Explore the vast range of titles available.

Australia’s 2019–2020 mega-fires were exacerbated by drought, anthropogenic climate change and existing land-use management. Here, using a combination of remotely sensed data and species distribution models, we found these fires burnt ~97,000 km 2 of vegetation across southern and eastern Australia, which is considered habitat for 832 species of native vertebrate fauna. Seventy taxa had a substantial proportion (>30%) of habitat impacted; 21 of these were already listed as threatened with extinction. To avoid further species declines, Australia must urgently reassess the extinction vulnerability of fire-impacted species and assist the recovery of populations in both burnt and unburnt areas. Population recovery requires multipronged strategies aimed at ameliorating current and fire-induced threats, including proactively protecting unburnt habitats. An assessment of the habitat of native vertebrate species burnt by the 2019–2020 Australian mega-fires shows that 70 taxa were severely affected.

Many nations use ecological compensation policies to address negative impacts of development projects and achieve No Net Loss (NNL) of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Yet, failures are widely reported. We use spatial simulation models to quantify potential net impacts of alternative compensation policies on biodiversity (indicated by native vegetation) and two ecosystem services (carbon storage, sediment retention) across four case studies (in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Mozambique). No policy achieves NNL of biodiversity in any case study. Two factors limit their potential success: the land available for compensation (existing vegetation to protect or cleared land to restore), and expected counterfactual biodiversity losses (unregulated vegetation clearing). Compensation also fails to slow regional biodiversity declines because policies regulate only a subset of sectors, and expanding policy scope requires more land than is available for compensation activities. Avoidance of impacts remains essential in achieving NNL goals, particularly once opportunities for compensation are exhausted. Countries are adopting ecological compensation policies aimed at achieving no net loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Here, Sonter and colleagues apply spatial simulation models to case studies in Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, and Mozambique to show that compensation alone is not sufficient to preserve biodiversity.

As humanity's demand for resources continues to rise and productive arable lands become increasingly scarce, many of Earth's remaining intact regions are at heightened risk of destruction from agricultural development. In situations where agricultural expansion is inevitable, it is important to manage intact landscape transformation so that impacts on environmental values are minimised. Here, we present a novel, spatially explicit, land use planning framework that addresses the decision making needed to account for different, competing economic-environment objectives (agricultural production value, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem service retention) when land use change is inevitable within an intact landscape. We apply our framework to the globally significant savannahs of the Orinoquia (Colombia), which in a post-conflict era is under increased agricultural development pressure. We show that while negative environmental impacts can be reduced through planning, the total area of land converted to agriculture is the unavoidable principal driver of biodiversity and ecosystem service loss. We therefore identify planning solutions that perform well across all objectives simultaneously, despite trade-offs among them. When 15%, 20%, 30% and 40% of the study area is allowed to be converted to agriculture, on average planning can improve species persistence and ecosystem service retention by up to 16%, 15%, 12%, and 9%, respectively, when compared to agricultural-focused solutions. Development in the region so far has had an unnecessarily large impact on environmental objectives due to a lack of effective land use planning, creating an 'opportunity debt'. Our study provides an evidence base to inform proactive planning and the development of environmentally sensible agricultural development policy and practice in the region. This framework can be used by stakeholders to achieve agriculture expansion goals and maximise economic profit while minimising impacts on the environment in the Orinoquia, or any relatively intact region that is being developed.

Loss of habitats or ecosystems arising from development projects (e.g., infrastructure, resource extraction, urban expansion) are frequently addressed through biodiversity offsetting. As currently implemented, offsetting typically requires an outcome of “no net loss” of biodiversity, but only relative to a baseline trajectory of biodiversity decline. This type of “relative” no net loss entrenches ongoing biodiversity loss, and is misaligned with biodiversity targets that require “absolute” no net loss or “net gain.” Here, we review the limitations of biodiversity offsetting, and in response, propose a new framework for compensating for biodiversity losses from development in a way that is aligned explicitly with jurisdictional biodiversity targets. In the framework, targets for particular biodiversity features are achieved via one of three pathways: Net Gain, No Net Loss, or (rarely) Managed Net Loss. We outline how to set the type (“Maintenance” or “Improvement”) and amount of ecological compensation that is appropriate for proportionately contributing to the achievement of different targets. This framework advances ecological compensation beyond a reactive, ad‐hoc response, to ensuring alignment between actions addressing residual biodiversity losses and achievement of overarching targets for biodiversity conservation.

In 2010, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 to address the loss and degradation of nature. Subsequently, most biodiversity indicators continued to decline. Nevertheless, conservation actions can make a positive difference for biodiversity. The emerging Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework has potential to catalyze efforts to “bend the curve” of biodiversity loss. Thus, the inclusion of a goal on species, articulated as Goal B in the Zero Draft of the Post‐2020 Framework, is essential. However, as currently formulated, this goal is inadequate for preventing extinctions, and reversing population declines; both of which are required to achieve the CBD's 2030 Mission. We contend it is unacceptable that Goal B could be met while most threatened species deteriorated in status and many avoidable species extinctions occurred. We examine the limitations of the current wording and propose an articulation with robust scientific basis. A goal for species that strives to end extinctions and recover populations of all species that have experienced population declines, and especially those at risk of extinction, would help to align actors toward the transformative actions and interventions needed for humans to live in harmony with nature.

