Ecology

High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People. 50 Countries Announce Bold Commitment to Protect at Least 30% of the World’s Land and Ocean by 2030 (Campaign for Nature, 2021).Waldron A. et al. Protecting 30% of the Planet for Nature: Costs, Benefits and Economic Implications (Campaign for Nature, 2020).Geldmann, J., Manica, A., Burgess, N. D., Coad, L. & Balmford, A. A global-level assessment of the effectiveness of protected areas at resisting anthropogenic pressures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23209–23223 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nelson, A. & Chomitz, K. M. Protected Area Effectiveness in Reducing Tropical Deforestation (The World Bank, 2009).Scharlemann, J. P. W. et al. Securing tropical forest carbon: the contribution of protected areas to REDD. Oryx 44, 352–357 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Feng, Y. et al. Assessing the effectiveness of global protected areas based on the difference in differences model. Ecol. Indic. 130, 108078 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laurance, W. F. et al. The fate of Amazonian forest fragments: A 32-year investigation. Biol. Conserv. 144, 56–67 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Laurance, W. F. et al. Averting biodiversity collapse in tropical forest protected areas. Nature 489, 290–294 (2012).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Terraube, J., Van doninck, J., Helle, P. & Cabeza, M. Assessing the effectiveness of a national protected area network for carnivore conservation. Nat. Commun. 11, 2957 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barnes, M. D. et al. Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted by national socio-economic metrics and body size. Nat. Commun. 7, 12747 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Amano, T. et al. Successful conservation of global waterbird populations depends on effective governance. Nature 553, 199–202 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kleijn, D., Cherkaoui, I., Goedhart, P. W., van der Hout, J. & Lammertsma, D. Waterbirds increase more rapidly in Ramsar-designated wetlands than in unprotected wetlands. J. Appl. Ecol. 51, 289–298 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Reyes-Arriagada, R. et al. Population trends of a mixed-species colony of Humboldt and Magellanic Penguins in Southern Chile after establishing a protected area. Avian Conserv. Ecol. 8, 13 (2013).
Google Scholar 
Bukart, K. Motion 101 passes at IUCN, calls for protecting 50% of Earth’s lands and seas. One Earth https://www.oneearth.org/motion-101-passes-at-iucn-calls-for-protecting-50-of-earths-lands-and-seas/ (2021).Protected Planet Report 2020 (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2021).Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES Secretariat, 2019).Barnes, M. D., Glew, L., Wyborn, C. & Craigie, I. D. Prevent perverse outcomes from global protected area policy. Nat, Ecol. Evol. 2, 759–762 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pressey, R. L., Cabeza, M., Watts, M. E., Cowling, R. M. & Wilson, K. A. Conservation planning in a changing world. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 583–592 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Geldmann, J. et al. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biol. Conserv. 161, 230–238 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rodrigues, A. S. L. & Cazalis, V. The multifaceted challenge of evaluating protected area effectiveness. Nat. Commun. 11, 5147 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Redford, K. H. The empty forest. BioScience 42, 412–422 (1992).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ferraro, P. J. Counterfactual thinking and impact evaluation in environmental policy. N. Direct. Eval. 2009, 75–84 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Adams, V. M., Barnes, M. & Pressey, R. L. Shortfalls in conservation evidence: moving from ecological effects of interventions to policy evaluation. One Earth 1, 62–75 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wauchope, H. S. et al. Evaluating impact using time-series data. Trends Ecol. Evol. 36, 196–205 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kingsford, R. T., Roshier, D. A. & Porter, J. L. Australian waterbirds time and space travellers in dynamic desert landscapes. Mar. Freshw. Res. 61, 875–884 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
The Ramsar Convention Secretariat. Managing Ramsar Sites. ramsar.org https://www.ramsar.org/sites-countries/managing-ramsar-sites (2014).European Commission. The Birds Directive. https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/birdsdirective/index_en.htm (accessed 3 April 2022).Zhang, W., Sheldon, B. C., Grenyer, R. & Gaston, K. J. Habitat change and biased sampling influence estimation of diversity trends. Curr. Biol. 31, 3656–3662.e3 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bruner, A. G., Gullison, R. E., Rice, R. E. & da Fonseca, G. A. B. Effectiveness of parks in protecting tropical biodiversity. Science 291, 125–128 (2001).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Carranza, T., Balmford, A., Kapos, V. & Manica, A. Protected area effectiveness in reducing conversion in a rapidly vanishing ecosystem: the Brazilian Cerrado. Conserv. Lett. 7, 216–223 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rabinowitz, D. In The Biological Aspects of Rare Plant Conservation (ed. Synge, H.) 205–217 (John Wiley & Sons, 1981).Daskalova, G. N., Myers-Smith, I. H. & Godlee, J. L. Rare and common vertebrates span a wide spectrum of population trends. Nat. Commun. 11, 4394 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hettiarachchi, M., Morrison, T. H. & McAlpine, C. Forty-three years of Ramsar and urban wetlands. Glob. Environ. Change 32, 57–66 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Munishi, P., Chuwa, J., Kilungu, H., Moe, S. & Temu, R. Management effectiveness and conservation initiatives in the Kilombero Valley Flood Plains Ramsar Site, Tanzania. Tanzania J. For. Nat. Conserv. 81, 1–10 (2012).
Google Scholar 
Fahrig, L. Why do several small patches hold more species than few large patches? Glob. Ecol. Biogeogr. 29, 615–628 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Newmark, W. D. Extinction of mammal populations in western North American National Parks. Conserv. Biol. 9, 512–526 (1995).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mascia, M. B. & Pailler, S. Protected area downgrading, downsizing, and degazettement (PADDD) and its conservation implications. Conserv. Lett. 4, 9–20 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Marco, M. et al. Changing trends and persisting biases in three decades of conservation science. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 10, 32–42 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wetlands International. Asian Waterbird Census. https://south-asia.wetlands.org/our-approach/healthy-wetland-nature/asian-waterbird-census/ (accessed 3 April 2022).Gill, D. A. et al. Capacity shortfalls hinder the performance of marine protected areas globally. Nature 543, 665–669 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Geldmann, J. et al. A global analysis of management capacity and ecological outcomes in terrestrial protected areas. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12434 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kingsford, R. T., Bino, G. & Porter, J. L. Continental impacts of water development on waterbirds, contrasting two Australian river basins: global implications for sustainable water use. Glob. Change Biol. 23, 4958–4969 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Jia, Q., Wang, X., Zhang, Y., Cao, L. & Fox, A. D. Drivers of waterbird communities and their declines on Yangtze River floodplain lakes. Biol. Conserv. 218, 240–246 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehikoinen, A., Rintala, J., Lammi, E. & Pöysä, H. Habitat-specific population trajectories in boreal waterbirds: alarming trends and bioindicators for wetlands. Animal Conserv. 19, 88–95 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Boyd, C. et al. Spatial scale and the conservation of threatened species. Conserv. Lett. 1, 37–43 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schleicher, J. et al. Protecting half of the planet could directly affect over one billion people. Nat. Sustain. 2, 1094–1096 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wauchope, H. et al. Quantifying the impact of protected areas on near-global waterbird population trends, a pre-analysis plan. Preprint at https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27741v2 (2019).Nosek, B. A., Ebersole, C. R., DeHaven, A. C. & Mellor, D. T. The preregistration revolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2600–2606 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).QGIS Geographic Information System (QGIS, 2021).Hadley Wickham. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer-Verlag, 2016).Venables, W. N. & Ripley, B. D. Modern Applied Statistics with S (Springer, 2002).The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA)/The Global Database on Protected Areas Management Effectiveness (GD-PAME) www.protectedplanet.net (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN, 2019).Global Self-consistent, Hierarchical, High-resolution Geography Database (GSHHG) (NOAA, 2017).Coetzer, K. L., Witkowski, E. T. F. & Erasmus, B. F. N. Reviewing Biosphere Reserves globally: effective conservation action or bureaucratic label? Biol. Rev. 89, 82–104 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ament, J. M. & Cumming, G. S. Scale dependency in effectiveness, isolation, and social-ecological spillover of protected areas. Conserv. Biol. 30, 846–855 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Naimi, B., Hamm, N. A. S., Groen, T. A., Skidmore, A. K. & Toxopeus, A. G. Where is positional uncertainty a problem for species distribution modelling? Ecography 37, 191–203 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Salmerón Gómez, R., García, Pérez, J., López Martín, M. D. M. & García, C. G. Collinearity diagnostic applied in ridge estimation through the variance inflation factor. J. Appl. Stat. 43, 1831–1849 (2016).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gu, X. S. & Rosenbaum, P. R. Comparison of multivariate matching methods: structures, distances, and algorithms. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 2, 405–420 (1993).
Google Scholar 
Stuart, E. A. Matching methods for causal inference: a review and a look forward. Stat. Sci. 25, 1–21 (2010).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
King, G. & Nielsen, R. Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Pol. Anal. 27, 435–454 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rosenbaum, P. R. DOS: design of observational studies. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/DOS/index.html (2018).Linden, A. A matching framework to improve causal inference in interrupted time-series analysis. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 24, 408–415 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Simmons, B. I., Hoeppke, C. & Sutherland, W. J. Beware greedy algorithms. J. Anim. Ecol. 88, 804–807 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Austin, P. C. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat. Med. 28, 3083–3107 (2009).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rubin, D. B. Using propensity scores to help design observational studies: application to the tobacco litigation. Health Serv. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 2, 169–188 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression (Sage, 2019).Hartig, F. DHARMa: residual diagnostics for hierarchical (multi-level/mixed) regression models. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/DHARMa/index.html (2021).Zeileis, A. & Hothorn, T. Diagnostic checking in regression relationships. R News 2, 7–10 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christensen, R. Ordinal–regression models for ordinal data. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ordinal/index.html (2019).Lüdecke, D. ggeffects: tidy data frames of marginal effects from regression models. J. Op. Source Softw. 3, 772 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J. & Conover, W. J. Comparison of three methods for selecting values of input variables in the analysis of output from a computer code. Technometrics 21, 239–245 (1979).MathSciNet 

