Biocultural vulnerability exposes threats of culturally important species.

There are growing calls for conservation frameworks that, rather than breaking the relations between people and other parts of nature, capture place-based relationships that have supported social-ecological systems over the long term. Biocultural approaches propose actions based on biological conservation priorities and cultural values aligned with local priorities, but mechanisms that allow their global uptake are missing. We propose a framework to globally assess the biocultural status of specific components of nature that matter to people and apply it to culturally important species (CIS). Drawing on a literature review and a survey, we identified 385 wild species, mostly plants, which are culturally important. CIS predominate among Indigenous peoples (57%) and ethnic groups (21%). CIS have a larger proportion of Data-Deficient species (41%) than the full set of International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) species (12%), underscoring the disregard of cultural considerations in biological research. Combining information on CIS biological conservation status (IUCN threatened status) and cultural status (language vitality), we found that more CIS are culturally Vulnerable or Endangered than they are biologically and that there is a higher share of bioculturally Endangered or Vulnerable CIS than of either biologically or culturally Endangered CIS measured separately. Bioculturally Endangered or Vulnerable CIS are particularly predominant among Indigenous peoples, arguably because of the high levels of cultural loss among them. The deliberate connection between biological and cultural values, as developed in our "biocultural status" metric, provides an actionable way to guide decisions and operationalize global actions oriented to enhance place-based practices with demonstrated long-term sustainability.

Multinational coordination required for conservation of over 90% of marine species.

Marine species are declining at an unprecedented rate, catalyzing many nations to adopt conservation and management targets within their jurisdictions. However, marine species and the biophysical processes that sustain them are naive to international borders. An understanding of the prevalence of cross-border species distributions is important for informing high-level conservation strategies, such as bilateral or regional agreements. Here, we examined 28,252 distribution maps to determine the number and locations of transboundary marine plants and animals. More than 90% of species have ranges spanning at least two jurisdictions, with 58% covering more than 10 jurisdictions. All jurisdictions have at least one transboundary species, with the highest concentrations of transboundary species in the USA, Australia, Indonesia, and the Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. Distributions of mapped biodiversity indicate that overcoming the challenges of multinational governance is critical for a much wider suite of species than migratory megavertebrates and commercially exploited fish stocks-the groups that have received the vast majority of multinational management attention. To effectively protect marine biodiversity, international governance mechanisms (particularly those related to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on Migratory Species, and Regional Seas Organizations) must be expanded to promote multinational conservation planning, and complimented by a holistic governance framework for biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction.

Cumulative human impacts on global marine fauna highlight risk to biological and functional diversity.

Anthropogenic stressors to marine ecosystems from climate change and human activities increase extinction risk of species, disrupt ecosystem integrity, and threaten important ecosystem services. Addressing these stressors requires understanding where and to what extent they are impacting marine biological and functional diversity. We model cumulative risk of human impact upon 21,159 marine animal species by combining information on species-level vulnerability and spatial exposure to a range of anthropogenic stressors. We apply this species-level assessment of human impacts to examine patterns of species-stressor interactions within taxonomic groups. We then spatially map impacts across the global ocean, identifying locations where climate-driven impacts overlap with fishing, shipping, and land-based stressors to help inform conservation needs and opportunities. Comparing species-level modeled impacts to those based on marine habitats that represent important marine ecosystems, we find that even relatively untouched habitats may still be home to species at elevated risk, and that many species-rich coastal regions may be at greater risk than indicated from habitat-based methods alone. Finally, we incorporate a trait-based metric of functional diversity to identify where impacts to functionally unique species might pose greater risk to community structure and ecosystem integrity. These complementary lenses of species, function, and habitat provide a richer understanding of threats to marine biodiversity to help inform efforts to meet conservation targets and ensure sustainability of nature's contributions to people.

Spatial and life history variation in a trait-based species vulnerability and impact model.

