International food trade benefits biodiversity and food security in low-income countries

To achieve the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals related to food security and biodiversity, understanding their interrelationships is essential. By examining datasets comprising 189 food items across 157 countries during 2000-2018, we found that high-income countries exported more food to low-income countries than they imported. Many low-income countries, especially those with biodiversity hotspots, increasingly acted as net importers, suggesting that imports from high-income countries can benefit biodiversity in low-income countries. Because low-income countries without hotspots have rapidly raised their amounts of food exports to hotspot countries, such exports might help further reduce negative impacts on biodiversity. The increasing complexity of food trade among countries with and without biodiversity hotspots requires innovative approaches to minimize the negative impacts of global food production and trade on biodiversity in countries worldwide.

Emergent Rarity Properties in Carabid Communities From Chinese Steppes With Different Climatic Conditions

Species abundance distributions (SADs) are increasingly used to investigate how species community structure changes in response to environmental variations. SAD models depict the relative abundance of species recorded in a community and express fundamental aspects of the community structure, namely patterns of commonness and rarity. However, the influence of differences in environmental conditions on SAD characteristics is still poorly understood. In this study we used SAD models of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in three grassland ecosystems (desert, typical, and meadow steppes) in China. These ecosystems are characterized by different aridity conditions, thus offering an opportunity to investigate how SADs are influenced by differences in environmental conditions (mainly aridity and vegetation cover, and hence productivity). We used various SAD models, including the meta-community zero sum multinomial (mZSM), the lognormal (PLN) and Fisher’s logseries (LS), and uni- and multimodal gambin models. Analyses were done at the level of steppe type (coarse scale) and for different sectors within the same steppe (fine scale). We found that the mZSM model provided, in general, the best fit at both analysis scales. Model parameters were influenced by the scale of analysis. Moreover, the LS was the best fit in desert steppe SAD. If abundances are rarefied to the smallest sample, results are similar to those without rarefaction, but differences in models estimates become more evident. Gambin unimodal provided the best fit with the lowest α-value observed in desert steppe and higher values in typical and meadow steppes, with results which were strongly affected by the scale of analysis and the use of rarefaction. Our results indicate that all investigated communities are adequately modeled by two similar distributions, the mZSM and the LS, at both scales of analyses. This indicates (1) that all communities are characterized by a relatively small number of species, most of which are rare, and (2) that the meta-communities at the large scale maintain the basic SAD shape of the local communities. The gambin multimodal models produced exaggerated α-values, which indicates that they overfit simple communities. Overall, Fisher’s α, mZSM θ, and gambin α-values were substantially lower in the desert steppe and higher in the typical and meadow steppes, which implies a decreasing influence of environmental harshness (aridity) from the desert steppe to the typical and meadow steppes.

200 Years of Research on Himalayan Biodiversity: Trends, Gaps, and Policy Implications

Global mountains, including the Himalaya, are highly vulnerable ecosystems, especially given climate and land-use changes. Here, we compile the literature on Himalayan biodiversity in order to assess spatial and taxonomic trends in research during the past 200 years. We identified 35,316 research outputs, including 28,120 journal articles, 3,725 doctoral theses, and 3,471 books. Nepal contributes the largest volume of published literature, followed by west Himalayan Indian states, with relatively few studies on the most biodiverse region lying to the east of Nepal. Publications on Himalayan biodiversity research have increased annually, especially after 1970, with an acceleration since 2000. Among the major taxonomic groups, the largest number of publications is on seed plants (angiosperms), followed by invertebrates (especially arthropods) and vertebrates. Some groups of organisms, notably fungi, bacteria, algae, bryophytes, pteridophytes, etc., are clearly understudied. Among various research disciplines, ecology is the most dominant field followed by agriculture, ethnobiology, and paleontology. Some newer disciplines, including molecular biology and climate change, have contributed to the growth in the number of papers appearing during the last two decades. Despite an encouraging and rapid increase in research papers during this century, they are largely in low-impact-factor journals, likely to be subject to poor peer review, and many doctoral theses remain unpublished. The Government of India's development initiative emphasizes the importance of research in the Himalaya, which can be enhanced by improved quality of peer review and local journals registering in global indexing services.

The Expectations and Challenges of Wildlife Disease Research in the Era of Genomics: Forecasting with a Horizon Scan-like Exercise

The outbreak and transmission of disease-causing pathogens are contributing to the unprecedented rate of biodiversity decline. Recent advances in genomics have coalesced into powerful tools to monitor, detect, and reconstruct the role of pathogens impacting wildlife populations. Wildlife researchers are thus uniquely positioned to merge ecological and evolutionary studies with genomic technologies to exploit unprecedented "Big Data" tools in disease research; however, many researchers lack the training and expertise required to use these computationally intensive methodologies. To address this disparity, the inaugural "Genomics of Disease in Wildlife" workshop assembled early to mid-career professionals with expertise across scientific disciplines (e.g., genomics, wildlife biology, veterinary sciences, and conservation management) for training in the application of genomic tools to wildlife disease research. A horizon scanning-like exercise, an activity to identify forthcoming trends and challenges, performed by the workshop participants identified and discussed 5 themes considered to be the most pressing to the application of genomics in wildlife disease research: 1) "Improving communication," 2) "Methodological and analytical advancements," 3) "Translation into practice," 4) "Integrating landscape ecology and genomics," and 5) "Emerging new questions." Wide-ranging solutions from the horizon scan were international in scope, itemized both deficiencies and strengths in wildlife genomic initiatives, promoted the use of genomic technologies to unite wildlife and human disease research, and advocated best practices for optimal use of genomic tools in wildlife disease projects. The results offer a glimpse of the potential revolution in human and wildlife disease research possible through multi-disciplinary collaborations at local, regional, and global scales.

Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability

Biodiversity declines threaten the sustainability of global economies and societies. Acknowledging this, businesses are beginning to make commitments to account for and mitigate their influence on biodiversity and report this in sustainability reports. We assessed the top 100 of the 2016 Fortune 500 Global companies' (the Fortune 100) sustainability reports to gauge the current state of corporate biodiversity accountability. Almost half (49) of the Fortune 100 mentioned biodiversity in reports, and 31 made clear biodiversity commitments, of which only 5 were specific, measureable, and time bound. A variety of biodiversity-related activities were disclosed (e.g., managing impacts, restoring biodiversity, and investing in biodiversity), but only 9 companies provided quantitative indicators to verify the magnitude of their activities (e.g., area of habitat restored). No companies reported quantitative biodiversity outcomes, making it difficult to determine whether business actions were of sufficient magnitude to address impacts and were achieving positive outcomes for nature. Conservation science can advance approaches to corporate biodiversity accountability by helping businesses make science-based biodiversity commitments, develop meaningful indicators, and select more targeted activities to address business impacts. With the biodiversity policy super year of 2020 rapidly approaching, now is the time for conservation scientists to engage with and support businesses in playing a critical role in setting the new agenda for a sustainable future for the planet with biodiversity at its heart.