Google Scholar 
Carnell, R. lhs: latin hypercube samples. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lhs/index.html (2020).Harris, I., Jones, P. D., Osborn, T. J. & Lister, D. H. Updated high-resolution grids of monthly climatic observations—the CRU TS3.10 Dataset. Int. J. Climatol. 34, 623–642 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lu, C. & Tian, H. Global nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer use for agriculture production in the past half century: Shifted hot spots and nutrient imbalance. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 9, 181–192 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Joppa, L. N. & Pfaff, A. High and far: biases in the location of protected areas. PLoS ONE 4, e8273 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hurtt, G. C. et al. Harmonization of land-use scenarios for the period 1500-2100: 600 years of global gridded annual land-use transitions, wood harvest, and resulting secondary lands. Clim. Change 109, 117–161 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lloyd, C. T., Sorichetta, A. & Tatem, A. J. High resolution global gridded data for use in population studies. Sci. Data 4, 17001 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pekel, J.-F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N. & Belward, A. S. High-resolution mapping of global surface water and its long-term changes. Nature 540, 418–422 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sandvik, B. World Borders Dataset. Thematic Mapping http://thematicmapping.org/downloads/world_borders.php (2009).BirdLife International. Species Distribution Data Download http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/spcdownload (accessed 25 February 2020).Wilman, H. et al. EltonTraits 1.0: species-level foraging attributes of the world’s birds and mammals. Ecology 95, 2027 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
WWF International. Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool https://wwfeu.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/mett2_final_version_july_2007.pdf (2007). More

