biodiversity research articles

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals

Biodiversity articles from across Nature Portfolio

Biodiversity is the variation in living forms and can be measured in ways that include the number of species, functional variety of species, evenness of species distribution or genetic diversity. Biodiversity science investigates levels of biodiversity, its functional effects, and how and why it changes over time.

Uncovering drivers of global tree diversity

Plant species diversity declines from tropical to temperate latitudes. Local neighbourhood interactions among species that favour heterospecifics over conspecifics may have a role in shaping this latitudinal diversity gradient, but perhaps not as traditionally thought.

• Joseph A. LaManna

Latest Research and Reviews

Functional diversity of macrozoobenthos under adverse oxygen conditions in the southern Baltic Sea

• Halina Kendzierska
• Urszula Janas

Effects of a beaver dam on the benthic copepod assemblage of a Mediterranean river

• T. Di Lorenzo
• A. Tabilio Di Camillo
• D. M. P. Galassi

Hybrid speciation driven by multilocus introgression of ecological traits

Genomic studies of Heliconius butterflies provide evidence that Heliconius elevatus is a hybrid species, and that its speciation was driven by introgression of traits from Heliconius melpomene into the other parent, an ancestor of Heliconius pardalinus .

• Neil Rosser
• Fernando Seixas
• Kanchon K. Dasmahapatra

Impacts of spatio-temporal change of landscape patterns on habitat quality across Zayanderud Dam watershed in central Iran

• Seyed Mohammad-reza Abolmaali
• Mostafa Tarkesh
• Sima Fakheran

Global meta-analysis reveals overall higher nocturnal than diurnal activity in insect communities

Entomologists expect that more insects are active at night than during daytime. Here, the authors use a global meta-analysis of insect community diel patterns to show highly variable and context-dependent but overall higher nocturnal activity of insects.

• Mark K. L. Wong
• Raphael K. Didham

Ultrastructural examination of cryodamage in Paracentrotus lividus eggs during cryopreservation

• J. Troncoso

News and Comment

Digging in: last chance to save a native forest

Dario Sandrini hikes, plants and digs to save a threatened and diminishing ecosystem.

• James Mitchell Crow

Conserving the primary forests in the Yarlung Tsangpo Grand Canyon for people and nature

Deep-sea mining plans should not be rushed

Why are companies and governments determined to start commercial-scale mining for rare metals, when so little is known about its wider impacts?

How a tree-hugging protest transformed Indian environmentalism

Fifty years ago, a group of women from the villages of the Western Himalayas sparked Chipko, a green movement that remains relevant in the age of climate change.

• Seema Mundoli

The Global Biodiversity Framework’s ecosystem restoration target requires more clarity and careful legal interpretation

• Justine Bell-James
• Rose Foster
• James A. Fitzsimons

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

OPINION article

This article is part of the research topic.

Can Technology Save Biodiversity?

Open source technology boosts conservation and biodiversity research Provisionally Accepted

• 1 University of Bristol, United Kingdom
• 2 Gathering for Open Science Hardware, Antarctica
• 3 University of Oxford, United Kingdom

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Introduction In light of globally declining biodiversity and threats to both rare and common species , there are calls to utilize modern technologies for monitoring and conservation . Technologies are deployed to improve data collection and analysis in both terrestrial and aquatic environments . These advancements can enable more efficient data collection compared to traditional survey methods and aid crowdsourced data collection and processing . There are emerging communities of practice, such as Conservation X Labs or WILDLABS which report on the state of conservation technology and provide guidelines on socially responsible use. The advancement of conservation technologies coincides with the increased adoption of open science practices. As defined in the Recommendation on Open Science ratified by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization , open science entails inclusive, equitable, and sustainable approaches to scientific practices and outputs. Ecological research has increasingly adopted these practices , notably through more open and FAIR data . There also exists open source software used in biodiversity research, such as the R programming language and analytical packages built on it. However, unlike software and data, the hardware used for ecological research is still typically closed source (i.e. proprietary), and its designs (and accompanying software source code) are legally restricted, preventing others from studying, reproducing, or modifying them. Apart from just increasing effort and cost when adapting existing equipment to new contexts, closed source hardware also reinforces global inequalities. As reviewed by Arancio , the manufacturing and dissemination of scientific equipment is often monopolized by entities in the Global North. This creates barriers for researchers in the Global South including, but are not limited to, prohibitive costs, lack of availability, and technical support. They lead to epistemic injustice, where research questions are constrained by the physical tools researchers are allowed to access or modify. Additionally, the vendor lock-in and forced obsolescence of closed source hardware mean that users are legally barred from maintaining them. This creates e-waste, which has been described as a form of environmental crime. One solution to these problems is open source hardware. It is defined as hardware whose design is "made publicly available so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell the design or hardware based on that design”. In our view, while open source hardware is beginning to be adopted for ecology research , its potential is still largely untapped. We are researchers with experience in both ecology and open source hardware communities. In this opinion article, we argue for wider recognition and adoption of open source hardware in biodiversity research. Among other benefits, we provide examples demonstrating how open source hardware can: reduce upfront and maintenance costs; enable adapting to novel contexts; and improve research quality and transparency. We end with suggestions for individuals and institutions on adopting open source hardware in research. Reducing upfront and maintenance costs By its nature, closed source hardware allow their manufacturers to command a high price through monopolies. In contrast, anyone can manufacture and sell hardware based on an open source design, so the cost of purchase can be close to the actual manufacturing cost. One study suggests that open source hardware can create cost savings of up to 87% compared to closed source functional equivalents . SnapperGPS is one example of such low-cost open source hardware for ecology research. It is a location data logger specifically designed for wildlife tracking . In contrast with proprietary equivalents costing thousands of USD, the component cost of a SnapperGPS receiver is under USD 30, making it accessible to research groups with lower budgets. The project also has a discussion forum where the community can ask questions, discuss issues, provide technical support, and share experiences. Because users have complete access to the hardware design files, they can also maintain and repair their equipment independently, rather than having to rely on the original manufacturer who has an incentive to sell new units instead of repairing existing ones. Any knowledge about repair and maintenance can also be freely shared with the community further helping other users, without expensive support contracts or infringing on intellectual property restrictions. This is exemplified by the Appropedia Foundation, an online community where sustainability researchers share designs and provide mutual help on the repair and maintenance of open source hardware . Adapting to novel contexts Off-the-shelf proprietary technology is unlikely to fit every application well. Ecologists, in particular, may need specific hardware properties to accommodate unique environments or species. However, modifying devices to meet research needs is difficult with closed source hardware, because its designs are not shared and modifications are not permitted. In the case of open source hardware, however, modifications can be added to an existing design and even be published as a new version that can then be freely manufactured and used by future researchers. OpenFlexure exemplifies this advantage. It is an open source, low-cost, lab-grade microscope, originally developed for microscopy in biomedical research . Its design has since been adapted to many other contexts. For example, researchers trialling OpenFlexure for orchid bee identification in Panamanian rainforests found the device was not suited for their use case, which does not require high magnification but does need robustness under field conditions. In response, the researchers adapted OpenFlexure into a dissection microscope that is easy to use and repair in the field. At the time of writing, the first version of this design has been completed, and feedback from field trials is being incorporated into the next version . Improving the quality and transparency of research Closed source hardware is opaque, preventing researchers from fully understanding how the equipment operates. This makes identifying systematic errors difficult, especially if the manufacturer has a monopoly on the technology so that users have no alternatives for comparison. This problematic “black box” effect of closed source devices is exemplified by CTDs, an oceanographic instrument that measures salinity, temperature, and depth. These three variables are essential for almost all marine scientific studies. Commonly-used closed source CTDs are not only expensive (at least several thousand USD), but also require costly maintenance services. In recent years, the OpenCTD was developed as an open source CTD for coastal oceanographic research , along with openly published calibration procedures. Notably, in addition to making this technology more accessible, the OpenCTD team identified a systemic problem of handheld proprietary CTDs being out of calibration but remaining in field use (Thaler, pers comms). This error remained undetected for years until a comparison could be made with OpenCTD devices, and underscores the crucial role for open source hardware to improve research quality and transparency. Discussion Open source hardware and software enshrine the freedoms to study, reproduce, modify, and distribute them without restrictions. They enable equitable access to technology, allowing context-relevant and cost-effective adaptations with the potential to improve research quality and transparency. The examples we used to illustrate these benefits are part of a growing movement, which seeks to adopt open source hardware in ecology and conservation research . We end this opinion article with suggestions for publishing open source hardware in a reproducible way and reforming institutional policies to encourage its development. Publishing open source hardware In recent years, best practices have emerged to ease the publication and reproducibility of open source hardware in scientific research. For example, the Open Know-How specification defines structured metadata to accompany hardware designs, such as requiring a bill of materials (BOM) or listing key contact persons. This metadata is stored in a YAML-formatted file, and is published with design files in a public repository (e.g. platforms such as GitLab or GitHub) similar to current best practice for software. Crucially, Open Know-How specifies that hardware designs should be published with open source licenses, the most popular of which are the three CERN Open Hardware licenses. Once hardware designs are published, detailed information about their fabrication and use can be published in peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Open Hardware or HardwareX. A variety of hardware with biodiversity applications has been published this way, from a camera trap for benthic marine organisms to a strain gauge for measuring wind damage to trees . In support of these academic journals is the DIN SPEC 3105 standard , which defines guidelines for effective peer review of hardware documentation and reproducibility. Reforming institutional policy to encourage open source hardware Research institutions and funding bodies should support open source hardware as a key pillar of open science, as recognized in the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. Actionable policy guidance has been developed for universities , including embedding open source hardware in open science training; creating career pathways for developing open source hardware; and developing mechanisms to monitor adoption. A common misconception is that open source hardware cannot be commercially viable. But in actuality, open source hardware allows commercialization and multiple profitable open hardware business models have already been demonstrated. Successful examples from biology research include IORodeo (a producer of laboratory analytical equipment), NinjaPCR (a seller of digital real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) machines), or the Arribada initiative (a consultancy for biodiversity research and developer of hardware kits for biologging and satellite tracking). In light of these successes, university technology transfer offices (TTOs) should update their policies to support open source hardware , including using its development as a way to achieve sustainable development goals . Conclusion The urgency of the biodiversity crisis is connected to technological waste and global inequalities . As biodiversity researchers, we have an ethical imperative to adopt open source hardware as part of the solution. In addition, with growing popular interest in biodiversity conservation , the use of open source hardware (and software) would signal transparency and accountability that strengthens public trust in science. In this opinion piece, we highlighted the progress that open source hardware can enable for ecology research. Lastly, we note that biodiversity researchers are not the only ones who would benefit from open source hardware. Anyone considering open source hardware for their research could engage with global practitioner communities, including the Gathering for Open Science Hardware, Open Science Hardware Foundation, Internet of Production Alliance, or the Open Source Hardware Association. They collectively sustain ongoing discourse on the development and use of open source hardware, and reflect a growing recognition for its role in scientific research.

Keywords: open source hardware, open source, Conservation technology, Open Science, open research, Open technology, Biodiversity

Received: 01 Jan 2024; Accepted: 17 Apr 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 Hsing, Johns and Matthes. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Dr. Pen-Yuan Hsing, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

People also looked at

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Spatial and topical imbalances in biodiversity research

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – original draft

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Berlin, Germany, Institute of Biology—Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Berlin, Germany, Institute of Biology—Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Berlin, Germany

Affiliations Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), Berlin, Germany, Institute of Biology—Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany, Berlin-Brandenburg Institute of Advanced Biodiversity Research (BBIB), Berlin, Germany, Der Wissenschaftsfond (FWF), Vienna, Austria

• Laura Tydecks, 
• Jonathan M. Jeschke, 
• Max Wolf, 
• Gabriel Singer, 
• Klement Tockner

• Published: July 5, 2018
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327
• Reader Comments

The rapid erosion of biodiversity is among the biggest challenges human society is facing. Concurrently, major efforts are in place to quantify changes in biodiversity, to understand the consequences for ecosystem functioning and human wellbeing, and to develop sustainable management strategies. Based on comprehensive bibliometric analyses covering 134,321 publications, we report systematic spatial biases in biodiversity-related research. Research is dominated by wealthy countries, while major research deficits occur in regions with disproportionately high biodiversity as well as a high share of threatened species. Similarly, core scientists, who were assessed through their publication impact, work primarily in North America and Europe. Though they mainly exchange and collaborate across locations of these two continents, the connectivity among them has increased with time. Finally, biodiversity-related research has primarily focused on terrestrial systems, plants, and the species level, and is frequently conducted in Europe and Asia by researchers affiliated with European and North American institutions. The distinct spatial imbalances in biodiversity research, as demonstrated here, must be filled, research capacity built, particularly in the Global South, and spatially-explicit biodiversity data bases improved, curated and shared.

Citation: Tydecks L, Jeschke JM, Wolf M, Singer G, Tockner K (2018) Spatial and topical imbalances in biodiversity research. PLoS ONE 13(7): e0199327. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327

Editor: Vipin Chandra Kalia, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, INDIA

Received: February 11, 2018; Accepted: June 5, 2018; Published: July 5, 2018

Copyright: © 2018 Tydecks et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The data underlying this study have been uploaded to Dryad and are accessible using the following DOI: 10.5061/dryad.q7mk04m .

Funding: JMJ received financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; JE 288/9-1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The publication of this article was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and the Cross‐Cutting Research Domain Aquatic Biodiversity of the Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB). This does not alter our adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.

Introduction

Biodiversity–from genes to ecosystems–represents the combined biological information that has accumulated over billions of years of evolution. Up to now, humanity is far from being able to determine its amount and value, and to estimate the consequences that an expected 10, 20 or even 50% decline of biodiversity may have for sustaining vital ecosystems and human wellbeing. Indeed, biodiversity information across all levels of biological organization is fundamental in understanding how the Earth system functions, and how it interacts with human activities [ 1 ]. To stop, and potentially reverse, the rapid erosion of biodiversity, major efforts are in place, guided by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), the UN Sustainable Development Goals, the EU Biodiversity Strategy (EC 2011), and various EU directives (i.e. Water Framework Directive, Habitats Directive). Furthermore, conservation efforts must be accompanied by education and capacity building.

Biodiversity research has a distinct spatial component and, therefore, may be exposed to geographic biases such as an underrepresentation of research activities in the Global South. Similar biases have been discovered in research on climate change [ 2 ], invasive species [ 3 , 4 ], and in part biodiversity (e.g. [ 5 , 6 ]). In the Global South, for example, biodiversity is understudied and little protected due to a lack of awareness and funding alike [ 7 ]. Indeed, entire regions suffer from a lack of research capacity, and existing research is weakly integrated with local knowledge. Yet the same regions represent key target areas for conservation and the sustainable use of biodiversity-related resources.

Current efforts to compile information on biodiversity include the establishment of data bases such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility, summarizing species occurrence data (GBIF; [ 8 ]), or GenBank, focusing on genetic diversity. Such data bases could help discover “black spots” in biodiversity knowledge, i.e. countries and regions of limited knowledge, and facilitate conservation efforts [ 9 ]. However, these laudable efforts notably suffer from spatial and topical research deficits themselves. For example, species occurrence data are spatially co-located with research centres [ 10 ], data are prone to spatial and taxonomic errors [ 11 ], and the ecosystem component of biodiversity is particularly ignored. To better support decision making and conservation planning, biodiversity data bases need a balanced spatial and topical coverage, which requires major efforts in addressing existing and emerging biodiversity research deficits.

In the present study, we assume that biodiversity is best studied (i) where it is actually located, (ii) at all levels of ecological organization (i.e., genetic, species, ecosystem level), and (iii) equally distributed across the phylogenetic branches of the tree of life. While this seems to be a reasonable assumption, other approaches are conceivable, too. For example, some taxonomic groups are easier to study due to their accessibility and thus a focus on such proxy groups–in combination with an extrapolation to other taxa–can be cost-effective [ 12 ]. Alternatively, one could focus on keystone species or ecosystems where the benefits are most likely higher through an increased system understanding [ 13 ]. With regard to our assumption, we ask whether biodiversity research has been doing it right over the past decades. More specifically: Have we put our efforts at the right place? Have we been looking at the right components?

Based on comprehensive bibliometric analyses, we investigated the spatial (i.e. geographical) context and topical focus of all 134,321 biodiversity-related publications included in Web of Science (WoS). To cover this bibliographic information, we used automatic search algorithms–in contrast to previous bibliometric studies, which focused on a small subset of biodiversity-related studies. Our investigation includes analyses of (a) research flows among countries and regions contributing to science and those rich in biodiversity resources, (b) the spatial distribution and connectivity of identified core scientists in biodiversity research, (c) (spatial) research deficits with regard to threatened species and ecoregions, and (d) spatial-topical research foci.

We expected a strong spatial bias at the global scale because biodiversity research is most likely dominated by scientists based in the Global North. Accordingly, we expected spatial disagreement between biodiversity hot spots and locations of biodiversity-related research efforts. Furthermore, we expected that most biodiversity-related research has been conducted in terrestrial systems, with a focus on plants, and at the species level. Yet such topical biases are likely not spatially uniform at the global scale. Based on our findings, we outline and discuss consequences of (un)balanced biodiversity research activities for the understanding and tackling of current and future changes of biodiversity sensu lato .

Search strategy and setup of data base for bibliographic information

In the present context, biodiversity-related research includes research on the diversity of genes, species, and ecosystems in all realms of life as well as associated topics where biodiversity matters, (e.g., prevalence or spread of diseases, food provision).

In a first step, we conducted a Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection search using the term ‘biodiversity’. Out of 76,594 publications, 100 articles were randomly selected and titles and abstracts were read to get a first overview of biodiversity-related terms. In a next step, these terms were discussed among the authors and selected for a comprehensive search: biodiversity, biological diversity, species richness, species evenness, genetic diversity, species diversity, ecosystem diversity, alpha diversity, beta diversity, gamma diversity, taxonomic diversity, phylogenetic diversity, behavio(u)ral diversity, functional diversity.

In a second step, we used these terms and searched the WoS again for all articles, published in English from 1945 to 2014, and downloaded the bibliometric information including title, abstract, author, affiliation, country of affiliation, publication year, and the number of times an article was cited (download date: May 12, 2015). In total, 134,321 biodiversity-related and peer-reviewed publications were compiled in a SQL-data base for further analyses (Data available from the Dryad Digital Repository: doi: 10.5061/dryad.q7mk04m ). We did not restrict the WoS search to specific journals in order to guarantee a broad coverage of biodiversity-related research, considering publication dynamics during the past 60 years. Thus, the data base includes studies that otherwise might have been overlooked. However, WoS does not cover grey literature ( https://clarivate.libguides.com/woscc ), and we did not consider other languages than English. Hence, the actual number of studies related to biodiversity is higher than reflected in our WoS search strategy. Nonetheless, it provides a highly representative sample of scientific research, appropriate to detect and understand imbalances related to biodiversity research.

Spatial distribution of biodiversity research

We identified study sites of publications at the country level and crossed this information with the country of an author's affiliation as well as with geographical biodiversity- and economy-related data. To detect locations of study sites, all publication titles and abstracts were automatically searched for country names, using R version 3.2.2 [ 14 ]. For large countries (i.e. more than 2.5 million km 2 ; i.e. Russia, China, USA, Canada, Brazil, Australia, India, Argentina and Kazakhstan), we additionally searched for predefined province names. Study sites at the country and province level were identified for a total of 49,932 publications (37.2% of all studies). As the country of the study site was not necessarily identical with the country of the author affiliation, we also extracted geographical information on author affiliation. This allowed quantifying country-specific contributions to biodiversity research. Errors in this information, such as typos, were manually corrected.

Data extracted from the bibliographic data base, such as the number of biodiversity-related publications per country, were analysed in conjunction with several quantifiers of biodiversity that were available at country level: The number of threatened species (IUCN Red List of Threatened Species; [ 15 ]), the number of ecoregions (WWF List of Ecoregions; [ 16 ]) and the proportion of protected areas [ 17 ]. Similar to data on diversity of amphibians (AmphibiaWeb [ 18 ]) and birds (BirdLife International [ 19 ]), these biodiversity quantifiers may serve as proxies for overall biodiversity. The number of ecoregions was significantly correlated with the number of amphibians (r = 0.75, p < 0.001) and birds (r = 0.81, p < 0.001) ( S3 Table ). Hence, the number of ecoregions was used as a surrogate for biodiversity at the country level. The proportion of protected areas is further testifying conservation efforts. Last, the bibliometric information of a country was correlated with its economic performance (Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ( http://unstats.un.org ).

To visualize spatially resolved data, such as the ratio between the number of biodiversity-related studies and other quantities (i.e. number of ecoregions or threatened species) for countries and provinces, we calculated cartograms (90 iterations) using QGIS version 2.12.0 [ 20 ]. For these analyses, only publications at species or ecosystem level were considered. Also, these analyses were limited to amphibians (2372 publications) and birds (8325 publications), for which biodiversity data were readily available at reasonable geographical resolutions (see above). To quantify research flows from the continental regions where authors were affiliated to the regions where studies were conducted [ 21 ], we used a Sankey diagram. To simplify the presentation, we aggregated the country-specific data to continental regions following the United Nations classification ( http://unstats.un.org ).

Finally, we identified “core scientists” and their institutional affiliation(s) from the bibliographic data base. For each five-year period, from 1945 to 2014, the twenty most frequently cited scientists, based on the total number of citations, were classified as “core scientists”. Scientists were excluded if the domain of their research was not biodiversity or if an author was solely listed as co-author of one highly cited publication, without any further documented research output in the dataset. For the periods 1980–84 and 2010–14, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by gathering information on ten additional core scientists ( S2 Table ). Our approach for identifying “core scientists” is relatively straightforward, yet other possibilities for creating lists of influential scientists can be imagined as well, e.g. by considering higher weights for first or senior authors as compared to other co-authors, or by using the h-index. The list of identified “core scientists” was not meant to be exhaustive, hence researchers not on the list could have been very influential as well.

To identify potential centers of biodiversity research, we collected information about the affiliation of each core scientist at the time of the doctoral degree and the last confirmed (or current) affiliation. In total, we gathered detailed information on 156 core scientists, but could not obtain the required information for another 19 core scientists. The activities of several core scientists spanned more than one five-year period. Furthermore, the gender of a total of 154 core scientists was recorded (based on online material of institutions and organizations and the CVs of the core scientists). In order to visualize the degree of connectivity among core scientists, we conducted a network analysis using Gephi [ 22 ]. Modularity clusters, betweenness centrality, as well as the average degree and the mean weighted degree of the nodes (i.e. core scientists) were calculated for the time periods 1980–94, 2000–14 and 1945–2014. The modularity clusters summarize scientists that are more densely connected (through publications) among each other than to the rest of the scientists. The betweenness centrality represents the shortest path from all core scientists to all other core scientists, identifying central core scientists. The degree of a node represents the number of relations it has, i.e. how many papers one core scientist published with other core scientists.