Habitat loss is driving the extirpation of fauna across Earth. Many species are now absent from vast areas where they once occurred in inhabited continents, yet we do not have a good understanding of the extent to which different species have been locally extirpated, nor the degree to which range contractions and habitat loss has contributed to this local extirpation. Here, for the first time, we use a combination of scientific literature, historical sources, spatial data, and expert elicitation to map the past extent of potential habitats, and changes thereto, of 72 of Australia’s most imperiled terrestrial birds. By comparing the area of potential habitat within the past and current ranges of these taxa, we quantify the extent over which each of Australia’s threatened terrestrial birds have likely been extirpated and assess the amount and configuration of potential habitat that remains. Our results show that since 1750 (before European colonization), at least one extant taxon of threatened bird has disappeared from over 530 million hectares (69%) of Australia, through both range contractions and loss of potentially suitable habitat (noting these are not mutually exclusive phenomena). Ten taxa (14%) have likely been extirpated from >99% of their past potential habitat. For 56 taxa (78%), remaining habitat within their current potential habitats has become fragmented. This research paints a sobering picture of the extent of local extirpation of threatened birds from much of Australia over a 250 years time period. By mapping and quantifying this loss, these findings will help refine scientific understanding about the impact of habitat removal and other pervasive threats that are driving this observed extirpation.

Proponents of development projects (e.g., new roads, mines, dams) are frequently required to assess and manage their impacts on threatened biodiversity. Here, we propose that the environmental legislation and standards that mandate such assessments are failing those threatened species and ecological communities listed as vulnerable. Using a case study of Australia's key environmental legislation, we highlight that vulnerable ecological communities receive no statutory protection, while vulnerable species are held to a less stringent standard in the impact assessment process compared with those that are endangered or critically endangered. In the 19 years since Australia's Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 was enacted, four times as many vulnerable species have declined in their threat status than have improved. Beyond Australia, we demonstrate the global relevance of this issue, as it applies to internationally recognized best practice impact assessment guidelines. These cases provide a cautionary tale: without greater attention and stricter assessment criteria in the impact assessment process, the vulnerable species of today risk becoming the endangered species of tomorrow, with all the attendant costs and missed opportunities for recovery that this implies.

Increasingly, government and corporate policies on ecological compensation (e.g., offsetting) are requiring “net gain” outcomes for biodiversity. This presents an opportunity to align development with the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework's (GBF) proposed ambition for overall biodiversity recovery. In this perspective, we describe three conditions that should be accounted for in net gain policy to align outcomes with biodiversity recovery goals: namely, a requirement for residual losses from development to be compensated for by (1) absolute gains, which are (2) scaled to the achievement of explicit biodiversity targets, where (3) gains are demonstrably feasible. We show that few current policies meet these conditions, which risks undermining efforts to achieve the proposed Post‐2020 GBF milestones and goals, as well as other jurisdictional policy imperatives to halt and reverse biodiversity decline. To guide future decision‐making, we provide a supporting decision tree outlining net gain compensation feasibility.

Controlling problem species for conservation can be fraught, particularly when native species are subject to lethal control. The noisy miner (Manorina melanocephala), has been the target of numerous lethal control efforts. Outcomes of these noisy miner removals have varied substantially, so identifying the circumstances under which they are effective is essential for ethical and effective management. We compiled data for all identified noisy miner removals (n = 45), including both permit‐based and unofficial removals. We investigated whether methodological and ecological factors explained the effectiveness of removals in reducing noisy miner density or increasing woodland bird richness and abundance. The only predictor of any measure of success was time between first and final culls which was positively related to reduction in noisy miner density. Surprisingly, despite removals mainly failing to reduce noisy miner density to below a threshold above which noisy miners impact smaller birds, woodland birds usually still increased. Disrupted social structure as noisy miners recolonized may have led to less effective aggressive exclusion of small birds. Further removals may not need to reduce noisy miner density to below this threshold to benefit woodland birds, but consistent monitoring and reporting would support better evaluation of effectiveness and correlates of success. The outcomes of noisy miner removal initiatives to conserve woodland birds have varied substantially, thus identifying the circumstances under which they are effective is essential for ethical management of this native problematic species. We collected and analyzed data for all known permit‐based and unofficial noisy miner removals to identify whether methodological and ecological factors explained the effectiveness of removals in reducing population sizes and improving richness and abundance of small woodland birds. To benefit small woodland birds, noisy miner density may not need to be reduced to below the threshold at which assemblages are disrupted in unmanaged situations.