Lister, B. C. & Garcia, A. Climate-driven declines in arthropod abundance restructure a rainforest food web. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, E10397–E10406 (2018).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Soroye, P., Newbold, T. & Kerr, J. Climate change contributes to widespread declines among bumble bees across continents. Science 367, 685–688 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Outhwaite, C. L., Gregory, R. D., Chandler, R. E., Collen, B. & Isaac, N. J. B. Complex long-term biodiversity change among invertebrates, bryophytes and lichens. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 384–392 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Crossley, M. S. et al. No net insect abundance and diversity declines across US long term ecological research sites. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1368–1376 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Janzen, D. H. & Hallwachs, W. To us insectometers, it is clear that insect decline in our Costa Rican tropics is real, so let’s be kind to the survivors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2002546117 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T. et al. Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520, 45–50 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Spooner, F. E. B., Pearson, R. G. & Freeman, R. Rapid warming is associated with population decline among terrestrial birds and mammals globally. Glob. Change Biol. 24, 4521–4531 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Powney, G. D. et al. Widespread losses of pollinating insects in Britain. Nat. Commun. 10, 1018 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
van Klink, R. et al. Meta-analysis reveals declines in terrestrial but increases in freshwater insect abundances. Science 368, 417–420 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Yang, L. H. & Gratton, C. Insects as drivers of ecosystem processes. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2, 26–32 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dainese, M. et al. A global synthesis reveals biodiversity-mediated benefits for crop production. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax0121 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Halsch, C. A. et al. Insects and recent climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2002543117 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wagner, D. L., Fox, R., Salcido, D. M. & Dyer, L. A. A window to the world of global insect declines: moth biodiversity trends are complex and heterogeneous. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2002549117 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M. & Watson, J. E. M. Biodiversity: the ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536, 143–145 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kerr, J. T. et al. Climate change impacts on bumblebees converge across continents. Science 349, 177–180 (2015).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Uhler, J. et al. Relationship of insect biomass and richness with land use along a climate gradient. Nat. Commun. 12, 5946 (2021).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, T. H. & Morecroft, M. D. Interactions between climate change and land use change on biodiversity: attribution problems, risks, and opportunities. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 5, 317–335 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams, J. J. & Newbold, T. Local climatic changes affect biodiversity responses to land use: a review. Divers. Distrib. 26, 76–92 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
González del Pliego, P. et al. Thermally buffered microhabitats recovery in tropical secondary forests following land abandonment. Biol. Conserv. 201, 385–395 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Senior, R. A., Hill, J. K., González del Pliego, P., Goode, L. K. & Edwards, D. P. A pantropical analysis of the impacts of forest degradation and conversion on local temperature. Ecol. Evol. 7, 7897–7908 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peters, M. K. et al. Climate–land-use interactions shape tropical mountain biodiversity and ecosystem functions. Nature 568, 88–92 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mantyka-Pringle, C. S., Martin, T. G. & Rhodes, J. R. Interactions between climate and habitat loss effects on biodiversity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Glob. Change Biol. 18, 1239–1252 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Northrup, J. M., Rivers, J. W., Yang, Z. & Betts, M. G. Synergistic effects of climate and land-use change influence broad-scale avian population declines. Glob. Change Biol. 25, 1561–1575 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Deutsch, C. A. et al. Impacts of climate warming on terrestrial ectotherms across latitude. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 6668–6672 (2008).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Newbold, T., Oppenheimer, P., Etard, A. & Williams, J. J. Tropical and Mediterranean biodiversity is disproportionately sensitive to land-use and climate change. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1630–1638 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Perez, T. M., Stroud, J. T. & Feeley, K. J. Thermal trouble in the tropics. Science 351, 1392–1393 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Betts, M. G., Phalan, B., Frey, S. J. K., Rousseau, J. S. & Yang, Z. Old-growth forests buffer climate-sensitive bird populations from warming. Divers. Distrib. 24, 439–447 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hendershot, J. N. et al. Intensive farming drives long-term shifts in avian community composition. Nature 579, 393–396 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tscharntke, T. et al. Landscape moderation of biodiversity patterns and processes – eight hypotheses. Biol. Rev. 87, 661–685 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Suggitt, A. J. et al. Extinction risk from climate change is reduced by microclimatic buffering. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 713–717 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hudson, L. N. et al. The database of the PREDICTS (Projecting Responses of Ecological Diversity in Changing Terrestrial Systems) project. Ecol. Evol. 7, 145–188 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harris, I., Osborn, T. J., Jones, P. & Lister, D. Version 4 of the CRU TS monthly high-resolution gridded multivariate climate dataset. Sci. Data 7, 109 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Johansson, F., Orizaola, G. & Nilsson-Örtman, V. Temperate insects with narrow seasonal activity periods can be as vulnerable to climate change as tropical insect species. Sci. Rep. 10, 8822 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoskins, A. J. et al. Downscaling land-use data to provide global 30′′ estimates of five land-use classes. Ecol. Evol. 6, 3040–3055 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Grab, H. et al. Agriculturally dominated landscapes reduce bee phylogenetic diversity and pollination services. Science 363, 282–284 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rusch, A. et al. Agricultural landscape simplification reduces natural pest control: a quantitative synthesis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 221, 198–204 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Oliver, T. H. et al. Declining resilience of ecosystem functions under biodiversity loss. Nat. Commun. 6, 10122 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sunday, J. M. et al. Thermal-safety margins and the necessity of thermoregulatory behavior across latitude and elevation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 111, 5610–5615 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Balmford, A. Extinction filters and current resilience: the significance of past selection pressures for conservation biology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 11, 193–196 (1996).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Garibaldi, L. A. et al. Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecol. Lett. 14, 1062–1072 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Carvalheiro, L. G., Seymour, C. L., Veldtman, R. & Nicolson, S. W. Pollination services decline with distance from natural habitat even in biodiversity-rich areas. J. Appl. Ecol. 47, 810–820 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dainese, M., Luna, D. I., Sitzia, T. & Marini, L. Testing scale-dependent effects of seminatural habitats on farmland biodiversity. Ecol. Appl. 25, 1681–1690 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fourcade, Y. et al. Habitat amount and distribution modify community dynamics under climate change. Ecol. Lett. 24, 950–957 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Alexander, L. V. et al. Global observed changes in daily climate extremes of temperature and precipitation. J. Geophys. Res. 111, D05109 (2006).
Google Scholar 
Seibold, S. et al. Arthropod decline in grasslands and forests is associated with landscape-level drivers. Nature 574, 671–674 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
De Palma, A. et al. Dimensions of biodiversity loss: spatial mismatch in land-use impacts on species, functional and phylogenetic diversity of European bees. Divers. Distrib. 23, 1435–1446 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Collen, B., Ram, M., Zamin, T. & McRae, L. The tropical biodiversity data gap: addressing disparity in global monitoring. Trop. Conserv. Sci. 1, 75–88 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Menéndez, R. How are insects responding to global warming? Tijdschr. Entomol. 150, 355 (2007).
Google Scholar 
Bale, J. S. et al. Herbivory in global climate change research: direct effects of rising temperature on insect herbivores. Glob. Change Biol. 8, 1–16 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hudson, L. N. et al. The 2016 release of the PREDICTS database. Natural History Museum Data Portal, https://doi.org/10.5519/0066354 (2016).Hudson, L. N. et al. The PREDICTS database: a global database of how local terrestrial biodiversity responds to human impacts. Ecol. Evol. 4, 4701–4735 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
De Palma, A. et al. Annual changes in the Biodiversity Intactness Index in tropical and subtropical forest biomes, 2001–2012. Sci. Rep. 11, 20249 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chao, A., Chazdon, R. L., Colwell, R. K. & Shen, T.-J. A new statistical approach for assessing similarity of species composition with incidence and abundance data. Ecol. Lett. 8, 148–159 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ndakidemi, B., Mtei, K. & Ndakidemi, P. A. Impacts of synthetic and botanical pesticides on beneficial insects. Agric. Sci. 07, 364–372 (2016).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X., Hua, F., Wang, L., Wilcove, D. S. & Yu, D. W. The biodiversity benefit of native forests and mixed‐species plantations over monoculture plantations. Divers. Distrib. 25, 1721–1735 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Weedon, G. P. et al. The WFDEI meteorological forcing data set: WATCH Forcing Data methodology applied to ERA-Interim reanalysis data. Water Resour. Res. 50, 7505–7514 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Warszawski, L. et al. The inter-sectoral impact model intercomparison project (ISI-MIP): project framework. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 3228–3232 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
van Vuuren, D. P. et al. The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim. Change 109, 5–31 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
New, M., Hulme, M. & Jones, P. Representing twentieth-century space–time climate variability. Part I: development of a 1961–90 mean monthly terrestrial climatology. J. Clim. 12, 829–856 (1999).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hijmans, R. J. Raster: Geographic data analysis and modelling. R package version 2.8-42018, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=raster (2018).Rigby, R. A., Stasinopoulos, D. M. & Akantziliotou, C. A framework for modelling overdispersed count data, including the Poisson-shifted generalized inverse Gaussian distribution. Comput. Stat. Data Anal. 53, 381–393 (2008).MathSciNet 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar  More

To help to achieve ecological recovery worldwide, more multinational corporations are making commitments to biodiversity conservation1–3. According to the most recent assessment in 2018, 31 of the 100 largest companies by revenue worldwide (the global Fortune 100) have done so, from the retail corporation Walmart to the insurance company AXA4.To deliver real gains — in the population sizes of endangered species, say, or in the number of hectares of restored forests, grasslands or wetlands — large organizations need to determine which of their activities have the greatest impacts on biodiversity5. And they need to disclose and mitigate those impacts. Currently, methods for doing this are lacking (see ‘Promises are hard to keep’). (By large organizations, we mean formal entities composed of hundreds of people or more that act towards a certain purpose, whether in the public, private or non-profit sectors.)
Promises are hard to keep

