, showing the importance of carrying out exclusion studies over multiple years. Averaged over multiple years and two cultivars, the dependence ratio was 0.68 measured using marketable fruit set and 0.64 using marketable fruit weight. Imposing a quality threshold (size and shape) below which fruits would not be of commercial value (marketable fruit set/weight) dramatically increased both the pollinator dependence ratio and subsequent economic valuations of pollination service derived from it. Our study shows that, for raspberry, estimates of the pollinator dependence ratio, and therefore, the economic value of insect pollinators, are highly sensitive to the choice of yield metric and can change between years and cultivars. Many economic decisions about pollinator management, at farm, regional and national scales rely on estimates of pollinator dependence. We, therefore, recommend that for estimating pollinator dependence ratios, pollinator exclusion studies are conducted over three or more years and use yield metrics that incorporate quality criteria linked to actual market values and commercial thresholds.

Characterization Factors to Assess Land Use Impacts on Pollinator Abundance in Life Cycle Assessment.

While wild pollinators play a key role in global food production, their assessment is currently missing from the most commonly used environmental impact assessment method, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). This is mainly due to constraints in data availability and compatibility with LCA inventories. To target this gap, relative pollinator abundance estimates were obtained with the use of a Delphi assessment, during which 25 experts, covering 16 nationalities and 45 countries of expertise, provided scores for low, typical, and high expected abundance associated with 24 land use categories. Based on these estimates, this study presents a set of globally generic characterization factors (CFs) that allows translating land use into relative impacts to wild pollinator abundance. The associated uncertainty of the CFs is presented along with an illustrative case to demonstrate the applicability in LCA studies. The CFs based on estimates that reached consensus during the Delphi assessment are recommended as readily applicable and allow key differences among land use types to be distinguished. The resulting CFs are proposed as the first step for incorporating pollinator impacts in LCA studies, exemplifying the use of expert elicitation methods as a useful tool to fill data gaps that constrain the characterization of key environmental impacts.

From science to society: implementing effective strategies to improve wild pollinator health.

Despite a substantial increase in scientific, public and political interest in pollinator health and many practical conservation efforts, incorporating initiatives across a range of scales and sectors, pollinator health continues to decline. We review existing pollinator conservation initiatives and define their common structural elements. We argue that implementing effective action for pollinators requires further scientific understanding in six key areas: (i) status and trends of pollinator populations; (ii) direct and indirect drivers of decline, including their interactions; (iii) risks and co-benefits of pollinator conservation actions for ecosystems; (iv) benefits of pollinator conservation for society; (v) the effectiveness of context-specific, tailored, actionable solutions; and (vi) integrated frameworks that explicitly link benefits and values with actions to reverse declines. We propose use of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) conceptual framework to link issues and identify critical gaps in both understanding and action for pollinators. This approach reveals the centrality of addressing the recognized indirect drivers of decline, such as patterns of global trade and demography, which are frequently overlooked in current pollinator conservation efforts. Finally, we discuss how existing and new approaches in research can support efforts to move beyond these shortcomings in pollinator conservation initiatives. This article is part of the theme issue 'Natural processes influencing pollinator health: from chemistry to landscapes'.

Rapid assessment of insect pollination services to inform decision-making.

Pollinator declines have prompted efforts to assess how land-use change affects insect pollinators and pollination services in agricultural landscapes. Yet many tools to measure insect pollination services require substantial landscape-scale data and technical expertise. In expert workshops, 3 straightforward methods (desk-based method, field survey, and empirical manipulation with exclusion experiments) for rapid insect pollination assessment at site scale were developed to provide an adaptable framework that is accessible to nonspecialist with limited resources. These methods were designed for TESSA (Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-Based Assessment) and allow comparative assessment of pollination services at a site of conservation interest and in its most plausible alternative state (e.g., converted to agricultural land). We applied the methods at a nature reserve in the United Kingdom to estimate the value of insect pollination services provided by the reserve. The economic value of pollination services provided by the reserve ranged from US$6163 to US$11,546/year. The conversion of the reserve to arable land would provide no insect pollination services and a net annual benefit from insect-pollinated crop production of approximately $1542/year (US$24∙ha-1 ∙year-1 ). The methods had wide applicability and were readily adapted to different insect-pollinated crops: rape (Brassica napus) and beans (Vicia faba) crops. All methods were rapidly employed under a low budget. The relatively less robust methods that required fewer resources yielded higher estimates of annual insect pollination benefit.

