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.

Global areal protection targets have driven a dramatic expansion of the marine protected area (MPA) estate. We analyzed how cost-effective global MPA expansion has been since the inception of the first global target (set in 1982) in achieving ecoregional representation. By comparing spatial patterns of MPA expansion against optimal MPA estates using the same expansion rates, we show the current MPA estate is both expensive and ineffective. Although the number of ecoregions represented tripled and 12.7% of national waters was protected, 61% of ecoregions and 81% of countries are not 10% protected. Only 10.3% of the national waters of the world would be sufficient to protect 10% of each ecoregion if MPA growth since 1982 strategically targeted underrepresented ecoregions. Unfortunately 16.3% of national waters are required for the same representative target if systematic protection started in 2016 (an extra 3.6% on top of 12.7%). To avoid the high costs of adjusting increasingly biased MPA systems, future efforts should embrace target-driven systematic conservation planning. K E Y W O R D S

Protected areas in the European Union under the Natura 2000 reserve system cover about 17 percent of the total land area. Systematic evaluations of the effectiveness of the current reserve system have been scarce and restricted to regional assessments. One reason for that may be the poor availability of comprehensive fine scale biodiversity data for the highly fragmented and densely human-populated European continent. We apply recently developed modeling tools for systematic conservation planning to conduct a detailed gap analysis using coarse scale species occurrence data. The employed mathematical model uses mixed integer programming to determine the cost-minimizing distribution of habitat locations subject to biophysical, economic, and policy restrictions. We include fine scale wetland habitat data as well as species-specific proxies for population density and viable population threshold. First, we evaluate the performance of the current Natura 2000 system in covering enda ngered wetland vertebrate species. Results show that five area-demanding vertebrates are not covered by the current reserve system. Second, we identify potentials for expanding the network to move toward complete coverage for the considered species mostly in countries of North-Eastern Europe. About 3 million hectares of additional reserve area at a cost of 107 million Euro per year would be required to achieve coverage of all considered species. Third, we present spatially explicit priority regions for a cost-effective expansion of the current reserve network

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 419,680 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, and can expand the geographical (by 12-25%) and taxonomic (by 5-32%) coverage of English-language evidence, especially in biodiverse regions, albeit often 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.

Climate mitigation targets must involve the agricultural sector, which contributes 10%–14% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To evaluate options for implementing mitigation measures in the agricultural sector, farmers’ knowledge, positions, and attitudes towards agricultural GHG emissions, their accounting, and reduction need to be understood. Using an online survey, we asked 254 German farmers about their motivation to reduce GHG emissions and their acceptance of possible regulation schemes. We examined differences between relevant farming sectors, i.e., conventional versus organic and livestock keeping versus crop-cultivating farms. Results show that German farmers are aware of climatic changes and feel a general commitment to reducing GHG emissions but lack sufficient information. We identified agricultural magazines as the most effective tool for disseminating relevant knowledge. German farmers would feel motivated to adopt climate-friendly farming styles if products were labeled accordingly and if they received subsidies and public acknowledgment for their effort. As long as there is no regulation of agricultural GHGs through taxes or subsidies, personal motivation is yet the strongest motivation for voluntary emission reduction. Our findings are timely for the further development of strategies and instruments that reduce agricultural GHG emission and account for the farmers’ views. The dataset is available for further investigations.