A lack of consensus on methods and metrics means companies are struggling to clearly define — and deliver on — commitments relating to biodiversity.
So far, most studies of the environmental impacts of organizations, such as multinational corporations and universities, have focused on greenhouse-gas emissions.
The G7 group of the world’s largest economies endorsed the new Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) only last year. This builds on a similar approach used for climate change — the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. The TNFD aims to guide organizations on how to disclose environmental harms tied to their activities, but is still being developed.
The number of corporations making commitments to achieve ‘net gain’ or ‘no net loss’ outcomes in relation to biodiversity has risen steadily in the past two decades3. But some of these promises have subsequently been retracted. In 2016, for example, the mining corporation Rio Tinto moved away from its 2006 agenda-setting ‘net positive impact’ biodiversity commitment, reportedly to focus on minimizing impacts3 (see also go.nature.com/3xtjggo).
Many other commitments are not quantitative. As of 2018, only 5 of the 31 global Fortune 100 companies making biodiversity-related commitments had provided ones that were SMART — specific, measurable, ambitious, realistic and time-bound4 (the global Fortune 100 is an annual list of the 100 largest firms worldwide by revenue, as ranked by Fortune magazine).
When quantitative analyses have been done, they tend to be of limited use, mainly because of inconsistencies in the biodiversity metrics used, and limitations in the scope of the assessment made. Disclosure of results is also limited.

When quantitative analyses have been done, a variety of metrics have been used to quantify impacts. These range from the proportion of local species that would be lost as a result of an activity, to factors such as hectares of habitat affected, or the amount of sustainably sourced paper, fish or palm oil that is used4. But the choice of metric can radically alter the results of an impact assessment, so it is difficult to compare organizations. Likewise, few analyses consider the impacts of activities that are not under the direct control of the organization, such as those associated with supply chains6.As a proof of principle, we conducted a comprehensive assessment of biodiversity losses associated with activities at the University of Oxford, UK. We used data on purchasing, travel bookings, utility bills and other information from the 2018–19 and 2019–20 academic years. The 60 activities we assessed included the day-to-day running of buildings and transport services; travel (including flights) for students and researchers; construction of laboratories and other buildings; consumption of food and beverages at restaurants and cafeterias; and use of medical supplies and other materials in research labs.Our aim was to demonstrate what it would take for a large organization such as the University of Oxford to bring about a net gain in biodiversity — meaning that, thanks to its actions, the world’s biodiversity is left in a better state than it was before. As part of our analysis, we assessed how the university’s various activities and operations also affect greenhouse-gas emissions, and how those, in turn, affect biodiversity by driving climate change.We are confident that the approach we’ve developed for Oxford could be applied more broadly. Indeed, we hope that such a well-known institution disclosing a full assessment of its biodiversity footprint will offer powerful inspiration for others. (All seven of us have a current or previous affiliation with the university.)What we didThe University of Oxford launched an ambitious environmental sustainability strategy in March 2021. Its two main goals are to achieve biodiversity net gain and net-zero carbon, both by 2035. (The latter means that the university will remove as much carbon from the atmosphere as it adds.)To understand how challenging these goals might be to fulfil, we assessed the environmental impacts of the university’s various activities. This covered all those to do with research, education and operations during an academic year for staff and students (see ‘Upstream effects’). For our purposes, operations includes the university transport fleet, consumption of departmental food and utilities, waste disposal and the operational supply chain, including for paper.

Source: J. W. Bull et al.

As a first step, we defined a conceptual framework to systematically categorize the environmental impacts. We grouped activities in research, education and operations according to whether they involved any of five features: travel; food; the built environment (university buildings); the natural environment (any green space or land owned by the university, including managed parks and gardens); and resource use and waste (see ‘What we left out’). Each of these is associated with five general environmental impacts: greenhouse-gas emissions, the use of land and water, and pollution of water and air.
What we left out

Other organizations could assess different types of impact on biodiversity.
Our biodiversity analysis of the University of Oxford, UK, included most upstream impacts — those resulting from consumption of goods and services created outside the university, such as food or medical supplies. We excluded the downstream impacts of research and education, such as those of a discovery in gene editing or chemistry, because it would be impossible to comprehensively account for all of the environmental impacts of knowledge generation. Also not included in our analysis were the university’s 39 colleges, 6 permanent private halls and more than 260 commercial buildings. These are independent legal entities that manage sustainability issues separately.
Other analyses in different sectors might well be able to include downstream impacts. The effects of discarded plastic bottles or clothes could be included for a soft-drinks company or clothing manufacturer, for example.

To further categorize the environmental impacts, we assigned each activity to one of two groups: those under direct university control or influence (through staff and key contractors), and those that the university can influence only indirectly (through students and supply chains). We deemed students buying tuna sandwiches from a university-owned cafe as direct control, for instance, because the university could decide to serve only vegetarian food. However, it can influence only indirectly what happens up the supply chain, before materials are used in a research lab, for example.Using this organizational framework, we worked with administrators to obtain the relevant information, such as travel bookings for staff and students, electricity and water bills, and purchasing records for goods, services and materials used in construction projects.Next, we used various tools to convert all the activities data into estimates of ‘mid-point environmental impacts’ (amount of carbon dioxide emitted, land or water used, and air or water pollutants produced). The database Exiobase 3 is one of the most extensive sources of international supply-chain impacts worldwide7. It shows, for instance, that the roughly US$3.5 million the university spent on paper and paper products in 2019–20 contributed to atmospheric acidification by releasing 2,448 kilograms of sulfur dioxide equivalent. Similarly, the UK Higher Education Supply Chain Emissions Tool uses spending data on goods and services to estimate greenhouse-gas emissions. The roughly $23 million Oxford spent on personal computers, printers and calculators in 2019–20, for example, produced an estimated 20,105 tonnes of CO2 equivalent.We then needed to estimate the extent of biodiversity loss associated with this wide range of broad environmental impacts. So we converted the mid-point environmental impacts into ‘end-point impacts’ that are specifically concerned with biodiversity. To do this, we used an established conversion methodology called ReCiPe8. The output metric ultimately linked to each activity is based on the proportion of local species that would be lost as a result of that activity, relative to the number that exists currently (see Supplementary information for all results and conversion factors).CaveatsWe refined our methods slightly when analysing data from the 2019–20 academic year. This, combined with the disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, makes it difficult to compare years. So for simplicity, we report our results only from the 2019–20 academic year.The biodiversity metric we obtain using ReCiPe is based on strong evidence: the conversion tool is derived from the results of hundreds of studies of the impacts of human pressures on biodiversity8. But, in general, we weren’t able to factor in fine-level variables, such as whether the beef steaks in a university-owned restaurant are sourced from a UK or Brazilian farm. As such, our approach is best seen as a way to evaluate relative impacts, rather than as an indicator of precise absolute impacts.This difficulty aside, it is hard to compare the impact of the University of Oxford on biodiversity with that of similarly sized organizations. As yet, and as far as we know, no other organization has comprehensively evaluated and disclosed its impact on biodiversity, and then had its assessment independently validated. (Ecologists and other stakeholders at the University of Jyväskylä in Finland have begun to explore the impacts of that university’s activities on biodiversity using a similar approach to ours.)Using the greenhouse-gas metric, however, we can compare the impacts of the University of Oxford on emissions (which are related to its impacts on biodiversity) with those of comparably sized organizations.What we foundThe absolute size of the university’s greenhouse-gas footprint is astonishingly large — comparable to that of the eastern Caribbean island nation of Saint Lucia. It is two orders of magnitude smaller than Microsoft’s greenhouse-gas footprint, but one order of magnitude larger than that of the London Stock Exchange, according to estimates publicly disclosed by those organizations.Perhaps the most striking finding in our assessment of impacts specifically on biodiversity is that most of the harms are tied to university activities that are not under its direct control. In fact, the activities with the five biggest impacts on biodiversity are (from biggest to smallest): the supply chain for research activities (such as for chemicals, medical products, organic tissue and plastics); the supply chain for the day-to-day running of buildings (for paper, information technology and so on); food consumption; electricity consumption; and the supply chain for construction. All of these activities are associated with resource use and waste, food and the built environment.