Diversidad y Conservación de Gasterópodos Subterráneos de Agua Dulce en los Estados Unidos y en México Resumen Las declinaciones de los polinizadores han impulsado los esfuerzos por evaluar cómo el cambio del uso de suelo afecta a los insectos polinizadores y los servicios de polinización en los paisajes agrícolas. Aun así, muchas de las herramientas para medir los servicios de los insectos polinizadores requieren datos sustanciales a escala de paisaje y el conocimiento de expertos. Desarrollamos tres métodos sencillos (método de gabinete, censo de campo y manipulación empírica con experimentos de exclusión) durante algunos talleres de expertos para la evaluación rápida de la polinización por insectos a escala de sitio con el objetivo de proporcionar un marco de trabajo adaptable y accesible para quienes no son especialistas y cuentan con recursos limitados. Estos métodos fueron diseñados para TESSA (Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-Based Assessment, en inglés) y permiten la evaluación comparativa de los servicios de polinización en los sitios de interés para la conservación y su estado alternativo más plausible (p. ej.: convertido a suelo agrícola). Aplicamos los métodos en una reserva natural del Reino Unido para estimar el valor de los servicios de polinización por insectos que proporciona la reserva. El valor económico de los servicios de polinización que proporciona la reserva varió desde US$6,163 a US$11,546 al año-1 . La conversión de la reserva a suelo arable no proporcionaría servicios de polinización por insectos, pero sí un beneficio anual neto a partir de la producción de cultivos polinizados por insectos de aproximadamente $1,542 al año-1 (US$24 ha-1 año-1 ). Los métodos tuvieron una aplicabilidad generalizada y estaban ya adaptados a los diferentes cultivos polinizados por insectos: cultivos de colza (Brassica napus) y habas (Vicia faba). Todos los métodos pudieron usarse con bajo presupuesto. Los métodos relativamente menos robustos que requirieron menos recursos produjeron estimados más elevados del beneficio anual de la polinización por insectos.

A horizon scan of global biological conservation issues for 2022.

We present the results of our 13th annual horizon scan of issues likely to impact on biodiversity conservation. Issues are either novel within the biological conservation sector or could cause a substantial step-change in impact, either globally or regionally. Our global panel of 26 scientists and practitioners identified 15 issues that we believe to represent the highest priorities for tracking and action. Many of the issues we identified, including the impact of satellite megaconstellations and the use of long-distance wireless energy transfer, have both elements of threats and emerging opportunities. A recent state-sponsored application to commence deep-sea mining represents a significant step-change in impact. We hope that this horizon scan will increase research and policy attention on the highlighted issues.

A global-scale expert assessment of drivers and risks associated with pollinator decline.

Pollinator decline has attracted global attention and substantial efforts are underway to respond through national pollinator strategies and action plans. These policy responses require clarity on what is driving pollinator decline and what risks it generates for society in different parts of the world. Using a formal expert elicitation process, we evaluated the relative regional and global importance of eight drivers of pollinator decline and ten consequent risks to human well-being. Our results indicate that global policy responses should focus on reducing pressure from changes in land cover and configuration, land management and pesticides, as these were considered very important drivers in most regions. We quantify how the importance of drivers and risks from pollinator decline, differ among regions. For example, losing access to managed pollinators was considered a serious risk only for people in North America, whereas yield instability in pollinator-dependent crops was classed as a serious or high risk in four regions but only a moderate risk in Europe and North America. Overall, perceived risks were substantially higher in the Global South. Despite extensive research on pollinator decline, our analysis reveals considerable scientific uncertainty about what this means for human society.

A 2021 Horizon Scan of Emerging Global Biological Conservation Issues.

We present the results from our 12th annual horizon scan of issues likely to impact biological conservation in the future. From a list of 97 topics, our global panel of 25 scientists and practitioners identified the top 15 issues that we believe society may urgently need to address. These issues are either novel in the biological conservation sector or represent a substantial positive or negative step-change in impact at global or regional level. Six issues, such as coral reef deoxygenation and changes in polar coastal productivity, affect marine or coastal ecosystems and seven relate to human and ecosystem-level responses to climate change. Identification of potential forthcoming issues for biological conservation may enable increased preparedness by researchers, practitioners, and decision-makers.

