Literature DB >> 35639795

Addressing biodiversity loss by building a shared future.

Roland G Roberts1.   

Abstract

As the UN International Day for Biological Diversity enters its twentieth year, we take stock of recent developments and trends in biodiversity research and renew the call to build a better shared future for all life.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35639795      PMCID: PMC9187073          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001690

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS Biol        ISSN: 1544-9173            Impact factor:   9.593


The 22nd of May 2022 marked the twentieth anniversary of the United Nation’s International Day for Biological Diversity, which was instigated as an annual event in 2002, ten years after the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity. We therefore stand thirty years on from the formal recognition by the global community that the diversity of life on Earth is an asset that should be valued in its own right, and that humanity should endeavour to protect it. PLOS Biology has been around for nearly twenty of those thirty years, publishing work that directly addresses questions of global biodiversity—how it arose, how it has changed in the past, how it is being affected by ongoing anthropogenic activity, and what we can do to protect it. Strikingly, one of our most read and cited papers ever [1] was one that simply sought to establish how many species exist on the planet. The debate around this topic is ongoing; estimates of the total number of species vary by at least four orders of magnitude, and it has recently been suggested that massive diversity may lie underappreciated in the bacteria that live in and on the bodies of animals [2]. However, a paucity of data for many taxonomic groups hinders such census efforts. Considering that, even for some well-studied taxonomic groups, the current rates of extinction are unknown or seem to have been substantially underestimated [3, 4], global biodiversity is in jeopardy. A cursory survey of biodiversity-related papers that have been published in the journal in the past year reveals several principal topics. In this issue alone, we feature work addressing the biodiversity of marine communities half a billion years apart [5, 6] and the use of artificial intelligence to automate the surveillance of threatened species [3]. Across the past year, one topic to emerge has been how biodiversity has changed in the past, with papers attempting to infer what forces, both biotic and abiotic, have driven these changes, often with the implicit or explicit expectation that we can learn lessons about future change. These papers include (in roughly temporal order) studies of ancient Ediacaran animal communities [5], end-Cretaceous sharks [7], Cenozoic snakes [8], and cold-water corals over the past 20,000 years [6] (Fig 1). A further paper leaves empiricism behind and presents a tool for using simulation to probe the drivers of biodiversity [9].
Fig 1

More than half a billion years of biodiversity.

Top left: Fossils of Ediacaran creatures Fractofusus and Plumeropriscum from Newfoundland, Canada, subjects of a metacommunity analysis of shifts in biodiversity more than 540 million years ago [5]. Top right: Late Cretaceous sharks’ teeth from southern Sweden, which contributed to a new picture of how shark biodiversity was—and was not—impacted by the end-Cretaceous extinction event [7]. Bottom left: A bullsnake (Pituophis catenifer sayi) eating mallard eggs, illustrating a study that highlights the role of dietary complexity in snake biodiversity during the Cenozoic [8]. Bottom right: The cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa (with a squat lobster), one of several species of such corals whose fate over the last 20,000 years suggests sensitivity to food supply and oxygen levels [6]. Image credits: Charlotte Kenchington, Benjamin Kear, Tom Koerner/USFWS via Flickr, MARUM ROV Cherokee, respectively.

More than half a billion years of biodiversity.

Top left: Fossils of Ediacaran creatures Fractofusus and Plumeropriscum from Newfoundland, Canada, subjects of a metacommunity analysis of shifts in biodiversity more than 540 million years ago [5]. Top right: Late Cretaceous sharks’ teeth from southern Sweden, which contributed to a new picture of how shark biodiversity was—and was not—impacted by the end-Cretaceous extinction event [7]. Bottom left: A bullsnake (Pituophis catenifer sayi) eating mallard eggs, illustrating a study that highlights the role of dietary complexity in snake biodiversity during the Cenozoic [8]. Bottom right: The cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa (with a squat lobster), one of several species of such corals whose fate over the last 20,000 years suggests sensitivity to food supply and oxygen levels [6]. Image credits: Charlotte Kenchington, Benjamin Kear, Tom Koerner/USFWS via Flickr, MARUM ROV Cherokee, respectively. Another main topic to emerge is how best to assess current biodiversity and to target conservation effort. One study in this area reveals global and national inequities in monitoring species distributions [10], whereas a study of data in Australia—a nation with clear vested interest in its biological resources—shows that even there, many endangered species remain taxonomically undocumented, compromising their conservation [11]. Another paper proposes the use of machine learning to avoid the time-consuming and potentially biased reliance on human experts for judging extinction risk [3]. A fourth study intriguingly reveals the dangers of the dominant place that the English language holds in academic discourse, quantifying the loss of biodiversity knowledge incurred by an exclusive dependence on English language sources [12]. Finally, given a firmer grasp of the richness of life on earth and how this arose, we have the topic of solutions, ranging from the macroscopic strategies of optimising large areas of habitat protection [13] to the sub-microscopic—a proposal that molecular biology harbours “a vast potential for tackling climate change and biodiversity loss” [14]. The theme for this year’s UN International Day for Biological Diversity is “Building a shared future for all life.” In explaining this slogan, the organisation argues that “biodiversity is the foundation upon which we can build back better.” Homo sapiens arose as a product of the very processes mentioned above, one twig on the colossal and entangled tree of biodiversity. As humans, we simultaneously bear both the responsibility for a disproportionate destructive impact on the rest of the planet, and the knowledge and technology with which to mitigate it. We should now build back. Better.
  14 in total