Spatial and topical distribution of biodiversity research

To identify topical foci and their geographical distribution, we allocated publications to the level of ecological organization (genetic, phylogenetic, species, ecosystem), the taxonomic/functional group (plants and algae, invertebrates, vertebrates, bacteria, fungi, viruses, parasites), and the research domain (terrestrial, freshwater, marine). Relevant terms were identified from randomly selected subsets of 50 publications from each decade between 1945 and 2014. Furthermore, the taxonomic/functional groups of the kingdoms Animalia, Plantae, Fungi and Virus were used as search terms (Integrated Taxonomic Information System, IT IS; http://www.itis.gov ; S1 Table ). Again, all publication titles and abstracts were automatically searched for those terms. To test whether the automatic allocation to research foci was consistent, the accordance with the subsets of the first two decades (2 and 13 publications, respectively) was manually checked. For other decades, 95%-confidence intervals for fractions allocated to topics were calculated for the subset of 50 publications using the binom package in R [ 23 ] and compared to fractions automatically allocated for the entire set of publications ( S1 – S3 Figs). Using this approach, we successfully identified the level of ecological organization for a total of 116,368 publications (86.6%), the taxonomic/functional group for 86,401 publications (64.3%), and the research domain for 96,933 publications (72.2%). To identify the spatial distribution of research foci, we linked the topical with the spatial information of the publication.

Research efforts (based on authors’ affiliation of biodiversity-related publications) were highest in Europe (31.2% of all publications), followed by North America (23.2%) and Asia (18.6%). When only the first-author affiliation of each publication was considered, the relative research efforts further decreased in Africa, Central America and the Caribbean ( S4 Table ). The majority of study sites of biodiversity-related publications were located in Asia (24.9% of all publications), Europe (19.6%) and North America (13.0%) ( Fig 1 ). Europe and North America were the main research export regions (difference between research effort and study sites: -11.6% and -10.2%, respectively), while Asia and Africa were the main import regions (+6.3% and +5.6%, respectively) ( Fig 1 ).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Vertical bars: GDP, the number of threatened species, the number of ecoregions and protected land surface area in each region (relative values; n = 49,932).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.g001

The research efforts of a region, based on authors’ affiliation, was significantly and positively correlated with the economic strength (GDP) of that region (r = 0.9, p < 0.001; Table 1 ). In contrast, there was no significant correlation between research effort in a region and proportion of threatened species (r = 0.2, p = 0.61), number of ecoregions (r = 0.3, p = 0.42), and total protected area (r = 0.5, p = 0.111) in that region ( Table 1 ).

Significant correlations are highlighted in bold.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.t001

In total, biodiversity-related research primarily focused on terrestrial systems (83.3% of all publications), on plants (55.8%), and on the species level (68.3%), with a major share of authors affiliated with European (24.4% on terrestrial systems; 24.1% on plants; 23.5% at the species level) and North American (18.1%; 16.9%; 17.3%) institutions ( Table 2A ). When looking at study sites rather than affiliations, more than a third of studies on terrestrial systems, on plants and at the species level were conducted in Europe (14.9%; 15.4%; 14.1%), Asia (14.1%; 14.2%; 12.9%) and North America (10.4%; 10.4%; 10.2%) ( Table 2B ).

Percentages add up to more than 100% due to publications that cover more than one given level of ecological organization, research domain, or taxonomic group.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.t002

The major part of genetic and phylogenetic studies was conducted in Asia (19.3%), the major part of species (14.1%) and ecosystem studies (12.6%) in Europe. Studies on invertebrates (16.1%), plants and algae (15.4), and fungi (15.3) were mainly conducted in Europe; on viruses (22.4%), bacteria (11.1%) and parasites (12.2%) mainly in Asia, and studies on vertebrates (12.7%) mainly in North America. Terrestrial (14.9%) and freshwater studies (17.4%) were mainly conducted in Europe, marine studies (14.6%) mainly in Asia ( Table 2B ).

Focusing on individual countries, the number of studies per ecoregion (i.e. location of the study) was highest in Spain (171.5 publications per ecoregion), Portugal (112), the Netherlands (106), Germany (103.5) and Sweden (85.5); compared to very low ratios in countries in the Global South (e.g., Laos: 2.0, Papua New Guinea: 2.5, Cameroon: 3.8) ( Fig 2A ). Similar ratios were detected for studies on amphibians and birds ( S4 Fig ). Likewise, the highest number of studies per threatened species was carried out in European countries (Finland: 19.9 publications per threatened species, Sweden: 18.7, United Kingdom: 17.4, Norway: 11.6, the Netherlands: 11.5) and Canada (19.4). In contrast, the number of studies per threatened species was disproportionately low in Malaysia (0.3), Papua New Guinea (0.31), Madagascar (0.45) and Nicaragua (0.64) ( Fig 2B ).

In (A) the size of each country represents the number of threatened species (based on the IUCN Red List); the color represents the ratio between publication count and number of threatened species. In (B) the size of each country represents the number of ecoregions (based on the WWF List of Ecoregions); the color represents the ratio between publication count and number of ecoregions. In both (A) and (B), red countries have fewer studies per threatened species or per ecoregion and thus exhibit a relative biodiversity research deficit. The cartograms were generated using QGIS version 2.12.0 [ 20 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.g002

From 1945 until today, 142 out of 156 identified “core scientists” (see Methods ) in biodiversity research were affiliated to institutions in North America and Europe (91%; Fig 3A , S5 Table ). Nine of the top-10 institutions, based on the number of affiliated core scientists (either for their doctoral degree or their current affiliation), were located in the USA. Harvard University (15 core scientists) was followed by the University of Washington (8 core scientists). The only non-US institution in the top-10 list was the University of Cambridge, UK (7 core scientists). Movement from an institution where a core scientist received the doctoral degree to the current affiliation was mainly within and between North America and Europe. The highest net influx between doctoral degree (no core scientist) and current affiliation was found for the University of California, Davis (6 core scientists). In contrast, the highest efflux occurred from Harvard University (doctoral degree: 11 core scientists; current affiliation: 4).

(A) Global distribution of identified core scientists in biodiversity research, with PhD (green) and current (red) affiliation. The size of a circle represents the number of core scientists. The lines represent the movement of each individual scientist from the PhD location to the current affiliation. The map focuses on North America and Europe, as 142 out of 156 core scientists in biodiversity research (91%) were affiliated to institutions in these two continents. The map was generated using QGIS version 2.12.0 [ 20 ]. (B) Core scientists’ network during different time periods. Colors represent modularity clusters. Node size represents degree (centrality), i.e. how many publications one core scientist published with other core scientists. The network was generated using Gephi version 0.8.2 [ 22 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.g003

Core scientists in biodiversity research were mainly affiliated with universities and colleges (241 scientists; 88.9%) ( Fig 3A , S6 Table ). More than 90% of the core scientists were males, and this proportion remained high over time ( S7 Table ).

The degree of connectivity among core scientists, expressed through joint publications, strongly increased over time ( Table 3 , Fig 3B–3D ). The modularity clusters summarize scientists that are more densely connected (through publications) among each other than to all other scientists. While 20 years ago scientists mainly published within their modularity cluster (i.e. scientists that are densely connected), connectivity among clusters of scientists increased with time (1980–94: modularity 0.8, 2000–14: modularity 0.6; Table 3 , Fig 3B–3D ).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.t003

Biodiversity-related research has strongly increased since the 1980s, mainly due to a growing recognition of the rapid decline of biodiversity, its pivotal value for nature and humans alike, and the subsequent ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Our quantitative analyses of three biodiversity categories (i.e., level of ecological organization, research domain, taxonomic group), as well as spatially-explicit assessments of research efforts, uncovered distinct imbalances in biodiversity research, emphasizing previous findings (e.g.[ 6 , 24 – 26 ]). Notably, we analysed the most comprehensive and up-to-date dataset available so far.

Biodiversity research has focused on particular regions of the world, on terrestrial systems, on plants, and at the species level. One underlying reason for the spatial and topical imbalance may simply be the so-called Matthew principle, which explains the concentration of research on already well-studied subjects for extended periods of time [ 5 , 24 , 25 ]. Based on the present results, there is an urgent need for a more balanced, spatially and topically well-adjusted biodiversity research portfolio.

First and foremost, our global analyses show that biodiversity is not primarily investigated where it is actually located. Human resources in biodiversity research, and the related capability to disseminate knowledge, are mostly restricted to North America and Europe–regions with strong economic performance. At the same time, countries with high biodiversity, expressed by the number of ecoregions, and high proportion of threatened species remain underrepresented in research. Most of these countries are located in economically weak regions in Africa, Asia and South America. Fortunately, the number of taxonomists based in South America and Asia, where most species occur, is actually increasing [ 26 ]. Yet, the contributions to publications by researchers in developing countries, such as those on the African continent, are frequently through access to study sites and provisioning of data [ 27 ]. Study design, laboratory work, and data analyses are carried out by institutions located in the northern hemisphere [ 27 – 29 ], resulting in a strong dependency of biodiversity-rich regions on institutions in the Global North with respect to knowledge production, publications, and scientific reputation [ 29 ]. Hence, the knowledge and performance of scientists further increase in wealthy, rather than in biodiversity-rich and capacity-poor regions.

Cooperation in biodiversity research at the global scale is a rather recent phenomenon [ 30 ]. Increasing interdisciplinarity and at the same time specialisation of researchers, pooling of research facilities and resources to reduce costs, as well as global funding opportunities are the main reasons for a growing international collaboration [ 31 – 34 ]. Our analyses of co-publications, as an indicator of national and international collaboration, show that the degree of connectivity among core scientists has strongly increased over time. Notably, cooperation within and between the United States and Europe by far trumps cooperation across wider geographic and institutional borders, which may be due to the strong economic performance of both regions [ 31 ] and the general tendency of higher collaboration within geographical proximity [ 32 ].

Global initiatives, such as IPBES and GEO BON, foster collaborations and extend communication paths across geopolitical borders. Indeed, global collaboration is fundamental considering the spatial and temporal variability of biodiversity and, hence, to detect trends and to close knowledge gaps (e.g. number of species; [ 35 ]). Unfortunately, for example in ecology, most data are only accessible as interpretations through publications, while only a small fraction is directly accessible [ 36 ]. Similarly, there is a lack of long-term data on climate change in the Global South, which is considered problematic due to the potential impacts of climate change on biodiversity [ 37 ]. At the same time, biodiversity monitoring programs are challenged by incomplete taxonomic and spatial data coverages [ 38 ]. For example, global data bases such as GBIF are geographically biased: North America, Europe, and Australia are the regions where most of the data are digitized [ 10 ]. Indeed, open science and access to data bases, considering intellectual property rights and ethical aspects, are crucial in supporting a fair global knowledge exchange. At the same time, a fast increase of biodiversity data, in particular through rapidly advancing molecular methods (e.g. environmental DNA), calls for strong global commitments and collaborations to detect and close potential research and data gaps.

Threats to biodiversity are often connected to and maintained by supply chains rooted in biodiversity-rich developing countries, with industries (e.g. agriculture, forestry) geared towards export into wealthy countries [ 39 ]. Target locations of biodiversity-implicating commodities are in particular located in the USA, Europe, and Japan, emphasizing the need for a global recognition of threats to biodiversity [ 39 ]. At the same time, a much stronger and fairer North-South transfer of biodiversity-related research and knowledge is required.

Second, our global analyses show that biodiversity-related topics are not considered in a balanced way which might have an impact on conservation efforts. Research on the genetic and ecosystem level is increasing, most likely due to advanced molecular-biological, remote-sensing and modelling techniques and methods [ 40 ]. Furthermore, research on sub-species level is biased towards domesticated and cultivated varieties [ 41 ], while research on the ecosystem level remains in its infancy [ 42 ]. Consequently, current conservation strategies are based on species information, although the uncertainty of species numbers constrains conservation efforts [ 8 , 9 ]. Indeed, to enhance conservation strategies, substantial efforts are needed to fill current species-level knowledge gaps [ 43 ]. For example, viruses, fungi and parasites are much less studied than plants and animals [ 24 , 44 ], as confirmed in the present study too. Parasites are at very high risk of co-extinction, yet they are rarely considered in biodiversity research and conservation [ 44 , 45 ]. Furthermore, it may be ecosystem diversity rather than species diversity that primarily matters for the functioning of landscapes and entire biomes [ 46 ]. Indeed, to support effective conservation planning, diversified biodiversity-research efforts are needed, probably with ecosystems rather than species or genes as the ultimate target of management strategies.

The predominance of studies focusing on plants and vertebrates ( Table 2 ), the uncertainties in global species numbers [ 47 ], and the focus on widespread and locally abundant species at the cost of small-ranging and rare species [ 48 , 49 ] point to a need to improve biodiversity research, as well as to extend monitoring programs on a global scale [ 1 , 41 , 50 ]. Here, paleoecological approaches to reconstruct biodiversity changes, and the underlying drivers, during the past decades to centuries, may strongly facilitate conservation efforts [ 51 ].

A strong conservation focus on terrestrial systems, as emphasized by Strayer (2006) too, might be rooted in the predominance of terrestrial biodiversity studies [ 52 ]. In contrast, marine and freshwater realms are under-represented in both research and protection [ 1 ]. In particular, a limited understanding of the conservation status of marine species, as well as their low detection abilities, may have caused an underestimation of extinction rates in the world's oceans [ 1 , 53 ]. Similarly, freshwater systems are among the most diverse and threatened systems globally. At the same time, they are highly underrepresented in biodiversity research and conservation planning [ 54 ].

The implementation of protected areas is considered a major step forward in successful conservation strategies [ 50 ], although it cannot be considered per se as an effective measure in reducing biodiversity loss [ 41 ]. Globally, the proportion of protected areas is increasing [ 55 ], and we identified a positive correlation between the proportion of protected areas and respective research activities. This correlation was even stronger than the correlations between the proportion of protected areas and indicators of actual biodiversity (number of ecoregions or number of threatened species). This suggests relatively poor guidance of conservation efforts by actual biodiversity data on a global scale. Also–and more important for our analyses–it suggests that conservation may indeed be a consequence of research activity rather than conservation and research being both dependent on existing biodiversity. Indeed, efficient conservation strategies may be hampered by the spatial disagreement between research subject and efforts, or in other words: The fact that biodiversity is not investigated where it is located has obvious implications for conservation planning.

Based on the observed spatial and topical imbalances in biodiversity-related research, we need fair collaborations across geopolitical borders. Comprehensive online data bases are needed to achieve ambitious goals such as the Aichi biodiversity targets. Halting the loss of biodiversity is a global challenge requiring spatially integrated and topically inclusive approaches, producing comprehensive and unbiased knowledge bases. Biodiversity is a resource that is exploited across geopolitical borders. Hence, policy makers–together with the scientific community–need to ensure cross-boundary research activities, including a global dissemination of data and knowledge. Care should be taken that research networks do not promote a new level of exploitation of biodiversity-rich and economically weak countries. Data base contributions should be mandatory, including open access to data bases and related biodiversity knowledge. Academic freedom is pivotal to avoid an exacerbated Matthew effect, to address new research and conservation directions, approaches and topics well beyond beaten paths.

Supporting information

S1 fig. comparison of automatic search (i.e. all publication titles and abstracts were automatically searched for search terms; solid line) and subsample data (dashed line, with confidence interval) for research domain (terrestrial, freshwater, marine)..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.s001

S2 Fig. Comparison of search algorithm (solid line) and subsample data (dashed line, with confidence interval) for level (genetic, phylogenetic, species, ecosystem).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.s002

S3 Fig. Comparison of search algorithm (solid line) and subsample data (dashed line, with confidence interval) for taxonomic group (plants and algae, vertebrates, invertebrates, bacteria, fungi, virus).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.s003

S4 Fig. Cartograms showing ratios between biodiversity-related research effort and biodiversity quantities.

In (A) the size of each country represents the number of amphibian species (based on AmphibiaWeb); the color represents the ratio between publication count and number of amphibians. In (B) the size of each country represents the number of bird species (based on BirdLife). However, for bird species nearly no size change is observable; the color represents the ratio between publication count and number of bird species. In both (A) and (B) red countries have fewer studies per amphibian or per bird species and thus a relative biodiversity research deficit. The cartograms were generated using QGIS version 2.12.0 [ 20 ].

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.s004

S1 Table. Search terms for automatic search through publications.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.s005

S2 Table. Core Biodiversity Scientists.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.s006

S3 Table. Correlation of number of ecoregions with number of amphibians and number of birds on country level (n = 201).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.s007

S4 Table. Comparison research effort considering all affiliations and only unique affiliations of first authors.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.s008

S5 Table. Institutions of biodiversity core scientists. Institutions with <5 core scientists are summarized to “other institutions”.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.s009

S6 Table. Categories of institutions of core scientists.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.s010

S7 Table. Gender distribution of core scientists in biodiversity research.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.s011

Correlation of GDP, number of threatened species, number of ecoregions and percentage of protected area with publications related to countries of authors’ affiliation (A) and countries of study site (B) (n = 199).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0199327.s012

Acknowledgments

We thank Anna Koska for collecting data on core scientists, and the participants of the workshop ‘Scientific Writing’ at the Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries for helpful discussion in an early stage of the manuscript. JMJ received financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG; JE 288/9-1). The publication of this article was supported by the Cross‐Cutting Research Domain Aquatic Biodiversity of the Leibniz‐Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB) and the Leibniz Open Access Publishing Fund. We are very grateful for the comments by Maud Bernard-Verdier, Thomas Mehner and an anonymous reviewer.

• 1. MEA. Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and trends. Hassan R, Scholes R, Ash N, editors. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
• View Article
• Google Scholar
• PubMed/NCBI
• 14. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL https://www.R-project.org/ . 2015.
• 15. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015–2. < http://www.iucnredlist.org >. Downloaded on 31 July 2015.
• 16. WWF. [World Wildlife Fund] List of ecoregions. http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/ecoregions/ecoregion_list/ . Checked: July 2015.
• 17. The World Bank. Terrestrial and marine protected areas. Retrieved from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ER.PTD.TOTL.ZS . 2015;
• 18. AmphibiaWeb: Information on amphibian biology and conservation. [web application]. 2014. Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Available: http://amphibiaweb.org/ . (Accessed: 2014).
• 19. BirdLife International (2014) Country profiles. Available from: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/country . Checked: 2014.
• 20. QGIS Development Team (2015) QGIS Geographic Information System. Open Source Geospatial Foundation Project. http://qgis.osgeo.org .
• 21. Vaidyanathan R. rCharts: Interactive Charts using Javascript Visualization Libraries. R package version 0.4.5. 2013;
• 22. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 2009.
• 23. Dorai-Raj S. Sundar Dorai-Raj (2014). binom: Binomial Confidence Intervals For Several Parameterizations. R package version 1.1–1. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=binom . 2014;
• 30. Jongman RHG, Skidmore AK, Mücher CA (Sander), Bunce RGH, Metzger MJ. Global Terrestrial Ecosystem Observations: Why, Where, What and How? In: Walters M, Scholes RJ, editors. Handbook on Biodiversity Observation Networks. Springer Open; 2017. pp. 19–38.
• 35. Scholes RJ, Gill MJ, Costello MJ, Sarantakos G, Walters M. Working in Networks to Make Biodiversity Data More Available. In: Walters M, Scholes RJ, editors. Handbook on Biodiversity Observation Networks. Springer Open; 2017. pp. 1–18.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Coral reefs can't keep up with climate change. So scientists are speeding up evolution

Lauren Sommer

Ryan Kellman

Record levels of heat in the ocean are causing a worldwide mass bleaching event on coral reefs, as seen here on the Great Barrier Reef. Scientists are working on creating more heat-resistant coral to help restore reefs. Veronique Mocellin /AIMS hide caption

Record levels of heat in the ocean are causing a worldwide mass bleaching event on coral reefs. It's the second one this decade, where the delicate skeletons of corals turn a ghostly white.

With mass bleaching only expected to get worse as the climate keeps warming, coral scientists are urgently searching for ways to help reefs endure. Bleaching can kill corals, putting some of the most diverse ecosystems in the world at risk. So scientists are homing in on how bleaching happens.

It boils down to relationship drama between corals and a tiny organism that's too small to see.

Scientists estimate that a quarter of all marine species depend on coral reefs. Biologists say that's a best guess and it's very likely there are species yet to be discovered. Ryan Kellman/NPR hide caption

Corals are the builders of reefs, their skeletons creating the vast infrastructure that tens of thousands of other species depend on. But corals are powered by the tiny algae that live in their tissue, which provide food for them.

"They're these microscopic, sort of nondescript algae," says Matthew Nitschke, research scientist at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, as he magnifies a few under a microscope, revealing golden-brown circles.

Scientists are breeding 'super corals.' Can they withstand climate change?

"People are like: why are you so interested in them?" he says. "And it's because they, for me, are really at the foundation of the ecosystem."

The tiny algae and coral make up one of the most productive roommate relationships on the planet. But as the climate gets hotter, that relationship is increasingly going bad. When ocean temperatures rise, corals get stressed and their algae get expelled. Without their roommates, corals can starve and eventually die.

Studies show that if climate change continues at the same pace, 99% of the world's coral reefs are likely to die off by the end of the century. To buy reefs a little extra time, scientists are breeding both algae and corals to withstand more heat, speeding up the natural process of evolution. But with oceans heating up more rapidly than expected, they're racing against the clock.

"I think anyone who wasn't worried, needs to be worried now," says Kate Quigley, coral biologist at James Cook University in Australia and the Minderoo Foundation. "Nature has time to make mistakes and then adjust. We don't have that time."

"There just doesn't seem be enough time," says Kate Quigley, coral biologist at James Cook University in Australia and the Minderoo Foundation. "We're going from one bleaching event to the next." Ryan Kellman/NPR hide caption

Natural selection in a bottle

The tanks at the Australian Institute of Marine Science, just outside of Townsville in Queensland, are full of delicate branching corals in a vast array of colors. Another lab there is somewhat less eye-catching – full of scientific flasks with clouds of brown algae in them. They're zooxanthellae, the algae that live in coral, but these have been isolated from their coral homes (the algae can live in the ocean without the coral, but coral can't live without algae).

"If you look at a coral, they look bright, they look colorful," Nitschke says. "They're actually mostly translucent and a lot of the color of the coral that you see comes from the algae."

The algae in Nitschke's lab have been grown over hundreds of generations, subjected to an accelerated version of survival-of-the-fittest. They've been exposed to heat, singling out those best able to handle higher temperatures, which then go to produce future algal generations.

"What we're really doing is natural selection in a bottle," he says. "We're really excited about the possibility for that to help corals persist into the future."

