Biological Conservation

The rapid decline of biodiversity as a consequence of increased environmental impact by human activities requires urgent action against the ongoing crisis. At the heart of conservation policy is the debate on quality versus quantity: should the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework focus on maximising total protected area, or pursue instead qualitative targets? To improve conservation practices, we need to both understand the current trend of biodiversity and the factors driving the decline. We address this by: (1) projecting current European butterfly population trends for the next 50 and 100 years, (2) comparing the decline in species richness, phylogenetic diversity and habitat specialization among different habitats, and (3) estimating the relationship between recent trends in habitat quality or quantity and the decline of multiple metrics of European butterfly diversity. We do not find any significant relationship between diversity loss and habitat area loss and conclude that neither long-term nor short-term changes in habitat area are primary predictors of large-scale butterfly decline in Europe. Habitat quality emerges as the most crucial factor in our analyses - both the area affected and the severity of habitat quality reduction. Habitat degradation causes vegetation changes in structure and diversity, which affect butterfly survival. We also estimate a higher decline of habitat specialists than generalist species. We conclude that habitat protection cannot focus solely on the maximization of habitat area but urgently needs to restore high quality ecosystems to provide the full range of ecological requirements for biodiversity.

A number of "shortcuts" for assessing biodiversity and prioritizing conservation action have been proposed, one of which is to focus on a subset of the most common species. I critically evaluated the claim that common species better explain patterns of species richness than rare species, using bird data from the same spatial extent at two markedly different spatial resolutions and a third dataset for a larger spatial extent. I did find situations where common species convey more information about species richness patterns than rare species, such as in sequential correlations of species sets with total species richness. However, "hotspots" of species richness tended to be most associated with species occurring with intermediate frequency, rather than the most common (or most rare) species. Furthermore, differences in the degree and sequence of rarity across the three datasets meant that conclusions drawn from species in one dataset did not necessarily hold in the others. Overall, therefore, I found little evidence that common species alone could provide a satisfactory shortcut to understanding biodiversity, particularly given that rare species are often facing the greatest risk of extirpation or extinction. Drawing upon citizen scientists to aid in monitoring and ensuring that unusual or unique ecosystem types and configurations are surveyed may be invaluable in obtaining the thorough understanding of biodiversity needed for successful conservation outcomes.

Successful conservation of long-lived species requires reliable understanding of long-term trends and historical baselines. Using a green turtle (Chelonia mydas) foraging aggregation in the northern Gulf of California, Mexico as case study, we integrated scientific monitoring data with historic catch rate reconstructions derived from Local Ecological Knowledge (LEK). Models fit to LEK and monitoring data indicate that turtle abundance is increasing, but only after ~40 years of safeguarding the species nesting and foraging habitats in Mexico. However, as population declines occurred 75% faster than increases, and current abundance is at ~60% of historical baseline levels, indicating the need for sustained, long-term conservation actions. This study demonstrates the potential of linking LEK and ecological science to provide critical information for conservation, by establishing reference baselines and gauging population status, while promoting equitable and sustainable futures for local communities.