1.  A global reptile assessment highlights shared conservation needs of tetrapods.

Authors:  Neil Cox; Bruce E Young; Philip Bowles; Miguel Fernandez; Julie Marin; Giovanni Rapacciuolo; Monika Böhm; Thomas M Brooks; S Blair Hedges; Craig Hilton-Taylor; Michael Hoffmann; Richard K B Jenkins; Marcelo F Tognelli; Graham J Alexander; Allen Allison; Natalia B Ananjeva; Mark Auliya; Luciano Javier Avila; David G Chapple; Diego F Cisneros-Heredia; Harold G Cogger; Guarino R Colli; Anslem de Silva; Carla C Eisemberg; Johannes Els; Ansel Fong G; Tandora D Grant; Rodney A Hitchmough; Djoko T Iskandar; Noriko Kidera; Marcio Martins; Shai Meiri; Nicola J Mitchell; Sanjay Molur; Cristiano de C Nogueira; Juan Carlos Ortiz; Johannes Penner; Anders G J Rhodin; Gilson A Rivas; Mark-Oliver Rödel; Uri Roll; Kate L Sanders; Georgina Santos-Barrera; Glenn M Shea; Stephen Spawls; Bryan L Stuart; Krystal A Tolley; Jean-François Trape; Marcela A Vidal; Philipp Wagner; Bryan P Wallace; Yan Xie
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 69.504

2.  Automated assessment reveals that the extinction risk of reptiles is widely underestimated across space and phylogeny.

Authors:  Gabriel Henrique de Oliveira Caetano; David G Chapple; Richard Grenyer; Tal Raz; Jonathan Rosenblatt; Reid Tingley; Monika Böhm; Shai Meiri; Uri Roll
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 9.593

3.  Metacommunity analyses show an increase in ecological specialisation throughout the Ediacaran period.

Authors:  Rebecca Eden; Andrea Manica; Emily G Mitchell
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2022-05-17       Impact factor: 9.593

4.  Major environmental drivers determining life and death of cold-water corals through time.

Authors:  Rodrigo da Costa Portilho-Ramos; Jürgen Titschack; Claudia Wienberg; Michael Georg Siccha Rojas; Yusuke Yokoyama; Dierk Hebbeln
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2022-05-19       Impact factor: 9.593

5.  A return-on-investment approach for prioritization of rigorous taxonomic research needed to inform responses to the biodiversity crisis.

Authors:  Jane Melville; David G Chapple; J Scott Keogh; Joanna Sumner; Andrew Amey; Phil Bowles; Ian G Brennan; Patrick Couper; Stephen C Donnellan; Paul Doughty; Danielle L Edwards; Ryan J Ellis; Damien Esquerré; Jéssica Fenker; Michael G Gardner; Arthur Georges; Margaret L Haines; Conrad J Hoskin; Mark Hutchinson; Craig Moritz; James Nankivell; Paul Oliver; Carlos J Pavón-Vázquez; Mitzy Pepper; Daniel L Rabosky; Kate Sanders; Glenn Shea; Sonal Singhal; Jessica Worthington Wilmer; Reid Tingley
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 8.029

6.  How many species are there on Earth and in the ocean?

Authors:  Camilo Mora; Derek P Tittensor; Sina Adl; Alastair G B Simpson; Boris Worm
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2011-08-23       Impact factor: 8.029

7.  Maximizing regional biodiversity requires a mosaic of protection levels.

Authors:  Nicolas Loiseau; Wilfried Thuiller; Rick D Stuart-Smith; Vincent Devictor; Graham J Edgar; Laure Velez; Joshua E Cinner; Nicholas A J Graham; Julien Renaud; Andrew S Hoey; Stephanie Manel; David Mouillot
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2021-05-19       Impact factor: 8.029

8.  Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity.

Authors:  Tatsuya Amano; Violeta Berdejo-Espinola; Alec P Christie; Kate Willott; Munemitsu Akasaka; András Báldi; Anna Berthinussen; Sandro Bertolino; Andrew J Bladon; Min Chen; Chang-Yong Choi; Magda Bou Dagher Kharrat; Luis G de Oliveira; Perla Farhat; Marina Golivets; Nataly Hidalgo Aranzamendi; Kerstin Jantke; Joanna Kajzer-Bonk; M Çisel Kemahlı Aytekin; Igor Khorozyan; Kensuke Kito; Ko Konno; Da-Li Lin; Nick Littlewood; Yang Liu; Yifan Liu; Matthias-Claudio Loretto; Valentina Marconi; Philip A Martin; William H Morgan; Juan P Narváez-Gómez; Pablo Jose Negret; Elham Nourani; Jose M Ochoa Quintero; Nancy Ockendon; Rachel Rui Ying Oh; Silviu O Petrovan; Ana C Piovezan-Borges; Ingrid L Pollet; Danielle L Ramos; Ana L Reboredo Segovia; A Nayelli Rivera-Villanueva; Ricardo Rocha; Marie-Morgane Rouyer; Katherine A Sainsbury; Richard Schuster; Dominik Schwab; Çağan H Şekercioğlu; Hae-Min Seo; Gorm Shackelford; Yushin Shinoda; Rebecca K Smith; Shan-Dar Tao; Ming-Shan Tsai; Elizabeth H M Tyler; Flóra Vajna; José Osvaldo Valdebenito; Svetlana Vozykova; Paweł Waryszak; Veronica Zamora-Gutierrez; Rafael D Zenni; Wenjun Zhou; William J Sutherland
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2021-10-07       Impact factor: 8.029

9.  Rapid increase in snake dietary diversity and complexity following the end-Cretaceous mass extinction.

Authors:  Michael C Grundler; Daniel L Rabosky
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2021-10-14       Impact factor: 8.029

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.