Abstract There is a persistent underrepresentation of marginalized voices in academic literature, including that for ecology and conservation. Such exclusion hampers career progression, perpetuating disadvantages for historically marginalized groups in the field, with implications for the direction of conservation research. Diverse perspectives foster novel thinking, strengthen innovation, and ensure research reflects the full spectrum of challenges faced by communities. To assess this underrepresentation, we analyzed self‐reported demographic data for authors of scientific articles to explore demographic trends and how they shifted between 2010 and 2020. The journals chosen were listed as conservation‐related by three or more of the five major journal indices. We used the same dimensions of diversity to assess editor demographics in 2021. In total, 2152 authors and 241 editors completed the survey (response rate: 21.5% authors; 29.5% editors). We found that overall author diversity across multiple traits (Rao's Q ) increased between 2010 and 2020. Most notably, the representation of women increased from 29.5% to 35.6% of authors. However, women from lower‐middle‐ or low‐income countries still represented <1% of authors, and most dimensions of diversity saw little change over a decade. In 2020–2021, 80% of authors and 76% of editors self‐identified as White; over three‐quarters of respondents across years lived in high‐income countries; and nationals of three countries (the United Kingdom, the United States, and Australia) represented 34% of authors and 49% of editors (5% of the global population). Our study findings highlight the importance of considering intersectionality, as respondents spanning multiple marginalized identities were disproportionately underrepresented. Overall, our work highlights how a lack of representation continues to characterize academic publishing in conservation and ecology but shows signs of positive change. There is evidence that gender‐based initiatives are having a positive effect, yet more work is needed to enhance representation across other dimensions of diversity.
Abstract The mismatch between the scale of ecological processes and management decisions represents a significant challenge in marine conservation. This misalignment can result in ineffective conservation measures and compromise the sustainability of marine ecosystems. The large spatial resolution commonly used to analyze food webs may obscure key ecological processes and their functioning, leading to inaccurate conclusions with important consequences for management and governance. To address this gap, we used a food web indicator, the survey‐based mean trophic level (MTL), covering an entire bentho‐demersal community across four subregions of the Northeast Atlantic. The indicator was developed at two spatial resolutions, subregional and local (0.2° × 0.2° cells), and we used a long‐term dataset to assess food‐web status. A set of 18 ecological scenarios, based on different trophic level (TL) thresholds and depth ranges, were established for each subregion, and linear models were applied to the historical series for each scenario. At the subregional scale, the results indicated potential recovery of top predators in the northern area; however, the stable patterns under various scenarios may have been attributable to ongoing fishing pressure rather than to true ecosystem stability or a genuinely balanced state. At the finer spatial resolution, local declining trends were revealed that had been masked in the broader‐scale analysis. These contrasting patterns underscore the importance of spatial resolution when assessing the status of marine food webs and highlight the need to consider multiple ecological scenarios. We recommend aligning management strategies with the natural processes that govern marine ecosystems to enhance the resilience and long‐term sustainability of ocean environments.
Abstract Targets 1 and 3 of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) require actions to focus on areas of importance for biodiversity—a prerequisite for reversing biodiversity loss and halting human‐induced extinctions as set out in the Mission and Goals of the KMGBF. There is a need to review progress on how countries are aiming to identify and conserve such areas of importance. We reviewed 97 national biodiversity strategy and action plans (NBSAPs) and 89 country submissions to the Convention on Biological Diversity's (CBD) Online Reporting Tool (ORT) to assess ambition across five targets of the KMGBF. We searched for evidence that countries were considering where to act for Targets 1, 2, 3, 14, 15, and 21. No country defined what constitutes an important area for biodiversity, and any stated focus of planning was limited largely to existing protected areas or ecosystems. Key Biodiversity Areas were identified in 40% of the NBSAPs, yet only 26% included specific targets, actions, or indicators for these globally significant sites. Ambition toward the 30% restoration (Target 2) and 30% protection (Target 3) targets was higher than previously reported but remained low overall. Only half of the countries planned to mandate or encourage business to measure its impacts on biodiversity (Target 15). Across six measures of ambition, an average of 29% of the countries submitting NBSAPs and 31% of the ORT target countries aimed to meet the KMGBF benchmarks, whereas 48% and 53%, respectively, showed no ambition to do so. European countries showed the lowest level of ambition of any region. Much greater levels of ambition and progress are needed to achieve the targets, goals, and vision for areas of importance for biodiversity in the KMGBF by 2030.
Abstract Identifying and investigating global land‐use changes triggered by unforeseen events are critically important for sustainable forest management and biodiversity conservation within the global socioecological framework. In this study, we developed a framework to project and validate land‐use changes resulting from the agricultural expansion driven by the Russia–Ukraine conflict. Our results revealed that the Russia–Ukraine conflict likely triggered an additional potential demand for 6.28–6.78 million hectares of cropland in 198 countries and regions. The subsequent agricultural expansion was projected to drive a loss of 8.72–8.81 million hectares of forests (approximately 0.28% of global forests) and additional forest fragmentation during forest‐to‐cropland conversion, primarily for broadleaf evergreen trees in tropical regions and needleleaf evergreen trees in temperate and boreal regions. However, the forest loss trend was projected to be significantly higher in biodiversity hotspots (0.51–0.91%), where fragmentation will be particularly pronounced for broadleaf deciduous trees and shrubs in temperate areas. When the simulation results were overlaid with the actual cropland data, 59.17–69.36% of the simulated cropland pixels had already been converted to cropland, highlighting the effectiveness and reliability of the simulation results. Our findings highlight the critical importance of taking proactive measures to mitigate the telecoupled consequences of land‐use changes that are caused by regional sociopolitical disturbances on forest degradation and natural land fragmentation, especially in biodiversity hotspots. Furthermore, our findings suggest that progress toward Sustainable Development Goal 15, Life on Land, requires moving beyond site‐based conservation to recognize habitat security as being shaped by interconnected food trade systems and geopolitical relations.
Abstract Michael Soule writes in his foundational article “What is Conservation Biology?” that “in crisis disciplines, one must act before knowing all the facts; crisis disciplines are thus a mixture of science and art, and their pursuit requires intuition as well as information.” Since this article was published three decades ago, conservation biology has largely focused its energies on formalizing and memorializing its scientific findings. There is no doubt this empirical turn has developed vital methods and tools, enabled links between science and policy, and fortified the discipline's credibility within the broader biological sciences. Nevertheless, Soule's intuition that conservation biology requires a kinship with art, and particularly with storytelling, remains essential to the discipline—particularly in an information environment saturated by generative artificial intelligence—in at least three important ways. First, as a crisis discipline, conservation biology remains firmly attached to questions of not only valuation but also value, which have always relied on stories and myth for expression and enrichment. Second, conservationists continue to find that stories are at least as effective as logic in communicating results and precipitating action. Fortunately, conservation science lends itself to narrative arcs by demonstrating evidence of change. Revelations of the degradation and restoration of biological diversity rhyme with myths of loss and redemption and create important roles for storytelling in conservation projects. Third, as the conservation tent continues to expand beyond understanding what humans have done to understanding why, there is an increasingly pressing need to listen to the stories that accompany human behavior. Conservation continues to thrive as an empirical discipline. Embracing the opportunities and obligations of storytelling will allow conservation to engage even more deeply with a complex world.