Algae in Nitschke's lab, grown over hundreds of generations. They've been exposed to heat, singling out those best able to handle higher temperatures, which then go to produce more heat-tolerant algae. Ryan Kellman/NPR hide caption

Scientists are still trying to tease out exactly what happens between a coral and its algae when temperatures get hot. They depend on a carefully-balanced living arrangement. The algae get a comfy home and nutrients they need from the coral. In return, they do photosynthesis, using sunlight to produce energy for the coral.

But when the ocean heats up, that balance gets upset. Scientists believe one reason is that the warmer water stresses the coral, upsetting the nutrient exchange between the coral and algae. Another reason could be that the hotter water impairs how cells function, causing them to release too much of certain chemicals. The result is that most algae get the boot, leaving the coral without its main food supply.

"They begin to starve," Nitschke says. "That primary energy source – the loss of that during a heat stress event is potentially catastrophic for an individual coral. They are now in a race against time."

Corals bleach, turning ghostly white, when they're under stress from hotter temperatures. If the heat subsides, they can recover. But long periods of heat and repeated marine heat waves cause corals to die, wreaking havoc on one of the most biodiverse ecosystems on the planet. Veronique Mocellin /AIMS hide caption

Buying time for coral

If the heat subsides, corals can recover, slowly building back their algae population. But if the heat persists, or if there are too many marine heat waves back-to-back, the corals die.

Bleaching events are becoming more frequent, putting corals on a path for a mass die-off by the end of the century if the planet warms more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The effects could be devastating for marine biodiversity and for human communities. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide live near coral reefs, relying on them for food and coastal protection, since reefs can reduce flooding by absorbing wave energy.

It's why Nitschke and his colleagues have focused on breeding algae. They're in the process of testing them, giving them to tiny brain corals the size of walnuts. In trials, they've found corals inoculated with the heat-tolerant algae seem to resist bleaching for longer .

Corals the size of walnuts have been inoculated with heat resistant algae by Matthew Nitschke and his colleagues at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. They've found corals inoculated with heat-tolerant algae seem to resist bleaching for longer. Ryan Kellman/NPR hide caption

Researchers are also breeding corals themselves to be more heat-tolerant, in the hope that a combination of both a "super coral" and "super algae" can be used to restore reefs someday. Both are "assisted evolution" – a technique to speed up the natural process organisms use to adapt to their environment.

"Assisted evolution is an umbrella term for many things we've been doing in many other systems: agriculture, for pets." Nitschke says. "We're really only just starting to understand what we can do in the coral space."

Research aquarist Andrea Severati peers at large sheets over which coral larvae were released to settle. Once corals have picked their spot, each will be assessed for coral growth and survival. Ryan Kellman/NPR hide caption

Not a "get out of jail free" card

Still, in nature, there is no free lunch. Heat-tolerant algae may not share as many nutrients with their coral hosts, which means corals grow more slowly and reproduce later than they would otherwise. That could hamper their ability to restore reefs impacted by climate change. A key step will be testing the corals and algae on the Great Barrier Reef itself to see how they do.

"The last thing we want to do is make things worse," says Line Bay, a research program director at the Australian Institute of Marine Science. "We don't want to produce lab-adapted corals and then put them out in the real world where they don't do well."

Even if the heat-tolerant corals prove to be successful, the number of coral needed to restore impaired reefs could be enormous. The Great Barrier Reef is more than 1,000 miles long. And regulators will need to assess if the corals pose any risk to wild populations or the ecosystem as a whole.

The corals developed at AIMS are placed by divers on the Great Barrier reef. They are being tested in the ocean, as part of a large field trial.

Credit: AIMS

"Coral reefs are magical places," Bay says. "I think we need to be brave and we should use all the tools at our disposal in a humble and sensitive manner."

Coral scientists are clear about one aspect of the work: it's not a long-term solution. At best, it only buys coral reefs extra time until the effects of climate change become too much.

"It's not our 'get out of jail free' card," Quigley says. "Maybe that gets us to 2030, 2050 for a very few number of species that we can work with. If we don't have an ocean to put them back in that's healthy, no amount of incredible technology or money is worth it."

The hope is that giving coral reefs a few extra years, or even decades, will be enough time for humans to slow the pace of climate change. That means cutting heat-trapping emissions from the largest source – burning fossil fuels – and switching to alternative energy sources like solar and wind.

"We could all be despondent and be hopeless if there weren't great solutions on the table to turn climate change problems around," Quigley says. "We just need to get it on, now, really."

• coral reefs
• Great Barrier Reef
• conservation
• climate change

Search form

• Find Stories
• For Journalists

Biodiversity research at Stanford

Truly grasping the importance of biodiversity means diving down into the microscopic organisms in our soils and out to human social relationships affecting our ecosystems. The more we know, the better we can address threats to species diversity.

As simple as it is to understand the concept of biodiversity – the variety of species in an ecosystem – the reality is mind-blowingly complex. Organisms big and small can have tremendous effects on their habitats and relate to one another in surprising ways, such as microscopic fungi that help feed our biggest trees. This means that efforts to stall and even reverse ongoing declines in biodiversity require careful solutions and meticulous study of ecosystems and their occupants.

Peering in on the microbial world of nectar in one lab and modeling government programs in protected portions of the Amazon in another, Stanford’s research on biodiversity is, itself, diverse. Our researchers bring to light fundamental discoveries that help us define biodiversity and explore why species disappear. They also offer unique perspectives on how to conserve the natural world, taking into account how it is now and how it will likely be in the decades and centuries to come.

Studying biodiversity

Even a single handful of dirt contains a variety of life. But how does the mix of microscopic organisms in that soil affect the plants around it? And how do those plants provide food for animals and store carbon? What happens if we lose one species of tree from a forest?

Figuring out how to define and measure biodiversity in the real world often leads to more questions than answers. At the same time, the answers this research does generate give us our best chances of producing solutions that can successfully address the complex challenges facing our ecosystem right now.

Learning through fieldwork on Pacific coral reefs

Stanford undergraduates study links between human and natural systems through an interdisciplinary seminar in Palau.

Animal biodiversity key part of carbon cycle

With abundant data on plants, large animals and their activity, and carbon soil levels in the Amazon, Stanford research suggests that large animal diversity influences carbon stocks and contributes to climate change mitigation.

Microbes in flower nectar affect pollination

Stanford’s community ecology lab has found that microbes in nectar can affect bird and insect interactions with the flowers and, as a result, whether they get pollinated.

DNA left by ocean animals provides rare glimpse of marine ecosystems

Now, scientists have shown these genetic clues can be used as forensic markers to accurately and easily survey marine life in complex deep-water environments.

New method of estimating biodiversity based on tree cover

Scientists used tree cover maps and on-the-ground observations to measure biodiversity in Costa Rica. The results generated a method of modeling biodiversity across tropical landscapes.

Learning through doing in Alaska

A powerful, immersive course at the edge of wilderness helps Stanford students understand the connections between humans, nature and sustainability.

Stanford biologists help solve fungi mysteries

A new genetic analysis revealing the previously unknown biodiversity and distribution of thousands of fungi in North America might also reveal a previously underappreciated contributor to climate change.

Diverse forests are stronger against drought

Diversity reigns when water gets scarce. New research suggests the most resilient forests are made up of trees that have a wider variety of rates for water moving up from the soil.

To save native grasslands, study invasive species

The order of arrival determines which invasive grasses predominate, according to a combination of experiments and computational modeling. The results could help in efforts to preserve the native plants that remain.

Threats to biodiversity

Looking back at the five mass extinction events that we know have happened on our planet, scientists warn that the sixth has already begun. The threats to biodiversity are many – including deforestation, climate change, and overconsumption of natural resources – and humans play an outsized role.

While some consequences of our actions are obvious, others are less clear. For example, how hunting large herbivores could lead to a boom in the population of small disease-carrying rodents and a reduction in seed dispersal. The more detail and context we can bring to our understanding of biodiversity, the better our odds of moving this grim trend of species loss in the other direction.

Border wall threatens biodiversity

Federal plans to complete a continuous wall along the U.S.-Mexico boundary would threaten the existence of numerous plant and animal species, Stanford researchers say. Paul Ehrlich and Rodolfo Dirzo look at the region’s unique natural ecosystems, and what they have to lose.

Stanford biologists warn of prelude to extinction

In the first such global evaluation, Stanford biologists found more than 30 percent of all vertebrates have declining populations. They call for curbs on the basic drivers of these losses.

Stanford researchers find that the future of Antarctic marine protected areas is at risk

Efforts to adopt effective marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean, a global commons containing the world’s most pristine marine ecosystems, are being thwarted by political infighting and fishing interests.

Stanford research shows how wave dynamics and water flows affect coral reefs

Understanding what aids or degrades these sensitive ecosystems can help focus conservation efforts on those reefs that are most likely to survive global warming.

Larger marine animals at higher risk of extinction, humans are to blame

In today’s oceans, larger-bodied marine animals are more likely to become extinct than smaller creatures, according to a Stanford-led report.

Stanford research details ‘one-two punch’ of climate and land use changes on certain species

Study highlights that paying attention to current and future regional climate can help decision-makers expand agriculture in ways that minimize harm to, and maybe even benefit, particular at-risk species.

Stanford researcher imagines a world without large, plant-eating animals

Stanford biologist Rodolfo Dirzo and a team of ecologists forecast enormous ecological, social and economic costs from the loss of large herbivores, but offer some solutions.

Stanford researcher says sixth mass extinction is here

Paul Ehrlich and others use conservative estimates to prove that species are disappearing faster than at any time since the dinosaurs' demise.

When did humans start influencing biodiversity? Earlier than we thought

Fossil study finds early human activity – not climate shifts – led to the systematic decline of large animals around the globe that predated human migration out of Africa. The findings add to concerns about continued biodiversity loss and the impact on ecosystems.

Climate change requires new conservation models, Stanford scientists say

In a world transformed by climate change and human activity, Stanford scientists say that conserving biodiversity and protecting species will require an interdisciplinary combination of ecological and social research methods.

Biodiversity and conservation

Older concepts of conservation often assumed that maintaining biodiversity was about leaving nature alone or attempting to restore it to what it was before humans intervened. In some places, these methods may still be our best options but others require a more nuanced, future-focused approached.

In models that aim to predict the outcomes of land development, researchers also consider the influence of related social changes, such as abandoning taboo beliefs. They point out that keeping tigers from going extinct may be more about genetic diversity than number of cats. They push back against the instinct to pigeonhole human-made habitats and invasive species as bad or unnatural.

Multi-faceted solutions reflect the complex realities of the modern world and benefit from a wealth of data and information we’re able to gather about it.

New conservation approach

Findings show strong evidence for unique regions that divide plant and animal communities – a major development in centuries-long debate.

Environmental conservation efforts in China are making a positive impact, Stanford scientists say

A series of ambitious environmental policies that invest in natural capital are improving services provided by China’s ecosystems, such as flood control and sand storm mitigation, according to research conducted by an international team of scientists.

Making a living, sustainably

Stanford initiative reconciles perceived conflicts between human prosperity and protection of natural resources.

Diversified farming practices might preserve evolutionary diversity of wildlife, say Stanford and Berkeley biologists

A long-term study in Costa Rica has revealed that habitat destruction significantly reduces the incidence of evolutionarily distinct species. The research suggests alternative land-use practices that sustain farming and biodiversity.

Stanford computer model shows how modern interventions affect tropical forests, indigenous peoples

A computer simulation shows that carefully designing government interactions with rural indigenous people is critical for protecting the sustainability of people, wildlife and the land.

Stanford scientists challenge theory on protection of threatened species

Instead of simply concentrating conservation efforts on threatened species, resource managers and policymakers should consider ecosystem-wide impacts, study’s authors write.

Stanford researchers rethink ‘natural’ habitat for wildlife

Protecting wildlife while feeding a world population predicted to reach 9 billion by 2050 will require a holistic approach to conservation that considers human-altered landscapes such as farmland, according to Stanford researchers.

Diverse gene pool critical for tigers’ survival, say Stanford scholars

Increasing tigers’ genetic diversity – via interbreeding and other methods – and not just their population numbers may be the best solution to saving this endangered species, according to Stanford research.

Advertisement

Trends and gaps in biodiversity and ecosystem services research: A text mining approach

• Open access
• Published: 03 September 2022
• Volume 52 , pages 81–94, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Viktoria Takacs   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6340-0253 1 &
• C. David O’Brien 2 , 3  

5683 Accesses

4 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Understanding the relationship between biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services concepts is essential for evidence-based policy development. We used text mining augmented by topic modelling to analyse abstracts of 15 310 peer-reviewed papers (from 2000 to 2020). We identified nine major topics; “Research & Policy”, “Urban and Spatial Planning”, “Economics & Conservation”, “Diversity & Plants”, “Species & Climate change”, “Agriculture”, “Conservation and Distribution”, “Carbon & Soil & Forestry”, “Hydro-& Microbiology”. The topic “Research & Policy” performed highly, considering number of publications and citation rate, while in the case of other topics, the “best” performances varied, depending on the indicator applied. Topics with human, policy or economic dimensions had higher performances than the ones with ‘pure’ biodiversity and science. Agriculture dominated over forestry and fishery sectors, while some elements of biodiversity and ecosystem services were under-represented. Text mining is a powerful tool to identify relations between research supply and policy demand.

Similar content being viewed by others

Impact of climate change on biodiversity loss: global evidence

Muzafar Shah Habibullah, Badariah Haji Din, … Hasan Zahid

Challenges and opportunities of area-based conservation in reaching biodiversity and sustainability goals

Samuel Hoffmann

Impact of climate change on biodiversity and food security: a global perspective—a review article

Melese Genete Muluneh

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

The adverse impacts of human activity on nature are being increasingly recognised, with some authors referring to a biodiversity crisis (Western 1992 ; Eldredge 2000 ; IPBES 2019 ). There has also been a greater understanding of the importance of biodiversity for people as an asset that should be protected and maintained for our needs and those of future generations. This linkage has been acknowledged in both scientific publications and in policy at national and international levels. The term ‘biodiversity’ first attained prominence in the international policy agenda at the Earth Summit (CBD 1992 ), which listed three components: species, ecosystems and genetic diversity. The vital role of biodiversity for humanity was further expounded in the Millennium Ecosystem Services report (MEA 2005 ), which has led to a growth in research in the ecosystem services (ES) that biodiversity provides.

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 1992 ) is a major driver of policy with 196 signatories. Twenty targets were set when the parties met at Nagoya, Aichi prefecture, Japan in 2010 and ecosystem services feature prominently in the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (CBD 2010 ; United Nations 2011 ). However, few countries have been able to meet even half of the targets and at a global level, none were fully met (CBD 2020 ). Other assessments such as the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES 2019 ) and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (Sukhdev et al. 2014 ) also link the two concepts and have come to similar conclusions regarding the ineffectiveness of actions to date. In response, the CBD parties are working to produce new targets that will track progress to 2030 and beyond (CBD 2021a ). A key point in early discussions has been understanding the benefits humanity gains from ecosystem services (CBD 2021b ). While these policy documents highlight a need for evidence, the link between evidence needs and recent publications is not clear. Better understanding of what research has been carried out, and what opportunities and gaps exist will help funding agencies to direct resources where they can have the greatest impact for biodiversity and the benefits it provides.

Biodiversity conservation and the concept of ecosystem services are not always complementary. Thus, enhancing ecosystem service provision does not necessarily lead to biodiversity conservation or sustainable resource management (Oguh et al. 2021 ). In general, there are three ways of treating biodiversity within the ecosystems services framework (Mace et al. 2012 ); (i) biodiversity and ecosystems services are treated as synonyms; (ii) the “conservationist perspective” includes biodiversity as an ecosystem service by itself; or (iii) biodiversity can sometimes be a final ecosystem service—e.g. wild relatives of cultivated crops, which can be a source of improvement for domesticated species, or medicines from wild plants (Mace et al. 2012 ).

During the evolution of the ecosystem services concept, the role of biodiversity in the ecosystem service categories has changed. At the beginning of ES theory summarised in the MEA (MEA 2005 highlighted earlier by Constanza et al. in 1997 ), biodiversity was mentioned as a category of ES (within the category of “supporting” services). Later, “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity” (TEEB) assessment changed the name of the category to “habitat and supporting services”. In an effort to avoid redundancy and counting supporting services (such as biodiversity itself) twice, the hierarchical scheme of ecosystem services devised by the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES 5.1.) (Haines-Young and Potschin 2018 ) does not treat biodiversity as a separate Ecosystem Service itself and does not mention it directly among the ES categories. The category most directly related to biodiversity is within Cultural ES, category 3.2.2.1 “Characteristics of living systems that has an existence value”. In addition, biodiversity is included in 2.2.2.3. “Maintaining nursery populations and habitats (Including gene pool protection)”. However, it has been argued that nature’s contribution to people, and thus ES, cannot be understood without considering biodiversity (Maes et al. 2016 ).

The need to base policy on sound evidence and the need for robust indicators to underpin this evidence is becoming increasingly recognised by policy-makers (e.g. Wentworth and Henly 2021 ). This is particularly important as nations negotiate the framework for global biodiversity (CBD 2021a , b ). There are additional links that should be explored in the field of biodiversity indicators of sustainability (Hillebrand et al. 2018 ) and biodiversity’s links to ecosystem functioning (Balvanera et al. 2006 , 2012 ; IPBES 2018 ). As a result of the urgent need for scientific evidence on nature’s contribution to people as well as on the state and trends of biodiversity, the quantity of scientific publication in these fields has increased rapidly (McDonough et al 2017 ; IPBES 2018 , 2019 ). This process is reflected in the increased frequency of these words in policy documents as well as in peer-reviewed publications (McDonough et al. 2017 ; Czucz et al. 2018 , 2021 ). As a result of the extremely large amount of material, it is not practical to perform a “traditional” systematic review in order to identify trends, and ‘hot and cold’ topics. We propose a method that is novel for this scientific field: text mining with a topic modelling approach.

Bibliometric analyses have been incorporated into reviews (research weaving) as supporting material to systematic reviews (Nakagawa et al. 2019 ). Text mining techniques have gained popularity in summarizing trends and giving guidelines in fields where published information is too great to review all publications. Text mining as a technique has become particularly popular in fields where a rapid increase in published material has occurred, such as information technology and computing, mathematical sciences, linguistics, medical and educational sciences (Nakagawa et al. 2019 ; Westgate et al. 2020 ). However, in the fields of biology, ecology and behavioural sciences, there are relatively few publications based on this technique (Jung and Lee 2020 ).

The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive analysis of how biodiversity and ecosystem services have been considered together in peer-reviewed papers from 2000 to 2020. By doing so, we seek to provide evidence of interest and, potentially, gaps in research. We believe this will be of value in the development of research to support policy in these two key topics. Our research question is: which are the most frequent research fields, and how have they evolved in time. This is the first time that the topic modelling technique has been applied for ecosystem services and biodiversity, allowing us a first comprehensive analysis of the development of scientific interest on these topics.

Materials and methods

In our article’s search and research question formulation, we partially followed the ROSES protocol (RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses; Collaboration for Environmental Evidence 2013 ) as a basic guideline for systematic reviews and systematic mapping). The protocol contains “research search”, “article screening and appraisal”, “critical appraisal”, “data extraction” and “data synthesis and presentation”. We followed the ROSES protocol for systematic mapping concerning literature search; however, we diverged from the protocol in the phases of “article screening and study appraisal” as no further screening strategy, or reduction of the basic collection of the articles was applied. Our method does not allow for data extraction, while presentation and synthesis of the data also contained elements of the protocol, “narrative synthesis” and identifying “knowledge gaps”.

Using Web of Science (WOS) on the 9th of March 2021, we simultaneously collected all entries where abstract, article title or keywords contained (ecosystem AND service*) AND [biodiversity OR (biological AND diversity)]. Our analysis focussed on peer-reviewed original research papers and reviews, published in the English language. Book chapters, book reviews, conference materials, as well as grey literature, were excluded from the analyses. We restricted our analyses to the period 2000–2020. Altogether, 15 310 publications were included in the corpus of our analyses.

All analyses were performed in R 3.0.3. (R core team 2021 ). First, we exported all articles found in WOS into a single table (a maximum of 500 articles can be exported at once so we combined several tables into one). We then removed duplicated documents that were present in the WOS dataset. Abstracts were converted into a “tidy” format; a table with one token per row (Silge and Robinson 2016 : a token is a meaningful unit of text, such as a word, that we are interested in using for analysis). To achieve this, we first converted the dataset with the help of packages dplyr (Wickham et al. 2020 ) and tidytext (Silge and Robinson 2016 ). After this, we cleansed the dataset for common words such as articles, “the” “of” ‘a”, so that only the meaningful words remained (stopwords function in tm package Feinerer et al. 2008 ). Additionally, we removed the keywords for which the literature search was conducted and commonly added tags (e.g. Elsevier Rights Reserved) via filtering the word matrix.

We obtained the main research topics with the help of topic modelling. This technique is equivalent to clustering in text analyses (reviewed by Westgate et al. 2015 ). Topic modelling reduces a corpus of scientific documents to a set of topics, and makes it possible to compare them and analyse temporal changes of these topics as a means of gaining insight into the development of scientific fields (Griffiths and Steyvers 2004 ). Topic modelling was conducted via Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) with the help of R package “topicmodels” (Grün and Hornik 2011 ). LDA is a machine learning based method for allocating the documents to “topics” (Blei et al. 2003 ; Siege and Robinson 2017 ). “Topics” are mixtures of words that occur together in one document with higher probability than they do with others. Each document is a mixture of topics, and a single word might belong to several topics. As a result, LDA is a sort of “fuzzy clustering”. LDA finds the group of words that are associated with each topic and also determines the mixture of topics that describe a document. As a result, we obtain the probability of a document belonging to each of k topics ( γ or prevalence) and the probability of each word belonging to a topic ( β ) (Murakami et al. 2017 ; Perry and McGlone 2021 ). Thus, LDA is a mathematical method for finding the mixture of words that is associated with each topic, while also determining the mixture of topics that describes each document (Silge and Robinson 2017 ).

The number of clusters (topics) is typically pre-defined by the user as based on an ‘optimal’ number of topics for a given set, and is unambiguous (Silge and Robinson 2017 ). In order to define this optimal number we ran the programme with several pre-defined initial numbers of topics ( k  = 5, 9, 10, 20, 30) and we chose the largest number of categories that grouped articles such that they belonged nearly exclusively (maximal level of gamma over 0.999) to one topic. In this way, we obtained nine main topics, which gave us meaningful segregation of the published material. For all publications, we assigned the topic that best fitted (highest gamma scores). This allowed us to test the temporal patterns in publication number and citations.

