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.

A solution scan of societal options to reduce transmission and spread of respiratory viruses: SARS-CoV-2 as a case study.

Societal biosecurity - measures built into everyday society to minimize risks from pests and diseases - is an important aspect of managing epidemics and pandemics. We aimed to identify societal options for reducing the transmission and spread of respiratory viruses. We used SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) as a case study to meet the immediate need to manage the COVID-19 pandemic and eventually transition to more normal societal conditions, and to catalog options for managing similar pandemics in the future. We used a 'solution scanning' approach. We read the literature; consulted psychology, public health, medical, and solution scanning experts; crowd-sourced options using social media; and collated comments on a preprint. Here, we present a list of 519 possible measures to reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission and spread. We provide a long list of options for policymakers and businesses to consider when designing biosecurity plans to combat SARS-CoV-2 and similar pathogens in the future. We also developed an online application to help with this process. We encourage testing of actions, documentation of outcomes, revisions to the current list, and the addition of further options.

Dynamic meta-analysis: a method of using global evidence for local decision making.

BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis is often used to make generalisations across all available evidence at the global scale. But how can these global generalisations be used for evidence-based decision making at the local scale, if the global evidence is not perceived to be relevant to local decisions? We show how an interactive method of meta-analysis-dynamic meta-analysis-can be used to assess the local relevance of global evidence. RESULTS: We developed Metadataset ( www.metadataset.com ) as a proof-of-concept for dynamic meta-analysis. Using Metadataset, we show how evidence can be filtered and weighted, and results can be recalculated, using dynamic methods of subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and recalibration. With an example from agroecology, we show how dynamic meta-analysis could lead to different conclusions for different subsets of the global evidence. Dynamic meta-analysis could also lead to a rebalancing of power and responsibility in evidence synthesis, since evidence users would be able to make decisions that are typically made by systematic reviewers-decisions about which studies to include (e.g. critical appraisal) and how to handle missing or poorly reported data (e.g. sensitivity analysis). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we show how dynamic meta-analysis can meet an important challenge in evidence-based decision making-the challenge of using global evidence for local decisions. We suggest that dynamic meta-analysis can be used for subject-wide evidence synthesis in several scientific disciplines, including agroecology and conservation biology. Future studies should develop standardised classification systems for the metadata that are used to filter and weight the evidence. Future studies should also develop standardised software packages, so that researchers can efficiently publish dynamic versions of their meta-analyses and keep them up-to-date as living systematic reviews. Metadataset is a proof-of-concept for this type of software, and it is open source. Future studies should improve the user experience, scale the software architecture, agree on standards for data and metadata storage and processing, and develop protocols for responsible evidence use.

80 questions for UK biological security.

Multiple national and international trends and drivers are radically changing what biological security means for the United Kingdom (UK). New technologies present novel opportunities and challenges, and globalisation has created new pathways and increased the speed, volume and routes by which organisms can spread. The UK Biological Security Strategy (2018) acknowledges the importance of research on biological security in the UK. Given the breadth of potential research, a targeted agenda identifying the questions most critical to effective and coordinated progress in different disciplines of biological security is required. We used expert elicitation to generate 80 policy-relevant research questions considered by participants to have the greatest impact on UK biological security. Drawing on a collaboratively-developed set of 450 questions, proposed by 41 experts from academia, industry and the UK government (consulting 168 additional experts) we subdivided the final 80 questions into six categories: bioengineering; communication and behaviour; disease threats (including pandemics); governance and policy; invasive alien species; and securing biological materials and securing against misuse. Initially, the questions were ranked through a voting process and then reduced and refined to 80 during a one-day workshop with 35 participants from a variety of disciplines. Consistently emerging themes included: the nature of current and potential biological security threats, the efficacy of existing management actions, and the most appropriate future options. The resulting questions offer a research agenda for biological security in the UK that can assist the targeting of research resources and inform the implementation of the UK Biological Security Strategy. These questions include research that could aid with the mitigation of Covid-19, and preparation for the next pandemic. We hope that our structured and rigorous approach to creating a biological security research agenda will be replicated in other countries and regions. The world, not just the UK, is in need of a thoughtful approach to directing biological security research to tackle the emerging issues.