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a 'critical friend' role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the 'systematic review' label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.

Author Correction: Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Estimating the risk of species interaction loss in mutualistic communities.

Interactions between species generate the functions on which ecosystems and humans depend. However, we lack an understanding of the risk that interaction loss poses to ecological communities. Here, we quantify the risk of interaction loss for 4,330 species interactions from 41 empirical pollination and seed dispersal networks across 6 continents. We estimate risk as a function of interaction vulnerability to extinction (likelihood of loss) and contribution to network feasibility, a measure of how much an interaction helps a community tolerate environmental perturbations. Remarkably, we find that more vulnerable interactions have higher contributions to network feasibility. Furthermore, interactions tend to have more similar vulnerability and contribution to feasibility across networks than expected by chance, suggesting that vulnerability and feasibility contribution may be intrinsic properties of interactions, rather than only a function of ecological context. These results may provide a starting point for prioritising interactions for conservation in species interaction networks in the future.

Delivering Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management (IPPM).

The need to reduce pollinator exposure to harmful pesticides has led to calls to expedite the adoption of integrated pest management (IPM). We make the case that IPM is not explicitly 'pollinator friendly', but rather must be adapted to reduce impacts on pollinators and to facilitate synergies between crop pollination and pest control practices and ecosystem services. To reconcile these diverse needs, we introduce a systematic framework for 'integrated pest and pollinator management' (IPPM). We also highlight novel tools to unify monitoring and economic decision-making processes for IPPM and outline key policy actions and knowledge gaps. We propose that IPPM is needed to promote more coordinated, ecosystem-based strategies for sustainable food production, against the backdrop of increasing pesticide regulation and pollinator dependency in agriculture. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

A critical analysis of the potential for EU Common Agricultural Policy measures to support wild pollinators on farmland.

Agricultural intensification and associated loss of high-quality habitats are key drivers of insect pollinator declines. With the aim of decreasing the environmental impact of agriculture, the 2014 EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) defined a set of habitat and landscape features (Ecological Focus Areas: EFAs) farmers could select from as a requirement to receive basic farm payments. To inform the post-2020 CAP, we performed a European-scale evaluation to determine how different EFA options vary in their potential to support insect pollinators under standard and pollinator-friendly management, as well as the extent of farmer uptake.A structured Delphi elicitation process engaged 22 experts from 18 European countries to evaluate EFAs options. By considering life cycle requirements of key pollinating taxa (i.e. bumble bees, solitary bees and hoverflies), each option was evaluated for its potential to provide forage, bee nesting sites and hoverfly larval resources.EFA options varied substantially in the resources they were perceived to provide and their effectiveness varied geographically and temporally. For example, field margins provide relatively good forage throughout the season in Southern and Eastern Europe but lacked early-season forage in Northern and Western Europe. Under standard management, no single EFA option achieved high scores across resource categories and a scarcity of late season forage was perceived.Experts identified substantial opportunities to improve habitat quality by adopting pollinator-friendly management. Improving management alone was, however, unlikely to ensure that all pollinator resource requirements were met. Our analyses suggest that a combination of poor management, differences in the inherent pollinator habitat quality and uptake bias towards catch crops and nitrogen-fixing crops severely limit the potential of EFAs to support pollinators in European agricultural landscapes. Policy Implications. To conserve pollinators and help protect pollination services, our expert elicitation highlights the need to create a variety of interconnected, well-managed habitats that complement each other in the resources they offer. To achieve this the Common Agricultural Policy post-2020 should take a holistic view to implementation that integrates the different delivery vehicles aimed at protecting biodiversity (e.g. enhanced conditionality, eco-schemes and agri-environment and climate measures). To improve habitat quality we recommend an effective monitoring framework with target-orientated indicators and to facilitate the spatial targeting of options collaboration between land managers should be incentivised.