Our analyses were based on abstracts only as it was not practical to obtain the full texts for over 15 000 articles. To bias check the assignment of documents based on abstracts, we downloaded full texts of the 20 best fitting articles for each topic (180 articles). We completed topic modelling on these full texts, and compared the division of articles with the results to the analyses based on the abstracts. After topic assignment (each article to the topic), we were able to observe temporal changes in publication numbers, topic specifics (average gamma values), citation metrics, and temporal changes. The significances of temporal trends, and relations between the amounts of citations and articles were tested by linear regression models (annual mean values of number of articles (gamma), number of citations as a function of time, and annual mean number of citation as a function of annual mean number of articles). All these metrics served for comparing topics and identifying the “hot” fields as well as temporal changes. “Hot topics” are of two types: those topics that occur most frequently and those that appear in the articles that have the highest number of citations. “Cold topics” have the opposite characteristics, appearing infrequently or being cited less often than the other topics considered.

Finally, to be able to achieve a narrative synthesis of the topics, we applied a novel approach (a quantitative tool for comparing the content of the nine topics). We inspected the occurrences of certain pre-defined fields (of interest to us) within the most frequent word matrices in the nine topics. We searched terms among the first hundred most frequent words (according to beta values) within the nine topics. Our chosen fields of interest were as follows: economically important sectors (agriculture, forestry and fishery), policy, nature conservation, economics, taxonomic representation and ecosystem service types (using CICES categories). We compared the sum of beta values (probabilities of belonging to the given topic) of words belonging to those pre-defined fields. This approach gave us further insight into important fields as well as allowing us to identify some knowledge gaps.

A summary of the methods applied is presented on Fig.  1 .

A summary of applied methods and obtained information

Our search found 15 451 peer-reviewed scientific articles that contain the terms “biodiversity” and “ecosystem services”. Of these articles, 141 did not have abstracts that were available in the WOS database: as a result, we analysed 15 310 documents. These documents contained 47 754 distinct terms, which served as a base of the topic modelling.

Topic modelling revealed nine distinct topics. The top 10 most frequent words from each topics are presented in Fig.  2 . [for the top 100 most commonly occurring terms, see Supplementary Material ( S1 )]. The full texts of the twenty best fitting articles from each topic were analysed, applying the same methods. We compared clusters and article divisions in both abstract and full-text analyses. Out of the “top 20 best fitting full texts” (174 full-text documents as six of the “top bests” were not available), only 10 were not assigned into the same group as the abstract had been. This means that topic modelling based on abstracts gave a 94% identical assignment (in the case of the best fitting articles).

Top ten most frequently occurring words in the nine main topics (the highest β values from the topic modelling,). All topics are defined by the matrix of frequencies of word occurrences. Each document can be characterised by its probabilities of belonging to certain topics. Consequently, topics are not exclusive, rather they are matrices of co-occurring words

Topics are ordered according to the number of articles, after assigning the articles to the topic to which it has the highest probability of belonging, based on the article abstract word matrix (Table 1 ).

In case of three topics (“Research & Policy”, “Urban & Spat. Plan”, “Hydro- & Microbiology”), characteristic words ( β values) are evenly distributed. For the remaining topics (“Diversity & Plants”, “Species & Climate change”, “Agriculture”, “Carbon & Soil & Forestry”), the group is characterised by a dominance of the titular words (Fig.  2 ).

Overall number of publications in all topics increased after the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005 (annual numbers 2000–2021 are presented as a function of number of published articles).

There was an increase of publications in every topic (Fig.  3 ); however, this was most rapid in the case of topics” Research & Policy” and “Urban & Spat. plan.”.

Temporal changes in the number of articles in the nine topics. Points show the annual sum of articles. Regression lines are drawn in cases with significance at p  < 0.05 level

The annual changes of topic prevalence (Fig.  4 ) show a significant decrease in the case of the “Agriculture” and “Species & Climate change” topics and a slight increase in the case of “Economics and conservation”. F and p values are presented in Supplementary Material S2 .

Changing topic prevalence over time. Each article was assigned to the topic with the highest gamma (prevalence) value. Gamma value shows how “well” the articles fit into the given topic. Points show the annual mean gamma values, with point ranges showing standard errors. Regression lines are drawn in cases with significance at p  < 0.05 level

The annual total of citation scores for articles in most topics show a nonlinear pattern in time, with a peak around 2015. This peak may in part reflect a lag before the most recent articles are cited.

The number of citations significantly increases in time in the case of five topics, (at p  < 0.05 level) (presented in Fig.  5 a): “Cons. & Distribution”, “Diversity & Plants”, “Hydro- & Microbiology”, “Research & Policy” and “Urban & Spat. Plan.”. Of these topics, in the case of first three, there was an increase in citations reflected in an increase in articles (Fig.  5 b); “Diversity & Plants”, “Research & Policy” and “Hydro- & Microbiology” F and p values are presented in Supplementary Material S2 . This suggests that in the case of “Cons. & Distribution”, the increasing trend in citations is probably due to a small number of highly influential articles.

a Changing number of citations over time. The points indicate the annual sum of citations and number of articles in a given topic. Regression lines are drawn in cases of significant trend at p  < 0.05 level. b Changing number of citations as a function of article numbers ( b ). The points indicate the annual sum of citations and number of articles in a given topic. Regression lines are drawn in cases of significant trend at p  < 0.05 level

The highest number of articles belongs to the topic “Research & Policy” followed by “Urban & Spat. Plan” and “Economics and conservation” (see also Table 1 ) with the first two topics showing the highest increase rate over time. Average topic prevalence (gamma) is the highest in “Agriculture” and “Research and Policy” topics, and lowest in “Species & Climate change” and “Carbon & Soil & Forestry”, though both “Agriculture” and “Species & Climate change” show a decrease over time. As by definition, gamma is the probability of words belonging to the topic, a decreasing gamma value means a decreasing trend in topic specificity.

The highest overall number of citations per publication was shown by articles from the group “Species & Climate change” ( n  = 80.5), followed by “Research & Policy” ( n  = 41.1) and “Agriculture” ( n  = 37.0). In the cases of topics “Species & Climate change” and “Agriculture”, high citation numbers are not in conjunction with temporal changes or with article numbers, suggesting that there are few very influential articles in these topics with many citations.

All the metrics we investigated might contribute to identifying “hot topics”. The topic which performs best or close to best in most metrics is “Research and Policy”. In all other cases, however, different metrics favour different topics. This suggests that for these other cases, there may be a mismatch between what topics are preferred by authors at a given time (i.e. number of articles) compared with those which have the most influence, as recognised by number of citations.

Within the top 100 words from each topic (Supplementary material S1 ), we checked the frequencies of certain terms related to chosen topics; these frequencies are presented in Table 2 .

Agriculture and forestry-related terms appear with a relatively high frequency (Sum β%) compared to fishery sectors.

A high frequency was attributed to terms related to nature conservation and species protection. These words were among the most frequent 100 terms in the case of six topics, with the highest frequently in “Econ. & Cons.” and “Cons. & Distribution”, and to a smaller extent in topics “Research & Policy”, “Urban & Spat. plan.” and with low frequency in “Diversity & Plants” and “Agriculture”.

“Policy” and related terms were characterised by a high overall frequency. These words were frequent mainly in topics “Science & Policy”, “Econ. & Cons.”, “Urban & Spat. plan” and to a lesser extent “Cons & Distribution”.

Terms related to Economics appear somewhat less frequently overall: mainly in topics “Econ. and Cons.” and to a lesser extent in two other topics “Urban and Spat. plan” and “Research & Policy”.

Ecosystem service categories appeared (based on the terminology of CICES) with a relatively high frequency (Sum β  = 12.463%). However, in this case, we have certain limitations as our categorisation is based on single words, while ES categories are more complex. On the other hand, parts of these ES terms might be in other contexts. As a result, in our matrix, certain terms might be an over-represented—e.g. soil organic carbon might appear with 3 different beta values, and some other terms might be not detected in the word matrix. Nevertheless, the appearance of these terms in certain topics is indicative of their prevalence, particularly in contrast to the low frequency of certain services (wind shelter, nursery populations).

Taxonomic names of biota appeared in two topics only: “Hydro- & Microbiology” and “Agriculture”, with summarised β value of 4.011%. Only birds, fish, insects, invertebrates, bacteria and microbiota and flowers were mentioned.

Over the past 20 years, the increasing number of publications in the fields of ecosystem services and biodiversity makes it impossible to summarise them using the traditional methods of meta-analyses or systematic reviews. The presented method, which allows analysis of trends and temporal patterns related to certain topics, is proposed for overcoming this problem. In our analysis, we have contributed to knowledge on the relationship between ecosystem services and biodiversity research, showing publication trends and hot topics within this field. This is of particular importance when we consider the need to match research with wider societal needs and pressure for policy to be evidence-based (Sutherland et al. 2004 ). We discuss the advantages and limitations of the applied method, and following this, we compare and suggest interpretations of the topics’ performances.

While topic modelling has already proved to be of value in other areas of science and technology, its potential is yet to be exploited in ecology (Jung and Lee 2020 ). We believe our paper shows it can be a useful tool to help understand trends, highlight gaps in research and thereby better align research with policy priorities. It is able to handle large numbers of articles: in this case over 15 000. Our analyses were based on abstracts and included all documents containing the search terms. A traditional review or text mining of full articles could be more accurate; however, in the case of more than ten thousand documents, the review process necessarily would end up with a subjective choice in order to decrease the number of articles at some point. Abstracts can be easily downloaded and analysed in large numbers as well, allowing us to analyse a large number of documents at the same time. There was only a 6% difference in classification result between abstracts and full texts, therefore, we consider abstracts as good representative material for reviews. However, we should keep in mind that our bias test is based on analyses of the most characteristic articles from each topic; it may well be that other sets of full-text articles would not give such a good fit. We propose that any future analyses should also consider the differences between topic model results based on abstracts and full-text documents. A further area of investigation might be grey literature (including technical reports and project findings), which may be a better reflection of how practitioners are responding to research and be a means of understanding the “research—implementation gap” (Cadotte et al. 2020 . This analysis might be aided by repositories such as Applied Ecology Resources (Cadotte et al. 2020 ). At the same time, we note that there will be challenges to analysing documents that may not have summaries or abstracts, or that may contain duplicates of work published elsewhere. Generally, Topic modelling has many advantages in reviewing published materials on given topics; however, there is a difficulty in interpretation of such wide material. We proposed comparing representation of certain fields in the topics based on the frequency of appearance as a simple way to objectively summarise the results.

In our case, topic modelling of abstracts suggested a minimum of nine distinct “topics” at the interface of biodiversity and ecosystems services research. At the moment, there is no standardised method for choosing the numbers of clusters. In this study, the number of the topics was the largest number of clusters where at least one article showed above 99% fit; this is slightly different from other authors (e.g. the approach of Westgate et al. 2015 , 2020 ), where a higher number of clusters was chosen. We recognise that there may be advantages to a standard method for choosing the number of topics in topic modelling but also note that authors may prefer to set a number of topics based on the planned uses of their analyses.

The number of publications in all topics showed a strong increase after the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005; e.g. “species and climate change” and “agriculture”), and in the CBD Aichi conference in 2010 (e.g. “research and policy” and “cons. and distribution”), which suggests an effort by researchers to make papers that are policy-relevant. This impression is further supported by the finding that “Research & Policy” was generally the “hottest” topic in terms of applied metrics (number of publications, number of citations and a constant, relatively high level of topic prevalence). It will be instructive to see if there are similar upturns or changes in “hot topics” following the Kunming CBD conference in 2022. Policy and related terms appeared among the most frequent words in the case of three other topics, two of which also showed a high performance based on the applied metrics. These results reflect recognition by the research community of the increasing need for considering biodiversity and ecosystem services in policymaking development and practice, as stated in several recent documents (IPBES  2016 , 2018 , 2019 ; CBD 2021b ). Outside of the topic “Research & Policy”, it was not so straightforward to assign “hot topics” as different metrics gave differing results.

The increasing tendency to include economic and human dimensions into ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation issues has been reflected in recent policies such as CBD (CBD 2021b ), EU biodiversity strategy 2030 (EC 2020 ) or the Green Deal (EC 2019 ). These policies demonstrate a shift from nature conservation aiming at nature’s intrinsic value (stated in EU habitat directives as an example) towards a “natural capital” approach (Buijs et al. 2022 ; Hermoso et al. 2022 ). This shift in perception led from a protective conservation strategy towards treating nature as an asset—a practical development of the ecosystem services approach (Hermoso et al. 2022 ). The fact that the first three most published topics “Research & Policy”, “Urban & Spat. plan.” and “Economics & Cons.” are those with the dominance of human dimensions rather than traditional or pure biodiversity may be a reflection of this process.

The second most published topic “Urban & Spat.plan.” reflects the increasing recognition of the importance of spatial planning in influencing biodiversity and ecosystems services (Albert et al. 2020 ; Van der Biest et al. 2020 ). The topic “Economics & Cons.” is characterised by a high citation rate and this is the only topic with an increasing prevalence, reflecting that economic dimensions of conservation are crucial to its integration into policy priorities.

Climate change has been identified as a key pressure on biodiversity (summarised in Dìaz et al. 2019), and this is also reflected in policies (e.g. The European Green Deal EC 2019 ). There have been repeated calls to better integrate climate-related issues into science and policy (e.g. Pettorelli et al. 2021 ). The “Species & Climate change” topic gained the highest citations rates per article; twice as much as any of other topics, although the annual citations show a decreasing tendency. This may be a result of some articles with exceptionally high influences during the climate debate. The term “climate” appears among the top 100 common terms in five other topics as well. Our analysis thus provides some evidence of an integrated approach to climate change, biodiversity and ecosystems services, in particular the interactions between climate and species distribution.

Agriculture is one of the main pressures on ecosystem services and biodiversity (e.g. Diaz et al. 2019). Agriculture is also one of the main beneficiaries of nature’s contribution to people, and therefore sustainable production is one of the key issues and opportunities for biodiversity (IPBES 2018 , 2019 ). This is reflected in major policies e.g. Common Agricultural Policy (2021–2027) and The European Green Deal (EC 2019 ). The topic “Agriculture” showed the highest prevalence among all topics (although with a decreasing relative frequency over time); moreover, this topic had a relatively high citation per article.

The shift towards a “natural capital” approach might be a reason why the second topic with conservation among the ten most common words, “Cons. & Distributions”, was a far less “hot topic” compared to “Economics & conservation” (although nature conservation-related terms appeared in four more topics among the top 100). “Cons. & Distributions” and “Diversity & Plants” are two topics that might be considered closer to the core of pure biodiversity research and had fewer human implications than other topics, and we conjecture that this may be a reason why these topics were less “hot”.

The topics “Carbon & Soil & Forestry” and “Hydro- & Microbiology” showed a relatively low performance according to our metrics (low number of articles, coupled with low prevalence although accompanied by a relatively high citation score). Despite the clear importance of soil biology in carbon capture, flood mitigation and agricultural productivity (Pereira et al. 2018 ), as well as the wider role of microbial diversity (Antwis et al. 2017 ), this finding suggests that soil is under-researched. Soil has been somewhat neglected in the biodiversity policy sphere: it is barely mentioned in the Aichi targets and has only begun to gain prominence within CBD reporting in the 2021 first draft (CBD 2010 , 2021a , b ). In contrast, we found “Hydro- and Microbiology” is slightly more cited, and citation increases with the number of publications. This topic is distinct from the previous topic, despite the overlap of some properties between soil and water such as soil sealing and runoff. Given the increased prevalence and intensity of flood events in Europe and North America, there may well be greater policy-led demand for research on the interface of soil biology, hydrology and hydrobiology. This has been represented in a recent debate over the concept of Nature-based Solutions; a potential win–win situation for biodiversity and flood management (Opperman et al. 2009 ; Turkelboom et al. 2021 ). Considering the fact that many of the current emerging topics in the field of global conservation issues, identified by Sutherland et al. ( 2021 ) fit topics “Hydro- and Microbiology”, one would expect a higher future performance of this topic, in comparison with others.

In addition to the topics that came out of our analysis, it is interesting to note some potential topics that did not. The lack of representation of genetic diversity among the top 10 terms is perhaps unsurprising given its relative neglect in policy frameworks such as the CBD (Hoban et al. 2020 ). Co-development and co-production were likewise absent: the need for more co-development in biodiversity research has been highlighted by other authors (Mupepele et al. 2021 ; O'Brien et al. 2021 ). More unexpected was the lack of the words ‘animal’ (lacking even from the top 100 terms) though this may be an artefact resulting from a tendency of zoologists to use finer taxonomic scales (e.g. bird, insect or bee, rather than animal). On the contrary, ‘plant’ appeared amongst the most common words in the topic “Diversity & Plants”. Although clearly a key part of biodiversity, plants are sometimes reported upon separately (e.g. Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, reviewed by Sharrock 2020 ) and this approach may in part account for the status of botany we observed. Among the top 100 terms, only some of the main taxonomic groups, mainly those with importance for Ecosystem Services as “invertebrate”, “bird”, “insects”, ” fish”, “reef”, “bee”, “flower” and “bacteria” appear, while other groups such as “fungi”, “mammals”, “amphibians” and “herpetofauna” are missing.

Within the ecosystem service categories mentioned in CICES 5.1., only “pest control”, “pollination”, “agricultural and forest and aquaculture production” and “nutrient cycling” appear among the top “terms”. Other categories such as “wind protection”, “nursery” or “cultural services” are not present among the most frequent words. This suggests something of a disconnect between the terminology of biodiversity and ecosystem services. The only topic where recognisable ecosystem service terms (CICES 5.1. categories) are completely missing among the top 100 terms is in the topic “Conservation and Distribution”.

It would be interesting to rerun these analyses in the future to see if such topics and others highlighted in horizon scanning exercises based on expert interviews using the Delphi method (e.g. Sutherland et al. 2021 ) emerge. Post hoc testing of horizon scanning using text mining would help to quantify its effectiveness, potentially identify biases and ultimately improve their predictive power. We note, however, that there are biases inherent in our approach, not least of which is its limitation to publications in English (Amano et al. 2021 ). While English may be the lingua franca of science, many policy-makers understandably prefer to read texts in their native language and thus the influence of papers in these languages may well be important.

We have shown that text mining can provide insights into trends in research. When a research field includes tens of thousands of papers, applying automated analyses is an alternative of subjective shortening the document list. We applied this technique to the documents containing ecosystem service and biodiversity research. However, as there is no generally accepted protocol for text mining techniques yet, further research is needed in defining the least number of eligible topics (number of meaningful clusters), and also for a standardised bias testing between full-text and abstract-based analyses. As we had an ambitious goal reviewing a large amount of research, we faced difficulties in interpretation, which we tried to overcome with the help of a novel method. However, this would have been challenging without referring to our knowledge of events such as publication of key policy documents. Additionally, should the technique achieve wider use, a summarised indicator could be developed for comparison of “hot” and “cold” topics.

Our analysis found a marked increase in the number of publications bringing together biodiversity and ecosystem services. Out of the nine identified topics, “Science & Policy” is among the most numerous, best cited and the fastest growing topics, which might reflect demand from policy-makers and stakeholders for a rigorous evidence base. All other topics show differing performances in each of the indicators we used (number of articles, beta and gamma values, number of citations, temporal dynamics) and while it is not easy to give a comprehensive answer to the question of which topics are the “hot” and “cold” ones, it does offer insights into recent trends. “Hot topics” cover two concepts: frequency of papers which refer to that topic and the frequently with which they are cited. Both of these metrics offer insight into the research priorities of at the time. Number of articles may be the better reflection of research output but it is the number of citations that shows research influence.

The applied metrics showed a slightly better performance in the topics that had applied or human implications, compared to those topics with mainly pure scientific terms. Among the main ES production sectors, agriculture overwhelms the others (forestry and fishery). There were missing categories found in both taxonomic groups and ES categories.

As demonstrated in the case of biodiversity and ecosystems services, we believe text mining can suggest relationships between policy development and research agendas and perhaps crucially identify gaps where more knowledge may be needed to provide an evidence base. The technique, among others, can also be used to test horizon scanning and improve the quality of any literature review.

Albert, C., C. Fürst, I. Ring, and C. Sandström. 2020. Research note: Spatial planning in Europe and Central Asia-Enhancing the consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Landscape and Urban Planning 196: 103741.

Article   Google Scholar  

Amano, T., V.B. Espinola, A.P. Christie, K. Willott, M. Akasaka, A. Baldi, A. Berthinussen, S. Bertolino, et al. 2021. Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity. PLoS Biology 19: e3001296.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Antwis, R.E., S.M. Griffiths, X.A. Harrison, P. Aranega-Bou, A. Arce, A.S. Bettridge, F.L. Brailsford, A. de Menezes, et al. 2017. Fifty important research questions in microbial ecology. FEMS Microbiology Ecology 93: 044.

Balvanera, P., A.B. Pfisterer, N. Buchmann, J.S. He, T. Nakashizuka, D. Raffaelli, and B. Schmid. 2006. Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services. Ecology Letters 9: 1146–1156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2006.00963.x .

Balvanera, P., M. Uriarte, L. Almeida-Leñero, A. Altesor, F., DeClerck, T., Gardner, and M. Vallejos. 2012. Ecosystem services research in Latin America: The state of the art. Ecosystem Services 2: 56–70.

Blei, D.M., A.Y. Ng, and M.I. Jordan. 2003. Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research 3: 993–1022.

Google Scholar  

Buijs, A., D. Kamphorst, T. Mattijssen, R. van Dam, W. Kuindersma, and I. Bouwma. 2022. Policy discourses for reconnecting nature with society: The search for societal engagement in Dutch nature conservation policies. Land Use Policy 114: 105965. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105965 .

Burkhard, B., and J. Maes, (eds.). 2017. Mapping Ecosystem Services. Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, 374 http://ab.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=12837

Cadotte, M.W., H.P. Jones, and E.L. Newton. 2020. Making the applied research that practitioners need and want accessible. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 1: 5.

CBD. 1992. Convention on Biological Diversity, Rio de Janeiro, 1992, in lnternational Legal Materials 31 (1992), 818.

CBD. 2010. Decision X/2, The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Nagoya, Japan, 18 to 29 October 2010.

CBD. 2020. Global biodiversity outlook 5 . Montreal: CBD.

CBD. 2021. First draft of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework . Montreal: CBD.

CBD. 2021. Overview of the consultations conducted and other contributions received regarding the preparation of the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework since the second meeting of the working group . Montreal: CBD.

Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. 2013. Guidelines for Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis in Environmental Management. Version 4.2. Environmental Evidence: http://environmentalevidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Review-guidelinesversion-4.2-finalPRINT.pdf .

Constanza, R., R. D’Arge, R.S. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, et al. 1997. The value of world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387: 253–260.

