Tapping into non-English-language science for the conservation of global biodiversity.

The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts

Blue carbon drawdown by restored mangrove forests improves with age

The restoration of blue carbon ecosystems, such as mangrove forests, is increasingly used as a management tool to mitigate climate change by removing and sequestering atmospheric carbon in the ground. However, estimates of carbon-offset potential are currently based on data from natural mangrove forests, potentially leading to overestimating the carbon-offset potential from restored mangroves. Here, in the first study of its kind, we utilise 210Pb sediment age-dating techniques and greenhouse gas flux measures to estimate blue carbon additionality in restored mangrove forests, ranging from 13 to 35 years old. As expected, mangrove age had a significant effect on carbon additionality and carbon accretion rate, with the older mangrove stands (17 and 35 years old) holding double the total carbon stocks (aboveground + soil stocks; ∼115 tonnes C ha−1) and double the soil sequestration rates (∼3 tonnes C ha−1 yr−1) than the youngest mangrove stand (13 years old). Although soil carbon stocks increased with mangrove age, the aboveground plant stocks were highest in the 17-year-old stand. Mangrove age also had a significant effect on soil carbon fluxes, with the older mangroves ( ≥ 17 years) releasing one-fourth of the CH4 emissions, but double the CO2 flux compared to young stands. Our study suggests that the carbon sink capacity of restored mangrove forests increases with age, but stabilises once they mature (e.g., \u3e 17 years). This means that by using carbon sequestration and emissions from natural forests, mangrove restoration projects may be overestimating their carbon sequestration potential