Where are commodity crops certified, and what does it mean for conservation and poverty alleviation?

Voluntary sustainability standards have expanded dramatically over the last decade. In the agricultural sector, such standards aim to ensure environmentally and socially sustainable production of a variety of commodity crops. However, little is known about where agricultural certification operates and whether certified lands are best located for conserving the world's most important biodiversity and benefiting the most vulnerable producers. To examine these questions we developed the first global map of commodity crop certification, synthesizing data from over one million farms to reveal the distribution of certification in unprecedented detail. It highlights both geographical clusters of certification as well as spatial bias in the location of certification with respect to environmental, livelihood and physical variables. Excluding organic certification, for which spatial data were not available, most certification of commodity crops is in tropical regions. Certification appears to be concentrated in areas important for biodiversity conservation, but not in those areas most in need of poverty alleviation, although there were exceptions to each of these patterns. We argue that the impact of sustainability standards could be increased by identifying places where it would be most beneficial to strengthen, consolidate, and expand certification. To achieve this, standards organizations will need to undertake more rigorous collection of spatial data, and more detailed analysis of their existing reach and impacts, with attention to potential trade-offs between different objectives. Efforts to promote spatial prioritization will require new partnerships to align specific conservation aims with the interests and capabilities of farmers

Ecosystem Services in the Service-Dominant Logic Framework.

Peer reviewe

Immunological Change in a Parasite-Impoverished Environment: Divergent Signals from Four Island Taxa

Dramatic declines of native Hawaiian avifauna due to the human-mediated emergence of avian malaria and pox prompted an examination of whether island taxa share a common altered immunological signature, potentially driven by reduced genetic diversity and reduced exposure to parasites. We tested this hypothesis by characterizing parasite prevalence, genetic diversity and three measures of immune response in two recently-introduced species (Neochmia temporalis and Zosterops lateralis) and two island endemics (Acrocephalus aequinoctialis and A. rimitarae) and then comparing the results to those observed in closely-related mainland counterparts. The prevalence of blood parasites was significantly lower in 3 of 4 island taxa, due in part to the absence of certain parasite lineages represented in mainland populations. Indices of genetic diversity were unchanged in the island population of N. temporalis; however, allelic richness was significantly lower in the island population of Z. lateralis while both allelic richness and heterozygosity were significantly reduced in the two island-endemic species examined. Although parasite prevalence and genetic diversity generally conformed to expectations for an island system, we did not find evidence for a pattern of uniformly altered immune responses in island taxa, even amongst endemic taxa with the longest residence times. The island population of Z. lateralis exhibited a significantly reduced inflammatory cell-mediated response while levels of natural antibodies remained unchanged for this and the other recently introduced island taxon. In contrast, the island endemic A. rimitarae exhibited a significantly increased inflammatory response as well as higher levels of natural antibodies and complement. These measures were unchanged or lower in A. aequinoctialis. We suggest that small differences in the pathogenic landscape and the stochastic history of mutation and genetic drift are likely to be important in shaping the unique immunological profiles of small isolated populations. Consequently, predicting the impact of introduced disease on the many other endemic faunas of the remote Pacific will remain a challenge

Urban Biodiversity and Landscape Ecology: Patterns, Processes and Planning

Effective planning for biodiversity in cities and towns is increasingly important as urban areas and their human populations grow, both to achieve conservation goals and because ecological communities support services on which humans depend. Landscape ecology provides important frameworks for understanding and conserving urban biodiversity both within cities and considering whole cities in their regional context, and has played an important role in the development of a substantial and expanding body of knowledge about urban landscapes and communities. Characteristics of the whole city including size, overall amount of green space, age and regional context are important considerations for understanding and planning for biotic assemblages at the scale of entire cities, but have received relatively little research attention. Studies of biodiversity within cities are more abundant and show that longstanding principles regarding how patch size, configuration and composition influence biodiversity apply to urban areas as they do in other habitats. However, the fine spatial scales at which urban areas are fragmented and the altered temporal dynamics compared to non-urban areas indicate a need to apply hierarchical multi-scalar landscape ecology models to urban environments. Transferring results from landscape-scale urban biodiversity research into planning remains challenging, not least because of the requirements for urban green space to provide multiple functions. An increasing array of tools is available to meet this challenge and increasingly requires ecologists to work with planners to address biodiversity challenges. Biodiversity conservation and enhancement is just one strand in urban planning, but is increasingly important in a rapidly urbanising world