Habitat destruction is among the greatest threats facing biodiversity, and it affects common and threatened species alike. However, metrics for communicating its impacts typically overlook the nonthreatened component of assemblages. This risks the loss of habitat going unreported for species that comprise the majority of assemblages. We adapted a widely used measure for summarizing researcher output (the h index) to provide a metric that describes natural habitat loss for entire assemblages, inclusive of threatened and nonthreatened species. For each of 447 Australian native terrestrial bird species, we combined information on their association with broad vegetation groups with distributional range maps to identify the difference between the estimated pre-European and current extents of potential habitat, defined as vegetation groups most closely associated with each species. From this, we calculated the loss index (LI), which revealed that 30% of native birds have each lost at least 30% of their potential natural habitat (LI = 30). At the subcontinental scale, LIs ranged from 15 in arid Australia to 61 in the highly transformed southeastern part of the country. Different subcomponents of the assemblage had different LI values. For example, Australia’s parrots (n = 52 species) had an LI of 38, whereas raptors (n = 32 species) had an LI of 25. The LI is simple to calculate and can be determined using readily available spatial information on species distributions, native vegetation associations, and human impacts on natural land cover. This metric, including the curves used to deduce it, could complement other biodiversity indices if it is used for regional and global biodiversity assessments that compare the status of natural habitat extent for assemblages within and among nations, monitor changes through time, and forecast future changes to guide strategic land-use planning. The LI is an intuitive tool that can be used to summarize and communicate how human actions affect whole assemblages, not just threatened species. La destrucción del hábitat está entre las principales amenazas para la biodiversidad, además de que afecta tanto a especies comunes como a las especies amenazadas. Sin embargo, las medidas para comunicar los impactos de esta destrucción generalmente ignoran al componente no amenazado de los ensamblajes de especies. Esto genera el riesgo de que la pérdida del hábitat pase desapercibida en el caso de las especies que conforman a la mayoría de los ensamblajes. Adaptamos una medida de uso amplio para resumir las contribuciones de los investigadores (el índice h) y así proporcionar una medida que describa la pérdida del hábitat para ensamblajes enteros, incluyendo a las especies amenazadas y a las no amenazadas. Para cada una de las 447 especies de aves terrestres nativas a Australia, combinamos la información sobre su asociación con grupos generales de vegetación con mapas de extensión de su distribución para identificar la diferencia entre la extensión estimada previa a la llegada de los europeos y la extensión actual de los hábitats potenciales, definidos como los grupos de vegetación asociados más cercanamente con cada especie. A partir de esto, calculamos el índice de pérdida (LI, en inglés), el cual reveló que el 30% de cada una de las aves nativas ha perdido al menos el 30% de su hábitat natural potencial (LI = 30). A escala subcontinental, los LI variaron desde 15 para las partes áridas de Australia, hasta 61 en la altamente transformada parte sureste del país. Los diferentes subcomponentes del ensamblaje tuvieron diferentes valores de LI. Por ejemplo, los loros australianos (n = 52 especies) tuvieron un LI de 38, mientras que las aves rapaces (n = 32 especies) tuvieron un LI de 25. El LI es fácil de calcular y puede determinarse usando información espacial que ya se encuentra disponible, las asociaciones con la vegetación nativa y los impactos humanos sobre la cobertura natural del suelo. Esta medida, incluyendo las curvas que se usan para deducirla, podrían complementar otros índices de biodiversidad si se usa para evaluaciones de la biodiversidad regional y global, las cuales comparan el estado de la extensión del hábitat natural para ensamblajes dentro y entre las naciones, monitorean cambios a través del tiempo y pronostican cambios futuros que guíen la planeación del uso de suelo estratégico. El LI es una herramienta intuitiva que puede usarse para resumir y comunicar cómo las acciones humanas afectan a ensamblajes enteros, no sólo a las especies amenazadas. 生境破坏是生物多祥性面临的最大威胁之一，它同时影响着常见种和濒危种。然而，对生境破坏影响的指 标却常常忽略群落聚合体中的非濒危组分，这有可能导致群落中大部分物种的生境丧失得不到报告。我们在常 用的总结研究者产出出指数）方法的基础上，创建了ー个描述整个群落聚合体(包括濒危和非濒危物种）自然生 境丧失的指标。利用这个方法，我们将澳洲447种本土陆生鸟类所在的植被群信息与分布图相结合，确定了它 们在前欧洲时期和当前估计的潜在生境范围之间的差异，其中对潜在生境的定义是那些与每个物种相关度最高 的植被群。我们用这个模型计算了丧失指数，结果显示有30%的本土鸟类分别丧失了至少30% 的潜在自然生境 (丧失指数为30)。在次大陆尺度上，喪失指数介于15 (澳洲干旱地区）到61 (东南部高度改造生境) 之间。含有 不同组分的群落聚合体有不同的丧失指数，例如，澳洲鹦鹉（52个物种）的丧失指数为38，而猛禽（32个物种）的 丧失指数为25。丧失指数计算简单，可以利用现成的物种空间分布、原生植被群以及人类对自然土地覆盖的影 响等信息。在比较国家内部或国家之间群落聚合体的自然生境情况、监测其随时间的变化,及预测未来变化以 指导土地利用战略规划时，可以用丧失指数和用于估计指数的曲线作为其它生物多祥性指标的补充，以评估区 域和全球生物多祥性。丧失指数是ー项直观的工具, 它可以用于总结和探讨人类行为对整个群落聚合体的影响 而不仅限于濒危物种。