The University of Oxford’s use of laboratory materials has a large impact on biodiversity because of the upstream supply chain.Credit: Peter Nicholls/Reuters

In short, supplies of lab equipment have much greater impacts on biodiversity overall than do international flights, the university’s consumption of electricity or its use of construction materials. (Personal protective equipment used in the lab, for example, requires the extraction and industrial processing of hydrocarbons, often from areas that are rich in biodiversity.)This observation is in line with the results of a handful of studies that suggest that supply chains, not transport or the day-to-day running of buildings, are the main contributors to greenhouse-gas emissions for universities (see, for example, ref. 9). It also aligns with the results of assessments by the fashion giant Kering since 2012, using its Environmental Profit & Loss account — a tool designed to quantify the environmental impacts of the company’s activities. These have revealed that Kering’s procurements of commodities, such as leather, wool and metals, have much more impact on greenhouse-gas emissions, particularly on those from land use, than does the day-to-day running of its factories and offices10.Yet the sustainability strategies of large organizations typically focus not on supply chains, but on recycling, reducing the number of flights people take or the amount of electricity used11–13 (see also Nature 546, 565–567; 2017).Another important finding is the scale of intervention needed. Restoring the university’s owned land (around 1,000 hectares) to native woodland or some other natural habitat would make little difference when it comes to compensating for the impacts on biodiversity that result from just one year of activity. The university colleges own much more land than the university itself — some 50,000 hectares — but we excluded them from our analysis because they are independent legal entities that manage sustainability issues separately.Biodiversity boostHow could the university reverse the biodiversity losses stemming from its activities and operations?Here we consider three options. It could pursue its current environmental sustainability strategy. This entails (among other steps) setting quantitative targets to reduce flights, limiting consumption of all single-use products, making university-catered food vegetarian by default, and achieving 20% net gain for biodiversity in new construction projects. Alternatively, it could focus more heavily on preventing harms to biodiversity. We model a scenario in which all staff flights are prevented, all use of paper and any further construction is stopped, and the purchasing of lab materials is halved. Or the university could focus on compensating for the impacts that its activities and operations have on the planet, by taking steps to increase biodiversity in other places (see ‘Oxford’s options’).

Source: J. W. Bull et al.

Using the 2018–19 academic year results (selected because the COVID-19 pandemic made 2019–20 so unusual), we estimated how far these mitigation strategies might take the university towards biodiversity net gain.Our analysis indicates that the set of preventive measures proposed under the university’s environmental sustainability strategy get it about one-third of the way towards net gain. The findings also indicate that focusing mainly on the prevention of impacts is operationally unfeasible. Activities that have most effect on biodiversity, such as purchasing lab consumables, are central to the university’s existence and cannot simply stop.To achieve net gain, preventive measures, such as reducing flights and paper use, will have to be accompanied by additional and extensive actions to compensate for the remaining impacts on biodiversity.Such actions could include investing in reforestation, wetland restoration, sustainable land-management programmes and prevention of habitat loss caused by independent parties. For example, those directing the Oyu Tolgoi mining project in Mongolia are seeking to achieve biodiversity net gain by spending around 0.6% of the total project cost on actions that benefit biodiversity, such as sustainable grazing practices (see go.nature.com/3tkkbjh). Similarly, the Ambatovy metals mine in Madagascar is on course to offset its impacts on biodiverse eastern rainforests by preventing deforestation of those same habitats through small-scale agriculture14.Achieving true biodiversity net gain will require substantial offsetting that does not necessarily contribute to the university’s reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. But whatever mix of approaches the institution pursues, it should strive for win–wins on both biodiversity and climate.Many types of action can simultaneously increase biodiversity and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. For example, restoring mangroves in Bangladesh increased populations of wintering water birds 20-fold in just three years from 2004. And these restored mangroves can absorb carbon four times faster than land-based forests can15. But in other cases, there are trade-offs. Constructing wind turbines and solar photovoltaics to produce renewable energy, for instance, requires extensive mining of metals in places that can be rich in biodiversity16.Net gain for other organizationsOur calculations are likely to be comparable to results for other universities. In our analysis, we do not include the impacts of individual colleges. But because similar kinds of activity occur in colleges as in the rest of the university, their inclusion — or of halls of residence at other universities — is unlikely to qualitatively change our main findings. In fact, because of the colleges’ unusually large land holdings, including them would arguably result in an assessment that doesn’t so easily compare with those of other universities.Crucially, however, the analytical framework we have developed can be applied to a wide range of large organizations — whether they be universities, multinational corporations or government institutions.

Restoring mangroves in western Bangladesh increased populations of wintering water birds, such as this oriental darter (Anhinga melanogaster).Credit: Muhammad Mostafigur Rahman/Alamy

Governments, intergovernmental organizations and multinational corporations are increasingly recognizing that it will not be enough to simply slow the loss of the world’s biodiversity. Damaged habitats and depleted natural resources must be restored to prevent the collapse of ecosystems.Last year, the United Nations called for the urgent revival of nature in farmlands, forests and other ecosystems, declaring 2021–30 to be the Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Later this year, at a meeting in Kunming, China, it is hoped that 196 nations will agree to the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Among the goals listed in the draft document are a “net gain in the area, connectivity and integrity of natural systems of at least 5 per cent”17.We urge all large organizations, academic or otherwise, to commit to strategies for a net gain in biodiversity — and to adopt formalized approaches that quantify current impacts and allow transparent tracking of progress. Otherwise, the degree of worldwide recovery of natural resources increasingly recognized as crucial for resilient societies to function will not happen.A key challenge is the lack of traceability for commodities. Both our assessment of the University of Oxford and those of others have revealed that large organizations often don’t know which country their commodities (such as cotton, flour or cement) come from — let alone which supplier or what kinds of biodiversity are being affected as a result.According to its 2022 report, for example, even a sector leader such as Kering could trace the source of only about three-quarters of its cotton. Supply chains for other commodities, such as sand, are even more opaque18.Encouragingly, various initiatives are being developed to provide more transparency about environmental impacts across supply chains. These include the supply-chain mapping tool TRASE, which aims to address deforestation.A related challenge, covered extensively elsewhere19,20, is how to ensure that biodiversity offsets are effectively and appropriately implemented such that they lead to conservation outcomes that are truly additional.Currently, there are uncertainties around how long it takes for a restored forest to start delivering biodiversity gains, whether promises to offset harms to biodiversity are actually met, what level of biodiversity gain is delivered by the restoration of a particular habitat, and so on. Take the Ambatovy mine in Madagascar. Its directors began protecting areas of eastern rainforest in 2009 to offset the impacts of deforestation directly caused by the mine. Yet forest gains are not estimated to balance losses until sometime between 2018 and 203314.Despite such challenges, however, we think that a commitment to full transparency, and to improving data collection over time, will enable organizations to compare performance and drive change — both in their own operations and throughout supply chains.Time is too short to let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or to claim that biodiversity net gain is too hard to achieve because there is no universal biodiversity metric. Individual metrics are imperfect but improving, and their limitations should not be a reason to delay measuring, disclosing and tackling impacts on biodiversity. More

