{"id":4022,"date":"2022-08-01T07:43:12","date_gmt":"2022-08-01T07:43:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/?p=4022"},"modified":"2022-08-01T07:47:52","modified_gmt":"2022-08-01T07:47:52","slug":"new-publication-from-isbell-et-al-in-front-ecol-environ","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/index.php\/2022\/08\/01\/new-publication-from-isbell-et-al-in-front-ecol-environ\/","title":{"rendered":"New publication from Isbell et al. in Front Ecol Environ: Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"justify\">Despite substantial progress in understanding global biodiversity loss,  major taxonomic and geographic knowledge gaps remain. Decision makers  often rely on expert judgement to fill knowledge gaps, but are rarely  able to engage with sufficiently large and diverse groups of  specialists. To improve understanding of the perspectives of thousands  of biodiversity experts worldwide, we conducted a survey and asked  experts to focus on the taxa and freshwater, terrestrial, or marine  ecosystem with which they are most familiar. We found several points of  overwhelming consensus (for instance, multiple drivers of biodiversity  loss interact synergistically) and important demographic and geographic  differences in specialists\u2019 perspectives and estimates. Experts from  groups that are underrepresented in biodiversity science, including  women and those from the Global South, recommended different priorities  for conservation solutions, with less emphasis on acquiring new  protected areas, and provided higher estimates of biodiversity loss and  its impacts. This may in part be because they disproportionately study  the most highly threatened taxa and habitats. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image justify\"><img src=\"https:\/\/esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/cms\/asset\/2edbc46b-3360-4cbf-8e5a-0ac3af8a6f24\/fee2536-fig-0001-m.jpg\" alt=\"Details are in the caption following the image\"\/><figcaption><br> Expert estimates of (a) global biodiversity loss and (b, c) its impacts.  (a) Medians of estimates and upper and lower bounds for past  biodiversity loss (white circles, lines) and future biodiversity loss by  2100 if current trends continue (rightward gray arrows) or if  conservation efforts are increased (leftward gray arrows). Where  available, IUCN estimates are shown (red lines). (b) Expert estimates  (black) as well as lower (blue) and upper (red) bounds for impacts of  three levels of biodiversity loss (jittered on the x-axis). (c)  Combining estimates of past biodiversity loss (a) and its impacts (b,  linearly interpolated) shows the estimated impacts of past biodiversity  loss. Sample sizes show the number of responses, which do not always sum  to the total because respondents were not required to answer all  questions. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3>Reference:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p>Isbell, F., Balvanera, P., Mori, A.S. <em>et al.<\/em> Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people (2022). <em>Front Ecol Environ<\/em>, 1-10. <a href=\"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/fee.2536\">https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1002\/fee.2536<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Despite substantial progress in understanding global biodiversity loss, major taxonomic and geographic knowledge gaps remain. Decision makers often rely on expert judgement to fill knowledge gaps, but are rarely able&hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":4023,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[15,13],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4022"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4022"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4022\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4026,"href":"https:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4022\/revisions\/4026"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4023"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/the-jena-experiment.de\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}