Roles of the Red List of Ecosystems in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity set the agenda for global aspirations and action to reverse biodiversity loss. The GBF includes an explicit goal for maintaining and restoring biodiversity, encompassing ecosystems, species and genetic diversity (goal A), targets for ecosystem protection and restoration and headline indicators to track progress and guide action1. One of the headline indicators is the Red List of Ecosystems2, the global standard for ecosystem risk assessment. The Red List of Ecosystems provides a systematic framework for collating, analysing and synthesizing data on ecosystems, including their distribution, integrity and risk of collapse3. Here, we examine how it can contribute to implementing the GBF, as well as monitoring progress. We find that the Red List of Ecosystems provides common theory and practical data, while fostering collaboration, cross-sector cooperation and knowledge sharing, with important roles in 16 of the 23 targets. In particular, ecosystem maps, descriptions and risk categories are key to spatial planning for halting loss, restoration and protection (targets 1, 2 and 3). The Red List of Ecosystems is therefore well-placed to aid Parties to the GBF as they assess, plan and act to achieve the targets and goals. We outline future work to further strengthen this potential and improve biodiversity outcomes, including expanding spatial coverage of Red List of Ecosystems assessments and partnerships between practitioners, policy-makers and scientists.

How expert insight into alpine peatland conservation complements global scientific evidence.

Experts can provide valuable information to fill knowledge gaps in published research on management effectiveness, particularly for threatened ecosystems, for which there is often limited evidence and the need for prompt intervention to ensure their persistence. One such ecosystem, alpine peatland, is threatened by climate change and other pressures, provides vital ecosystem services, and supports unique biodiversity. In a workshop, we gathered and synthesized into an accessible format information from experts on interventions used, threat context, and intervention effectiveness for Australian alpine peatland and used this knowledge to evaluate local relevance of the global literature for this threatened ecosystem. Experts identified 15 interventions used to conserve Australian peatlands, most of which enhanced or restored peatland condition and effectively addressed diverse threats. Experts' perspectives and global studies were strongly aligned, suggesting that research on peatland management may be broadly relevant across contexts, despite the distinct characteristics of Australian systems. Our workshop-based expert elicitation approach provided insights into current management practices unavailable in the literature.

Cómo los conocimientos de expertos sobre la conservación de las turberas alpinas complementan la evidencia científica mundial Resumen Los expertos pueden proporcionar información valiosa para llenar los vacíos de conocimiento en las investigaciones publicadas sobre la eficacia del manejo, en particular para los ecosistemas amenazados, para los cuales a menudo hay evidencia limitada y la necesidad de intervenciones inmediatas para garantizar su persistencia. Uno de esos ecosistemas, las turberas alpinas, está amenazado por el cambio climático y otras presiones, proporciona servicios ecosistémicos vitales y sustenta una biodiversidad única. En un taller, recopilamos y sintetizamos en un formato accesible, información de expertos sobre las intervenciones utilizadas, el contexto de la amenaza y la eficacia de la intervención para las turberas alpinas australianas, y utilizamos este conocimiento para evaluar la relevancia local de la literatura mundial para este ecosistema amenazado. Los expertos identificaron 15 intervenciones utilizadas para conservar las turberas australianas, la mayoría de las cuales mejoraron o restauraron la condición de las turberas y abordaron eficazmente diversas amenazas. Las perspectivas de los expertos y los estudios globales se alinearon fuertemente, lo que sugiere que la investigación sobre el manejo de las turberas puede ser ampliamente relevante en otros contextos, a pesar de características distintivas de los sistemas australianos. Nuestro método de de obtención de conocimiento de expertos basado en talleres proporcionó información sobre las prácticas de manejo actuales que no están disponibles en la literatura.

A function-based typology for Earth's ecosystems.

