Copyright 2016 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; all rights reserved.Land use and related pressures have reduced local terrestrial biodiversity, but it is unclear how the magnitude of change relates to the recently proposed planetary boundary ( safe limit ).We estimate that land use and related pressures have already reduced local biodiversity intactness-the average proportion of natural biodiversity remaining in local ecosystems-beyond its recently proposed planetary boundary across 58.1%of the worlds land surface, where 71.4% of the human population live. Biodiversity intactness within most biomes (especially grassland biomes), most biodiversity hotspots, and even some wilderness areas is inferred to be beyond the boundary. Such widespread transgression of safe limits suggests that biodiversity loss, if unchecked, will undermine efforts toward long-term sustainable development

Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy Summary paragraph Increased efforts are required to prevent further losses of terrestrial biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides 1,2. Ambitious targets have been proposed, such as reversing the declining trends in biodiversity 3-yet, just feeding the growing human population will make this a challenge 4. We use an ensemble of land-use and biodiversity models to assess whether (and if so, how) humanity can reverse terrestrial biodiversity declines due to habitat conversion, a major threat to biodiversity 5. We show that immediate efforts, consistent with the broader sustainability agenda but of unprecedented ambition and coordination, may allow to feed the growing human population while reversing global terrestrial biodiversity trends from habitat conversion. If we decide to increase the extent of land under conservation management, restore degraded land, and generalize landscapelevel conservation planning, biodiversity trends from habitat conversion could become positive by mid-century on average across models (confidence interval: 2042-2061), but not for all models. Food prices could increase and, on average across models, almost half (confidence interval: 34-50%) of future biodiversity losses could not be avoided. However, additionally tackling the drivers of landuse change may avoid conflict with affordable food provision and reduces the food system's environmental impacts. Through further sustainable intensification and trade, reduced food waste, and healthier human diets, more than two thirds of future biodiversity losses are avoided and the biodiversity trends from habitat conversion are reversed by 2050 for almost all models. Although limiting further loss will remain challenging in several biodiversity-rich regions, and other threats, such as climate change, must be addressed to truly reverse biodiversity declines, our results show that bold conservation efforts and food system transformation are central to an effective post-2020 biodiversity strategy. Reversing biodiversity trends by 2050 Without further efforts to counteract habitat loss and degradation, we projected that global biodiversity will continue to decline (BASE scenario; Fig. 1). Rates of loss over time for all nine BDIs in 2010-2050 were close to or greater than those estimated for 1970-2010 (Extended data Extended Data Table 1). For various biodiversity aspects, on average across IAM and BDI combinations, peak losses over the 2010-2100 period were: 13% (range: 1-26%) for the extent of suitable habitat, 54% (range: 45-63%) for wildlife population density, 5% (range: 2-9%) for local compositional intactness , 4% (range: 1-12%) for global extinctions, and 4% (range: 2-8%) for regional extinctions (Extended Data Table 1). Percentage losses were greatest in biodiversity-rich regions (Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, South East Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America; Extended Data Fig. 2). The projected future trends for habitat loss and degradation and its driv...

Protected areas are widely considered essential for biodiversity conservation. However, few global studies have demonstrated that protection benefits a broad range of species. Here, using a new global biodiversity database with unprecedented geographic and taxonomic coverage, we compare four biodiversity measures at sites sampled in multiple land uses inside and outside protected areas. Globally, species richness is 10.6% higher and abundance 14.5% higher in samples taken inside protected areas compared with samples taken outside, but neither rarefaction-based richness nor endemicity differ significantly. Importantly, we show that the positive effects of protection are mostly attributable to differences in land use between protected and unprotected sites. Nonetheless, even within some human-dominated land uses, species richness and abundance are higher in protected sites. Our results reinforce the global importance of protected areas but suggest that protection does not consistently benefit species with small ranges or increase the variety of ecological niches.

BackgroundARGOS satellite telemetry is one of the most widely used methods to track the movements of free-ranging marine and terrestrial animals and is fundamental to studies of foraging ecology, migratory behavior and habitat-use. ARGOS location estimates do not include complete error estimations, and for many marine organisms, the most commonly acquired locations (Location Class 0, A, B, or Z) are provided with no declared error estimate.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe compared the accuracy of ARGOS locations to those obtained using Fastloc GPS from the same electronic tags on five species of pinnipeds: 9 California sea lions (Zalophus californianus), 4 Galapagos sea lions (Zalophus wollebaeki), 6 Cape fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus pusillus), 3 Australian fur seals (A. p. doriferus) and 5 northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris). These species encompass a range of marine habitats (highly pelagic vs coastal), diving behaviors (mean dive durations 2–21 min) and range of latitudes (equator to temperate). A total of 7,318 ARGOS positions and 27,046 GPS positions were collected. Of these, 1,105 ARGOS positions were obtained within five minutes of a GPS position and were used for comparison. The 68th percentile ARGOS location errors as measured in this study were LC-3 0.49 km, LC-2 1.01 km, LC-1 1.20 km, LC-0 4.18 km, LC-A 6.19 km, LC-B 10.28 km.Conclusions/SignificanceThe ARGOS errors measured here are greater than those provided by ARGOS, but within the range of other studies. The error was non-normally distributed with each LC highly right-skewed. Locations of species that make short duration dives and spend extended periods on the surface (sea lions and fur seals) had less error than species like elephant seals that spend more time underwater and have shorter surface intervals. Supplemental data (S1) are provided allowing the creation of density distributions that can be used in a variety of filtering algorithms to improve the quality of ARGOS tracking data.

No abstract