Setting ambitious international restoration objectives for terrestrial ecosystems for 2030 and beyond

Leadley, Paul; Archer, Emma; Bendandi, Barbara; Cavender‐Bares, Jeannine; Dávalos, Liliana M.; DeClerck, Fabrice; Gann, George D.; Gonzales, Emily K.; Krug, Cornelia B.; Metzger, Jean Paul; Nicholson, Emily; Niinemets, Ülo; Obura, David; Strassburg, Bernardo B. N.; Tansey, Bob; Verburg, P.H.; Vidal, Adriana; Watson, James; Woodley, Stephen; Yasuhara, Moriaki

doi:10.1371/journal.pstr.0000039

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Work will be needed to develop the science which will underpin the monitoring framework, including collating appropriate highresolution data for the widespread use of metrics such as the STAR metric (species threat abatement and restoration: Mair et al, 2021) to enable efficient progress toward the goals of the KM-GBF. The success of the framework will depend on a firm foundation of data, to provide baselines, develop targets and monitor progress (Gonzalez & Londoño, 2022;Leadley et al, 2022aLeadley et al, , 2022b, thus capacity building for consistent data generation and use will be crucial. Strong support is likely to be needed to agree on consistent metrics (given the lack of core metrics required within the monitoring framework) to provide comparable data for different countries and regions and provide the baselines needed to set and monitor progress across space and time.…”

Section: Falling Through the Gapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next?

Hughes

2023

Integrative Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

December 2022 finally saw the historic agreement of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF), a landmark framework that sets to halt and reverse global biodiversity loss by remedying the multifaceted drivers behind biodiversity declines around the planet. The KM-GBF follows on from the Aichi targets, which aimed to prevent further biodiversity loss through a concerted effort between 2010 and 2020, but which were not successfully achieved. The KM-GBF builds on the drivers of biodiversity losses rather than their outcomes and sets a suite of targeted and measurable actions to reconcile losses. Developing the framework faced considerable challenges, especially in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, and issues were often resolved at the very last moment. Consequently, compromises had to be made, useful elements were left out, or removed from the KM-GBF to achieve consensus, and some will need to be reflected in other ways, or incorporated into indicators. The final agreed KM-GBF includes 4 goals and 23 targets in addition to a package of annexes including a monitoring framework to set targets and benchmark progress. Particularly challenging issues included the flagship target of '30 × 30' of protecting 30% of land, freshwater, coastal, and high-sea in a representative way by 2030, which will require both new mechanisms and funding streams to enact effectively. Digital sequence information and funding mechanisms also presented major hurdles in the agreement of the KM-GBF. Ultimately, the success of the new GBF depends on implementation and mainstreaming. New targets can only be achieved through the inclusion of all sectors, clear communication, and effective funding mechanisms to guide change and provide the means to implement it. Furthermore, while common but differentiated responsibility is crucial to implementation, impacts of inaction are disproportionate in developing economies, and more resources and support are needed to enable them to develop sustainably and meet targets. This highlights the urgent need for action if we are to achieve the new targets and secure a future for all life on earth.

show abstract

Section: Falling Through the Gapsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next?

Hughes

2023

Integrative Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Maintaining adequate cover of habitats with sufficient functional integrity may be done through locally appropriate practices, both traditional and modern, with restoration and regeneration needed where current levels are below the relevant threshold (Box 1 and Restoration Brief [13]). Regeneration in agricultural ecosystems could create 1.2-1.7 M km 2 of natural or semi-natural habitat in agricultural landscapes, and lead to multiple local benefits as listed above.…”

Section: Agriculture and Conservation Landscapesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biodiversity, agriculture and sustainable production: GBF Target 10

DeClerck

Barrios

Benton

et al. 2023

PLOS Sustain Transform

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Funding: FDC received support from the CGIAR Nexus Initiative (https://www.cgiar.org/initiative/ nexus-gains/), the Food System Economics Commission (https://foodsystemeconomics.org), the Earth Commission (https://earthcommission. org), and the EAT-Lancet Commission 2.0 (https:// eatforum.org/eat-lancet-commission/eat-lancetcommission-2-0/). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

show abstract

“…Global ecosystem restoration targets have been set to combat and reverse the degradation of 30% of terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecosystems by 2030 (Leadley et al., 2022). Ecological restoration of degraded agricultural land has the potential to recover biodiversity loss and degraded soil properties, which underpin key ecosystem functions (Bardgett & van der Putten, 2014; Crouzeilles et al., 2016; Parkhurst, Prober, Hobbs, et al., 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Limited recovery of soil organic carbon and soil biophysical functions after old field restoration in an agricultural landscape

Parkhurst,

Standish,

Prober

2024

Austral Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conversion of woodland ecosystems to agricultural landscapes has led to unprecedented losses of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning globally. Unsustainable agricultural practices have contributed to the degradation of soil's physical and biogeochemical properties. Ecological restoration of unproductive agricultural land is imperative for reversing land degradation and ameliorating the degrading effects of agriculture on biodiversity and ecosystem functions. However, it is unclear to what extent common restoration activities, such as tree planting, can facilitate the recovery of ecosystem condition and in particular, improve soil physical, biogeochemical and biotic components. Here, we investigated how the cessation of cropping, followed by tree planting, affected soil carbon concentrations and key biophysical soil functions. Data were collected across 10 sites a decade after the replanting of woody species on old fields in semi‐arid Western Australia. We applied a chronosequence approach and measured soil functions in fallow cropland (restoration starting point), 10‐year‐old planted old fields and intact woodland reference sites (restoration target point). We stratified sampling between open areas and patches under trees in planted old fields and reference woodlands to account for inherent biophysical differences. Soils under planted trees recovered to some extent, having reduced soil compaction and higher soil penetration depth in comparison with the fallow cropland. However, soils under trees in planted old fields did not reach woodland reference conditions for these properties. Moreover, recovery was not evident for other soil physical, biogeochemical and biotic components such as soil organic carbon, soil moisture, leaf litter and woody debris decomposition rates. Limited recovery of soil functions may be at least partly explained by time lags associated with slow growth rates of planted trees in dry ecosystems. Our study shows that the legacy of cropping can persist over long timeframes in semi‐arid regions, with modest signs of woodland recovery beginning to emerge 10 years after tree planting.

show abstract

Setting ambitious international restoration objectives for terrestrial ecosystems for 2030 and beyond

Cited by 14 publications

References 6 publications

The Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next?

The Post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next?

Biodiversity, agriculture and sustainable production: GBF Target 10

Limited recovery of soil organic carbon and soil biophysical functions after old field restoration in an agricultural landscape

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About