Biology subjects

Burgess, N. D.

Publications and source records attributed to Burgess, N. D..

10 recordsLinked to original sources

bioRxiv2026

A prioritization strategy for protecting Conservation Imperatives Sites

To prevent species extinctions, targeted action must focus on areas of threatened biodiversity facing intense human pressures. This objective is even more important in the run-up to 2030, the target date to conserve 30% of lands and waters globally. Conservation Imperatives (unprotected terrestrial sites that harbour rare, range-restricted, and threatened species) are critical to preventing imminent species losses. To prioritize among the 16,825 Conservation Imperatives Sites spanning 1.64 million km2, we ranked each site using a prioritization framework based on four criteria: number of threatened species per site; irreplaceability of the site; the proportion of an ecoregions remaining habitat contained in the site; and conversion pressure. Our approach prioritizes 1,667 sites representing 501,426 km2, or 0.37% of Earths terrestrial surface, most in need of urgent protection, with 87.34% of these sites occurring in 20 countries and in 250 ecoregions. This prioritization directly addresses the concern that protected areas must be targeted to protect endangered species, habitats and populations: 33.46% of the prioritized Conservation Imperatives Sites scored higher in irreplaceability than 90% of existing protected areas. Additionally, 51.53% are within 2.5 km2 of an existing protected area, making extending protection or restoring connectivity more feasible. Targeting conservation actions, especially in this small set of countries and ecoregions identified here, would contribute "high quality" areas for biodiversity as part of reaching the 30% coverage target by 2030.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2025

Local people's perceptions on the influence of linear infrastructure on human-wildlife conflict in Southern Kenya

Globally, conservation and development efforts are impacted by human-wildlife conflict as this issue negatively affects human lives. Increasingly, sub-Saharan Africa has become the focus of linear transportation infrastructure development that encroaches on many traditional wildlife areas. One of the resulting effects of infrastructure development - allowing people to move into areas they were not previously living - can be human-wildlife conflict. This relationship between people, wildlife and infrastructure has not been well investigated in Kenya. We studied local peoples perceptions of the impacts of the Mombasa to Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway (SGR), roads, oil pipelines and electricity transport lines on human-wildlife conflict in southern Kenya. Our results show that peoples perceptions are that human wildlife conflict has increased in the past five years due to the construction of the SGR, but not in relation to other infrastructure. We have no independent data to check this result, and there is significant politics around this railway project, but the result is robust along 100s of kilometres of railway construction route. Our conclusion is that addressing human-wildlife conflict requires a holistic overview and understanding of the drivers and their interactions to support the development of strategies that support human and wildlife coexistence.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2025

An update to the global Critical Habitat layer

The International Finance Corporation (IFC) defines Critical Habitat in Performance Standard 6 (PS6) as high biodiversity value areas requiring net biodiversity gain for projects. We present an updated global screening layer of Critical Habitat aligned with IFCs 2019 guidance. This layer derives from global datasets covering 53 biodiversity features, categorized as Likely or Potential Critical Habitat based on agreement with IFC criteria and data suitability. Analysis indicates 52.77 million km2 (10.4%) and 15.94 million km2 (3.2%) of the globe can be considered Likely and Potential Critical Habitat respectively, with the remaining 86.4% not overlapping with assessed biodiversity features. This represents a significant increase over previously identified 5% and 2% for Likely and Potential Critical Habitat. Likely Critical Habitat was dominated by Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas, Intact Forest Landscapes, and protected areas; Potential Critical Habitat by Important Marine Mammal Areas and ranges of IUCN Vulnerable species. Our results can help businesses prioritize impact avoidance and identify opportunities by screening potential development sites for biodiversity features.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2024

An operational framework to map Essential Life Support Areas (ELSAs) for biodiversity, climate, and sustainable development

Almost all countries are making increasingly bold commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, minimise the impacts of climate change, and transition to more sustainable development. The effective achievement of many of these commitments relies on integrated spatial planning frameworks that are adaptable to national circumstances, priorities and capabilities. This need is formally recognized by Target 1 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which specifies that all areas should be under such planning. Here, we describe the development and application of an operational framework for national-level integrated spatial planning: Essential Life Support Areas (ELSAs). This framework facilitates the identification of areas that - if protected, restored, or sustainably managed - can support the achievement of national commitments to biodiversity, climate, and sustainable development. The process of mapping ELSAs relies heavily on leadership by national experts and stakeholders and the integration of spatial data using systematic conservation planning tools. We showcase the ELSA process carried out for Ecuador, where the use of real-time scenario analyses enabled diverse stakeholder groups to collaborate to assess national priorities for nature, climate, and sustainable development, view trade-offs and synergies, and arrive at a spatial plan to guide national action. ELSA presented an actionable approach for Ecuador, and 12 other pilot countries, to create a spatial plan aimed at fulfilling their national and international commitments to nature, including to the GBF.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2022