As global biodiversity declines continue, conservation efforts are increasingly important in megadiverse areas such as the Neotropics where biodiversity is especially imperiled. The accurate identification of specimens is critical to successful conservation plans. However, in groups such as freshwater fishes, different identification methodologies have documented challenges. Using a biodiversity survey of fishes from the Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge in northeastern Costa Rica, we compared: (1) morphological identifications in the field, (2) morphological identifications in the lab by experts, (3) DNA barcode-based identifications, and (4) identifications based on an integrative approach. Our results suggest that both barcode-based identifications and field morphological identifications provided fewer correct species identifications than lab identifications performed by experts using morphology. We attribute shortfalls of DNA barcoding in this case to the misidentification of reference material, the use of outdated taxonomy for references sequences, and the non-uniform representation of groups in public databases across taxa. We suggest the use of an integrative approach to identify freshwater fishes in Costa Rica and other megadiverse areas of the Neotropics where similar issues with public barcode reference libraries exist. We also recommend the creation of regional curated barcode reference libraries to aid in the identification of traditionally difficult to identify species/specimens. We also provide the most up to date species list for the ichthyofauna of the Barra del Colorado Wildlife Refuge identifying 51 species from 42 genera, 21 families, and 17 orders. Generating accurate species lists for protected areas and areas of importance will provide conservation practitioners with effective tools for tracking diversity changes over time.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYO_ST_ABSBACKGROUNDC_ST_ABSCougars (Puma concolor), also known as mountain lions, pumas, catamounts, and Florida panthers, once ranged widely throughout the United States (McCollough, 2011). Following intensive human persecution, anthropogenic-driven habitat loss, and unrestricted hunting of the prey species upon which cougars depend, populations were extirpated from much of the country (Cardoza & Langolis, 2002). In the northeastern U.S. specifically, cougars were functionally extinct by the early 1900s. Recent research assessing potential habitat for cougars suggests numerous areas exist to restore the species throughout portions of their historic eastern range (Winkel et al., 2022; Yovovich et al., 2023). But are the humans inhabiting this region today supportive of cougar restoration? STUDY OBJECTIVESThe primary goal of this study was to make a preliminary assessment of support for cougar restoration at the state level in several states deemed to have substantial habitat for cougars (i.e., Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and West Virginia). Additionally, we sought to identify individual-level correlates of support for, and opposition to, cougar restoration. STUDY FINDINGSResults from an online survey of residents of seven eastern states with potential cougar habitat (n=2756) suggest that support for cougar restoration is much higher than opposition to cougar restoration. Ratios of strong support to strong opposition range from approximately 4:1 to 13:1. Maine has the highest ratio of strong support to strong opposition at 13:1, indicating that for every one person opposing cougar restoration in the state, we can expect 13 people to support it. Vermont and New Hampshire have the second highest ratio of strong support to strong opposition at 12:1 each. New York and Massachusetts have the second lowest ratio of strong support to strong opposition, at 5:1 each. West Virginia and Pennsylvania have the lowest ratio of strong support to strong opposition with ratios of 4:1, indicating that for every one person opposing cougar restoration in these states, we can expect 4 people to support it. Results also reveal that states with the lowest ratio of strong support to strong opposition tend to have the highest proportion of respondents expressing neutrality toward the idea of restoration. At the individual-level, support for cougar restoration was higher among men, respondents identifying "strongly" or "very strongly" as a hunter or a conservationist, those with mutualist wildlife value orientations, urban residents, and respondents identifying as politically liberal. IMPLICATIONSGiven the current structure of wildlife management in the U.S., efforts to restore cougars throughout significant portions of their historic range will depend in large part on actions taken by state wildlife management agencies. Finding support for cougar restoration among many of the constituents for whom state wildlife agencies are expected to operate on behalf of - including both hunters and conservationists - this study offers valuable insights regarding the social feasibility of restoring cougars to the eastern U.S. Importantly, while a majority of respondents were supportive of cougar restoration, a considerable portion of the population in each state expressed neutrality toward the idea of cougar restoration. Extant research from the behavioral sciences suggests these individuals may be more likely to change their attitudes toward cougar restoration in response to new information. Whether any such change would result in greater support or greater opposition toward cougar restoration is likely dependent on several factors, including the way in which information regarding the potential risks and benefits of the species is presented (Slagle et al., 2013), as well as the source/messenger from which new information is provided (e.g., Fielding et al., 2020). COVER IMAGEWord cloud produced from survey participant responses to free association when they think of cougars.

The rising demand for outdoor recreation worldwide may be undermining the conservation objectives of protected areas (PAs). We leveraged a natural experiment, in which two adjacent PAs were closed to the public for different durations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Using detections from 39 camera traps in Joffre Lakes and Garibaldi Parks, Canada, from 2020-2022, we examined how recreation influenced mammal habitat use and diversity. Bayesian regression showed weak evidence that, when recreation was higher, detections declined for black bear, mule deer, and marten, while detections of bobcat and hoary marmot shifted closer to trails. Accumulation curves revealed that species richness and diversity were higher in the closed vs. open PA in 2020 (mean differences of -5.04 for richness and -0.33 for Shannon diversity). However, diversity did not decline consistently despite increases in recreation in 2021 and 2022. Notably, several rare species were only detected in the lower-recreation PA, suggesting they may be filtered out of the higher-recreation PA. This emphasizes the need for long-term monitoring to detect delayed and cumulative effects of recreation on mammal communities. Given growing global pressures on biodiversity, we urge PA managers to prioritize adaptive management to assess and balance outdoor recreation with conservation goals.