As the United Nations develops a post-2020 global biodiversity framework for the Convention on Biological Diversity, attention is focusing on how new goals and targets for ecosystem conservation might serve its vision of 'living in harmony with nature'1,2. Advancing dual imperatives to conserve biodiversity and sustain ecosystem services requires reliable and resilient generalizations and predictions about ecosystem responses to environmental change and management3. Ecosystems vary in their biota4, service provision5 and relative exposure to risks6, yet there is no globally consistent classification of ecosystems that reflects functional responses to change and management. This hampers progress on developing conservation targets and sustainability goals. Here we present the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Ecosystem Typology, a conceptually robust, scalable, spatially explicit approach for generalizations and predictions about functions, biota, risks and management remedies across the entire biosphere. The outcome of a major cross-disciplinary collaboration, this novel framework places all of Earth's ecosystems into a unifying theoretical context to guide the transformation of ecosystem policy and management from global to local scales. This new information infrastructure will support knowledge transfer for ecosystem-specific management and restoration, globally standardized ecosystem risk assessments, natural capital accounting and progress on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Despite substantial conservation efforts, the loss of ecosystems continues globally, along with related declines in species and nature's contributions to people. An effective ecosystem goal, supported by clear milestones, targets and indicators, is urgently needed for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and beyond to support biodiversity conservation, the UN Sustainable Development Goals and efforts to abate climate change. Here, we describe the scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal and milestones, founded on a theory of change, and review available indicators to measure progress. An ecosystem goal should include three core components: area, integrity and risk of collapse. Targets-the actions that are necessary for the goals to be met-should address the pathways to ecosystem loss and recovery, including safeguarding remnants of threatened ecosystems, restoring their area and integrity to reduce risk of collapse and retaining intact areas. Multiple indicators are needed to capture the different dimensions of ecosystem area, integrity and risk of collapse across all ecosystem types, and should be selected for their fitness for purpose and relevance to goal components. Science-based goals, supported by well-formulated action targets and fit-for-purpose indicators, will provide the best foundation for reversing biodiversity loss and sustaining human well-being.

A guide to representing variability and uncertainty in biodiversity indicators.

Biodiversity indicators are used to inform decisions and measure progress toward global targets, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Indicators aggregate and simplify complex information, so underlying information influencing its reliability and interpretation (e.g., variability in data and uncertainty in indicator values) can be lost. Communicating uncertainty is necessary to ensure robust decisions and limit misinterpretations of trends, yet variability and uncertainty are rarely quantified in biodiversity indicators. We developed a guide to representing uncertainty and variability in biodiversity indicators. We considered the key purposes of biodiversity indicators and commonly used methods for representing uncertainty (standard error, bootstrap resampling, and jackknife resampling) and variability (quantiles, standard deviation, median absolute deviation, and mean absolute deviation) with intervals. Using 3 high-profile biodiversity indicators (Red List Index, Living Planet Index, and Ocean Health Index), we tested the use, suitability, and interpretation of each interval method based on the formulation and data types underpinning the indicators. The methods revealed vastly different information; indicator formula and data distribution affected the suitability of each interval method. Because the data underpinning each indicator were not normally distributed, methods relying on normality or symmetrical spread were unsuitable. Quantiles, bootstrapping, and jackknifing provided useful information about the underlying variability and uncertainty. We built a decision tree to inform selection of the appropriate interval method to represent uncertainty or variation in biodiversity indicators, depending on data type and objectives. Our guide supports transparent and effective communication of biodiversity indicator trends to facilitate accurate interpretation by decision makers.

Los indicadores de biodiversidad se usan para orientar las decisiones y medir el progreso hacia los objetivos globales, como los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sustentable de las Naciones Unidas. Los indicadores agregan y simplifican la información compleja, por lo que la información subyacente que influye sobre su confiabilidad e interpretación (p. ej.: variabilidad en los datos e incertidumbre en los valores indicadores) puede perderse. Es necesario comunicar la incertidumbre para asegurar decisiones sólidas y limitar las malas interpretaciones de las tendencias. Aun así, rara vez se cuantifican la variabilidad y la incertidumbre en los indicadores de biodiversidad. Desarrollamos una guía para representar la incertidumbre y la variabilidad en los indicadores de biodiversidad. Consideramos los propósitos importantes de los indicadores de biodiversidad y los métodos comúnmente usados para representar la incertidumbre (error estándar, remuestreo bootstrap, remuestreo jackknife) y la variabilidad (quantiles, desviación estándar, desviación mediana absoluta, desviación media absoluta) con intervalos. Usamos tres indicadores de biodiversidad de alto perfil (Red List Index, Living Planet Index, Ocean Health Index) para analizar el uso, idoneidad e interpretación de cada método de intervalo con base en la formulación y los tipos de datos fundamentales para los indicadores. Los métodos revelaron información ampliamente diferente; la fórmula del indicador y la distribución de los datos afectaron la idoneidad de cada método de intervalo. Ya que los datos fundamentales para cada indicador no tuvieron una distribución normal, los métodos que dependen de la normalidad o el esparcimiento simétrico no fueron idóneos. Los quantiles, el bootstrap y el jackknife proporcionaron información útil sobre la variabilidad y la incertidumbre subyacentes. Construimos un árbol de decisiones para guiar la selección del método de intervalo apropiado para representar la incertidumbre o la variación en los indicadores de biodiversidad, dependiendo del tipo de datos y de los objetivos. Nuestra guía respalda la comunicación efectiva y transparente de las tendencias en los indicadores de biodiversidad para facilitarle al órgano decisorio la interpretación acertada de estas tendencias.