The Global Environment Facility approach for allocating biodiversity funding to countries

Biodiversity is not evenly distributed across the globe and some areas have greater potential to contribute to biodiversity conservation than others. Whilst there are multiple ways to determine priority areas for conservation, for a global institution like the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the funding mechanism for the Convention on Biological Diversity and the largest multilateral source of funding for developing countries focused on enhancing biodiversity outcomes and promoting sustainable use, it is important to fund the top-ranked countries whilst also ensuring that all eligible countries are able to undertake some biodiversity conservation actions in accordance with the Convention. To this end, the GEF uses the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources (STAR) to allocate funding in separate funding rounds to eligible countries. This country focus means that all prioritization analyses need to be undertaken within that political framework, while also considering the intrinsic patterns in biodiversity that dont respect national borders. We present the 2018 update of the biodiversity component of GEF-STAR, investigate how the weighting system affects the ranking of countries. We show that top ranked and bottom ranked countries are robust to changes in the weighting of analytical elements, but the weighting can significantly alter the importance of middle ranking countries, affecting their funding allocation. This analysis has been used by the GEF, along with other data, to allocate over $1 billion in biodiversity funding (GEF-7 = $1.2 billion) to improve country and global prospects for conservation. However, this large funding allocation for conservation needs to be set against the vastly larger funding flows that decrease natural values around the world, and the need for systems level change remains evident across the entire planet.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2022

The Ecosystem Integrity Index: a novel measure of terrestrial ecosystem integrity with global coverage

While the importance of ecosystem integrity has long been recognised (Leopold, 1949), conservation science has tended to focus on measuring and monitoring species and habitats, avoiding the complexities of working at the ecosystem level. Ecosystems are highly dynamic, defined by both living and non-living components as well as their interactions (CBD, 1992), making it difficult to assess baseline levels of integrity. We present a novel index that represents the integrity of all terrestrial ecosystems globally at 1km2 resolution: the Ecosystem Integrity Index (EII). The index provides a simple, yet scientifically robust, way of measuring, monitoring and reporting on ecosystem integrity. It is formed of three components; structural, compositional and functional integrity, and measured against a natural (current potential) baseline on a scale of 0 to 1. We find that ecosystem integrity is severely impacted in terrestrial areas across the globe with approximately one fifth of all ecosystems and one quarter of all ecoregions having lost, on average, over half of their ecosystem integrity. At a national scale, we estimate similar challenges with 115 nations or territories having lost, on average, over half of their ecosystem integrity. This presents a significant threat for humanity as such levels of degradation are likely to be linked to substantial declines in the ecosystem services on which humanity is reliant. The EII has been developed principally to help national governments measure and report on Goal A of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) (CBD, 2022a), for which it has been listed as a Component Indicator. The EII will also be useful in helping non-state actors measure and report their contributions to the GBF and is listed as an indicator by both the Taskforce for Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) (TNFD, 2023) and the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) (SBTN, 2023). The EII aims to enable these actors to make informed decisions on the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of ecosystems for which they are wholly or partly responsible. We propose that with sufficient effort, ecosystem integrity can be restored and contribute towards the GBFs vision of living in harmony with nature, resulting in the safeguarding of the ecosystem services on which humanity depends.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2020

Prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use of wild species inferred from the IUCN Red List

Unsustainable exploitation of wild species represents a serious threat to biodiversity and to the livelihoods of local communities and indigenous peoples. However, managed, sustainable use has the potential to forestall extinctions, aid recovery, and meet human needs. Research to date has focused on unsustainable biological resource use with little consideration of sustainable use; we infer the current prevalence of both. We analyzed species-level data for 30,923 species from 13 taxonomic groups on the IUCN Red List. Our results demonstrate the broad taxonomic prevalence of use, with 40% of species (10,098 of 25,009 species from 10 data-sufficient taxonomic groups) documented as being used. The main purposes of use are pets, display animals and horticulture, and human consumption. Use often has an adverse impact on species extinction risk (we define this as biologically unsustainable): intentional use is currently contributing to elevated extinction risk for over a quarter of all threatened or Near Threatened (NT) species (2,752 - 2,848 of 9,753 species). Intentional use also threatens 16% of all species used (1,597 - 1,631 of 10,098). However, 72% of species that are used (7,291 of 10,098) are Least Concern (LC), of which nearly half (3,469) also have stable or improving population trends. The remainder of used species are not documented as threatened by biological resource use, including 172 threatened or NT species with stable or improving populations. Around a third of species that have use documented as a threat do not currently receive targeted species management actions to directly address this threat. We offer suggestions for improving use-related Red List data. Our findings on the prevalence of sustainable and unsustainable use, and variation across taxa, can inform international policymaking, including the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2020