Czúcz, B., I. Arany, M. Potschin-Young, K. Bereczki, M. Kertész, M. Kiss, R. Aszalós, and R. Haines-Young. 2018. Where concepts meet the real world: A systematic review of ecosystem service indicators and their classification using CICES. Ecosystem Services 29: 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.018 .

Czúcz, B., H. Keith, A. Driver, B. Jackson, E. Nicholson, and J. Maes. 2021. A common typology for ecosystem characteristics and ecosystem condition variables. One Ecosystem 6: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.6.e58218 .

EC. 2019. European Green Deal. Brussels. 11.12.2019 COM(2019) 640 final.

EC. 2020. EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Bringing nature back into our lives . Brussels: European Union.

Eldredge, N. 2000. Life in the balance: Humanity and the biodiversity crisis . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Feinerer, I., K. Hornik, and D. Meyer. 2008. Text mining infrastructure in R. Journal of Statistical Software 25: 1–54.

Griffiths, T.L., and M. Steyvers. 2004. Finding scientific topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101: 5228–5235.

Grün, B., and K. Hornik. 2011. topicmodels: An R package for fitting topic models. Journal of Statistical Software 40: 1–30. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v040.i13 .

Haines-Young, R., and M.B. Potschin. 2018. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. Available from www.cices.eu .

Hermoso, V., S.B. Carvalho, S. Giakoumi, D. Goldsborough, S. Katsanevakis, S. Leontiou, V. Markantonatou, B. Rumes, et al. 2022. The EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Opportunities and challenges on the path towards biodiversity recovery. Environmental Science and Policy 127: 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.10.028 .

Hillebrand, H., B. Blasius, E.T. Borer, J.M. Chase, W. Stanley, J.A. Downing, and A.B. Ryabov. 2018. Biodiversity change is uncoupled from species richness trends: Consequences for conservation and monitoring. Journal of Applied Ecology 55: 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12959 .

Hoban, S., M. Bruford, J.D.U. Jackson, M. Lopes-Fernandes, M. Heuertz, P.A. Hohenlohe, I. Paz-Vinas, P. Sjögren-Gulve, et al. 2020. Genetic diversity targets and indicators in the CBD post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework must be improved. Biological Conservation 248: 108654.

IPBES. 2016. Summary for policymakers of the assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services on pollinators, pollination and food production. In ed. S.G. Potts, V.L. Imperatriz-Fonseca, H.T. Ngo, J.C. Biesmeijer, T.D. Breeze, L.V. Dicks, L.A. Garibaldi, R. Hill, et al. Bonn: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

IPBES. 2018. The IPBES regional assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services for Europe and Central Asia . In ed. M. Rounsevell, M. Fischer, A. Torre-Marin Rando, and A. Mader, 892 p. Bonn: Secretariat of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

IPBES. 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services . In ed. S. Díaz, J. Settele, E.S. Brondízio, H.T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, et al., 56 p. Bonn: IPBES Secretariat.

Jung, H., and B.G. Lee. 2020. Research trends in text mining: Semantic network and main path analysis of selected journals. Expert Systems with Applications 162: 113851.

Mace, G.M., K. Norris, and A.H. Fitter. 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: A multilayered relationship. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 27: 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 .

Maes, J., C. Liquete, A. Teller, M. Erhard, M.L. Paracchini, J.I. Barredo, B. Grizzetti, A. Cardoso, et al. 2016. An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. Ecosystem Services 17: 14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.10.023 .

McDonough, K., S. Hutchinson, T. Moore, and J.M.S. Hutchinson. 2017. Analysis of publication trends in ecosystem services research. Ecosystem Services 25: 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.03.022 .

MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and human wellbeing: Current state and trends , vol. 1. Washington: Island Press.

Mupepele, A.C., H. Bruelheide, C. Brühl, J. Dauber, M. Fenske, A. Freibauer, B. Gerowitt, A. Krüß, et al. 2021. Biodiversity in European agricultural landscapes: Transformative societal changes needed. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 36: 1067–1070.

Murakami, A., P. Thompson, S. Hunston, and D. Vajn. 2017. ‘What is this corpus about?’: Using topic modelling to explore a specialised corpus. Corpora 12: 243–277.

Nakagawa, S., G. Samarasinghe, N.R. Haddaway, M.J. Westgate, R.E.O. Dea, D.W.A. Noble, and M. Lagisz. 2019. Research weaving: Visualizing the future of research synthesis. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34: 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2018.11.007 .

O’Brien, D., J.E. Hall, A. Miró, K. O’Brien, and R. Jehle. 2021. A co-development approach to conservation leads to informed habitat design and rapid establishment of amphibian communities. Ecological Solutions and Evidence 2: e12038.

Oguh, C.E., E.N.O. Obiwulu, O.J. Umezinwa, S.E. Ameh, C.V. Ugwu, and I.M. Sheshi. 2021. Ecosystem and ecological services; need for biodiversity conservation—A critical review. Asian Journal of Biology 11: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.9734/AJOB/2021/v11i430146 .

Opperman, J.J., G.E. Galloway, J. Fargione, J.F. Mount, B.D. Richter, and S. Secchi. 2009. Sustainable floodplains through large-scale reconnection to rivers. Science 326: 1487–1488.

Perry, G.L.W., and M.S. McGlone. 2021. Networks and themes in the publications of the New Zealand Ecological Society over the last six decades. New Zeeland Journal of Ecology 45: 12. https://doi.org/10.20417/nzjecol.45.12 .

Pereira, P., I. Bogunovic, M. Muñoz-Rojas, and E.C. Brevik. 2018. Soil ecosystem services, sustainability, valuation and management. Current Opinion in Environmental Science & Health 5: 7–13.

Pettorelli, N., N.A. Graham, N. Seddon, M.M. da MariaCunhaBustamante, M.J. Lowton, W.J. Sutherland, and J. Barlow. 2021. Time to integrate global climate change and biodiversity science-policy agendas. Journal of Applied Ecology 58: 2384–2393.

R Core Team. 2021. R: A language and environment for statistical computing . Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Science for Environment Policy. 2015. Ecosystem Services and the Environment. In-depth Report 11 produced for the European Commission, DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol. http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy .

Sharrock, S. 2020. Plant Conservation Report 2020: A review of progress in implementation of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation 2011–2020 . Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Canada and Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, UK. Technical Series No. 95, 68 p.

Silge, J., and D. Robinson. 2016. tidytext: Text mining and analysis using tidy data principles in R. Journal of Open Source Software 1: 37.

Silge, J., and D. Robinson. 2017. Text mining with R: A tidy approach . Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media Inc.

Sukhdev, P., H. Wittmer, and D. Miller. 2014. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): challenges and responses. In Nature in the balance: The economics of biodiversity , ed. D. Helm and C. Hepburn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sutherland, W.J., P.W. Atkinson, S. Broad, S. Brown, M. Clout, M.P. Dias, L.V. Dicks, H. Doran, et al. 2021. A 2021 horizon scan of emerging global biological conservation issues. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 36: 87–97.

Sutherland, W.J., A.S. Pullin, P.M. Dolman, and T.M. Knight. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 19: 305–308.

Turkelboom, F., R. Demeyer, L. Vranken, P. De Becker, F. Raymaekers, and L. De Smet. 2021. How does a nature-based solution for flood control compare to a technical solution? Case study evidence from Belgium. Ambio 50: 1431–1445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01548-4 .

United Nations. 2011. Resolution 65/161. Convention on Biological Diversity.

Van der Biest, K., P. Meire, T. Schellekens, B.D. D’hondt Bonte, T. Vanagt, and T. Ysebaert. 2020. Aligning biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services in spatial planning: Focus on ecosystem processes. Science of the Total Environment 712: 136350.

Wentworth, J., and L. Henly. 2021. Effective biodiversity indicators . UK Parliament Post Note 644. London: Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

Western, D. 1992. The biodiversity crisis: a challenge for biology.  Oikos , 29–38.

Westgate, M.J., P.S. Barton, J.C. Pierson, D.B. Lindenmayer. 2015. Text analysis tools for identification of emerging topics and research gaps in conservation science. Conservation Biology 29: 1606–1614. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12605 .

Westgate, M.J., P.S. Barton, D.B. Lindenmayer, and N.R. Andrew. 2020. Quantifying shifts in topic popularity over 44 years of Austral Ecology. Austral Ecology 45: 663–671.

Wickham, H., R. Francios, L. Henry, and K. Müller. 2020. dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R package version 1.0.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=dplyr .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the editor and reviewers for their helpful comments. We are grateful to Piotr Cichocki, for introducing the methodology of topic modelling and to Danny O’Brien for helpful comments on the draft. V. Takacs partially was founded by project Ecoserv-Pol Services provided by main types of ecosystems in Poland—an applied approach; Iceland Lichtenstein Norway Grant (“Environment, Energy and Climate Change” EOG 2014-2021).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Zoology, Faculty of Veterinarian and Animal Sciences, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 71/c, 60625, Poznan, Poland

Viktoria Takacs

NatureScot (Scottish Natural Heritage), Inverness, IV3 8NW, UK

C. David O’Brien

Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Viktoria Takacs .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 34 kb)

Supplementary file2 (pdf 1022 kb), rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Takacs, V., O’Brien, C.D. Trends and gaps in biodiversity and ecosystem services research: A text mining approach. Ambio 52 , 81–94 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01776-2

Download citation

Received : 12 October 2021

Revised : 01 February 2022

Accepted : 01 August 2022

Published : 03 September 2022

Issue Date : January 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-022-01776-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Biological diversity
• Nature’s contribution to people
• Research policy interface
• Research trends
• Research weaving
• Topic modelling
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

The Widest-Ever Global Coral Crisis Will Hit Within Weeks, Scientists Say

Rising sea temperatures around the planet have caused a bleaching event that is expected to be the most extensive on record.

By Catrin Einhorn

The world’s coral reefs are in the throes of a global bleaching event caused by extraordinary ocean temperatures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and international partners announced Monday.

It is the fourth such global event on record and is expected to affect more reefs than any other. Bleaching occurs when corals become so stressed that they lose the symbiotic algae they need to survive. Bleached corals can recover, but if the water surrounding them is too hot for too long, they die.

Coral reefs are vital ecosystems: limestone cradles of marine life that nurture an estimated quarter of ocean species at some point during their life cycles, support fish that provide protein for millions of people and protect coasts from storms. The economic value of the world’s coral reefs has been estimated at $2.7 trillion annually .

For the last year, ocean temperatures have been off the charts .

“This is scary, because coral reefs are so important,” said Derek Manzello, the coordinator of NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch program, which monitors and predicts bleaching events.

The news is the latest example of climate scientists’ alarming predictions coming to pass as the planet heats. Despite decades of warnings from scientists and pledges from leaders, nations are burning more fossil fuels than ever and greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise .

Substantial coral death has been confirmed around Florida and the Caribbean, particularly among staghorn and elk horn species, but scientists say it’s too soon to estimate what the extent of global mortality will be.

To determine a global bleaching event, NOAA and the group of global partners, the International Coral Reef Initiative, use a combination of sea surface temperatures and evidence from reefs. By their criteria, all three ocean basins that host coral reefs — the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic — must experience bleaching within 365 days, and at least 12 percent of the reefs in each basin must be subjected to temperatures that cause bleaching.

Currently, more than 54 percent of the world’s coral area has experienced bleaching-level heat stress in the past year, and that number is increasing by about 1 percent per week, Dr. Manzello said.

He added that within a week or two, “this event is likely to be the most spatially extensive global bleaching event on record.”

Each of the three previous global bleaching events has been worse than the last. During the first, in 1998, 20 percent of the world’s reef areas suffered bleaching-level heat stress. In 2010, it was 35 percent. The third spanned 2014 to 2017 and affected 56 percent of reefs.

The current event is expected to be shorter-lived, Dr. Manzello said, because El Niño, a natural climate pattern associated with warmer oceans, is weakening and forecasters predict a cooler La Niña period to take hold by the end of the year.

Bleaching has been confirmed in 54 countries, territories and local economies, as far apart as Florida , Saudi Arabia and Fiji. The Great Barrier Reef in Australia is suffering what appears to be its most severe bleaching event; about a third of the reefs surveyed by air showed prevalence of very high or extreme bleaching, and at least three quarters showed some bleaching.

“I do get depressed sometimes, because the feeling is like, ‘My God, this is happening,’” said Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a professor of marine studies at the University of Queensland who published early predictions about how global warming would be catastrophic for coral reefs.

“Now we’re at the point where we’re in the disaster movie,” he said.

The most recent confirmation of widespread bleaching, prompting Monday’s announcement, came from the Western Indian Ocean, including Tanzania, Kenya, Mauritius, Seychelles and off the western coast of Indonesia.

Swaleh Aboud, a coral reef scientist at CORDIO East Africa, a research and conservation nonprofit group based in Kenya and focused on the Indian Ocean, said coral species that are known to be thermally resistant are bleaching, as are reefs in a cooler area considered to be a climate refuge.

Recently he visited a fishing community in Kenya called Kuruwitu that has worked to revive its reef. Many of the restored coral colonies had turned ghostly white. Others were pale, apparently on their way.

“Urgent global action is necessary to reduce future bleaching events, primarily driven by carbon emissions,” Mr. Aboud said.

Scientists are still learning about corals’ ability to adapt to climate change. Efforts are underway to breed coral that tolerate higher temperatures. In a few places, including Australia and Japan, coral appear to be migrating poleward, beginning to occupy new places. But scientists say a variety of factors, such as how much light penetrates the water and the topography of the sea floor, make such migration limited or unlikely in much of the world. Plus there’s the problem of ocean acidification; as seawater absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, it becomes more acidic, making it harder for coral to build and maintain reefs.

Dr. Hoegh-Guldberg, who has studied the impact of climate change on coral reefs for more than three decades, was an author of a 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that found the world would lose the vast majority of its coral reefs at 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming, and virtually all at 2 degrees. Current pledges by nations put the Earth on track for about 2.5 degrees by 2100. Still, he has not lost hope.

“I think we will solve the problem if we get up and fight to solve the problem,” Dr. Hoegh-Guldberg said. “If we continue to pay lip service but not get on with the solutions, then we’re kidding ourselves.”

Catrin Einhorn covers biodiversity, climate and the environment for The Times. More about Catrin Einhorn

Learn More About Climate Change

Have questions about climate change? Our F.A.Q. will tackle your climate questions, big and small .

“Buying Time,” a new series from The New York Times, looks at the risky ways  humans are starting to manipulate nature  to fight climate change.

Big brands like Procter & Gamble and Nestlé say a new generation of recycling plants will help them meet environmental goals, but the technology is struggling to deliver .

The Italian energy giant Eni sees future profits from collecting carbon dioxide and pumping it  into natural gas fields that have been exhausted.

New satellite-based research reveals how land along the East Coast is slumping into the ocean, compounding the danger from global sea level rise . A major culprit: the overpumping of groundwater.

Did you know the ♻ symbol doesn’t mean something is actually recyclable ? Read on about how we got here, and what can be done.

Biodiversity is key to the mental health benefits of nature

New research from King's College London has found that spaces with a diverse range of natural features are associated with stronger improvements in our mental wellbeing compared to spaces with less natural diversity.

Published in Scientific Reports and funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and Wellcome, this citizen science study used the smartphone application Urban Mind to collect real-time reports on mental wellbeing and natural diversity from nearly 2000 participants.

Researchers found that environments with a larger number of natural features, such as trees, birds, plants and waterways, were associated with greater mental wellbeing than environments with fewer features, and that these benefits can last for up to eight hours.

Further analysis found that nearly a quarter of the positive impact of nature on mental health could be explained by the diversity of features present. These findings highlight that policies and practices that support richness of nature and species are beneficial both for environment and for public mental health.

Lead author Ryan Hammoud, Research Assistant at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience (IoPPN), King's College London, said:

"To our knowledge, this is the first study examining the mental health impact of everyday encounters with different levels of natural diversity in real-life contexts. Our results highlight that by protecting and promoting natural diversity we can maximise the benefits of nature for mental wellbeing. In practice, this means moving away from heavily curated monocultural pockets and parks of mown grass, which are typically associated with low biodiversity, towards spaces which mirror the biodiversity of natural ecosystems. By showing how natural diversity boosts our mental wellbeing, we provide a compelling basis for how to create greener and healthier urban spaces."

The study took place between April 2018 and September 2023, with 1,998 participants completing over 41,000 assessments. Each participant was asked to complete three assessments per day over a period of 14 days, entering information about their environment and answering a series of questions about their mental health. Natural diversity was defined by how many out of four natural features -trees, plants, birds and water -- were present within the participant's surrounding environment.

Data were collected using the Urban Mind app, developed by King's College London, landscape architects J&L Gibbons and arts foundation Nomad Projects. The Urban Mind project is funded by a Wellcome Climate Impacts Award to Professor Andrea Mechelli, the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Maudsley Biomedical Research Centre and the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration South London.

Senior author Andrea Mechelli, Professor of Early Intervention in Mental Health at the IoPPN, said:

"In the context of climate change, we are witnessing a rapid decline in biodiversity in the UK as well as globally. Our results suggest that biodiversity is critical not only for the health of our natural environments but also for the mental wellbeing of the people who live in these environments. It is time to recognise that biodiversity brings co-benefits for planetary and human health and needs to be considered vital infrastructure within our cities."

'Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment reveals an incremental association between natural diversity and mental wellbeing' by Hammoud, R. et al. is published in Scientific Reports. DOI : 10.1038/s41598-024-55940-7

• Mental Health
• Child Psychology
• Evolutionary Biology
• Endangered Plants
• Biodiversity
• Rainforests
• Groundwater
• Chloroplast
• Origin of life
• Conservation ethic
• Natural gas
• Conservation biology

Story Source:

Materials provided by King's College London . Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference :

• Ryan Hammoud, Stefania Tognin, Michael Smythe, Johanna Gibbons, Neil Davidson, Ioannis Bakolis, Andrea Mechelli. Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment reveals an incremental association between natural diversity and mental wellbeing . Scientific Reports , 2024; 14 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-55940-7

Cite This Page :

Explore More

• How 3D Printers Can Give Robots a Soft Touch
• Combo of Multiple Health Stressors Harming Bees
• Methane Emission On a Cold Brown Dwarf
• Remarkable Memories of Mountain Chickadees
• Predicting Future Marine Extinctions
• Drain On Economy Due to Climate Change
• 'Tube Map' Around Planets and Moons
• 'Bizarre' Evolutionary Pattern: Homo Lineage
• Largest Known Marine Reptile
• Neolithic Humans Lived in Lava Tube Caves

Trending Topics

Strange & offbeat.

More From Forbes

Biodiversity is nature’s ‘magic’ that improves peoples’ mental health.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Time spent in natural spaces with more biodiversity is associated with greater improvements in mental well-being than time spent in spaces with less natural diversity

Reflection of Nature. (Credit: Faye Mozingo / CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED)

A newly published study finds that spending time in natural spaces that have more biodiversity is associated with greater improvements in our mental well-being than spending time in spaces with less natural diversity.

I’ve shared similar research findings with you before. Not long ago, for example, I shared that lower income people benefit more from engaging with nature than do higher income people (more here ). That study focused on income levels and the sorts of nature-based activities, like birding, that people might pursue.

But this new study asks more detailed questions about natural spaces: what it is about natural spaces that benefits people as they go about their daily lives? This new study reports that a larger number and diversity of natural features — trees, birds, plants and waterways — was the healing ‘magic’ associated with greater mental well-being, and further, this study also found that these benefits can as long as eight hours.

The study, conducted by a team from King’s College London , collected real-time reports from almost 2000 participants using the SmartPhone app, Urban Mind . The app was developed by King’s College London, landscape architects J&L Gibbons and the arts foundation, Nomad Projects .

JPMorgan Joins Goldman Sachs In Serious Bitcoin Halving Price Warning

Google makes a major new sale offer to pixel 8 buyers, las vegas show sues michael jackson estate over broadway show logo.

During a 65-month recruitment period (April 2018–September 2023), 7829 people download the app and completed the baseline assessment. Of this group, 1998 people completed at least 25% of the assessments (a minimum of 11 out of 42 assessments), 922 participants completed at least 50% of the assessments (a minimum of 21 out of the 42 assessments), and 310 participants completed at least 75% of the assessments (32 out of the 42 assessments).

The study took place between April 2018 and September 2023, and the 1,998 participants completed over 41,000 assessments. Each participant was asked to complete three assessments per day over a period of 14 days, entering information about their environment and answering a series of questions about their mental health.

According to the data, seeing or hearing birds was very beneficial, followed by seeing trees and seeing plants. Curiously, seeing or hearing water did not benefit the participant’s mental well-being during the subsequent assessment (Figure 1).

F I G U R E 1 : Time lasting associations between natural features and mental wellbeing in the 50% ... [+] response rate main sample. Note: Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) represent the mean difference in momentary mental wellbeing per category increase compared to the reference group. L0–L2 represent the assessments lagged from 0 to 2. L0 indicates the impact of natural features on mental wellbeing at the time of the assessment; L1 indicates the impact of natural features on mental wellbeing at the during the first subsequent assessment (after an average of 8 h); L2 indicates the impact of natural features on mental wellbeing during the second subsequent assessment (after an average of 16 h). Analyses were explored as crude associations and after adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, education, and occupation. (doi:10.1038/s41598-024-55940-7)

The research team followed up by identifying whether the association between being in natural environments and a participant’s mental well-being is actually mediated by the amount of natural diversity present? Data analysis found that 23.4% of the positive impact of nature on mental health could be explained by the diversity of the natural features that are present.

“To our knowledge, this is the first study examining the mental health impact of everyday encounters with different levels of natural diversity in real-life contexts,” said the study’s lead author, Ryan Hammoud, a PhD candidate and research assistant at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience . Mr Hammoud’s research focuses on the uses of smartphone technologies to predict clinical outcomes in individuals with either a first episode of psychosis or in those who are at high risk of developing psychosis.

These findings point to policies and practices that support richness of nature and species are beneficial both for the environment and for public mental health.

“Our results highlight that by protecting and promoting natural diversity we can maximize the benefits of nature for mental well-being,” Mr Hammoud explained.

“In practice, this means moving away from heavily curated monocultural pockets and parks of mown grass, which are typically associated with low biodiversity, towards spaces which mirror the biodiversity of natural ecosystems,” Mr Hammoud continued.

“By showing how natural diversity boosts our mental well-being, we provide a compelling basis for how to create greener and healthier urban spaces.”

And yet, despite growing evidence that being in nature improves our mental well-being, climate change and habitat destruction are having strong negative effects, particularly in densely populated urban areas, such as London.

“In the context of climate change, we are witnessing a rapid decline in biodiversity in the UK as well as globally,” observed the senior author of the study, clinical psychologist and neuroscientist Andrea Mechelli, a Professor of Early Intervention in Mental Health.