The challenge of biased evidence in conservation.

Efforts to tackle the current biodiversity crisis need to be as efficient and effective as possible given chronic underfunding. To inform decision-makers of the most effective conservation actions, it is important to identify biases and gaps in the conservation literature to prioritize future evidence generation. We used the Conservation Evidence database to assess the state of the global literature that tests conservation actions for amphibians and birds. For the studies in the database, we investigated their spatial and taxonomic extent and distribution across biomes, effectiveness metrics, and study designs. Studies were heavily concentrated in Western Europe and North America for birds and particularly for amphibians, and temperate forest and grassland biomes were highly represented relative to their percentage of land coverage. Studies that used the most reliable study designs-before-after control-impact and randomized controlled trials-were the most geographically restricted and scarce in the evidence base. There were negative spatial relationships between the numbers of studies and the numbers of threatened and data-deficient species worldwide. Taxonomic biases and gaps were apparent for amphibians and birds-some entire orders were absent from the evidence base-whereas others were poorly represented relative to the proportion of threatened species they contained. Metrics used to evaluate effectiveness of conservation actions were often inconsistent between studies, potentially making them less directly comparable and evidence synthesis more difficult. Testing conservation actions on threatened species outside Western Europe, North America, and Australasia should be prioritized. Standardizing metrics and improving the rigor of study designs used to test conservation actions would also improve the quality of the evidence base for synthesis and decision-making.

El Desafío de la Evidencia Sesgada en la Conservación Resumen Los esfuerzos para lidiar con la actual crisis de la biodiversidad necesitan ser tan eficientes y efectivos como sea posible dado el crónico subfinanciamiento. Para informar a los órganos de decisión sobre las acciones de conservación más efectivas, es importante identificar los sesgos y las brechas en la literatura de la conservación para priorizar generación de evidencias en el futuro. Usamos la base de datos Conservation Evidence para evaluar el estado de la literatura mundial que analiza las acciones para la conservación de anfibios y aves. Para los estudios dentro de la base de datos, investigamos su extensión espacial y taxonómica y su distribución a lo largo de biomas, medidas de efectividad y diseños de estudio. Los estudios se concentraron principalmente en Europa Occidental y en América del Norte en el caso de las aves y particularmente para los anfibios. Los biomas con mayor representación en relación con su porcentaje de cobertura de suelo fueron el bosque templado y los pastizales. Los estudios que utilizaron el diseño más confiable - impacto del control antes- después y ensayos controlados al azar - fueron los que presentaron mayor restricción geográfica y menor presencia dentro de la base de evidencias. También encontramos relaciones espaciales negativas entre el número de estudios y el número de especies amenazadas o con pocos datos a nivel mundial. Los sesgos y las brechas taxonómicas fueron evidentes para los anfibios y las aves - hubo órdenes enteros ausentes en la base de evidencias - mientras que otros taxones estuvieron representados pobremente en relación con la proporción de especies amenazadas que albergan. Las medidas utilizadas para evaluar la efectividad de las acciones de conservación con frecuencia fueron incompatibles entre los estudios, lo que las hace potencialmente menos comparables directamente y también dificulta la síntesis de las evidencias. Se debe priorizar el análisis de las acciones para la conservación de las especies que se encuentran fuera de Europa Occidental, América del Norte y Australasia. La estandarización de las medidas y el mejoramiento del rigor de los diseños de estudio que se usan para evaluar las acciones de conservación también mejoraría la calidad de la base de evidencias para la síntesis y la toma de decisiones.

Ten-year assessment of the 100 priority questions for global biodiversity conservation.

In 2008, a group of conservation scientists compiled a list of 100 priority questions for the conservation of the world's biodiversity. However, now almost a decade later, no one has yet published a study gauging how much progress has been made in addressing these 100 high-priority questions in the peer-reviewed literature. We took a first step toward reexamining the 100 questions to identify key knowledge gaps that remain. Through a combination of a questionnaire and a literature review, we evaluated each question on the basis of 2 criteria: relevance and effort. We defined highly relevant questions as those that - if answered - would have the greatest impact on global biodiversity conservation and quantified effort based on the number of review publications addressing a particular question, which we used as a proxy for research effort. Using this approach, we identified a set of questions that, despite being perceived as highly relevant, have been the focus of relatively few review publications over the past 10 years. These questions covered a broad range of topics but predominantly tackled 3 major themes: conservation and management of freshwater ecosystems, role of societal structures in shaping interactions between people and the environment, and impacts of conservation interventions. We believe these questions represent important knowledge gaps that have received insufficient attention and may need to be prioritized in future research.