Genetic diversity is critically important for all species-domesticated and wild- to adapt to environmental change, and for ecosystem resilience to extreme events. International agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) have committed to conserve and sustainably and equitably use all levels of biodiversity-genes, species and ecosystems-globally. However, assessment and monitoring of genetic diversity are often overlooked, and there are large knowledge and policy gaps regarding genetic diversity conservation. In this study, we present the first quantitative analysis of genetic diversity assessments conducted by Parties to the CBD. We conducted a detailed, systematic analysis of 114 CBD 5th (submitted 2014) and 6th (submitted 2018) National Reports to quantitatively assess actions, progress on targets, values and indicators related to genetic diversity. First, we found that the importance of genetic diversity is recognised by most Parties to the CBD, and that recognition increased over time. However, genetic targets mainly addressed genetic diversity within cultivated plants, farm animals, and crop wild relatives, with little focus on other wild species. Also, actions for conserving genetic diversity primarily concerned ex-situ facilities and policy, rather than monitoring and intervention for maintaining genetic diversity in situ. The most commonly used indicators of genetic diversity status were the number of genetic resources in conservation facilities, number of threatened breeds, and Red List Index, which are not well correlated to genetic erosion in most species -- highlighting that genetic change is poorly monitored by current indicators. Lastly, analyses of genetic data observations, indigenous use and knowledge of genetic diversity, and strategies being developed and implemented to conserve genetic diversity are highly under-reported. We make several recommendations for the post-2020 CBD Biodiversity Framework to improve awareness, assessment, and monitoring, and facilitate consistent and complete reporting of progress of genetic diversity in future National Reports. Article Impact StatementAn analysis of genetic diversity in CBD National Reports neglects non-domesticated species and demonstrates need for sufficient indicators.

BackgroundThe conservation status of the common European adder (Vipera berus) in Sweden is ambiguous. While the species is officially classified as "Least Concern" (LC) on the national Red List, localised reports and long-term studies suggest significant population declines, creating a need for a consolidated evidence summary. ObjectiveTo systematically review and synthesise available scientific and official evidence to determine the overall population trend for the adder in Sweden and to identify the principal drivers behind this trend, with a specific focus on habitat, urbanisation, and procreation. MethodA rapid review of the literature was conducted using a defined Boolean search strategy across academic databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed), preprint servers (bioRxiv), government archives, and citizen science portals. The research question was structured using the PECO framework. The search yielded 255 initial hits, which, after screening, resulted in 12 core sources for inclusion. Evidence was weighted using a four-level hierarchy to assess its robustness. The rapid nature of this review carries an inherent risk of time bias, as studies published after the search date are not included. ResultThe analysis reveals a significant discrepancy between the species official national status and the findings from high-quality longitudinal studies. While the national Red List assesses the species as "Least Concern," the most robust evidence indicates severe and rapid local population declines. The primary identified threats are habitat fragmentation from infrastructure and urban development, and acute effects of climate change, particularly extreme drought. A critical gap in national environmental monitoring was also identified, with no dedicated, systematic programme for reptiles. ConclusionThe probable national trend for the adder in Sweden is a slow, cryptic decline driven by local extirpations. The official "Least Concern" status risks being a lagging indicator that masks underlying threats. DiscussionThe findings highlight a paradox where the most reliable, high-resolution scientific data conflicts with broad-scale national assessments. This suggests that the current conservation status may engender a false sense of security, potentially delaying necessary conservation interventions. The lack of a national monitoring programme is a major limitation to evidence-based management. Recommendations include establishing such a programme and integrating habitat connectivity into landscape planning to mitigate the impacts of fragmentation.

AimDetecting and describing temporal changes in biological communities is fundamental to biodiversity research and applied ecology. Species richness remains a widespread metric in long-term monitoring, yet it obscures underlying processes since changes in species richness are often only the result of turnover, homogenisation and/or shifts in relative abundances. Furthermore, biodiversity trends and their drivers can vary across spatial scales, demanding spatially explicit approaches. This study aims at unravelling how changes in community structure shape trends in richness across spatial scales, offering a more mechanistic view on biodiversity trend detection. LocationEurope Time period1975 - 2023 Major taxa studiedBirds MethodsWe first assessed trends in breeding bird richness on local (site-level) and national scale for 25 European countries or sub-divisions using linear models. Next, we applied the multi-scale Measures of Biodiversity (MoB) framework in a temporal context to decompose changes in species richness into contributions from individual density, species-abundance distribution, and con-specific spatial aggregation. We then quantify how these components drive species richness from local plots to national extents. Analyses were further conducted separately for farmland and forest guilds, as well as across ecoregions. ResultsThree general patterns emerged beyond variation among countries and functional guilds: Aggregation dominates local richness dynamics, evenness governs broad-scale trends, and density plays an intermediate role. Findings of distinct local and national trends in bird richness agree with previous findings, albeit we find more heterogeneous average trends among countries on local scales. Distinct trends and components patterns vary among ecoregions within countries, highlighting the need for sub-national analyses. Main conclusionsThis scale-explicit, component-based approach reveals how changes in community structure shape trends in species richness from local to national scales. Such mechanistic insights of biodiversity change might enable more precisely targeted conservation strategies and identification of external drivers.