“Our results suggest that biodiversity is critical not only for the health of our natural environments but also for the mental well-being of the people who live in these environments. It is time to recognize that biodiversity brings co-benefits for planetary and human health and needs to be considered vital infrastructure within our cities.”

Ryan Hammoud, Stefania Tognin, Michael Smythe, Johanna Gibbons, Neil Davidson, Ioannis Bakolis & Andrea Mechelli (2024). Smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment reveals an incremental association between natural diversity and mental wellbeing , Scientific Reports 14 : 7051 | doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-55940-7

© Copyright by GrrlScientist | hosted by Forbes | LinkTr.ee

Socials: Bluesky | CounterSocial | Gab | LinkedIn | Mastodon Science | Post.News | Spoutible | SubStack | Threads | Tribel | Tumblr | Twitter

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

PALM DESERT CENTER

LEARN. EXPLORE. DISCOVER.

The Intricate Value of Biodiversity Explored

“T he value of biodiversity is that it makes our ecosystems more resilient, …. its wanton destruction is akin to setting fire to our lifeboat.” —  Johan Rockstrom

By DR. CAMERON BARROWS 

The value of biodiversity, of landscapes filled with a wide variety of species, is a value held across cultural and economic divides. Gazing upon a meadow will instill a sense of serenity. Adding a few deer nibbling on forbs and grasses, and occasionally chasing each other just for the fun of it, brings a sense of joy to anyone. Adding rabbits, prairie dogs, and burrowing owls increases that joy. Add a bear, or a golden eagle, and that joy is amplified to excitement. These responses seem to be coded deep within the human genome. As naturalists we gain that pleasure from all forms of life, not just those charismatic species, but from fungi to plants to arthropods to reptiles, birds, and mammals. The greater the richness of life, the greater the pleasure. Many of us take that pleasure and start to ask questions about why. Not why does biodiversity make us feel good, but why is one landscape more biologically rich than another? The answer is a complicated calculus of topographic diversity, temperature and rainfall, climatic diversity, disturbance patterns and history, a source of species to populate a landscape, and time.

Increasing topographic diversity means adding places that species can inhabit. Take a sandy broad, featureless flat desert plain, perhaps scattered with creosote bushes, and you would likely find resident black-throated sparrows, and maybe Le Conte’s thrashers. Certainly side-blotched lizards, zebra-tailed lizards, desert horned lizards, and desert iguanas will be there as well. With the lizards there will be tortoises, a few snakes, coachwhips, gopher snakes and perhaps a rattlesnake. There will also be beetles, ants, termites, soil microorganisms, and bees, all in numbers of individuals and numbers of species that dwarf those vertebrate species. Then add rock outcrops, boulders, large and small, and now there will be desert spiny lizards, chuckwallas, leopard lizards, antelope ground squirrels, kit foxes, rock wrens, and coyotes. Then add sand dunes and you will have fringe-toed lizards, sidewinders, shovel-nosed snakes, and a whole new array of dune-adapted plants, darkling beetles, crickets, and ants.

Then add mountains, and with those mountains you will get new temperature and rainfall regimes. Having a mountain likely means earthquake faults, and those fault structures can bring water to the surface, that then may create wetlands, palm oases, and riparian habitats. Available water increases vegetation density and structure such as trees, providing food for insects and birds, as well as nesting structures for those birds. With elevation and different slope directions there are more temperature and moisture choices, so add collared lizards, western fence lizards, and if high enough, western skinks and southern sagebrush lizards, more plant species, more trees, more birds, and more arthropods. Mountains and their temperature-moisture gradients also create climate refugia, places where species can escape periods of drought, heat, or conversely, ice ages. That means greater species stability in the face of environmental shifts. Species’ survivorship rates move up or down a mountain depending on food availability and their physiological needs, rather than going extinct when climates change.

Variable climates, swinging between drought and wet years, create different opportunities for annual plants to occupy the same space. Arid-adapted species germinate better during drier periods, while drought averse species bide their time in the soil as seeds waiting for wetter conditions. Some prefer cooler winter rains, others prefer a bit warmer spring rain, and still others prefer warm summer rains. The result is that the number and species composition of annual wildflowers varies between years, so more species can exploit the same space than if the rainfall and temperature was consistently the same year after year. With variable flowers come variable populations of pollinators.

Disturbances, landslides, floods, or wildfire, temporarily alter the landscape character. They can create a blank “canvas” for disturbance-loving plant species, species that may otherwise not be able to compete with the array of plants that lived there prior to the disturbance. With the disturbance-adapted plants can come a new set of pollinators, adding still more to the species richness of a landscape. Even in hyper biodiverse landscapes, such as tropical forests, disturbance plays a key role in creating that biodiversity. Floods can scour riverbanks creating new habitats where the sun can reach the forest floor, stimulating the grow of early successional plant species. When large old trees inevitably die and fall, they too open the canopy where direct sunlight has not been able to reach for a century or more. Then again, the sun-loving, early successional species flourish for a time, until the late successional, climax vegetation is reestablished.

Over the past few million years there has been an oscillating climate swinging between ice ages and ice sheets covering portions of the northern hemisphere, and back to warmer periods when the ice has retreated to the polar arctic region. The ice sheets scoured millions of acres of previously forested landscapes, leaving nothing but bare earth and rock below thousands of feet of ice. Those once ice-covered landscapes may still be recovering their lost biodiversity. In contrast, more southern regions, such as our Southern California deserts, that had stayed ice-free throughout each ice age, accumulated species throughout that period, and so gained biodiversity.

Then sometimes a landscape’s biodiversity depends on who its neighbors are. The Coachella Valley region, broadly defined, extending into Joshua Tree National Park to the north, and into the Anza Borrego Desert State Park to the south, has the highest documented lizard biodiversity in North America (33 species). In part this diversity is due to its topographic and climate diversity, as it includes both some of the lowest and highest elevations found in such a small geographic area. A larger factor contributing to this biodiversity is the happenstance of geography, occurring at the junction of Baja California, the Mojave Desert, and Coastal California. At least eight lizard species are here only because of that connection to Baja California. Four species occur here due to the proximity to coastal Southern California, and three species are aligned with the Mojave Desert. Without those neighbors the species total for the Coachella Valley would be diminished by nearly half. The plant and arthropod species richness of the Coachella Valley region have similar regional alliances.

With such rich biodiversity comes both joy and responsibility. The responsibility comes in ensuring that these landscapes stay as healthy open landscapes for people and the amazing biodiversity that exists here.

Nullius in verba – Go outside, tip your hat to a chuckwalla (and a cactus), and think like a mountain

‘It could be the death of the museum’: why research cuts at a South Australian institution have scientists up in arms

Vice-Chancellor's Fellow, La Trobe University

Disclosure statement

Elizabeth Finkel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

La Trobe University provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

In February, the South Australian Museum “re-imagined” itself. In the face of rising costs and inadequate government funds, CEO David Gaimster, who took the reins last June, declared the museum is “not a university”, and will gut its research capabilities, starting this July.

In Australia and abroad, hundreds of scientists and friends of the museum have expressed their horror at the proposal, to the media, in letters to the state government, and in interviews with the author.

“It could be the death of the museum,” says renowned mammalogist Tim Flannery, a former director of the museum.

Palaeontologist Mary Droser of the University of California, Riverside, spent two decades working on the museum’s collection of half-billion-year-old Ediacaran fossils. “To say research isn’t important to what a museum does – it’s sending shock waves across the world,” she says.

Critics say the changes will make the museum “more of a theme park”, and make South Australia “the laughing stock of the scientific world”.

What’s the plan?

Gaimster plans to replace ten “science research” positions with five junior “science curators”, and reduce the number of specialist “science collection managers” from 12 to five.

According to the museum’s website , this skeleton crew will focus on “converting new discoveries and research into the visitor experience”.

That’s quite different to what the museum has been doing for the past 168 years. Its researchers have described more than 500 new species, such as tiny crustaceans that live only in desert pools and are at risk from mining.

Read more: Friday essay: the silence of Ediacara, the shadow of uranium

Museum researchers have also helped discover some 60 new minerals for the mining industry, some of which may help to clean up pollutants or deliver critical minerals for renewable energy technologies. Others have tackled global questions such as the evolution of birds from dinosaurs, how eyes evolved in Cambrian fossils, and Antarctic biodiversity .

What’s so special about a museum?

The museum’s record may be impressive, but couldn’t all this research be done by universities?

Their remits are different, says University of Adelaide botanist Andy Lowe, who was the museum’s acting director in 2013 and 2014. Unlike universities, he says, the museum was “established by government, to carry out science for the development of the state”.

Museum research is also unique because of its unique resources – the collections.

Visitors to the museum see the state’s treasures: the skeleton of marsupial lion Thylacoleo , the largest mammalian carnivore Australia ever had; weird fossils of our planet’s earliest multi-cellular life from the Ediacara Hills of the Flinders Ranges; glowing rocks and crystals that display the foundation of the state’s past and future wealth; and stone tools, boomerangs and bark paintings that record tens of millennia of Indigenous culture on this continent.

But these displays contain only a fraction of the full collections. The rest of the specimens reside beneath the public areas, with the researchers who continuously enrich them with new specimens and new knowledge.

“They’re crucial for what goes on above; you need experts not second-hand translators,” says University of Adelaide geologist Alan Collins. He wonders what will happen the next time a youngster comes into the museum asking to identify a rock. “There won’t be an expert on hand anymore.”

Collins also worries about a bigger looming public failure: a bid to obtain World Heritage listing for the Flinders Ranges. Collins has contributed to the bid by collaborating with museum researcher Diego Garcia Bellido to show how rocks at Brachina Gorge tell the story of how complex life first emerged.

Read more: How algae conquered the world – and other epic stories hidden in the rocks of the Flinders Ranges

Garcia Bellido and his now-retired colleague Jim Gehling used the museum’s collections to identify dozens of Ediacaran species. Their work led to the formation of Nilpena Ediacara National Park to preserve the sites containing unique fossil beds .

The collection of Indigenous objects dates back to anthropological expeditions carried out by the museum’s Norman Tindale and Harvard’s Joseph Birdsell in the 1930s. These expeditions helped Tindale produce the first map of the territories of “the Aboriginal tribes of Australia”.

The museum’s Phillip Jones now uses this collection in his research , delivering more than 30 exhibitions, books and academic papers.

Continuity and community

Maintaining the museum’s collections takes a lot of work. Without attentive curation and the life blood of research, the collections are doomed to “wither and die”, says Flannery. “There are no collections without research; and no research without collections.”

Many of the above-mentioned researchers, vastly overqualified for the newly described positions, will likely find no home in the reimagined museum.

That raises the issue of continuity. In Flannery’s words , the job of a museum curator:

is like being a high priest in a temple. You have been passed on the sacred objects by your predecessor who has looked after them through their career. That chain of care goes back to the foundation of the state of South Australia – the foundation of the museum […] but break the chain of care and you destroy the museum.

A case in point is Jones, who knew Tindale and interviewed him when he was based at Harvard. Over Jones’ four decades at the museum, his relationships with Indigenous elders have also been critical to returning sacred objects to their traditional owners.

Besides the priestly “chain of care”, there’s something else at risk in the museum netherworld: a uniquely productive ecosystem feeding on the collections.

Here you’ll find PhD students mingling with retired academics; curators mingling with scientists; museum folk with university folk. This rich ecosystem delivers the out-sized knowledge output of the museum and brings in millions of dollars of federal research grants each year. In the year ending 2023 for instance, joint museum and university grants amounted to A$3.7 million.

Read more: Museums are returning indigenous human remains but progress on repatriating objects is slow

But no more.

The new administration sees these joint grants as a burden. The problem, according to a museum spokesperson, is that “they did not include any remuneration for staff time or operational or administrative overheads”.

No one doubts the financial stresses the museum faces or that revamping exhibits is a desirable thing. But, as many have pointed out, the role of CEO is to knock on the doors of government and philanthropists and find the necessary funds. “It’s possible,” Flannery says. “I’ve done it.”

DNA and biodiversity

The museum has also declared it will no longer support a DNA sequencing lab it funds jointly with the University of Adelaide. The lab has worked with the museum’s collection of Australian biological tissue to help identify more than 500 new species, including 46 now listed as threatened.

“No other institute in South Australia does this type of biodiversity research,” says Andrew Austin, chair of Taxonomy Australia and emeritus professor at the University of Adelaide. “It’s the job of the museum.”

The cuts come while the SA government plans new laws to protect biodiversity.

According to Kris Helgen – chief scientist at the Australian Museum in Sydney – the South Australian Museum has been “the primary natural science museum for the interior of the continent” for 150 years.

The museum’s re-imagining puts this history at risk – and also places the future in jeopardy.

An open letter published on April 10, signed by more than 400 of Australia’s leading researchers, former state chief scientists, Aboriginal elders, politicians including a former state premier, and many others, summed up the case:

the collections housed at the South Australian Museum […] are amongst the most significant in the world. They reveal to us the very beginnings of life on earth […] and they help us to prevent extinction of critical species that underpin all human life […]

• Research funding
• Palaeontology

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Senior Disability Services Advisor

Deputy Social Media Producer

Associate Professor, Occupational Therapy

GRAINS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CHAIRPERSON

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Climate change and its impact on biodiversity and human welfare

K. r. shivanna.

Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, Srirampura, Jakkur Post, Bengaluru, 560064 India

Climate change refers to the long-term changes in temperature and weather due to human activities. Increase in average global temperature and extreme and unpredictable weather are the most common manifestations of climate change. In recent years, it has acquired the importance of global emergency and affecting not only the wellbeing of humans but also the sustainability of other lifeforms. Enormous increase in the emission of greenhouse gases (CO 2 , methane and nitrous oxide) in recent decades largely due to burning of coal and fossil fuels, and deforestation are the main drivers of climate change. Marked increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters, rise in sea level, decrease in crop productivity and loss of biodiversity are the main consequences of climate change. Obvious mitigation measures include significant reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases and increase in the forest cover of the landmass. Conference of Parties (COP 21), held in Paris in 2015 adapted, as a legally binding treaty, to limit global warming to well below 2 °C, preferably to 1.5 °C by 2100, compared to pre-industrial levels. However, under the present emission scenario, the world is heading for a 3–4 °C warming by the end of the century. This was discussed further in COP 26 held in Glasgow in November 2021; many countries pledged to reach net zero carbon emission by 2050 and to end deforestation, essential requirements to keep 1.5 °C target. However, even with implementation of these pledges, the rise is expected to be around 2.4 °C. Additional measures are urgently needed to realize the goal of limiting temperature rise to 1.5 °C and to sustain biodiversity and human welfare.

Introduction

Climate change refers to long-term changes in local, global or regional temperature and weather due to human activities. For 1000s of years, the relationship between lifeforms and the weather have been in a delicate balance conducive for the existence of all lifeforms on this Planet. After the industrial revolution (1850) this balance is gradually changing and the change has become apparent from the middle of the twentieth century. Now it has become a major threat to the wellbeing of humans and the sustainability of biodiversity. An increase in average global temperature, and extreme and unpredictable weather are the most common manifestations of climate change. It has now acquired the importance of global emergency. According to the report of the latest Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (AR6 Climate Change 2021 ), human-induced climate change as is prevalent now is unprecedented at least in the last 2000 years and is intensifying in every region across the globe. In this review the drivers of climate change, its impact on human wellbeing and biodiversity, and mitigation measures being taken at global level are briefly discussed.

Drivers of climate change

Emission of green-house gases.

Steady increase in the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs) due to human activities has been the primary driver for climate change. The principal greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide (76%), methane (16%), and to a limited extent nitrous oxide (2%). Until recent decades, the temperature of the atmosphere was maintained within a reasonable range as some of the sunlight that hits the earth was reflected back into the space while the rest becomes heat that keeps the earth and the atmosphere warm enough for the sustenance of life forms. Accumulation of greenhouse gases combine with water vapour to form a transparent layer in the atmosphere that traps infrared radiation (net heat energy) emitted from the Earth’s surface and reradiates it back to Earth’s surface, thus contributing to the increasing temperature (greenhouse effect). Methane is 25 times and nitrous oxide 300 times more potent than CO 2 in trapping heat. Until 2019, the US, UK, European Union, Canada, Australia, Japan and Russia were the major CO 2 producers and were responsible for 61% of world’s emissions. Now, China produces the maximum amount of CO 2 (27%) followed by USA (11%) and India (6.6%); on per capita basis, however, India stands ninth.

The emission of GHGs is largely due to the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) for automobiles and industries which result in carbon emissions during their extraction as well as consumption. The amount of CO 2 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution used to be around 280 ppm and now it has increased to 412 ppm (as of 2019). Increase in the atmospheric temperature also leads to an increase in the temperature of the ocean. The oceans play an important role in the global carbon cycle and remove about 25% of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities. Further, some CO 2 dissolves in the ocean water releasing carbonic acid which increases the acidity of the sea water. Rising ocean temperatures and acidification not only reduce their capacity to act as carbon sinks but also affect ocean ecosystems and the populations that relay on them.

Increasing demand for meat and milk has led to a significant increase in the population of livestock and conversion of enormous amount of the land to pasture and farm land to raise livestock. Ruminant animals (largely cows, buffaloes and sheep) produce large amounts of methane when they digest food (through enteric fermentation by microbes), adding to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Sejiyan et al. 2016 ). To produce 1 kg of meat it requires 7 kg of grain and between 5000 and 20,000 L of water whereas to produce 1 kg of wheat it requires between 500 and 4000 L of water (Pimentel and Pimentel 2003 ). Anaerobic fermentation of livestock manure also produces methane. According to Patrick Brown, our animal farming industry needs to be changed; using readily available plant ingredients, the nutritional value of any type of meat can be matched with about one twentieth of the cost (See Leeming 2021 ).

The main natural source of nitrous oxide released to the atmosphere (60%) comes from the activity of microbes on nitrogen-based organic material from uncultivated soil and waste water. The remaining nitrous oxide comes from human activities, particularly agriculture. Application of nitrogenous fertilizers to crop plants is a routine practice to increase the yield; many of the farmers tend to apply more than the required amount. However, it results in nitrous oxide emissions from the soil through nitrification and denitrification processes by microbes. Both synthetic and organic fertilizers increase the amount of nitrogen available in the soil to microbial action leading to the release of nitrous oxide. Organic fertilizers, however, release nitrogen more slowly than synthetic ones so that most of it gets absorbed by the plants as they become available. Synthetic fertilizers release nitrogen rapidly which cannot be used by plants right away, thus making the excess nitrogen available to microbes to convert to nitrous oxide. Presently CO 2 concentration in the atmosphere is higher than at any time in at least 2 million years, and methane and nitrous oxide are higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years (AR6 Climate Change 2021 ).

Permafrost (permanently frozen soil), widespread in Arctic regions of Siberia, Canada, Greenland, Alaska, and Tibetan plateau contains large quantities of organic carbon in the top soil leftover from dead plants that could not be decomposed or rot away due to the cold. Global warming-induced thawing of permafrost facilitates decomposition of this material by microbes thus releasing additional amount of carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere.

Deforestation

Limited deforestation in early part of human civilization was the result of subsistence farming; farmers used to cut down trees to grow crops for consumption of their families and local population. In preindustrial period also, there was a balance between the amount of CO 2 emitted through various processes and the amount absorbed by the plants. Forests are the main sinks of atmospheric CO 2 . After the industrial revolution, the trend began to change; increasing proportion of deforestation is being driven by the demands of urbanization, industrial activities and large-scale agriculture. A new satellite map has indicated that field crops have been extended to one million additional km 2 of land over the last two decades and about half of this newly extended land has replaced forests and other ecosystems (Potapov et al. 2021 ).

In recent decades the demands on forest to grow plantation crops such as oil palm, coffee, tea and rubber, and for cattle ranching and mining have increased enormously thus reducing the forest cover. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), over 43 million hectares of forest was lost between 2004 and 2017 out of 377 million hectares monitored around the world (Pacheco et al. 2021 ). Amazon Rain Forest is the largest tropical rain forest of the world and covers over 5 million km 2 . It is undergoing extensive degradation and has reached its highest point in recent years. According to National Geographic, about 17% of Amazon rain forest has been destroyed over the past 50 years and is increasing in recent years; during the last 1 year it has lost over 10,000 km 2 . In most of the countries the forest cover is less than 33%, considered necessary. For example, India’s forest and tree cover is only about 24.56% of the geographical area (Indian State Forest Report 2019 ).

Impacts of climate change

Increase in atmospheric temperature has serious consequences on biodiversity and ecosystems, and human wellbeing. The most important evidences of climate change is the long term data available on the CO 2 levels, global temperature and weather patterns. The impacts of climate change in the coming decades are based on published models on the basis of the analysis of the available data. Comparison of the performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting global mean surface temperature and associated changes with actual observations have shown that the models were consistent in predicting global warming in the years after publication (Hausfather et al. 2019 ). This correlation between predicted models and actual data indicates that the models are indeed reliable in accurately predicting the global warming and its impacts on weather pattern in the coming decades and their consequences on biodiversity and human welfare.

Weather pattern and natural disasters

One of the obvious changes observed in recent years is the extreme and unpredictable weather, and an increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters. Brazil’s south central region saw one of the worst droughts in 2021with the result many major reservoirs reached < 20% capacity, seriously affecting farming and energy generation (Getirana et al. 2021 ). In earlier decades, it was possible to predict with reasonable certainty annual weather pattern including the beginning and ending of monsoon rains; farmers could plan sowing periods of their crops in synchrony with the prevailing weather. Now the weather pattern is changing almost every year and the farmers are suffering huge losses. Similarly the extent of annual rainfall and the locations associated with heavy and scanty rainfall are no more predictable with certainty. Many areas which were associated with scanty rainfall have started getting much heavier rains and the extent of rainfall is getting reduced in areas traditionally associated with heavy rainfall. Similarly the period and the extent of snowfall in temperate regions have also become highly variable.

Increase in the frequency and intensity of natural disasters such as floods and droughts, cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons, and wildfires have become very obvious. Top five countries affected by climate change in 2021 include Japan, Philippines, Germany, Madagascar and India. Apart from causing death of a large number of humans and other animals, economic losses suffered by both urban and rural populations have been enormous. Deadly floods and landslides during 2020 forced about 12 million people leave their homes in India, Nepal and Bangladesh. According to World Meteorological Organization’s comprehensive report published in August 2021 (WMO-No.1267), climate change related disasters have increased by a factor of five over the last 50 years; however, the number of deaths and economic losses were reduced to 2 million and US$ 3.64 trillion respectively, due to improved warning and disaster management. More than 91% of these deaths happened in developing countries. Largest human losses were brought about by droughts, storms, floods and extreme temperatures. The report highlights that the number of weather, climate and water-extremes will become more frequent and severe as a result of climate change.