Anthropogenic pressures threaten biodiversity, necessitating conservation actions founded on robust ecological models. However, prevailing models inadequately capture the spatiotemporal variation in environmental pressures faced by species with high mobility or complex life histories, as data are often aggregated across species' life histories or spatial distributions. We highlight the limitations of static models for dynamic species and incorporate life history variation and spatial distributions for species and stressors into a trait-based vulnerability and impact model. We use green sea turtles in the Greater Caribbean Region to demonstrate how vulnerability and anthropogenic impact for a dynamic species change across four life stages. By incorporating life stages into a trait-based vulnerability model, we observed life stage-specific vulnerabilities that were otherwise unnoticed when using an aggregated trait value set. Early life stages were more vulnerable to some stressors, such as inorganic pollution or marine heat waves, and less vulnerable to others, such as bycatch. Incorporating spatial distributions of stressors and life stages revealed impacts differ for each life stage across spatial areas, emphasizing the importance of stage-specific conservation measures. Our approach showcases the importance of incorporating dynamic processes into ecological models and will enable better and more targeted conservation actions for species with complex life histories and high mobility.

At-risk marine biodiversity faces extensive, expanding, and intensifying human impacts.

Human activities and climate change threaten marine biodiversity worldwide, though sensitivity to these stressors varies considerably by species and taxonomic group. Mapping the spatial distribution of 14 anthropogenic stressors from 2003 to 2013 onto the ranges of 1271 at-risk marine species sensitive to them, we found that, on average, species faced potential impacts across 57% of their ranges, that this footprint expanded over time, and that the impacts intensified across 37% of their ranges. Although fishing activity dominated the footprint of impacts in national waters, climate stressors drove the expansion and intensification of impacts. Mitigating impacts on at-risk biodiversity is critical to supporting resilient marine ecosystems, and identifying the co-occurrence of impacts across multiple taxonomic groups highlights opportunities to amplify the benefits of conservation management.

The importance of open science for biological assessment of aquatic environments.

Open science principles that seek to improve science can effectively bridge the gap between researchers and environmental managers. However, widespread adoption has yet to gain traction for the development and application of bioassessment products. At the core of this philosophy is the concept that research should be reproducible and transparent, in addition to having long-term value through effective data preservation and sharing. In this article, we review core open science concepts that have recently been adopted in the ecological sciences and emphasize how adoption can benefit the field of bioassessment for both prescriptive condition assessments and proactive applications that inform environmental management. An example from the state of California demonstrates effective adoption of open science principles through data stewardship, reproducible research, and engagement of stakeholders with multimedia applications. We also discuss technical, sociocultural, and institutional challenges for adopting open science, including practical approaches for overcoming these hurdles in bioassessment applications.

Changes in ocean health in British Columbia from 2001 to 2016.

Effective management of marine systems requires quantitative tools that can assess the state of the marine social-ecological system and are responsive to management actions and pressures. We applied the Ocean Health Index (OHI) framework to retrospectively assess ocean health in British Columbia annually from 2001 to 2016 for eight goals that represent the values of British Columbia's coastal communities. We found overall ocean health improved over the study period, from 75 (out of 100) in 2001 to 83 in 2016, with scores for inhabited regions ranging from 68 (North Coast, 2002) to 87 (West Vancouver Island, 2011). Highest-scoring goals were Tourism & Recreation (average 94 over the period) and Habitat Services (100); lowest-scoring goals were Sense of Place (61) and Food Provision (64). Significant increases in scores over the time period occurred for Food Provision (+1.7 per year), Sense of Place (+1.4 per year), and Coastal Livelihoods (+0.6 per year), while Habitat Services (-0.01 per year) and Biodiversity (-0.09 per year) showed modest but statistically significant declines. From the results of our time-series analysis, we used the OHI framework to evaluate impacts of a range of management actions. Despite challenges in data availability, we found evidence for the ability of management to reduce pressures on several goals, suggesting the potential of OHI as a tool for assessing the effectiveness of marine resource management to improve ocean health. Our OHI assessment provides an important comprehensive evaluation of ocean health in British Columbia, and our open and transparent process highlights opportunities for improving accessibility of social and ecological data to inform future assessment and management of ocean health.

Recent pace of change in human impact on the world's ocean.