La intensificación agrícola y la consecuente pérdida de hábitats de alta calidad son desencadenantes clave del declive de los insectos polinizadores. Con el objetivo de disminuir el impacto ambiental de la agricultura, la Política Agrícola Común (PAC) de la UE de 2014 definió un conjunto de medidas para hábitats y paisajes (Áreas de Enfoque Ecológico: EFA por sus siglas en inglés) que los agricultores podían seleccionar como requisito para recibir pagos agrícolas básicos. Para informar la reforma de la PAC a partir a 2020, realizamos una evaluación a escala europea para determinar cómo las diferentes opciones de EFA varían en su potencial para asistir a los insectos polinizadores bajo un manejo estándar y amigable con los polinizadores, así como su aceptación por parte de los agricultores.El proceso estructurado de elicitación Delphi para evaluar las opciones de EFA involucró a 22 expertos de 18 países europeos. Se consideraron los requisitos de los diferentes taxones de polinizadores (es decir, abejorros, abejas solitarias y sírfidos) evaluando cada opción por su potencial para proporcionar forraje, sitios de nidificación y recursos para las larvas.Las opciones de EFA variaron sustancialmente en la cantidad de recursos que se percibía que proporcionan y su efectividad vario geográfica y temporalmente. Por ejemplo, los márgenes de cultivos proporcionan un forraje relativamente bueno durante toda la temporada en el sur y el este de Europa, pero carecen de forraje a principios de temporada en el norte y oeste de Europa. Bajo el manejo estándar, ninguna opción de EFA logró puntuaciones altas en todas las categorías de recursos y en general se percibió una escasez de forraje al final de la temporada.Los expertos identificaron oportunidades sustanciales para mejorar la calidad del hábitat mediante la adopción de un manejo amigable con los polinizadores. Sin embargo, mejorar la gestión por sí solo es poco probable que garantice que se cumplan todos los requisitos necesarios para los polinizadores. Nuestro análisis sugiere que una combinación de manejo inadecuado, diferencias de calidad inherentes a los distintos hábitat y el sesgo de aceptación hacia cultivos de cobertura y cultivos que fijan nitrógeno limitan severamente el potencial de los EFA para apoyar a los polinizadores en los paisajes agrícolas europeos. Implicaciones políticas. Para conservar a los polinizadores y ayudar a proteger los servicios de polinización, nuestro estudio destaca la necesidad de crear una variedad de hábitats interconectados y bien administrados que se complementen entre sí en los recursos que ofrecen. Para lograr esto, la PAC post­2020 debe integrar los diferentes vehículos de implementación destinados a proteger la biodiversidad (por ejemplo, condicionalidad mejorada, esquemas ecológicos y medidas agroambientales y climáticas). Para mejorar la calidad del hábitat, recomendamos un marco de monitoreo efectivo con indicadores orientados a objetivos y incentivar la colaboración entre los administradores de las tierras.

L'intensification agricole et la perte associée d'habitats semi­naturels sont les principaux moteurs du déclin des insectes pollinisateurs. Dans l'intention de réduire l'impact environnemental de l'agriculture, la politique agricole commune (PAC) de l'UE de 2014 a défini un ensemble d'habitats et d'éléments paysagers (surfaces d'intérêt écologique: SIE) dans la mise en place ou le respect desquels les agriculteurs pouvaient s'engager comme condition pour bénéficier d'aides économiques européennes (droit au paiement de base). Pour éclairer la PAC post­2020, nous avons évalué à l'échelle européenne et à dire d'expert, d'une part les potentialités des diverses SIE à favoriser les insectes pollinisateurs, via une gestion standard et via une gestion optimisée, et d'autre part l'étendue de l'adoption de ces mesures par les agriculteurs.Un processus structuré d'élaboration et d'agrégation des opinions (méthode Delphi) a fait appel à 22 experts de 18 pays européens pour évaluer les potentialités des diverses SIE. Considérant les traits bioécologiques des principaux taxons pollinisateurs (i.e. bourdons, abeilles solitaires et syrphes), chaque SIE a été évaluée pour son potentiel à fournir des ressources trophiques et des sites de reproduction (sites de nidification pour les bourdons et abeilles, sites de ponte et développement larvaire pour les syrphes).Les SIE différaient considérablement les unes des autres sur les ressources qu'elles étaient censées offrir et leur efficacité variait géographiquement et temporellement. Par exemple, les bords de champ peuvent fournir des ressources trophiques tout au long de l'année en Europe du Sud et de l'Est mais pas en début de saison en Europe du Nord et de l'Ouest. En cas de gestion standard, aucun type de SIE n'atteint de score élevé pour aucun type de ressource, et une période de disette alimentaire survient en fin de saison.Les experts ont mis en évidence de possibles et substantielles améliorations des SIE par le biais de leur gestion optimisée. Cependant, cette seule amélioration ne garantit pas la fourniture de ressources suffisantes aux pollinisateurs des paysages agricoles européens. Pour cela, des habitats spécifiques doivent être favorisés, dont la mise en place ne doit pas être entravée par un choix massif de SIE à base de cultures intermédiaires pièges à nitrates ou fixatrices d'azote. Implications politiques. Pour préserver les pollinisateurs et le service de pollinisation des plantes entomophiles, notre étude souligne la nécessité de créer une diversité d'habitats interconnectés, gérés de façon optimale, qui se complètent mutuellement dans les ressources qu'ils offrent. Pour atteindre cet objectif, la PAC post­2020 doit adopter une vision holistique de la mise en œuvre des différents leviers de protection de la biodiversité (e.g. éco­conditionnalité renforcée, programmes verts ou 'eco­schemes', mesures agro­environnementales et climatiques). Pour réellement améliorer la qualité des habitats, nous recommandons des suivis efficaces de la biodiversité à l'aide d'indicateurs pertinents. Enfin, pour optimiser la disposition spatiale des SIE et leur connectivité, la collaboration entre les différents gestionnaires des espaces agricoles doit être encouragée.