Global warming enhances the drying of organic matter in forests, thus increasing the risks of wildfires. Wildfires have become very common in recent years, particularly is some countries such as Western United States, Southern Europe and Australia, and are becoming more frequent and widespread. They have become frequent in India also and a large number of them have been recorded in several states. According to European Space Agency, fire affected an estimated four million km 2 of Earth’s land each year. Wildfires also release large amounts of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and fine particulate matter into the atmosphere causing air pollution and consequent health problems. In 2021, wildfires around the world, emitted 1.76 billion tonnes of carbon (European Union’s Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service). In Australia, more than a billion native animals reported to have been killed during 2020 fires, and some species and ecosystems may never recover (OXFAM International 2021 ).

Sea level rise

Global warming is causing mean sea level to rise in two ways. On one hand, the melting of the glaciers, the polar ice cap and the Atlantic ice shelf are adding water to the ocean and on the other hand the volume of the ocean is expanding as the water warms. Incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, biofuels and biomass releases tiny particles of carbon (< 2.5 µm), referred to as black carbon. While suspended in the air (before they settle down on earth’s surface) black carbon particles absorb sun’s heat 1000s of times more effectively than CO 2 thus contributing to global warming. When black particles get deposited over snow, glaciers or ice caps, they enhance their melting further adding to the rise in sea level. Global mean sea level has risen faster since 1900 than over any preceding century in at least the last 3000 years. Between 2006 and 2016, the rate of sea-level rise was 2.5 times faster than it was for almost the whole of the twentieth century (OXFAM International 2021 ). Precise data gathered from satellite radar measurements reveal an accelerating rise of 7.5 cm from 1993 to 2017, an average of 31 mm per decade (WCRP Global Sea Level Budget Group 2018 ).

Snow accounts for almost all current precipitation in the Arctic region. However, it continues to warm four times faster than the rest of the world as the melting ice uncovers darker land or ocean beneath, which absorbs more sunlight causing more heating. The latest projections indicate more rapid warming and sea ice loss in the Arctic region by the end of the century than predicted in previous projections (McCrystall et al. 2021 ). It also indicates that the transition from snow to rain-dominated Arctic in the summer and autumn is likely to occur decades earlier than estimated. In fact this transition has already begun; rain fell at Greenland’s highest summit (3216 m) on 14 August 2021 for several hours for the first time on record and air temperature remained above freezing for about 9 h (National Snow and Ice Sheet Centre Today, August 18, 2021).

In the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (13 December 2021) researchers warned that rapid melting and deterioration of one of western Antarctica’s biggest glaciers, roughly the size of Florida, Thwaites (often called as Doomsday Glacier), could lead to ice shelf’s complete collapse in just a few years. It holds enough water to raise sea level over 65 cm. Thwaites glacier is holding the entire West Antarctic ice sheet and is being undermined from underneath by warm water linked to the climate change. Melting of Thwaites could eventually lead to the loss of the entire West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which locks up 3.3 m of global sea level rise. Such doomsday may be coming sooner than expected (see Voosen 2021 ). If this happens, its consequences on human tragedy and biodiversity loss are beyond imagination.

The Himalayan mountain range is considered to hold the world’s third largest amount of glacier ice after Arctic and Antarctic regions. It is considered as Asian water tower (Immerzeel et al. 2020 ); the meltwater from the Himalayan glaciers provide the source of fresh water to nearly 2 billion people living along the mountain valleys and lowlands around the Himalayas. These glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates. Recently King et al. ( 2021 ) studied 79 glaciers close to Mt. Everest by analysing mass-change measurements from satellite archives and reported that the rate of ice loss from glaciers consistently increased since the early 1960s. This loss is likely to increase in the coming years due to further warming. In another study, a tenfold acceleration in ice loss was observed across the Himalayas than the average rate in recent decades over the past centuries (Lee et al. 2021 ). Melting of glaciers also results in drying up of perennial rivers in summer leading to the water scarcity for billions of humans and animals, and food and energy production downstream. See level rise and melting of glaciers feeding the rivers could lead to migration of huge population, creating additional problems. Even when the increase in global temperature rise is limited to 1.5 °C (discussed later), it generates a global sea-level rise between 1.7 and 3.2 feet by 2100. If it increases to 2 °C, the result could be more catastrophic leading to the submergence of a large number of islands, and flooding and submergence of vast coastal areas, saltwater intrusion into surface waters and groundwater, and increased soil erosion. A number of islands of Maldives for example, would get submerged as 80% of its land area is located less than one meter above the sea level. The biodiversity in such islands and coastal areas becomes extinct. China, Vietnam, Fiji, Japan, Indonesia, India and Bangladesh are considered to be the most at risk. Sundarbans National Park (UNESCO world heritage Site), the world’s largest Mangrove Forest spread over 140,000 hectares across India and Bangladesh, is the habitat for Royal Bengal Tiger and several other animal species. The area has already lost 12% of its shoreline in the last four decades by rising see level; it is likely to be completely submerged. Jakarta in Indonesia is the fastest sinking city in the world; the city has already sunk 2.5 m in the last 10 years and by 2050, most of it would be submerged. In Europe also, about three quarters of all cities will be affected by rising sea levels, especially in the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Greece and Italy. The entire city of Venice may get submerged (Anonymous 2018 ). In USA, New York City and Miami would be particularly vulnerable.

Crop productivity and human health

Many studies have indicated that climate change is driving increasing losses in crop productivity (Zhu et al. 2021 ). The models on global yield loss for wheat, maize and rice indicate an increase in yield losses by 10 to 25% per degree Celsius warming (Deutsch et al. 2018 ). Bras et al. ( 2021 ) reported that heatwave and drought roughly tripled crop losses over the last 50 years, from − 2.2% (1964–1990) to − 7.3% (1991–2015). Overall, the loss in crop production from climate-driven abiotic stresses may exceed US$ 170 billion year –1  and represents a major threat to global food security (Razaaq et al. 2021 ). Analysis of annual field trials of common wheat in California from 1985 to 2019 (35 years), during which the global atmospheric CO 2  concentration increased by 19%, revealed that the yield declined by 13% (Bloom and Plant 2021 ). Apart from crop yield, climate change is reported to result in the decline of nutritional value of food grains (Jagermeyr et al. 2021 ). For example, rising atmospheric CO 2 concentration reduces the amounts of proteins, minerals and vitamins in rice (Zhu et al. 2018 ). This may be true in other cereal crops also. As rice supplies 25% of all global calories, this would greatly affect the food and nutritional security of predominantly rice growing countries. Climate change would also increase the prevalence of insect pests adding to the yield loss of crops. The prevailing floods and droughts also affect food production significantly. Global warming also affects crop productivity through its impact on pollinators. Insect pollinators contribute to crop production in 75% of the leading food crops (Rader et al. 2013 ). Climate change contributes significantly to the decline in density and diversity of pollinators (Shivanna 2020 ; Shivanna et al. 2020 ). Under high as well as low temperatures, bees spend less time in foraging (Heinrich 1979 ) adding additional constraints to pollination efficiency of crop species.

The IPCC Third Assessment Report (Climate change 2001: The scientific basis – IPCC) concluded that the poorest countries would be hardest hit with reductions in crop yields in most tropical and sub-tropical regions due to increased temperature, decreased water availability and new or changed insect pest incidence. Rising ocean temperatures and ocean acidification affect marine ecosystems. Loss of fish habitats is modifying the distribution and productivity of both marine and freshwater species thus affecting the sustainability of fisheries and populations dependent on them (Salvatteci 2022 ).

Air pollution is considered as the major environmental risk of climate change due to its impact on public health causing increasing morbidity and mortality (Manisalidis 2020 ). Particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulphur dioxide are the major air pollutants. They cause respiratory problems such as asthma and bronchiolitis and lung cancer. Recent studies have indicated that exposure to air pollution is linked to methylation of immunoregulatory genes, altered immune cell profiles and increased blood pressure in children (Prunicki et al. 2021 ). In another study wildfire smoke has been reported to be more harmful to humans than automobiles emissions (Aquilera et al. 2021 ). Stubble burning (intentional incineration of stubbles by farmers after crop harvest) has been a common practice in some parts of South Asia particularly in India; it releases large amount of toxic gases such as carbon monoxide and methane and causes serious damage to the environment and health (Abdurrahman et al. 2020 ). It also affects soil fertility by destroying the nutrients and microbes of the soil. Attempts are being made to use alternative methods to prevent this practice.

A number of diseases such as zika fever, dengue and chikungunya are transmitted by Aedes mosquitoes and are now largely restricted to the monsoon season. Global warming facilitates their spread in time and space thus exposing new populations and regions for extended period to these diseases. Lyme disease caused by a bacterium is transmitted through the bite of the infected blacklegged ticks. It is one of the most common disease in the US. The cases of Lyme disease have tripled in the past two decades. Recent studies have suggested that variable winter conditions due to climate change could increase tick’s activity thus increasing the infections (see Pennisi 2022 ).

Biodiversity

Biodiversity and associated ecoservices are the basic requirements for human livelihood and for maintenance of ecological balance in Nature. Documentation of biodiversity, and its accelerating loss and urgent need for its conservation have become the main concern for humanity since several decades (Wilson and Peter 1988 ; Wilson 2016 ; Heywood 2017 ; IPBES 2019 ; Genes and Dirzo 2021 ; Shivanna and Sanjappa 2021 ). It is difficult to analyse the loss of biodiversity exclusively due to climate change as other human-induced environmental changes such as habitat loss and degradation, overexploitation of bioresources and introduction of alien species also interact with climate change and affect biodiversity and ecosystems. In recent decades there has been a massive loss of biodiversity leading to initiation of the sixth mass extinction crisis due to human-induced environmental changes. These details are not discussed here; they are dealt in detail in many other reviews (Leech and Crick 2007 ; Sodhi and Ehrlich 2010 ; Lenzen et al. 2012 ; Dirzo and Raven 2003 ; Raven 2020 ; Ceballos et al. 2015 ; Beckman et al. 2020 ; Shivanna 2020 ; Negrutiu et al. 2020 ; Soroye et al. 2020 ; Wagner 2020 ,  2021 ; Anonymous 2021 ; Zattara and Aizen 2021 ).

Terrestrial species

There are several effects on biodiversity caused largely by climate change. Maxwell et al. ( 2019 ) reviewed 519 studies on ecological responses to extreme climate events (cyclones, droughts, floods, cold waves and heat waves) between 1941 and 2015 covering amphibians, birds, fish, invertebrates, mammals, reptiles and plants. Negative ecological responses have been reported for 57% of all documented groups including 31 cases of local extirpations and 25% of population decline.

Increase in temperature impacts two aspects of growth and development in plants and animals. One of them is a shift in distributional range of species and the other is the shift in phenological events. Plant and animal species have adapted to their native habitat over 1000s of years. As the temperature gets warmer in their native habitat, species tend to move to higher altitudes and towards the poles in search of suitable temperature and other environmental conditions. There are a number of reports on climate change-induced shifts in the distributional range of both plant and animal species (Grabherr et al. 1994 ; Cleland et al. 2007 ; Parmesan and Yohe 2003 ; Beckage et al. 2008 ; Pimm 2009 ; Miller-Rushing et al. 2010 ; Lovejoy and Hannah 2005 ; Lobell et al. 2011 ). Many species may not be able to keep pace with the changing weather conditions and thus lag behind leading to their eventual extinction. Long-term observations extending for over 100 years have shown that many species of bumblebees in North-America and Europe are not keeping up with the changing climate and are disappearing from the southern portions of their range (Kerr et al. 2015 ). Most of the flowering plants depend on animals for seed dispersal (Beckman et al. 2020 ). Defaunation induced by climate change and other environmental disturbances has reduced long-distance seed dispersal. Prediction of dispersal function for fleshly-fruited species has already reduced the capacity of plants to track climate change by 60%, thus severely affecting their range shifts (Fricke et al. 2022 ).

Climate change induced shifts in species would threaten their sustenance even in protected areas as they hold a large number of species with small distributional range (Velasquez-Tibata et al. 2013 ). Pautasso ( 2012 ) has highlighted the sensitivity of European birds to the impacts of climate change in their phenology (breeding time), migration patterns, species distribution and abundance. Metasequoia glyptostroboides is one of the critically endangered species with extremely small populations distributed in South-Central China. Zhao et al. ( 2020 ) analysed detailed meteorological and phenological data from 1960 to 2016 and confirmed that climate warming has altered the phenology and compressed the climatically suitable habitat of this species. Their studies revealed that the temperature during the last 57 years has increased significantly with the expansion of the length of growing season of this species. Climatically suitable area of the species has contracted at the rate of 370.8 km 2 per decade and the lower and upper elevation limits shrunk by 27 m over the last 57 years.

The other impact of climate change on plant and animal species has been in their phenological shift. Phenology is the timing of recurring seasonal events; it is a sort of Nature’s calendar for plants and animals. In flowering plants, various reproductive events such as the timing of flowering, fruiting, their intensity, and longevity are important phenological events, and in animals some of the phenological events include building of nests in birds, migration of animal species, timing of egg laying and development of the larva, pupa and adult in insects. Phenological events of both plants and animals are generally fixed in specific time of the year as they are based on environmental cues such as temperature, light, precipitation and snow melt. Phenological timings of species are the results of adaptations over 100 s of years to the prevailing environment. Wherever there is a mutualism between plants and animals, there is a synchrony between the two partners. For example in flowering plants, flowering is associated with the availability of pollinators and fruiting is associated with the availability of seed dispersers and optimal conditions for seed germination and seedling establishment. In animals also, phenological events are adapted to suit normal growth and reproduction. In temperate regions, melting of ice initiates leafing in plants; this is followed by the flowering in the spring. Similarly, warming of the climate before the spring induces hatching of the hibernating insects which feed on newly developed foliage. Insects emerge and ready to pollinate the flowers by the time the plants bloom.

The dates of celebration of the cherry blossom festival, an important cultural event in Japan that coincides with the peak of flowering period of this species and for which > 1000 years of historical records are available, has shown advances in the dates of the festival in recent decades (Primack et al. 2009 ). The records between 1971 and 2000 showed that the trees flowered an average of 7 days earlier than all the earlier years (Allen et al. 2013 ). These advances were correlated with increasing temperature over the years. Spring temperatures in the Red River valley, North Dakota, USA have extended the period of the growing season of plants significantly over the years. Flowering times, for which data are available from1910 to1961, have been shown to be sensitive to at least one variable related to temperature or precipitation for 75% of the 178 species investigated (Dunnell and Traverse 2011 ). The first flowering time has been significantly shifted earlier or later over the last 4 years of their study in 5–15% of the observed species relative to the previous century. Rhododendron arboretum , one of the central Himalayan tree species, flowers from early February to mid-March. Generalized additive model using real-time field observations (2009–2011) and herbarium records (1893–2003) indicated 88–97 days of early flowering in this species over the last 100 years (Gaira et al. 2014 ). This early flowering was correlated with an increase in the temperature.

One of the consequences of a shift in the distributional range of species and phenological timings is the possible uncoupling of synchronization between the time of flowering of plant species and availability of its pollinators (see Gerard et al. 2020 ). When a plant species migrates, its pollinator may not be able to migrate; similarly when a pollinator migrates, the plant species on which it depends for sustenance may not migrate. Memmott et al. ( 2007 ) explored potential disruption of pollination services due to climate change using a network of 1420 pollinators and 429 plant species by simulating consequences of phenological shifts that can be expected with doubling of atmospheric CO 2 . They reported phenological shifts which reduced available floral resources to 17–50% of all pollinator species. A long-term study since the mid-1970s in the Mediterranean Basin has indicated that unlike the synchrony present in the earlier decades between the flowering of plant species and their pollinators, insect phenoevents during the last decade showed a steeper advance than those of plants (Gordo and Sanz 2005 ). Similar asynchrony has been reported between the flowering of Lathyrus and one of its pollinators, Hoplitis fulgida (Forrest and Thomson 2011 ). Asynchrony between flowering and appearance of pollinator has also been reported in a few other cases (Kudo and Ida 2013 ; Kudo 2014 ). Such asynchrony could affect the sustenance of plant and/or pollinator species in the new environment.

Marine species

Amongst the marine species, corals are the most affected groups due to the rise in temperature and acidity of oceans. Corals live in a symbiotic relationship with algae which provide colour and photosynthates to the corals. Corals are extremely sensitive to heat and acidity; even an increase of 2–3°F of ocean water above normal results in expulsion of the symbiotic algae from their tissues leading to their bleaching (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2017 ). When this bleached condition continues for several weeks, corals die. Nearly one-third of the Great Barrier Reef, the world’s largest coral reef system that sustains huge Australian tourism industry, has died as a result of global warming (Hughes et al. 2018 ). According to the experts the reef will be unrecognizable in another 50 years if greenhouse gas emissions continue at the current rate.

According to UNESCO, coral reefs in all 29 reef-containing World Heritage sites would cease to exist as functioning ecosystems by the end of this century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to be emitted at the present rate (Elena et al. 2020 ). Recent assessment of the risk of ecosystem collapse to coral reefs of the Western Indian Ocean, covering about 5% of the global total, range from critically endangered to vulnerable (Obura et al. 2021 ). Coral reefs provide suitable habitat for thousands of other species, including sharks, turtles and whales. If corals die, the whole ecosystem will get disrupted.

Melting of ice in Arctic region due to global warming is threatening the survival of native animals such as polar bear, Arctic fox and Arctic wolf. Rising of sea level also leads to the extinction of a large number of endangered and endemic plant and animal species in submerged coastal areas and islands. Over 180,000 islands around the globe contain 20% of the world’s biodiversity. Bellard et al. ( 2013 ) assessed consequences of sea level rise of 1–6 m for 10 insular biodiversity hotspots and their endemic species at the risk of potential extinction. Their study revealed that 6 to19% of the 4447 islands would be entirely submerged depending on the rise of sea level; three of them, the Caribbean islands, the Philippines and Sundaland, displayed the most significant hotspots representing a potential threat for 300 endemic species. According to the Centre for Biological Diversity ( 2013 ) 233 federally protected threatened and endangered species in 23 coastal states are threatened if rising sea is unchecked. Recently more than 100 Aquatic Science Societies representing over 80,000 scientists from seven continents sounded climate alarm (Bonar 2021 ). They have highlighted the effects of climate change on marine and aquatic ecosystems and have called on the world leaders and public to undertake mitigation measures to protect and sustain aquatic systems and theirs services.

Mitigation measures

The principal mitigation measures against climate change are obvious; they include significant reduction in greenhouse gas emission, prevention of deforestation and increase in the forest cover. To reduce greenhouse gas emission, use of coal and fossil fuels needs to be reduced markedly. As climate change is a global challenge, local solutions confined to one or a few countries do not work; we need global efforts. Many attempts are being made to achieve these objectives at the global level since many decades. Mitigation measures are largely at the level of diplomatic negotiations involving states and international organizations, Governments and some nongovernmental organizations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988. Its mandate was to provide political leaders with periodic scientific assessments concerning climate change, its implications and risks, and also to put forward adaptation and mitigation strategies. In 1992 more than 1700 World scientists, including the majority of living Nobel laureates gave the first Warning to Humanity about climate change and associated problems. They expressed concern about potential damage to the Planet Earth by human-induced environmental changes such as climate change, continued human population growth, forest loss, biodiversity loss and ozone depletion. Conference of Parties (COP) of the UN Convention on Climate Change was established in 1992 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to discuss global response to climate change. Its first meeting (COP 1) was held in Berlin in March 1995 and is being held every year since then. The Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, released in November 2014, projected an increase in the mean global temperature of 3.7 to 4.8 °C by 2100, relative to preindustrial levels (1850), in the absence of new policies to mitigate climate change; it highlighted that such an increase would have serious consequences. This prediction compelled the participating countries at the COP 21 held in Paris in December 2015 to negotiate effective ways and means of reducing carbon emissions. In this meeting the goal to limit global warming to well below 2 °C, preferably to 1.5 °C, compared to preindustrial levels was adapted by 196 participating countries as a legally binding treaty on climate change. It also mandated review of progress every 5 years and the development of a fund containing $100 billion by 2020, which would be replenished annually, to help developing countries to adopt non-greenhouse-gas-producing technologies.

In 2017, after 25 years after the first warning, 15,354 world scientists from 184 countries gave ‘second warning to humanity’ (Ripple et al. 2017 ). They emphasized that with the exception of stabilizing the stratospheric ozone layer, humanity has failed to make sufficient progress in solving these environmental challenges, and alarmingly, most of them are getting far worse. Analysis of Warren et al. ( 2018 ) on a global scale on the effects of climate change on the distribution of insects, vertebrates and plants indicated that even with 2 °C temperature increase, approximately 18% of insects, 16% of plants and 8% of vertebrates species are projected to loose > 50% geographic range; this falls to 6% for insects, 8% for plants and 4% for vertebrates when temperature increase is reduced to 1.5 °C.

UN Report on climate change (prepared by > 90 authors from 40 countries after examining 6000 scientific publications) released in October 2018 in South Korea also gave serious warning to the world. Some of the salient features of this report were:

• Overshooting 1.5 °C will be disastrous. It will have devastating effects on ecosystems, communities and economies. By 2040 there could be global food shortages, the inundation of coastal cities and a refugee crisis unlike the world has ever seen.
• Even 1.5 °C warming would rise sea levels by 26–77 cm by 2100; 2 °C would add another 10 cm which would affect another 10 million people living in coastal regions.
• Coral reefs are projected to decline 70–90% even at 1.5 °C. At 2 °C, 99% of the reefs would be ravaged.
• Storms, floods, droughts and forest fires would increase in intensity and frequency.
• The world has already warmed by about 1 °C since preindustrial times. We are currently heading for about 3–4 °C of warming by 2100.
• Unless rapid and deep reductions in CO 2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades, achieving the goals of the 2015 Paris Agreement will be beyond reach.
• To keep 1.5 °C target, coal’s share of global electricity generation must be cut from the present 37% to no more than 2% by 2050. Renewable power must be greatly expanded. Net CO 2  emissions must come down by 45% (from 2010 levels) by 2030 and reach net zero (emissions of greenhouse gases no more than the amount removed from the atmosphere) around 2050.

This report awakened the world Governments about the seriousness of the climate change. The COP 26 meeting which was to be held in 2020 had to be postponed due to Covid-19 pandemic. The first part of the sixth report of IPCC was released in August 2021 (AR6 Climate Change 2021 ), just before the postponed COP 26 meeting was to be held; it highlighted that the threshold warming of 1.5 °C (the target of keeping the warming by the end of the century) would reach in the next 20 years itself and if the present trends continue, it would reach 2.7 °C by the end of the century.

