Why and how might genetic and phylogenetic diversity be reflected in the identification of key biodiversity areas?

‘Key biodiversity areas' are defined as sites contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity. The identification of these sites builds from existing approaches based on measures of species and ecosystem diversity and process. Here, we therefore build from the work of Sgró et al. (2011 Evol. Appl. 4, 326–337. (doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00157.x)) to extend a framework for how components of genetic diversity might be considered in the identification of key biodiversity areas. We make three recommendations to inform the ongoing process of consolidating a key biodiversity areas standard: (i) thresholds for the threatened species criterion currently consider a site's share of a threatened species' population; expand these to include the proportion of the species' genetic diversity unique to a site; (ii) expand criterion for ‘threatened species' to consider ‘threatened taxa’ and (iii) expand the centre of endemism criterion to identify as key biodiversity areas those sites holding a threshold proportion of the compositional or phylogenetic diversity of species (within a taxonomic group) whose restricted ranges collectively define a centre of endemism. We also recommend consideration of occurrence of EDGE species (i.e. threatened phylogenetic diversity) in key biodiversity areas to prioritize species-specific conservation actions among sites

Assessing the cost of global biodiversity and conservation knowledge

Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116-204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278-308 person-years) valued at US$14 million (range US$12-16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013 ) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2-6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical

Second-hand smoke exposure in adulthood and lower respiratory health during 20 year follow up in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey

Background: Early life exposure to tobacco smoke has been extensively studied but the role of second-hand smoke (SHS) for new-onset respiratory symptoms and lung function decline in adulthood has not been widely investigated in longitudinal studies. Our aim is to investigate the associations of exposure to SHS in adults with respiratory symptoms, respiratory conditions and lung function over 20 years. Methods: We used information from 3011 adults from 26 centres in 12 countries who participated in the European Community Respiratory Health Surveys I-III and were never or former smokers at all three surveys. Associations of SHS exposure with respiratory health (asthma symptom score, asthma, chronic bronchitis, COPD) were analysed using generalised linear mixed-effects models adjusted for confounding factors (including sex, age, smoking status, socioeconomic status and allergic sensitisation). Linear mixed-effects models with additional adjustment for height were used to assess the relationships between SHS exposure and lung function levels and decline. Results: Reported exposure to SHS decreased in all 26 study centres over time. The prevalence of SHS exposure was 38.7% at baseline (1990-1994) and 7.1% after the 20-year follow-up (2008-2011). On average 2.4% of the study participants were not exposed at the first, but were exposed at the third examination. An increase in SHS exposure over time was associated with doctor-diagnosed asthma (odds ratio (OR): 2.7; 95% confidence interval (95%-CI): 1.2-5.9), chronic bronchitis (OR: 4.8; 95%-CI: 1.6-15.0), asthma symptom score (count ratio (CR): 1.9; 95%-CI: 1.2-2.9) and dyspnoea (OR: 2.7; 95%-CI: 1.1-6.7) compared to never exposed to SHS. Associations between increase in SHS exposure and incidence of COPD (OR: 2.0; 95%-CI: 0.6-6.0) or lung function (β: - 49 ml; 95%-CI: -132, 35 for FEV1 and β: - 62 ml; 95%-CI: -165, 40 for FVC) were not apparent. Conclusion: Exposure to second-hand smoke may lead to respiratory symptoms, but this is not accompanied by lung function changes