Humans interact with the oceans in diverse and profound ways. The scope, magnitude, footprint and ultimate cumulative impacts of human activities can threaten ocean ecosystems and have changed over time, resulting in new challenges and threats to marine ecosystems. A fundamental gap in understanding how humanity is affecting the oceans is our limited knowledge about the pace of change in cumulative impact on ocean ecosystems from expanding human activities - and the patterns, locations and drivers of most significant change. To help address this, we combined high resolution, annual data on the intensity of 14 human stressors and their impact on 21 marine ecosystems over 11 years (2003-2013) to assess pace of change in cumulative impacts on global oceans, where and how much that pace differs across the ocean, and which stressors and their impacts contribute most to those changes. We found that most of the ocean (59%) is experiencing significantly increasing cumulative impact, in particular due to climate change but also from fishing, land-based pollution and shipping. Nearly all countries saw increases in cumulative impacts in their coastal waters, as did all ecosystems, with coral reefs, seagrasses and mangroves at most risk. Mitigation of stressors most contributing to increases in overall cumulative impacts is urgently needed to sustain healthy oceans.

Aligning marine species range data to better serve science and conservation.

Species distribution data provide the foundation for a wide range of ecological research studies and conservation management decisions. Two major efforts to provide marine species distributions at a global scale are the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which provides expert-generated range maps that outline the complete extent of a species' distribution; and AquaMaps, which provides model-generated species distribution maps that predict areas occupied by the species. Together these databases represent 24,586 species (93.1% within AquaMaps, 16.4% within IUCN), with only 2,330 shared species. Differences in intent and methodology can result in very different predictions of species distributions, which bear important implications for scientists and decision makers who rely upon these datasets when conducting research or informing conservation policy and management actions. Comparing distributions for the small subset of species with maps in both datasets, we found that AquaMaps and IUCN range maps show strong agreement for many well-studied species, but our analysis highlights several key examples in which introduced errors drive differences in predicted species ranges. In particular, we find that IUCN maps greatly overpredict coral presence into unsuitably deep waters, and we show that some AquaMaps computer-generated default maps (only 5.7% of which have been reviewed by experts) can produce odd discontinuities at the extremes of a species' predicted range. We illustrate the scientific and management implications of these tradeoffs by repeating a global analysis of gaps in coverage of marine protected areas, and find significantly different results depending on how the two datasets are used. By highlighting tradeoffs between the two datasets, we hope to encourage increased collaboration between taxa experts and large scale species distribution modeling efforts to further improve these foundational datasets, helping to better inform science and policy recommendations around understanding, managing, and protecting marine biodiversity.

Our path to better science in less time using open data science tools.

Reproducibility has long been a tenet of science but has been challenging to achieve-we learned this the hard way when our old approaches proved inadequate to efficiently reproduce our own work. Here we describe how several free software tools have fundamentally upgraded our approach to collaborative research, making our entire workflow more transparent and streamlined. By describing specific tools and how we incrementally began using them for the Ocean Health Index project, we hope to encourage others in the scientific community to do the same-so we can all produce better science in less time.

Drivers and implications of change in global ocean health over the past five years.

Growing international and national focus on quantitatively measuring and improving ocean health has increased the need for comprehensive, scientific, and repeated indicators to track progress towards achieving policy and societal goals. The Ocean Health Index (OHI) is one of the few indicators available for this purpose. Here we present results from five years of annual global assessment for 220 countries and territories, evaluating potential drivers and consequences of changes and presenting lessons learned about the challenges of using composite indicators to measure sustainability goals. Globally scores have shown little change, as would be expected. However, individual countries have seen notable increases or declines due in particular to improvements in the harvest and management of wild-caught fisheries, the creation of marine protected areas (MPAs), and decreases in natural product harvest. Rapid loss of sea ice and the consequent reduction of coastal protection from that sea ice was also responsible for declines in overall ocean health in many Arctic and sub-Arctic countries. The OHI performed reasonably well at predicting near-term future scores for many of the ten goals measured, but data gaps and limitations hindered these predictions for many other goals. Ultimately, all indicators face the substantial challenge of informing policy for progress toward broad goals and objectives with insufficient monitoring and assessment data. If countries and the global community hope to achieve and maintain healthy oceans, we will need to dedicate significant resources to measuring what we are trying to manage.