Traversing the food-biodiversity nexus towards coexistence by manipulating social-ecological system parameters

Agroecological landscapes have the potential to simultaneously meet food security and biodiversity conservation goals but are hindered by emerging biodiversity conflicts. Here, we opt to view the social-ecological factors that decrease biodiversity impacts or increase tolerance of biodiversity in agroecological landscapes as system parameters for their potential capacity to move a social-ecological system from states of conflict to alternative desired system states devoid of major losses for both food security and biodiversity, that is landscapes of coexistence. We discuss how reframing landscapes as social-ecological systems allows focusing on manageable components, or coexistence parameters, that explain biodiversity impacts and are hence capable of dampening conflicts. Approaches from the social, economic, or ecological sciences allow for the formulation of management strategies tailor-made for each system, with a higher chance of success than one-size-fits-all strategies. Conceptually recognizing coexistence parameters may enable easier assessment of a landscape's current state and identification of the required actions needed to transition towards a state of coexistence.Chilean Comision Nacional de Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnologica scholarship CONICYT 63130184 postdoctoral research project ANID-FONDECYT 320028

Reconciling farming and wild nature: Integrating human–wildlife coexistence into the land-sharing and land-sparing framework

Land has traditionally been spared to protect biodiversity; however, this approach has not succeeded by itself and requires a complementary strategy in human-dominated landscapes: land-sharing. Human–wildlife conflicts are rampant in a land-sharing context where wildlife co-occur with crops or livestock, but whose resulting interactions adversely affect the wellbeing of land owners, ultimately impeding coexistence. Therefore, true land-sharing only works if coexistence is also considered an end goal. We reviewed the literature on land-sharing and found that conflicts have not yet found their way into the land-sharing/sparing framework, with wildlife and humans co-occurring without coexisting in a dynamic process. To successfully implement a land-sharing approach, we must first acknowledge our failure to integrate the body of work on human–wildlife conflicts into the framework and work to implement multidisciplinary approaches from the ecological, economic, and sociological sciences to overcome and prevent conflicts. We suggest the use of Conflict Transformation by means of the Levels of Conflict Model to perceive both visible and deep-rooted causes of conflicts as opportunities to create problem-solving dynamics in affected socio-ecological landscapes. Reconciling farming and nature is possible by aiming for a transition to landscapes that truly share space by virtue of coexistence

Accompanying vegetation in young Pinus radiata plantations enhances recolonization by Ceroglossus chilensis (Coleoptera: Carabidae) after clearcutting

The replacement of native forests by Pinus radiata plantations modifies habitat availability and quality for wildlife, constituting a threat to species survival. However, the presence of understory in mature pine plantations minimizes the negative impacts of native forest replacement, rendering a secondary habitat for wildlife. Whether forest-dwelling species recolonize clear-felled areas pending on the spontaneous development of accompanying vegetation growing after harvesting is yet to be assessed. In this context, we analyze the abundance, movement and habitat selection of the endemic ground beetle Ceroglossus chilensis (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in an anthropic forest landscape consisting of native forest remnants, adult pine plantations (> 20 years) with a well-developed understory, and young (1-2 years) pine plantations with varying degrees of accompanying vegetation development. Particularly, we analyze the likelihood that C. chilensis would recolonize young pine plantations depending on the presence (> 70% cover) or the absence (< 20% cover) of this accompanying vegetation. C. chilensis shows a greater probability of selecting habitats with understory (pine plantations and native forest) and young plantations with accompanying vegetation (future understory) than habitats without such vegetation. Movement of C. chilensis also favors their permanence in habitats with understory vegetation, coinciding with higher abundances than in young pine plantations devoid of accompanying vegetation. Hence, the effect of clearcutting could be mitigated by allowing the development of accompanying vegetation into a future understory, which facilitates the recolonization of pine plantations and its use as secondary habitat for wildlife

The land and sea routes to 2030: a call for greater attention on all small islands in global environmental policy

Abstract Islands have unique vulnerabilities to biodiversity loss and climate change. Current Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement are insufficient to avoid the irreversible loss of critical island ecosystems. Existing research, policies, and finance also do not sufficiently address small islands’ social-environmental challenges. For instance, the new Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) mentions islands in the invasive species management target. This focus is important, as islands are at high risk to biological invasions; however, this is the only GBF target that mentions islands. There are threats of equal or greater urgency to small islands, including coastal hazards and overexploitation. Ecosystems such as coral reefs and mangroves are crucial for biodiversity, coastal protection, and human livelihoods, yet are unaddressed in the GBF. While research and global policy, including targeted financial flows, have a strong focus on Small Island Developing States (SIDS), the situation of other small islands has been largely overlooked. Here, through a review of policy developments and examples from islands in the Philippines and Chile, we urge that conservation and climate change policies place greater emphasis on acknowledging the diversity of small islands and their unique governance challenges, extending the focus beyond SIDS. Moving forward, global policy and research should include the recognition of small islands as metacommunities linked by interacting species and social-ecological systems to emphasize their connectivity rather than their isolation. Coalition-building and knowledge-sharing, particularly with local, Indigenous and traditional knowledge-holders from small islands, is needed to meet global goals on biodiversity and sustainable development by 2030