Under this predicted climate emergency (see Ripple et al. 2020 ), COP 26 meeting was held in Glasgow, Scotland between October 31 and November 12, 2021. Nearly 200 countries participated in this meeting. The main aim of the COP 26 was finalization of the rules and procedures for implementation of the Paris agreement to keep the temperature increase to 1.5 °C. A number of countries including USA and European Union pledged to reach net zero carbon emission by 2050. China pledged to reach net zero emissions by 2060 and India by 2070. India also committed to reduce the use of fossil fuels by 40% by 2030. More than 100 countries committed to reduce worldwide methane emissions by 30% (of 2020 levels) by 2030 and to end deforestation by 2030. The average atmospheric concentration of methane reached a record 1900 ppb in September 2021; it was 1638 ppb in 1983 (US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), highlighting the importance of acting on pledges made at the COP 26.

One of the limitations of COP meetings has been nonadherence of the commitment made by developed countries at Paris meeting to transfer US $100 billion annually to developing and poor countries to support climate mitigation and loss of damage, through 2025; only Germany, Norway and Sweden are paying their share. Several experts feel that the adoption of the Glasgow Climate Pact was weaker than expected. According to the assessment of Climate Action Tracker, a non-profit independent global analysis platform, emission reduction commitments by countries still lead to 2.4 °C warming by 2100. However, a positive outcome of the meeting was that it has kept alive the hopes of achieving the 1.5 °C goal by opening the options for further discussion in the coming COP meetings. Apart from implementation of mitigation pledges made by countries, it is also important to pay attention to climate adaptation since the negative effects of climate change will continue for decades or longer (AR6 Climate Change 2021 ). Investment in early warning is an important means of climate adaptation, which is lacking in many parts of Africa and Latin America.

Conclusions

Climate change has now become the fastest growing global threat to human welfare. The world has realized the responsibility of the present generation as it is considered to be the last generation capable of taking effective measures to reverse its impact. If it fails, human civilization is likely to be doomed beyond recovery. As emphasized by many organizations, the climate crisis is inherently unfair; poorer countries will suffer its consequences more than others. India is one amongst the nine countries identified to be seriously affected by climate change. According to a WHO analysis ( 2016 ) India could face more than 25% of all global climate-related deaths by 2050 due to decreasing food availability. China is expected to face the highest number of per capita food insecurity deaths. Bhutan, a small Himalayan kingdom with 60% forest cover, is the most net negative carbon emission country; its GHG emission is less than the amount removed from the atmosphere. Other countries should aim to emulate Bhutan as early as possible.

A number of other options have been suggested to trap atmospheric carbon dioxide (Climate change mitigation—Wikipedia). Carbon storage through sequestration of organic carbon by deep-rooted grasses has been one such approach (Fisher et al. 1994 ). Several studies from Africa have indicated that introduction of Brachiaria grasses in semi-arid tropics can help to increase not only carbon stock in the soil but also yield greater economic returns (Gichangi et al. 2017 ). Recently a new seed bank, ‘Future Seeds’ was dedicated at Palmira, Columbia to store world’s largest collection of beans, cassava, and tropical forage grasses for the use of breeders to create better performing and climate-resistant crops (Stokstad 2022 ). Brachiaria humidicola is one of the tropical forage grass stored in this seed bank for its potential benefit in carbon sequestration. Lavania and Lavania ( 2009 ) have suggested vetiver ( Vetiveria zizanioides ), a C 4 perennial grass, with massive fibrous root system that can grow up to 3 m into the soil in 1 year, as a potential species for this purpose. Vetiver is estimated to produce 20–30 tonnes of root dry matter per hectare annually and holds the potential of adding 1 kg atmospheric CO 2 annually to the soil carbon pool per m 2 surface area. Carbon dioxide capture and storage is another such potential approach. At present it is too expensive and this approach may have to wait until improvement of the technology, reduction in the cost and feasibility of transfer of the technology to developing countries (IPCC Special Report on carbon dioxide capture and storage 2005 ).

There has been some discussion on the role of climate change on speciation (Levin 2019 ; Gao et al. 2020 ). Some evolutionary biologists have observed that the rate of speciation has accelerated in the recent past due to climate change and would continue to increase in the coming decades (Thomas 2015 ; Levin 2019 ; Gao et al. 2020 ). They propose that auto- and allo-polyploidy are going to be the primary modes of speciation in the next 500 years (Levin 2019 , see also Gao 2019 , Villa et al. 2022 ). However, extinction of species imposed by climate change may excel positive impact on plant speciation via polyploidy (Gao et al. 2020 ). The question is will climate change induce higher level of polyploidy and other genetic changes in crop species also that would promote evolution of new genotypes to sustain productivity and quality of food grains? If so, it would ameliorate, to some extent, food and nutritional insecurity of humans especially in the developing world.

Effective implementation of the pledges made by different countries in COP 26 and actions to be taken in the coming COP meetings are going to be crucial and determine humanity’s success or failure in tackling climate change emergency. COP 26 climate pact to cut greenhouse gas emissions, end of deforestation and shift to sustainable transport is certainly more ambitious then earlier COPs. There are also many other positive signals for reducing fossil fuels. Scientists have started using more precise monitoring equipment to collect more reliable environmental data, and more options are being developed by researchers on renewable and alternate energy sources, and to capture carbon from industries or from the air (Chandler D, MIT News 24 Oct 2019, Swain F, BBC Future Planet, 12 March 2021). Scotland has become coal-free and Costa Rica has achieved 99% renewable energy. India has reduced the use of fossil fuel by 40% of it installed capacity, 8 years ahead of its commitment at the COP 26.

Further, people are becoming more conscious to reduce carbon emission by following climate-friendly technologies. Human sufferings associated with an increase in natural disasters throughout the world have focussed public attention on climate change as never before. They also realise the benefits of improved air quality by reducing consumption of coal and fossil fuels on health and ecosystems. The demand for electric vehicles is steadily growing. Reforestation is being carried out in a large scale in many countries. Recent studies across a range of tree plantations and native forests in 53 countries have revealed that carbon storage, soil erosion control, water conservation and biodiversity benefits are delivered better from native forests compared to monoculture tree plantations, although the latter yielded more wood (Hua et al. 2022 ). This has to be kept in mind in reforestation programmes. Hopefully the world will be able to realize the goal of limiting the temperature rise to 1.5 °C by the end of the century and humanity would learn to live in harmony with Nature.

Declarations

The author declares no conflict of interest.

• Abdurrahman MI, Chaki S, Saini G. Stubble burning: effects on health & environment, regulations and management practices. Environ. Adv. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.envadv.2020.100011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen JM, Terres MA, Katsuki T, et al. Modelling daily flowering probabilities: expected impact of climate change on Japanese cherry phenology. Global Change Biol. 2013; 20 :1251–1263. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12364. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anonymous (2018) https://www.euronews.com/2018/02/02/rising-sea-levels-threat-a-shrinking-european-coastline-in-2100
• Anonymous (2021) Special Issue. Global decline in the Anthropocene. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 118: No 2
• Aquilera R, Curringham TW, Gershunov A, Benmarhnia T. Wildfire smoke impacts respiratory health more than fine particles from other sources: observational evidence from Southern California. Nat. Commun. 2021 doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-21708-0. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• AR6 Climate Change: The sixth assessment report on climate change. IPCC, Geneva (2021).  https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/
• Beckage B, Osborne B, Gavin DG, et al. A rapid upward shift of a forest ecotone during 40 years of warming in the Green Mountains of Vermont. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2008; 105 :4197–4202. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0708921105. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beckman NG, Aslan CE, Rogers HS. The role of seed dispersal in plant populations: perspectives and advances in a changing world. AoB Plants. 2020 doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plaa010. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bellard C, Leclerc C, Courchamp F. Impact of sea level rise on the 10 insular biodiversity hotspots. Global Ecol. Biogeogr. 2013 doi: 10.1111/geb.12093. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bloom AJ, Plant RC. Wheat grain yield decreased over the past 35 years, but protein content did not change. J. Exptl. Bot. 2021; 72 :6811–6821. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erab343. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bonar SA. More than 111 aquatic-science societies sound climate alarm. Nature. 2021; 589 :352. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-00107-x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bras TA, Seixas J, Nuno C, Jonas J. Severity of drought and heatwave crop losses tripled over the last five decades in Europe. Environ. Res. Lett. 2021 doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abf004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ceballos G, Ehrlich PP, Barnosky AD, et al. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 2015; 1 :e1400253. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1400253. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Centre for Biological Diversity: Deadly Waters: How Rising Seas Threaten 233 Endangered Species. (2013) https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/sea-level_rise/pdfs/Sea_Level_Rise_Report_2013_web.pdf
• Cleland EE, Chuine I, Menzel A, et al. Shifting plant phenology in response to global change. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007; 22 :357–365. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2007.04.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Deutsch CA, Tewksbury JJ, Tigchelaar M, et al. Increase in crop losses to insect pests in a warming climate. Science. 2018; 361 :916–919. doi: 10.1126/science.aat3466. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dirzo R, Raven PH. Global state of biodiversity and loss. Ann. Rev. Environ. Res. 2003; 28 :137–167. doi: 10.1146/annurev.energy.28.050302.105532. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dunnell KL, Travers SE. Shifts in the flowering phenology of the northern Great Plains: patterns over 100 years. Am. J. Bot. 2011; 98 :935–945. doi: 10.3732/ajb.1000363. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elena O, Matthew E-S, Matea O, et al. A conservation assessment of all natural World Heritage sites. Gland: IUCN; 2020. IUCN World Heritage Outlook 3. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fisher MJ, Rao IM, Ayarza MA, et al. Carbon storage by introduced deep-rooted grasses in the South American Savannas. Nature. 1994; 371 :236–238. doi: 10.1038/371236a0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Forrest JRK, Thomson JD. An examination of synchrony between insect emergence and flowering in the Rocky Mountain meadows. Ecol. Monogr. 2011; 81 :469–491. doi: 10.1890/10-1885.1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fricke EC, Ordonez A, Rogers HS, et al. The effects of defaunation on plants’ capacity to track climate change. Science. 2022; 375 :210–214. doi: 10.1126/science.abk3510. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gaira KS, Rawal R, Rawat B, Bhatt ID. Impact of climate change on the flowering of Rhododendron arboreum in central Himalaya, India. Curr. Sci. 2014; 106 :1735–1738. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gao JG. Dominant plant speciation types. A commentary on: plant speciation in the age of climate change. Ann. Bot. 2019; 124 :iv–vi. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcz174. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gao JG, Liu H, Wang N, et al. Plant extinction excels plant speciation in the Anthropocene. BMC Plant Biol. 2020; 20 :430. doi: 10.1186/s12870-020-02646-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Genes L, Dirzo R. Restoration of plant–animal interactions in terrestrial ecosystems. Biol. Conserv. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109393. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gerard M, Vanderplanck M, Wood T, Michez D. Global warming and plant-pollinator mismatches. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 2020; 4 :77–86. doi: 10.1042/ETLS20190139. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Getirana A, Libonati R, Cataldi M. Brazil is in water crisis—it needs a drought plan. Nature. 2021; 600 :218–220. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-03625-w. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gichangi EM, Njarui DMG, Gatheru M. Plant shoots and roots biomass of Brachiaria grasses and their effect on soil carbon in the semi-arid tropics of Kenya. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2017; 20 :65–74. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gordo O, Sanz JJ. Phenology and climate change: a long-term study in a Mediterranean locality. Oecologia. 2005; 146 :484–495. doi: 10.1007/s00442-005-0240-z. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Grabherr G, Gottfried M, Pauli H. Climate effects on mountain plants. Nature. 1994; 369 :448. doi: 10.1038/369448a0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hausfather Z, Drake HF, Abbott T, Schmidt GA. Evaluating the performance of past climate model projections. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2019 doi: 10.1029/2019GL085378. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heinrich B. Keeping a cool head: honeybee thermoregulation. Science. 1979; 205 :1269–1271. doi: 10.1126/science.205.4412.1269. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heywood VH. Plant conservation in the Anthropocene: challenges and future prospects. Plant Divers. 2017; 39 :314–330. doi: 10.1016/j.pld.2017.10.004. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hoegh-Guldberg O, Poloczanska ES, Skirving W, Dove S. Coral Reef Ecosystems under climate change and ocean acidification. Front. Mar. Sci. 2017; 4 :158. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2017.00158. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hua F, Bruijnzeel LA, Meli P, et al. The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches. Science. 2022 doi: 10.1126/science.abl4649. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hughes TP, Kerry TJ, Baird AH, et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature. 2018; 556 :492–496. doi: 10.1038/s41586-018-0041-2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Immerzeel WW, Lutz AF, Andrade M, et al. Importance and vulnerability of the world’s water towers. Nature. 2020; 577 :364–369. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1822-y. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• IPBES: The intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services. In: Sustainable development goals. IPBES, Bonn (2019)
• IPCC: IPCC special report on carbon dioxide capture and storage (2005). https://www.ipcc.ch›2018/03›srccs_wholereport-1
• Indian State Forest Report: Forest Survey of India (2019). https://www.drishtiias.com
• Jägermeyr J, Müller C, Ruane AC, et al. Climate impacts on global agriculture emerge earlier in new generation of climate and crop models. Nat. Food. 2021 doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00400-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kerr JT, Pinder A, Galpern P, et al. Climate impacts on bumblebees coverage across continents. Science. 2015; 349 :177–180. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa7031. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• King O, Bhattacharya A, Ghuffar S, Tait A, et al. Six decades of glacier mass changes around Mt. Everest are revealed by historical and contemporary Images. One Earth. 2021 doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.10.019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kudo G. Vulnerability of phenological synchrony between plants and pollinators in an alpine ecosystem. Ecol. Res. 2014; 29 :571–581. doi: 10.1007/s11284-013-1108-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kudo G, Ida TY. Early onset of spring increases the mismatch between plants and pollinators. Ecology. 2013; 94 :2311–2320. doi: 10.1890/12-2003.1. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lavania UC, Lavania S. Sequestration of atmospheric carbon into subsoil horizons through deep-rooted grasses-vetiver grass model. Curr. Sci. 2009; 97 :618–619. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee E, Carrivick JL, Quincey DJ, et al. Accelerated mass loss of Himalayan glaciers since the little ice age. Sci. Rep. 2021; 11 :24284. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-03805-8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leech DI, Crick HQP. Influence of climate change on the abundance, distribution and phenology of woodland bird species in temperate regions. Ibis. 2007; 149 (Suppl. 2):128–145. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-919X.2007.00729.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leeming J. Meet the food pioneer whose meat replacements are rocking the gravy boat. Nature. 2021; 590 :176. doi: 10.1038/d41586-021-00264-z. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lenzen M, Moran D, Kanemoto K, et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature. 2012; 486 :109–112. doi: 10.1038/nature11145. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levin DA. Plant speciation in the age of climate change. Ann. Bot. 2019; 124 :769–775. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcz108. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lobell DB, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J. Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science. 2011; 333 :616–620. doi: 10.1126/science.1204531. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lovejoy TE, Hannah L, editors. Biodiversity and climate change: transforming the biosphere. New Haven, London: Yale University Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Manisalidis I, Stavropoulou E, Stavropoulos A, Bezirtzoglou E. Environmental and health impacts of air pollution: a review. Front. Public Health. 2020 doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00014. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maxwell SL, Butt N, Maron M, et al. Conservation implications of ecological responses to extreme weather and climate events. Divers. Distrib. 2019; 25 :613–625. doi: 10.1111/ddi.12878. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCrystall MR, Stroeve J, Serreze M, et al. New climate models reveal faster and larger increases in Arctic precipitation than previously projected. Nat. Commun. 2021 doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-27031-y. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Memmott J, Craze PE, Waser NM, Price MV. Global warming and disruption of plant-pollinator interactions. Ecol. Lett. 2007; 10 :710–717. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01061.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miller-Rushing A, Hoye TH, Inouye D, Post E. The effects of phenological mismatches on demography. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B. 2010; 365 :3177–3186. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0148. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Negrutiu I, Frohlich MW, Hamant O. Flowering plants in the Anthropocene: a political agenda. Trends Plant. Sci. 2020; 25 :349–368. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2019.12.008. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Obura D, Gudka M, Samoilys M, et al. Vulnerability to collapse of coral reef ecosystems in the Western Indian Ocean. Nat. Sustain. 2021; 5 :104–113. doi: 10.1038/s41893-021-00817-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OXFAM International: 5 natural disasters that beg for climate action. (2021) https://www.oxfam.org/en/5-natural-disasters-beg-climate-action
• Pacheco P, Mo K, Dudley N, et al. Deforestation fronts: drivers and responses in a changing world. Gland: WWF; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Parmesan C, Yohe G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature. 2003; 421 :37–42. doi: 10.1038/nature01286. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pautasso M. Observed impacts of climate change on terrestrial birds in Europe: an overview. Ital. J. Zool. 2012; 79 :296–314. doi: 10.1080/11250003.2011.627381. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennisi E. Lyme-carrying ticks live longer—and could spread farther—thanks to warmer winters. Science. 2022 doi: 10.1126/science.acz9985. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pimentel D, Pimentel M. Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2003; 78 :660S–663S. doi: 10.1093/ajcn/78.3.660S. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pimm SL. Climate disruption and biodiversity. Curr. Biol. 2009; 19 :R595–R601. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2009.05.055. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Potapov P, Turubanova S, Hansen MC, et al. Global maps of cropland extent and change show accelerated cropland expansion in the twenty-first century. Nat. Food. 2021 doi: 10.1038/s43016-021-00429-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Primack RB, Higuchi H, Miller-Rushing AJ. The impact of climate change on cherry trees and other species in Japan. Biol. Conserv. 2009; 142 :1943–1949. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2009.03.016. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pruniki M, Cauwenberghs N, Lee J, et al. Air pollution exposure is linked with methylation of immunoregulatory genes, altered immune cell profiles, and increased blood pressure in children. Sci. Rep. 2021; 11 :4067. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83577-3. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rader R, Reilly J, Bartomeus I, Winfree R. Native bees buffer the negative impact of climate warming on honey bee pollination of watermelon crops. Global Change Biol. 2013; 19 :3103–3110. doi: 10.1111/gcb.12264. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Raven PH. Biological extinction and climate change. In: Al-Delaimy WK, Ramanathan V, SánchezSorondo M, editors. Health of people, health of planet and our responsibility. Cham: Springer; 2020. pp. 11–20. [ Google Scholar ]
• Razzaq A, Wani SH, Saleem F, et al. Rewilding crops for climate resilience: economic analysis and de novo domestication strategies. J Exptl Bot. 2021; 72 :6123–6139. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erab276. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, et al. World scientists’ warning to humanity: a second notice. Bioscience. 2017; 67 :1026–1028. doi: 10.1093/biosci/bix125. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ripple WJ, Wolf C, Newsome TM, et al. World Scientists’ warning of a climate emergency. Bioscience. 2020; 70 :8–12. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biz152. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Salvatteci R, Schneider RR, Field EGD, et al. Smaller fish species in a warm and oxygen-poor Humboldt Current system. Science. 2022; 375 :101–104. doi: 10.1126/science.abj0270. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sejiyan V, Bhatta R, Malik PK, et al. Livestock as sources of greenhouse gases and its significance to climate change. In: Moya BL, Pous J, et al., editors. Greenhouse gases. London: IntechOpen; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shivanna KR. The sixth mass extinction crisis and its impact on biodiversity and human welfare. Resonance. 2020; 25 :93–109. doi: 10.1007/s12045-019-0924-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shivanna KR, Sanjappa M. Conservation of endemic and threatened flowering plants: challenges and priorities for India. J. Indian Bot. Soc. 2021; 101 :269–290. [ Google Scholar ]
• Shivanna KR, Tandon R, Koul M. ‘Global pollinator crisis’ and its impact on crop productivity and sustenance of biodiversity. In: Tandon R, Shivanna KR, Koul M, editors. Reproductive ecology of flowering plants: patterns and processes. Singapore: Springer; 2020. pp. 395–413. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sodhi NS, Ehrlich PR, editors. Conservation biology for all. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Soroye P, Newworld T, Kerr J. Climate change contributes to widespread declines among bumble bees across continents. Science. 2020; 367 :685–688. doi: 10.1126/science.aax8591. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stokstad E. World’s largest bean and cassava collection gets a striking new home: “Future Seeds” gene bank will help plant breeders create new varieties of crops and carbon-storing grasses. ScienceInsider. 2022 doi: 10.1126/science.abq1510. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thomas CD. Rapid acceleration of plant speciation during the Anthropocene. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2015; 30 :448–455. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.05.009. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Velasquez-Tibata J, Salaman P, Catherine H, Graham CH. Effects of climate change on species distribution, community structure, and conservation of birds in protected areas in Colombia. Reg. Environ. Change. 2013; 13 :235–248. doi: 10.1007/s10113-012-032. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Villa S, Montagna M, Pierce S. Endemism in recently diverged angiosperms is associated with polyploidy. Plant Ecol. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s11258-022-01223-y9-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Voosen P. Key Antarctic ice shelf is within years of failure. Science. 2021; 374 :1420–1421. doi: 10.1126/science.acz9833. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner DL. Insect decline in the Anthropocese. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 2020; 65 :457–480. doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025151. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wagner, D.L., Grames, E.M., Forister, M.L. et al.: Insect decline in the Anthropocene: Death by a thousand cuts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118 , e2023989118 (2021). 10.1073/pnas.2023989118 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Warren R, Price J, Graham E, et al. The projected effect on insects, vertebrates and plants of limiting global warming to 1.5°C rather than 2°C. Science. 2018; 360 :791–795. doi: 10.1126/science.aar3646. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• WCRP Global Sea Level Budget Group Global sea-level budget 1993–present. Earth Syst. Sci. Data. 2018; 10 :1551–1590. doi: 10.5194/essd-10-1551-2018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• WHO analysis . Monitoring health for the sustainable development goals. Geneva: WHO; 2016. World Health Statistics 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson EO. Half-earth: our planet’s fight for life. New York: Liveright/Norton; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson EO, Peter FM, editors. Biodiversity. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1988. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zattara EE, Aizen MA. Worldwide occurrence of records suggest a global decline in bee species richness. One Earth. 2021; 4 :114–123. doi: 10.1016/j.oneear.2020.12.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhao Z, Wang Y, Zang Z, et al. Climate warming has changed phenology and compressed the climatically suitable habitat of Metasequoia Glyptostroboides over the last half century. Global Ecol. Conserv. 2020; 23 :e01140. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2020.e01140. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu C, Kobayashi K, Loladze I, et al. Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) levels this century will alter the protein, micronutrients, and vitamin content of rice grains with potential health consequences for the poorest rice-dependent countries. Sci. Adv. 2018; 4 :eaaq012. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaq1012. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhu T, Flavio C, De Lima F, De Smet I. The heat is on: how crop growth, development, and yield respond to high temperature. J. Exptl. Bot. 2021; 72 :7359–7373. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erab308. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]