The pursuit of global food security and agricultural sustainability, the dual aim of the second sustainable development goal (SDG-2), requires urgent and concerted action from developing and developed countries. This, in turn, depends on clear and universally applicable targets and indicators which are partially lacking. The novel and complex nature of the SDGs poses further challenges to their implementation on the ground, especially in the face of interlinkages across SDG objectives and scales. Here we review the existing SDG-2 indicators, propose improvements to facilitate their operationalization, and illustrate their practical implementation in Nigeria, Brazil and the Netherlands. This exercise provides insights into the concrete actions needed to achieve SDG-2 across contrasting development contexts and highlights the challenges of addressing the links between targets and indicators within and beyond SDG-2. Ultimately, it underscores the need for integrated policies and reveals opportunities to leverage the fulfillment of SDG-2 worldwide. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s13280-018-1101-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Reading RG6 6AS, UK Summary 1. Focusing on food production, in this paper we define resilience in the food security context as maintaining production of sufficient and nutritious food in the face of chronic and acute environmental perturbations. In agri-food systems, resilience is manifest over multiple spatial scales: field, farm, regional and global. Metrics comprise production and nutritional diversity as well as socioeconomic stability of food supply. 2. Approaches to enhancing resilience show a progression from more ecologically based methods at small scales to more socially based interventions at larger scales. At the field scale, approaches include the use of mixtures of crop varieties, livestock breeds and forage species, polycultures and boosting ecosystem functions. Stress-tolerant crops, or with greater plasticity, provide technological solutions. 3. At the farm scale, resilience may be conferred by diversifying crops and livestock and by farmers implementing adaptive approaches in response to perturbations. Biodiverse landscapes may enhance resilience, but the evidence is weak. At regional to global scales, resilient food systems will be achieved by coordination and implementation of resilience approaches among farms, advice to farmers and targeted research. 4. Synthesis. Threats to food production are predicted to increase under climate change and land degradation. Holistic responses are needed that integrate across spatial scales. Ecological knowledge is critical, but should be implemented alongside agronomic solutions and socio-economic transformations.

The emergence of the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus has resulted in changes to the way we perceive our natural resources. Stressors such as climate change and population growth have highlighted the fragility of our WEF systems, necessitating integrated solutions across multiple scales. While a number of frameworks and analytical tools have been developed since 2011, a comprehensive WEF nexus tool remains elusive, hindered in part by our limited data and understanding of the interdependencies and connections across the WEF systems. To achieve this, the community of academics, practitioners and policy‐makers invested in WEF nexus research are addressing several critical areas that currently remain as barriers. First, the plurality of scales (e.g., spatial, temporal, institutional, jurisdictional) necessitates a more comprehensive effort to assess interdependencies between water, energy and food, from household to institutional and national levels. Second, and closely related to scale, a lack of available data often hinders our ability to quantify physical stocks and flows of resources. Overcoming these barriers necessitates engaging multiple stakeholders, and using experiences and local insights to better understand nexus dynamics in particular locations or scenarios, and we exemplify this with the inclusion of a UK‐based case study on exploring the nexus in a particular geographical area. We elucidate many challenges that have arisen across nexus research, including the impact of multiple scales in operation, and concomitantly, what impact these scales have on data accessibility. We assess some of the critical frameworks and tools that are applied by nexus researchers and articulate some of the steps required to develop from nexus thinking to an operationalisable concept, with a consistent focus on scale and data availability.

There are several conceptual definitions of resilience pertaining to environmental systems and, even if resilience is clearly defined in a particular context, it is challenging to quantify. We identify four characteristics of the response of a system function to disturbance that relate to “resilience”: (1) degree of return of the function to a reference level; (2) time taken to reach a new quasi-stable state; (3) rate (i.e. gradient) at which the function reaches the new state; (4) cumulative magnitude of the function (i.e. area under the curve) before a new state is reached. We develop metrics to quantify these characteristics based on an analogy with a mechanical spring and damper system. Using the example of the response of a soil function (respiration) to disturbance, we demonstrate that these metrics effectively discriminate key features of the dynamic response. Although any one of these characteristics could define resilience, each may lead to different insights and conclusions. The salient properties of a resilient response must thus be identified for different contexts. Because the temporal resolution of data affects the accurate determination of these metrics, we recommend that at least twelve measurements are made over the temporal range for which the response is expected.

When dry soils are rewetted a pulse of CO2 is invariably released, and whilst this phenomenon has been studied for decades, the precise origins of this CO2 remain obscure. We postulate that it could be of chemical (i.e. via abiotic pathways), biochemical (via free enzymes) or biological (via intact cells) origin. To elucidate the relative contributions of the pathways, dry soils were either sterilised (double autoclaving) or treated with solutions of inhibitors (15% trichloroacetic acid or 1% silver nitrate) targeting the different modes. The rapidity of CO2 release from the soils after the drying:rewetting (DRW) cycle was remarkable, with maximal rates of evolution within 6 min, and 41% of the total efflux over 96 h released within the first 24 h. The complete cessation of CO2 eflux following sterilisation showed there was no abiotic (dissolution of carbonates) contribution to the CO2 release on rewetting, and clear evidence for an organismal or biochemical basis to the flush. Rehydration in the presence of inhibitors indicated that there were approximately equal contributions from biochemical (outside membranes) and organismal (inside membranes) sources within the first 24 h after rewetting. This suggests that some of the flux was derived from microbial respiration, whilst the remainder was a consequence of enzyme activity, possibly through remnant respiratory pathways in the debris of dead cells.