A intensificação agrícola e a perda associada de habitats de elevada qualidade são os principais factores que impulsionam o declínio dos insetos polinizadores. A fim de mitigar o impacto ambiental da agricultura, a Política Agrícola Comum (PAC) da UE, de 2014, definiu um conjunto de atributos ou estruturas do habitat e da paisagem, designadas de Áreas Foco Ecológico (AFEs) que devem ser mantidas pelos agricultores como requisito para obter as ajudas económicas previstas nas medidas agroambientais. No presente trabalho realizamos uma avaliação à escala europeia das diferentes opções destas estruturas, a fim de munir a PAC pós­2020, com informação sobre a importância das AFEs. Estas variam muito quanto ao seu potencial no apoio às populações de polinizadores, de acordo com a extensão da sua aceitação pelos agricultores e das práticas adoptadas por estes na sua gestão, que podem consistir em práticas padrão ou práticas mais amigáveis para os polinizadores.Um processo estruturado, com base na técnica de elicitação de Delphi foi desenvolvido, envolvendo 22 especialistas de 18 países europeus, com o objectivo de avaliar as opções de AFEs previstas na PAC. Esta avaliação levou em consideração os requisitos do ciclo de vida dos taxa dos principais polinizadores, ou seja, as abelhas, as abelhas solitárias e os sirfídeos ou moscas­das­flores. Cada AFE foi avaliada quanto ao seu potencial para fornecer alimento, locais de nidificação, e recursos para as larvas dos sirfídeos.A percepção quanto à eficácia das AFEs como fonte de recursos (alimento) para os polinizadores variou substancialmente, do ponto de vista quer geográfico, quer temporal (época do ano). Por exemplo, a AFE, faixas verdes nas margens do campo são consideradas uma boa fonte de alimento, no sul e leste da Europa, durante todo ano, mas ineficazes, no norte e oeste da Europa, no início do ano. Nenhuma EFA alcançou pontuações elevadas na categoria de recursos (fonte de alimento), quando submetida ao maneio padrão, sendo consideradas ineficientes, na segunda metade do ano.Os especialistas envolvidos identificaram oportunidades de melhoria substancial na qualidade do habitat, através da adopção de práticas de maneio das EFAs mais "amigáveis" para com os polinizadores. No entanto, a melhoria das práticas de maneio das EFAs por si só, dificilmente garantirá todos os requisitos necessários para a manutenção das populações de polinizadores. A nossa avaliação sugere que a combinação de práticas de má gestão (maneio), diferenças inerentes à qualidade do habitat dos polinizadores e o aumento do bias que resulta da utilização de espécies de crescimento rápido ou fixadoras de azoto limitam severamente o papel e potencial destas estruturas na manutenção das populações de polinizadores nas paisagens agrícolas europeias. Implicações políticas. A conservação dos polinizadores ajuda a proteger os serviços de polinização providenciados por estes. O nosso estudo destaca a necessidade de criar uma variedade de habitats interconectados e geridos de forma que se complementem na oferta de recursos (alimento, locais de nidificação e recursos para as larvas) aos polinizadores. Para atingir este objectivo, a PAC pós­2020 deve adoptar uma visão holística na implementação das EFAs, que integre os diferentes programas destinados a protecção da biodiversidade (por exemplo, maior condicionalidade, esquemas ecológicos, e medidas agroambientais e de adaptação climática). Para melhorar a qualidade do habitat, recomendamos uma estrutura de monitorização eficaz suportada por indicadores quantitativos e qualitativos orientados para metas, que permitam facilitar a tomada de decisões direcionadas especificamente para as EFAs, e que a colaboração entre os gestores da terra (agricultores) seja incentivada.