As well as the humanitarian catastrophe it is inflicting, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February is disrupting global flows of vital commodities such as fuel, food and fertilizer. This will affect biodiversity and the environment far beyond the war zones, with implications for sustainability and well-being worldwide.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests. More

AffiliationsDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, AustraliaErnest F. Asamoah & Joseph M. MainaDepartment of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, AustraliaLinda J. BeaumontAuthorsErnest F. AsamoahLinda J. BeaumontJoseph M. MainaCorresponding authorCorrespondence to
Ernest F. Asamoah. More

Ellis, E. C. & Ramankutty, N. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6, 439–447 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pecl, G. T. et al. Biodiversity redistribution under climate change: Impacts on ecosystems and human well-being. Science 355, (2017).Di Marco, M., Venter, O., Possingham, H. P. & Watson, J. E. Changes in human footprint drive changes in species extinction risk. Nature communications 9, 1–9 (2018).ADS 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Kreidenweis, U. et al. Pasture intensification is insufficient to relieve pressure on conservation priority areas in open agricultural markets. Global change biology 24, 3199–3213 (2018).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gong, P. et al. Annual maps of global artificial impervious area (GAIA) between 1985 and 2018. Remote Sensing of Environment 236, 111510 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mu, H. et al. Evaluation of Light Pollution in Global Protected Areas from 1992 to 2018. Remote Sensing 13, 1849 (2021).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, L. et al. Mapping population density in China between 1990 and 2010 using remote sensing. Remote sensing of environment 210, 269–281 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Raiter, K. G., Possingham, H. P., Prober, S. M. & Hobbs, R. J. Under the radar: mitigating enigmatic ecological impacts. Trends in ecology & evolution 29, 635–644 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nikhil, S. et al. Application of GIS and AHP Method in Forest Fire Risk Zone Mapping: a Study of the Parambikulam Tiger Reserve, Kerala, India. Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis 5, 1–14 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tucker, M. A. et al. Moving in the Anthropocene: Global reductions in terrestrial mammalian movements. Science 359, 466–469 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Steffen W, et al. Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347, (2015).Venter, O. et al. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature communications 7, 1–11 (2016).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Venter, O. et al. Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009. Scientific data 3, 1–10 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Betts, M. G. et al. Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact landscapes. Nature 547, 441–444 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Mu, H. et al. Evaluation of the policy-driven ecological network in the Three-North Shelterbelt region of China. Landscape and Urban Planning 218, 104305 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoffmann, S., Irl, S. D. & Beierkuhnlein, C. Predicted climate shifts within terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nature communications 10, 1–10 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sanderson, E. W. et al. The human footprint and the last of the wild: the human footprint is a global map of human influence on the land surface, which suggests that human beings are stewards of nature, whether we like it or not. Bioscience 52, 891–904 (2002).Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams, B. A. et al. Change in terrestrial human footprint drives continued loss of intact ecosystems. One Earth 3, 371–382 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Allan, J. R., Venter, O. & Watson, J. E. Temporally inter-comparable maps of terrestrial wilderness and the Last of the Wild. Scientific data 4, 1–8 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Di Marco, M., Ferrier, S., Harwood, T. D., Hoskins, A. J. & Watson, J. E. Wilderness areas halve the extinction risk of terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 573, 582–585 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
CAS 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Yang, R. et al. Cost-effective priorities for the expansion of global terrestrial protected areas: Setting post-2020 global and national targets. Science Advances 6, eabc3436 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Maxwell, S. L. et al. Area-based conservation in the twenty-first century. Nature 586, 217–227 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Theobald, D. M. et al. Earth transformed: detailed mapping of global human modification from 1990 to 2017. Earth System Science Data 12, 1953–1972 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kennedy, C. M., Oakleaf, J. R., Theobald, D. M., Baruch‐Mordo, S. & Kiesecker, J. Managing the middle: A shift in conservation priorities based on the global human modification gradient. Global Change Biology 25, 811–826 (2019).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Watson, J. E. et al. The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nature ecology & evolution 2, 599–610 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wolkovich, E., Cook, B., McLauchlan, K. & Davies, T. Temporal ecology in the Anthropocene. Ecology letters 17, 1365–1379 (2014).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Olson, D. M. et al. Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World: A New Map of Life on EarthA new global map of terrestrial ecoregions provides an innovative tool for conserving biodiversity. Bioscience 51, 933–938 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X., Zhou, Y., Zhao, M. & Zhao, X. A harmonized global nighttime light dataset 1992–2018. Scientific data 7, 1–9 (2020).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Luck, G. W., Ricketts, T. H., Daily, G. C. & Imhoff, M. Alleviating spatial conflict between people and biodiversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101, 182–186 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gong, P., Li, X. & Zhang, W. 40-Year (1978–2017) human settlement changes in China reflected by impervious surfaces from satellite remote sensing. Science Bulletin 64, 756–763 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hu, T., Yang, J., Li, X. & Gong, P. Mapping urban land use by using landsat images and open social data. Remote Sensing 8, 151 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X. et al. Mapping global urban boundaries from the global artificial impervious area (GAIA) data. Environmental Research Letters 15, 094044 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X., Zhou, Y., Zhu, Z. & Cao, W. A national dataset of 30 m annual urban extent dynamics (1985–2015) in the conterminous United States. Earth System Science Data 12, 357–371 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhang, X. et al. Development of a global 30 m impervious surface map using multisource and multitemporal remote sensing datasets with the Google Earth Engine platform. Earth System Science Data 12, 1625–1648 (2020).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X., Gong, P. & Liang, L. A 30-year (1984–2013) record of annual urban dynamics of Beijing City derived from Landsat data. Remote Sensing of Environment 166, 78–90 (2015).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Butchart, S. H. et al. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent declines. Science 328, 1164–1168 (2010).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tratalos, J., Fuller, R. A., Warren, P. H., Davies, R. G. & Gaston, K. J. Urban form, biodiversity potential and ecosystem services. Landscape and urban planning 83, 308–317 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Fry, J. A. et al. Completion of the 2006 national land cover database for the conterminous United States. PE&RS. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing 77, 858–864 (2011).
Google Scholar 
Elvidge, C. D., Baugh, K., Zhizhin, M., Hsu, F. C. & Ghosh, T. VIIRS night-time lights. International Journal of Remote Sensing 38, 5860–5879 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhou, Y., Li, X., Asrar, G. R., Smith, S. J. & Imhoff, M. A global record of annual urban dynamics (1992–2013) from nighttime lights. Remote Sensing of Environment 219, 206–220 (2018).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X. & Zhou, Y. A stepwise calibration of global DMSP/OLS stable nighttime light data (1992–2013). Remote Sensing 9, 637 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, X. & Zhou, Y. Urban mapping using DMSP/OLS stable night-time light: a review. International Journal of Remote Sensing 38, 6030–6046 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Cincotta, R. P., Wisnewski, J. & Engelman, R. Human population in the biodiversity hotspots. Nature 404, 990–992 (2000).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McKee, J. K., Sciulli, P. W., Fooce, C. D. & Waite, T. A. Forecasting global biodiversity threats associated with human population growth. Biological Conservation 115, 161–164 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lloyd, C. T. et al. Global spatio-temporally harmonised datasets for producing high-resolution gridded population distribution datasets. Big Earth Data 3, 108–139 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lloyd, C. T., Sorichetta, A. & Tatem, A. J. High resolution global gridded data for use in population studies. Scientific data 4, 1–17 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gaston, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T. W. & Hopkins, J. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological reviews 88, 912–927 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, M. et al. Applications of satellite remote sensing of nighttime light observations: Advances, challenges, and perspectives. Remote Sensing 11, 1971 (2019).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Folberth, C. et al. The global cropland-sparing potential of high-yield farming. Nature Sustainability 3, 281–289 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zabel, F. et al. Global impacts of future cropland expansion and intensification on agricultural markets and biodiversity. Nature communications 10, 1–10 (2019).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Plummer, S., Lecomte, P. & Doherty, M. The ESA climate change initiative (CCI): A European contribution to the generation of the global climate observing system. Remote Sensing of Environment 203, 2–8 (2017).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ramankutty N, Evan AT, Monfreda C, Foley JA. Farming the planet: 1. Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. Global biogeochemical cycles 22, (2008).Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987–992 (2018).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Trombulak, S. C. & Frissell, C. A. Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic communities. Conservation biology 14, 18–30 (2000).Article 