Conservation planning in agricultural landscapes: hotspots of conflict between agriculture and nature.

AIM: Conservation conflict takes place where food production imposes a cost on wildlife conservation and vice versa. Where does conservation impose the maximum cost on production, by opposing the intensification and expansion of farmland? Where does conservation confer the maximum benefit on wildlife, by buffering and connecting protected areas with a habitable and permeable matrix of crop and non-crop habitat? Our aim was to map the costs and benefits of conservation versus production and thus to propose a conceptual framework for systematic conservation planning in agricultural landscapes. LOCATION: World-wide. METHODS: To quantify these costs and benefits, we used a geographic information system to sample the cropland of the world and map the proportion of non-crop habitat surrounding the cropland, the number of threatened vertebrates with potential to live in or move through the matrix and the yield gap of the cropland. We defined the potential for different types of conservation conflict in terms of interactions between habitat and yield (potential for expansion, intensification, both or neither). We used spatial scan statistics to find 'hotspots' of conservation conflict. RESULTS: All of the 'hottest' hotspots of conservation conflict were in sub-Saharan Africa, which could have impacts on sustainable intensification in this region. MAIN CONCLUSIONS: Systematic conservation planning could and should be used to identify hotspots of conservation conflict in agricultural landscapes, at multiple scales. The debate between 'land sharing' (extensive agriculture that is wildlife friendly) and 'land sparing' (intensive agriculture that is less wildlife friendly but also less extensive) could be resolved if sharing and sparing were used as different types of tool for resolving different types of conservation conflict (buffering and connecting protected areas by maintaining matrix quality, in different types of matrix). Therefore, both sharing and sparing should be prioritized in hotspots of conflict, in the context of countryside biogeography.

Comparison of pollinators and natural enemies: a meta-analysis of landscape and local effects on abundance and richness in crops.

To manage agroecosystems for multiple ecosystem services, we need to know whether the management of one service has positive, negative, or no effects on other services. We do not yet have data on the interactions between pollination and pest-control services. However, we do have data on the distributions of pollinators and natural enemies in agroecosystems. Therefore, we compared these two groups of ecosystem service providers, to see if the management of farms and agricultural landscapes might have similar effects on the abundance and richness of both. In a meta-analysis, we compared 46 studies that sampled bees, predatory beetles, parasitic wasps, and spiders in fields, orchards, or vineyards of food crops. These studies used the proximity or proportion of non-crop or natural habitats in the landscapes surrounding these crops (a measure of landscape complexity), or the proximity or diversity of non-crop plants in the margins of these crops (a measure of local complexity), to explain the abundance or richness of these beneficial arthropods. Compositional complexity at both landscape and local scales had positive effects on both pollinators and natural enemies, but different effects on different taxa. Effects on bees and spiders were significantly positive, but effects on parasitoids and predatory beetles (mostly Carabidae and Staphylinidae) were inconclusive. Landscape complexity had significantly stronger effects on bees than it did on predatory beetles and significantly stronger effects in non-woody rather than in woody crops. Effects on richness were significantly stronger than effects on abundance, but possibly only for spiders. This abundance-richness difference might be caused by differences between generalists and specialists, or between arthropods that depend on non-crop habitats (ecotone species and dispersers) and those that do not (cultural species). We call this the 'specialist-generalist' or 'cultural difference' mechanism. If complexity has stronger effects on richness than abundance, it might have stronger effects on the stability than the magnitude of these arthropod-mediated ecosystem services. We conclude that some pollinators and natural enemies seem to have compatible responses to complexity, and it might be possible to manage agroecosystems for the benefit of both. However, too few studies have compared the two, and so we cannot yet conclude that there are no negative interactions between pollinators and natural enemies, and no trade-offs between pollination and pest-control services. Therefore, we suggest a framework for future research to bridge these gaps in our knowledge.