A Horizon Scan of Emerging Global Biological Conservation Issues for 2020.

In this horizon scan, we highlight 15 emerging issues of potential relevance to global conservation in 2020. Seven relate to potentially extensive changes in vegetation or ecological systems. These changes are either relatively new, for example, conversion of kelp forests to simpler macroalgal systems, or may occur in the future, for example, as a result of the derivation of nanocelluose from wood or the rapid expansion of small hydropower schemes. Other topics highlight potential changes in national legislation that may have global effect on international agreements. Our panel of 23 scientists and practitioners selected these issues using a modified version of the Delphi technique from a long-list of 89 potential topics.

A typology of barriers and enablers of scientific evidence use in conservation practice.

Over the last decade, there has been an increased focus (and pressure) in conservation practice globally towards evidence-based or evidence-informed decision making. Despite calls for increased use of scientific evidence, it often remains aspirational for many conservation organizations. Contributing to this is the lack of guidance on how to identify and classify the array of complex reasons limiting research use. In this study, we collated a comprehensive inventory of 230 factors that facilitate or limit the use of scientific evidence in conservation management decisions, through interviews with conservation practitioners in South Africa and UK and a review of the healthcare literature. We used the inventory, combined with concepts from knowledge exchange and research use theories, to construct a taxonomy that categorizes the barriers and enablers. We compared the similarities and differences between the taxonomies from the conservation and the healthcare fields, and highlighted the common barriers and enablers found within conservation organizations in the United Kingdom and South Africa. The most commonly mentioned barriers limiting the use of scientific evidence in our case studies were associated with the day-to-day decision-making processes of practitioners, and the organizational structures, management processes and resource constraints of conservation organizations. The key characteristics that facilitated the use of science in conservation decisions were associated with an organization's structure, decision-making processes and culture, along with practitioners' attitudes and the relationships between scientists and practitioners. This taxonomy and inventory of barriers and enablers can help researchers, practitioners and other conservation actors to identify aspects within their organizations and cross-institutional networks that limit research use - acting as a guide on how to strengthen the science-practice interface.

Worldwide insect declines: An important message, but interpret with caution.

A recent paper claiming evidence of global insect declines achieved huge media attention, including claims of "insectaggedon" and a "collapse of nature." Here, we argue that while many insects are declining in many places around the world, the study has important limitations that should be highlighted. We emphasise the robust evidence of large and rapid insect declines present in the literature, while also highlighting the limitations of the original study.

Policies for Ecological Intensification of Crop Production.

Ecological intensification aims to increase crop productivity by enhancing biodiversity and associated ecosystem services, while minimizing the use of synthetic inputs and cropland expansion. Policies to promote ecological intensification have emerged in different countries, but they are still scarce and vary widely across regions. Here, we propose ten policy targets that governments can follow for ecological intensification.

A Horizon Scan of Emerging Issues for Global Conservation in 2019.

We present the results of our tenth annual horizon scan. We identified 15 emerging priority topics that may have major positive or negative effects on the future conservation of global biodiversity, but currently have low awareness within the conservation community. We hope to increase research and policy attention on these areas, improving the capacity of the community to mitigate impacts of potentially negative issues, and maximise the benefits of issues that provide opportunities. Topics include advances in crop breeding, which may affect insects and land use; manipulations of natural water flows and weather systems on the Tibetan Plateau; release of carbon and mercury from melting polar ice and thawing permafrost; new funding schemes and regulations; and land-use changes across Indo-Malaysia.