Google Scholar 
Paton, D. G., Ciuti, S., Quinn, M. & Boyce, M. S. Hunting exacerbates the response to human disturbance in large herbivores while migrating through a road network. Ecosphere 8, e01841 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Center For International Earth Science Information Network –Columbia University, Georgia ITOSUO. Global roads open access data set, version 1 (gROADSv1). Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC), (2013).Wolter, C. & Arlinghaus, R. Navigation impacts on freshwater fish assemblages: the ecological relevance of swimming performance. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 13, 63–89 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wolter, C. Conservation of fish species diversity in navigable waterways. Landscape and Urban Planning 53, 135–144 (2001).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lehner, B., Verdin, K. & Jarvis, A. New global hydrography derived from spaceborne elevation data. Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union 89, 93–94 (2008).ADS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mu, H. et al. An annual global terrestrial Human Footprint dataset from 2000 to 2018. figshare https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.16571064.v5 (2021).Dinerstein, E. et al. An ecoregion-based approach to protecting half the terrestrial realm. Bioscience 67, 534–545 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Arino, O. et al. Global land cover map for 2009 (GlobCover 2009). European Space Agency (ESA) & Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), PANGAEA https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.787668 (2012).Watson, J. E. et al. Catastrophic declines in wilderness areas undermine global environment targets. Current Biology 26, 2929–2934 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Díaz, S. et al. Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science 370, 411–413 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Oakleaf, J. R. et al. Mapping global development potential for renewable energy, fossil fuels, mining and agriculture sectors. Scientific data 6, 1–17 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Rehbein, J. A. et al. Renewable energy development threatens many globally important biodiversity areas. Global change biology 26, 3040–3051 (2020).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar  More

Ministry of the Environment Government of Japan. Designation of Evacuation Zone (accessed 07 April 2021); https://www.env.go.jp/chemi/rhm/h29kisoshiryo/h29kiso-09-04-01.html. (in Japanese).Fukushima Prefectural Government, Japan. About the Transition of Evacuation Zone (accessed 07 April 2021); https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal/cat01-more.html. (in Japanese).Chino, M. et al. Preliminary estimation of release amounts of 131I and 137Cs accidentally discharged from the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant into the atmosphere. J. Nucl. Sci. Technol. 48, 1129–1134 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Koarashi, J., Atarashi-Andoh, M., Takeuchi, E. & Nishimura, S. Topographic heterogeneity effect on the accumulation of Fukushima-derived radiocaesium on forest floor driven by biologically mediated processes. Sci. Rep. 4, 6853 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Saito, R., Nemoto, Y. & Tsukada, H. Relationship between radiocaesium in muscle and physicochemical fractions of radiocaesium in the stomach of wild boar. Sci. Rep. 10, 6796. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63507-5 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tsukada, H. From soil to agricultural-plants-transfer and distribution of radiocaesium. Kagaku (Chemistry). 67, 20–23 (2012) (in Japanese).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Saito, R. & Tsukada, H. Chapter 23: Physicochemical fractions of radiocaesium in the stomach contents of wild boar and its transfer to muscle tissue. In Behavior of Radionuclides in the Environment III (eds Nanba, K. et al.) 495–505 (Springer, 2022).Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Ishii, Y., Hayashi, S. & Takamura, T. Radiocaesium transfer in forest insect communities after the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. PLoS ONE 12, e0171133 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Matsushima, N., Ihara, S., Takase, M. & Horiguchi, T. Assessment of radiocaesium contamination in frogs 18 months after the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster. Sci. Rep. 5, 9712 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ishii, Y., Matsuzaki, S. S. & Hayashi, S. Different factors determine 137Cs concentration factors of freshwater fish and aquatic organisms in lake and river ecosystems. J. Environ. Radioact. 213, 106102 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wada, T. et al. Strong contrast of cesium radioactivity between marine and freshwater fish in Fukushima. J. Environ. Radioact. 204, 132–142 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morishita, D. et al. Spatial and seasonal variations of radiocaesium concentrations in an algae-grazing annual fish, ayu Plecoglossus altivelis collected from Fukushima Prefecture in 2014. Fish. Sci. 85, 561–569 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Saito, R., Kabeya, M., Nemoto, Y. & Oomachi, H. Monitoring 137Cs concentrations in bird species occupying different ecological niches; game birds and raptors in Fukushima Prefecture. J. Environ. Radioact. 197, 67–73 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Merz, S., Shozugawa, K. & Steinhauser, G. Analysis of Japanese radionuclide monitoring data of food before and after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 2875–2885 (2015).ADS 
CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Steinhauser, G. & Saey, P. R. J. 137Cs in the meat of wild boars: A comparison of the impacts of Chernobyl and Fukushima. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 307, 1801–1806 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nemoto, Y., Saito, R. & Oomachi, H. Seasonal variation of caesium-137 concentration in Asian black bear (Ursus thibetanus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa) in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. PLoS ONE 13, e0200797. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200797 (2018).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Nemoto, Y. et al. Effects of 137Cs contamination after the TEPCO Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Station accident on food and habitat of wild boar in Fukushima Prefecture. J. Environ. Radioact. 225, 106342 (2020).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Saito, R., Oomachi, H., Nemoto, Y. & Osako, M. Estimation of the total amount of the radiocaesium in the wild boar in their body – each organs survey and incineration residue survey. J. Soc. Rem. Radioact. Contam. Environ. 7, 165–173 (2019) (in Japanese).
Google Scholar 
Cui, L. et al. Radiocaesium concentrations in wild boars captured within 20 km of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Sci. Rep. 10, 9272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-66362-6 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tagami, K., Howard, B. J. & Uchida, S. The time-dependent transfer factor of radiocaesium from soil to game animals in Japan after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear accident. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 9424–9431. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b03011 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Fuma, S. et al. Radiocaesium contamination of wild boars in Fukushima and surrounding regions after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Environ. Radioact. 164, 60–64 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fukushima Prefectural Government, Japan. Monitoring of Wild Animals. Accessed 7 Apr 2021. https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/site/portal/wildlife-radiationmonitoring1.html. (in Japanese).Strebl, F. & Tataruch, F. Time trends (1986–2003) of radiocaesium transfer to roe deer and wild boar in two Austrian forest regions. J. Environ. Radioactiv. 98, 137–152 (2007).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ohtsuka-Ito, E. & Kanzaki, N. Population trends of the Japanese wild boar during the Showa era. Wildl. Cons. Jpn. 3, 95–105 (1998).Article 