Studies can only guide conservation if their findings are informative at the scales at which practitioners and policymakers operate. Yet, it is rarely tested whether large-scale studies reach similar conclusions to the smaller-scale studies on which conservation traditionally relies. We examine whether predictors of extinction risk are consistent across global, regional, and local scales, for 210 tropical forest mammal species ([≥] 1 kg) that existed during the last 130,000 years, in 64 tropical forests, across three biogeographical realms. We found consistent predictors of extinction risk (body mass, generation length, diet, brain volume and scansoriality) when analyses differed only in their spatial resolution. However, predictors differed when analyses also varied in their temporal extent. Macroecological findings about extinction risk can, thus, inform conservation at smaller scales, but they risk misidentifying threatened species if differences in temporal extent are not recognised.

Genetic monitoring of populations currently attracts interest in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity but needs long-term planning and investments. Genetic diversity has been largely neglected in biodiversity monitoring, and when addressed is treated separately, detached from other conservation issues, such as habitat alteration due to climate change. Genetic monitoring supports the conservation and management of fisheries, game, and threatened populations. It also can contribute to the assessment of predicted and realized impacts of climate change, and their management. We report the first accounting of genetic monitoring efforts among countries in Europe (their genetic monitoring capacity, GMC) to determine where GMC suggests the combination of national infrastructure, political support and resources for continued and expanded monitoring. Overlaying GMC with areas where species ranges approach current and future climate niche limits (i.e., niche marginality) helps identify whether GMC coincides with anticipated climate change effects on biodiversity. Our analysis suggests that country area extent, financial resources, and conservation policy influence GMC, high values of which inconsistently match joint species patterns of climate niche marginality. Populations at niche margins likely hold genetic diversity that is important to adaptation to changing climate, and our results illuminate the need in Europe for expanded genetic monitoring across the climate gradients occupied by species, a need arguably greatest in southeastern European countries.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is widely considered the strongest biodiversity conservation law in the world. Part of its strength comes from the mandate to use the best available science to make decisions under the law, including whether to list a species, setting the criteria for when a species can be considered recovered, and determining when those criteria have been met and a species can be delisted. Both biological status and threat factors are considered at each stage of the listing and delisting process. In most cases, conservation science would suggest that species at risk enough to be listed under the Act should be more abundant and secure at delisting than they were at listing. Surprisingly, we identified 130 ESA-listed species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could consider recovered with fewer populations or individuals than existed at the time of listing. We ask whether their ESA recovery plans present scientific data, rationale, or evidence to support a decline in abundance as part of recovery. We find that almost no plan clearly explains why a decline is allowed. Fewer than half of the plans provide scientific support for a decline in the form of literature references or modeling results. We recommend that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service create a decision support system to inform when species can decline in abundance and still recover, including guidance on (a) the need to explicitly address the declines and (b) the science used to support the decisions.

The actions required for biodiversity conservation depend on species responses to habitat loss, which may be either neutral, linear, or non-linear. Here, we tested how taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity of aquatic insects, dragonflies, frogs, and terrestrial mammals, as well as their species composition respond to forest cover loss. We hypothesized that taxonomic, functional, and phylogenetic diversity would respond nonlinearly (thresholds) to forest cover loss. Our findings do not support the current idea that a single threshold value of forest cover loss is applicable across tropical regions, or that some biodiversity facets are consistently more sensitive than others across different taxa. Species compositional responses to forest cover loss showed general patterns with thresholds between 30-50%. These results highlight the importance to consider multiple biodiversity facets when assessing the effects of forest cover loss on biological communities.