A global indicator of utilised wildlife populations: regional trends and the impact of management

The sustainable use of wildlife is a core aspiration of biodiversity conservation but is the subject of intense debate in the scientific literature as to how, and whether, species are best used and managed. While both positive and negative outcomes of sustainable use are known for specific taxa or local case studies, a global and regional picture of trends in wildlife populations in use is lacking. We use a global data set of over 11,000 time-series to derive indices of utilised and not utilised wildlife populations and assess global and regional changes, principally for mammals, birds and fishes. We also assess whether management makes a measurable difference to wildlife population trends, especially for the utilised species populations. Our results show that wildlife population trends globally are negative, but with utilised populations tending to decline more rapidly, especially in Africa and the Americas. Crucially, where utilised populations are managed, using a variety of mechanisms, there is a positive impact on the trend. It is therefore true that use of species can both be a driver of negative population trends, or a driver of species recovery, with numerous species and population specific case examples making up these broader trends. This work is relevant to the evidence base for the IPBES Sustainable Use Assessment, and to the development of indicators of sustainable use of species under the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework being developed under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2019

Area requirements to safeguard Earth’s marine species

Despite global policy commitments to preserve Earths marine biodiversity, many species are in a state of decline. Using data on 22,885 marine species, we identify 8.5 million km2 of priority areas that complement existing areas of conservation and biodiversity importance. New conservation priorities are found in over half (56%) of all coastal nations, with key priority regions in the northwest Pacific Ocean and Atlantic Ocean. We identify where different conservation actions, ranging from marine protected areas to broader policy approaches, may best overcome anthropogenic threats to these areas. This analysis shows 26-41% of the ocean (depending on targets used for species representation) needs to be effectively conserved through a combination of site-based actions and wider policy responses to achieve global conservation and sustainable development agendas.\n\nOne Sentence SummaryAt least 26% of the ocean needs a combination of site-based conservation and wider policy responses to achieve global conservation goals.

ecology↗

bioRxiv2018

Putting species back on the map: devising a robust method for quantifying the biodiversity impacts of land conversion

AimQuantifying connections between the global drivers of habitat loss and biodiversity impact is vital for decision-makers promoting responsible land-use. To that end, biodiversity impact metrics should be able to report linked trends in specific anthropogenic activities and changes in biodiversity state. However, for biodiversity, it is challenging to deliver integrated information on its multiple dimensions (i.e. species richness, endemicity) and keep it practical. Here, we developed a biodiversity footprint indicator that can i) capture the status of different species groups, ii) link biodiversity impact to specific human activities, and iii) be adapted to the most applicable scale for the decision context.\n\nLocationCerrado Biome, Brazil\n\nMethodsWe illustrate this globally-applicable approach for the case of soybean expansion in the Brazilian Cerrado. Using species-specific habitat suitability models, we assessed the impact of soy expansion and other land uses over 2,000 species of amphibians, birds, mammals and plants for three time periods between 2000 and 2014.\n\nResultsOverall, plants suffered the greatest reduction of suitable habitat. However, among endemic and near-endemic species - which face greatest risk of global extinction from habitat conversion in the Cerrado - birds were the most affected group. While planted pastures and cropland expansion were together responsible for most of the absolute biodiversity footprint, soy expansion via direct conversion of natural vegetation had the greatest impact per unit area. The total biodiversity footprint over the period was concentrated in the southern states of Minas Gerais, Goias and Mato Grosso, but the soy footprint was proportionally higher in those northern states (such as Bahia and Piaui) which belong to the new agricultural frontier.\n\nMain conclusionsThe ability and flexibility of our approach to examine linkages between biodiversity loss and specific human activities has substantial potential to better characterise the pathways by which habitat loss drivers operate.

ecology↗