Selecting and applying indicators of ecosystem collapse for risk assessments.

Ongoing ecosystem degradation and transformation are major threats to biodiversity. Measuring ecosystem change toward collapse relies on monitoring indicators that quantify key ecological processes. Yet little guidance is available on selection and use of indicators for ecosystem risk assessment. We reviewed indicator use in ecological studies of ecosystem collapse in marine pelagic and temperate forest ecosystems. We examined indicator-selection methods, indicator types (geographic distribution, abiotic, biotic), methods of assessing multiple indicators, and temporal quality of time series. We compared how these factors were applied in the ecological studies with how they were applied in risk assessments by using the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Ecosystems (RLE), for which indicators are used to estimate risk of ecosystem collapse. Ecological studies and RLE assessments rarely reported how indicators were selected, particularly in terrestrial ecosystems. Few ecological studies and RLE assessments quantified ecosystem change based on all 3 indicator types, and indicators types used differed between marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Several studies used indices or multivariate analyses to assess multiple indicators simultaneously, but RLE assessments did not because as RLE guidelines advise against them. Most studies and RLE assessments used time-series data that spanned at least 30 years, which increases the probability of reliably detecting change. Limited use of indicator-selection protocols and infrequent use of all 3 indicator types may hamper accurate detection of change. To improve the value of risk assessments for informing policy and management, we recommend using explicit protocols, including conceptual models, to identify and select indicators; a range of indicators spanning distributional, abiotic, and biotic features; indices and multivariate analyses with extreme care until guidelines are developed; time series with sufficient data to increase ability to accurately diagnose directional change; data from multiple sources to support assessments; and explicitly reporting steps in the assessment process.

Surface reflectance drives nest box temperature profiles and thermal suitability for target wildlife.

Thermal properties of tree hollows play a major role in survival and reproduction of hollow-dependent fauna. Artificial hollows (nest boxes) are increasingly being used to supplement the loss of natural hollows; however, the factors that drive nest box thermal profiles have received surprisingly little attention. We investigated how differences in surface reflectance influenced temperature profiles of nest boxes painted three different colors (dark-green, light-green, and white: total solar reflectance 5.9%, 64.4%, and 90.3% respectively) using boxes designed for three groups of mammals: insectivorous bats, marsupial gliders and brushtail possums. Across the three different box designs, dark-green (low reflectance) boxes experienced the highest average and maximum daytime temperatures, had the greatest magnitude of variation in daytime temperatures within the box, and were consistently substantially warmer than light-green boxes (medium reflectance), white boxes (high reflectance), and ambient air temperatures. Results from biophysical model simulations demonstrated that variation in diurnal temperature profiles generated by painting boxes either high or low reflectance colors could have significant ecophysiological consequences for animals occupying boxes, with animals in dark-green boxes at high risk of acute heat-stress and dehydration during extreme heat events. Conversely in cold weather, our modelling indicated that there are higher cumulative energy costs for mammals, particularly smaller animals, occupying light-green boxes. Given their widespread use as a conservation tool, we suggest that before boxes are installed, consideration should be given to the effect of color on nest box temperature profiles, and the resultant thermal suitability of boxes for wildlife, particularly during extremes in weather. Managers of nest box programs should consider using several different colors and installing boxes across a range of both orientations and shade profiles (i.e., levels of canopy cover), to ensure target animals have access to artificial hollows with a broad range of thermal profiles, and can therefore choose boxes with optimal thermal conditions across different seasons.