The state of Texas encompasses an estimated 7% of the United States mountain lion (Puma concolor) population, a likely overestimate due to their nongame status, unregulated take and high mountain lion mortality rates. In August 2022, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) denied a petition to amend state mountain lion management policies, but was mandated by the Texas Wildlife Commission to form a stakeholder group to assess the potential to initiate mountain lion management and policy. Herein, we synthesize survey data collected and previously published in a report by Ghasemi et al. (2022) to provide members of this mountain lion stakeholder working group, the Commission, and TPWD with succinct summaries of Texas residents knowledge and attitudes salient to the evaluation of mountain lion management in the state. We analyzed responses to represent the opinion of all Texans as well as to compare the sentiments of four key stakeholder groups: hunters vs. nonhunters; livestock owners vs. people without livestock; urban vs. rural residents; and Hispanics vs. non-Hispanics. Overall, Texans expressed a positive sentiment about mountain lions and supported management to conserve the species. Respondents exhibited very high consensus regarding the value of scientific research about mountain lions and expressed overwhelming support for mandatory reporting of any mountain lion killed for any purpose by hunters, trappers, or state or federal agents. Texas residents also backed a compensation program supporting livestock producers who lose animals to mountain lions and rapid checking of set traps. Contrary to expectation, hunters and livestock owners were more positive about mountain lions than non-hunters and people without livestock, and we detected no differences in the responses of urban versus rural residents or Hispanics versus non-Hispanics on any topic.

The reliability of citizen science datasets where volunteers are free to choose sampling locations is not clear. This study examined local ( patch) scale spatial sampling patterns in the Atlas of Australian Birds and then compared reporting rates, i.e. the proportion of sampling units in which a given species was present, from a sample of atlas points with those from a regular sample. Three sites that have been were surveyed sequentially between January-May 2017: Killawarra Forest, Victoria, Coolah Tops National Park and Pilliga Nature Reserve, New South Wales. Spatial bias in atlas sampling patterns was evident as clusters at tourist areas and special habitat features and linear patterns along roads and creek lines. Atlas samples overestimated reporting rates for species with spatial distributions that were concordant with those sampling patterns and vice versa. At least two-fold differences in atlas/regular sample reporting rate ratios were detected for between 13-15% of non-rare species (with reporting rates [≥] 0.08). Concerns are raised that spatial sampling bias is common in the atlas and affects a variety of species, that popular sites may not be representative of habitat patches and that a large proportion of surveys are being filtered out in data analyses.

Humanity has maintained cultural connections with our environments for time immemorial. Plants and artisan crafts are a prime example, as craft purpose, skill, design, and species used can vary greatly between communities and the loss of a critical plant species can result in a loss of access to cultural craft practices. To mitigate global biodiversity loss, conservationists are faced with the challenge of assessing species vulnerability to extinction and prioritizing species for conservation funding using information instruments, like the IUCN red list. This process does not necessarily consider a species cultural importance. In this paper we sought to address this gap for plant species used in artisan crafts in Colombia. We aim to answer the following: (1) how represented are endemic species in artisan crafts; (2) how threatened are artisan craft species according to (a) international and (b) national vulnerability status? We used the number of species-associated common names as a proxy for cultural awareness. We found that continentally regional species were far more represented in Colombian artisan crafts than national endemics. We also found a strong positive relationship between number of common names and national vulnerability assessment status, but no statistically significant relationship for international vulnerability status. Based on our results, well-known plants used in Colombian artisan crafts are more likely to be assessed nationally than internationally. While the IUCN is thorough in their recommendations, more can be done to prioritize the inclusion of conservation assessments for species based on their contributions to cultural diversity. Positionality statementWe are 14 scientists and practitioners who are deeply committed to the conservation of nature and culture in a changing world. We are trained in diverse fields including ecology, evolutionary biology, botany, music, anthropology, law, and public health. We all have postgraduate academic education (Masters or PhDs underway) but most of us are early career scholars. Six of us grew up in Colombia and we represent many places including Mexico, the United States, Ireland, Chile, Brazil, Germany, and Viet Nam. None of us self-identify as Indigenous.

Global conservation and research has come to rely on the IUCN species range-maps to direct research, allocate funding and define and design protected areas. However, IUCN species range-maps may be created on the basis of little actual data. Though the IUCN methods may be suitable for well known species, they may be liable unreliable for lesser known species or areas. In such cases, human biases may limit the usefulness of the output maps and potentially misdirect conservation funding and protection. Possible errors in these IUCN maps has global implications for the preservation of biodiversity, as flawed data leads to flawed decisions, which are of critical importance to the protection of the biodiversity of this planet. Ultimately we show that the current IUCN \"expert-assessment based\" range-maps may hinder rather than assist global conservation, as errors ranged from tens to thousands of kilometres (between recorded distributions and IUCN-maps), and for some taxa under 50% of records fell within their mapped-ranges. IUCN maps are being used globally to evaluate global conservation and protection, yet up to 85.4% of IUCN species-range boundaries follow political-boundaries, making using IUCN maps to evaluate the protected-area system and its efficacy impossible. The current availability of data, methods and computer-power has relegated these maps in the wake of more empirically based methods, and better use of available data provides the ability to make better conservation decisions, especially for highly threatened species and regions.