Google Scholar 
Ueda, H. & Jiang, Z. The use of Orchards and Abandoned Orchard by wild boars in Yamanashi. Mamm. Sci. 44, 23–33 (2004) (in Japanese).
Google Scholar 
Fukushima Prefectural Government, Japan. Fukushima Prefecture Wild Boar Management Plan (Phase 3) (accessed 07 April 2021); https://www.pref.fukushima.lg.jp/uploaded/life/497785_1296285_misc.pdf (in Japanese).Anderson, D. et al. A comparison of methods to derive aggregated transfer factors using wild boar data from the Fukushima Prefecture. J. Environ. Radioact. 197, 101–108 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pröhl, G. et al. Ecological half-lives of 90Sr and 137Cs in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. J. Environ. Radioactiv. 91, 41–72 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Palo, R. T., White, N. & Danell, K. Spatial and temporal variations of 137Cs in moose Alces alces and transfer to man in northern Sweden. Wildlife Biol. 9, 207–212 (2003).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kodera, Y., Kanzaki, N., Ishikawa, N. & Minagawa, A. Food habits of wild boar (Sus scrofa) inhabiting Iwami District, Shimane Prefecture, western Japan. J. Mammal. Soc. Jpn. 53, 279–287 (2013) (in Japanese).
Google Scholar 
Kodera, Y. & Kanzaki, N. Food habits and nutritional condition of Japanese wild boar in Iwami district, Shimane Prefecture, western Japan. Wildl. Cons. Jpn. 6, 109–117 (2001) (in Japanese).
Google Scholar 
Arita, S. et al. Radioactive cesium accumulation during developmental stages of Largemouth Bass, Micropterus salmoides. Proc. JSCE. G. (Environment) 71, 267–276 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kodera, Y. C. S. F. prevention of epidemics from a point of view of the ecology of wild boar. J. Vet. Epidemiol. 23, 4–8 (2019) (in Japanese).Article 

Google Scholar 
Calenge, C., Maillard, D., Vassant, J. & Brandt, S. Summer and hunting season home ranges of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in two habitats in France. Game Wildl. Sci. 19, 281–301 (2002).
Google Scholar 
Massei, G., Genov, P. V., Staines, B. W. & Gorman, M. L. Factors influencing home range and activity of wild boar (Sus scrofa) in a Mediterranean coastal area. J. Zool. 242, 411–423 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Morelle, K. et al. Towards understanding wild boar Sus scrofa movement: A synthetic movement ecology approach. Mammal Rev. 45, 15–29 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kapata, J., Mnich, K., Mnich, S., Karpińska, M. & Bielawska, A. Time-dependence of 137Cs activity concentration in wild game meat in Knyszyn Primeval Forest (Poland). J. Environ. Radioactiv. 141, 76–81 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gulakov, A. V. Accumulation and distribution of 137Cs and 90Sr in the body of the wild boar (Sus scrofa) found on the territory with radioactive. J. Environ. Radioactiv. 127, 171–175 (2014).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hohmann, U. & Huckschlag, D. Investigations on the radiocaesium contamination of wild boar (Sus scrofa) meat in Rhineland-Palatinate: A stomach content analysis. Eur. J. Wildl. Res. 51, 263–270 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Škrkal, J., Rulík, P., Fantínová, K., Mihalík, J. & Timková, J. Radiocaesium levels in game in the Czech Republic. J. Environ. Radioactiv. 139, 18–23 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA). 5th airborne monitoring survey (accessed 07 April 2021); https://emdb.jaea.go.jp/emdb/en/portals/b1020201/Steinhauser, G. Monitoring and radioecological characteristics of radiocaesium in Japanese beef after the Fukushima nuclear accident. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 311, 1367–1373 (2017).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Merz, S., Shozugawa, K. & Steinhauser, G. Effective and ecological half-lives of 90Sr and 137Cs observed in wheat and rice in Japan. J. Radioanal. Nucl. Chem. 307, 1807–1810 (2016).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar  More

These authors contributed equally: György Kröel-Dulay, Andrea Mojzes.Institute of Ecology and Botany, Centre for Ecological Research, Vácrátót, HungaryGyörgy Kröel-Dulay & Andrea Mojzes‘Lendület’ Landscape and Conservation Ecology, Institute of Ecology and Botany, Centre for Ecological Research, Vácrátót, HungaryKatalin Szitár & Péter BatáryDepartment of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, AustriaMichael BahnDepartment of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg, DenmarkClaus Beier, Inger Kappel Schmidt & Klaus Steenberg LarsenNamibia University of Science and Technology, Windhoek, NamibiaMark BiltonPlants and Ecosystems (PLECO), Department of Biology, University of Antwerp, Wilrijk, BelgiumHans J. De Boeck & Sara ViccaDepartment of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USAJeffrey S. DukesDepartment of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USAJeffrey S. DukesCSIC, Global Ecology Unit CREAF-CSIC-UAB, Bellaterra, SpainMarc Estiarte & Josep PeñuelasCREAF, Cerdanyola del Vallès, SpainMarc Estiarte & Josep PeñuelasGlobal Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech RepublicPetr HolubDisturbance Ecology, Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, GermanyAnke JentschExperimental Plant Ecology, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, GermanyJuergen KreylingUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Bangor, UKSabine ReinschSchool of Plant Sciences and Food Security, Faculty of Life Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, IsraelMarcelo SternbergPlant Ecology Group, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, GermanyKatja TielbörgerInstitute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), Ecosystem and Landscape Dynamics (ELD), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the NetherlandsAlbert Tietema More