AimsNew Guinea is one of the worlds most floristically diverse islands, but its plant collection records are very uneven. We aim to identify which areas have the highest diversity of vascular plant genera, and which areas have the highest deforestation risk. Combining these findings we highlight priority regions for research and conservation. LocationNew Guinea Time period1900-2021 Taxa studiedTracheophyta (Vascular plants) MethodsWe obtained collection records and environmental variables and prepared a cost-distance map of New Guinea to indicate accessibility. We modelled the joint distribution of 1,156 genera with the HO_SCPLOWMSCC_SCPLOW package in R to predict biodiversity across space, accounting for collection bias. We combined these results with a genus-level phylogenetic tree to predict phylogenetic endemism. We then modelled deforestation risk with the R-INLA package, using forest clearance data and variables including cost-distance. We compared actual and predicted deforestation, and made predictions for 2021-25. Finally, we developed a combined measure of predicted biodiversity plus deforestation risk. ResultsA mean Spearmans rank correlation of 0.462 was obtained on five-fold cross-validation of the genus biodiversity model; bias-correction shifted the predicted distribution of biodiversity towards western New Guinea, but had less effect on estimates of phylogenetic endemism. Predictions of relative deforestation probability were accurate over 5 and 10 years (Spearman values 0.66 and 0.71). We postulate a deforestation debt to explain the persistence in accuracy. Over time, the areas which survive early deforestation gradually become more rewarding targets and the proportion of at-risk forest lost to clearance accumulates. Main conclusionsWe present a method for rapid assessment of biodiversity and deforestation risk in data-deficient tropical forest regions. Areas of high predicted biodiversity such as the Merauke and Jayapura lowlands are at high near-term risk from commercial deforestation, requiring urgent interventions to record and preserve threatened species.

Climate change affects biodiversity faster than conservation assessments can be conducted. This issue calls for approaches that support decisions on conservation prioritization, such as species phylogenetic relationships or diversity and endemism metrics. However, these traditional approaches often neglect some important aspects, limiting their effectiveness. We used desiccation-tolerant vascular plants (DT plants) to investigate the effectiveness of such approaches to prioritize species and areas for conservation. We used climate data and modeled the distribution of all DT plants recognized to date to evaluate if species phylogenetic relationships can depict similarities in species sensitivity and exposure to climate change, and to evaluate if centers of diversity and endemism for DT plants can indicate regions prone to climate change. We found that the species phylogenetic relationships weakly explains species sensitivity to climate change, although it can, to some extent, describe trends in species exposure to climate change. We also found that centers of diversity and endemism for DT plants are not necessarily the most prone ones to climate change. We suggest a limited effectiveness of phylogenetic relationships and of diversity and endemism metrics for conservation prioritization, once these approaches might overlook vulnerable species and regions exposed to climate change. We discuss that a better understanding of the mechanisms of diversity would help to identify situations in which closely related species show lower ecological differences than distantly related species, when phylogenetic relationships is a more relevant approach in a conservation context. We also suggest that more efficient conservation strategies in centers of diversity and endemism of DT plants should focus on species sensitivity and adaptive capacity to climate change, rather than the magnitude of climate change.

The sustainable use of wildlife is a core aspiration of biodiversity conservation but is the subject of intense debate in the scientific literature as to how, and whether, species are best used and managed. While both positive and negative outcomes of sustainable use are known for specific taxa or local case studies, a global and regional picture of trends in wildlife populations in use is lacking. We use a global data set of over 11,000 time-series to derive indices of utilised and not utilised wildlife populations and assess global and regional changes, principally for mammals, birds and fishes. We also assess whether management makes a measurable difference to wildlife population trends, especially for the utilised species populations. Our results show that wildlife population trends globally are negative, but with utilised populations tending to decline more rapidly, especially in Africa and the Americas. Crucially, where utilised populations are managed, using a variety of mechanisms, there is a positive impact on the trend. It is therefore true that use of species can both be a driver of negative population trends, or a driver of species recovery, with numerous species and population specific case examples making up these broader trends. This work is relevant to the evidence base for the IPBES Sustainable Use Assessment, and to the development of indicators of sustainable use of species under the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework being developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity.