未来气候变化情景下的中国种子植物受威胁等级评估

未来气候变化是全球生物多样性面临的重要威胁之一,给全球生物多样性维持和生态系统稳定带来了巨大挑战.为降低生物灭绝风险并维持生态系统稳定,优先保护受威胁物种成为全球生物多样性保护的共识,而完善的受威胁物种名录对生物多样性保护有基石意义.本研究基于28450种中国种子植物(约占中国种子总数的82.3%)的10 km×10 km分布数据,通过物种分布模型预测了这些物种的未来分布区并计算了其未来分布区面积的变化;进而基于IUCN红色名录A3c的判断标准,评估了受未来气候变化情景下的种子植物受威胁等级;整合本文的评估结果和现有受威胁物种名录,提出了新的中国种子植物受威胁等级和名录.更新后的受威胁名录共包含34550种中国种子植物(约为现有全部中国种子植物).在3种未来气候变化情景(SSP126, SSP245和SSP585)和3种物种扩散情景(完全扩散、每10年扩散20 km和不扩散)下,受威胁种子植物数量为4444～11467种,占中国种子植物总数的12.9%～33.2%;其中木本植物1878～4330种,占全部木本植物总数的14.8～34.1%.草本植物2566～7137种,占全部草本植物总...     

全球变化情景下的中国木本植物受威胁物种名录

生物多样性正面临快速丧失的风险, 气候和土地利用变化已成为生物多样性的主要威胁之一。受威胁物种名录是区域和全球生物多样性保护的重要基础数据, 也是保护区规划的基础。作为一个生物多样性大国, 中国已开展了高等植物受威胁状况的系统性评估, 建立了受威胁植物名录, 为植物多样性保护规划提供了支撑。但由于数据和方法限制, 现有受威胁植物名录制定时未定量考虑全球变化对植物分布的潜在影响, 因而可能低估物种的受威胁等级及未来生物多样性的丧失风险。本研究基于高精度的木本植物分布数据和物种分布模型, 评估了未来气候和土地利用变化对木本植物分布的潜在影响。基于每个物种适宜分布区大小的变化, 并依据IUCN红色名录评估指标A3c的阈值标准, 更新了木本植物的受威胁等级, 补充了未来中国潜在受威胁木本植物名录。结果显示: 综合不同的气候变化情景(RCP 2.6、RCP 6.0和RCP 8.5)和扩散情景(完全扩散、20 km/10年、不扩散), 约12.9%-40.5%的木本植物被评估为受威胁物种。该名录将为制定木本植物保护优先级、开展保护区规划、提升全球变化情景下的生物多样性保护成效提供基础数据, 也为其他类群制定全面的受威胁物种名录提供参考。     

IUCN生态系统红色名录研究进展

生态系统红色名录作为物种红色名录的重要补充,是基于生态系统水平上的生物多样性评估,对于重要生物的生境保护至关重要。当前,世界自然保护联盟(IUCN)将IUCN生态系统红色名录评估方法作为生态系统受威胁状况评估的正式标准,广泛应用于全球生态系统的评估,在生物多样性保护和生态系统管理中发挥着重要作用。随着IUCN生态系统红色名录评估体系的修订和推广,其评估标准日趋完善,但生态系统制图、生态系统崩溃的概念以及实际操作层面仍面临挑战。本文回顾了生态系统红色名录的发展过程,归纳了IUCN生态系统红色名录评估方案中生境范围退化(标准A)、生境限制分布(标准B)、非生物环境退化(标准C)、生物过程退化(标准D)以及威胁定量分析(标准E)这5个指标的含义和评估过程,并围绕IUCN生态系统红色名录实际评估中面临的挑战,论述了利用遥感和生态模型可能提供的解决方案。文中指出,明确生态系统分类体系以及生态系统崩溃等基本概念对生态系统红色名录评估至关重要;尺度效应是评估过程的重要影响因素;多尺度评估是丰富生态系统红色名录空间信息的潜在方法;耦合遥感和生态模型等手段共同参与评估,是未来研究IUCN生态系统红色名录的重要方法。     

IUCN受威胁物种红色名录进展及应用

IUCN受威胁物种红色名录已经成为世界上最全面的关于全球动物、真菌和植物物种灭绝风险状况的信息来源, 是生物多样性健康的关键指标, 是促进生物多样性保护和决策的有力工具。本文全面介绍IUCN受威胁物种红色名录(简称IUCN红色名录)的发展以及应用状况, 积极推动其在中国的物种评估和广泛应用。总结了IUCN红色名录从依赖于评估专家的主观意志决定物种濒危等级的濒危物种红皮书(Red Data Book)到IUCN受威胁物种等级和标准(3.1版)的客观量化和所有门类使用统一标准的过程。该等级体系可囊括全球所有物种, 其中“受威胁”的3个等级——极危(CR)、濒危(EN)或易危(VU)需使用5个标准进行量化评估, 对评估规范有非常严格的要求。该等级和标准体系不仅适用于全球层面, 同样也适用于地区层面物种评估, 只是在具体物种种群如果和周边其他地区(国家)存在种群交流情况时, 评估结果要进行调整。迄今为止, 全球层面使用该等级体系和标准评估了14万多种(其中在中国有分布的物种10,846种), 100多个国家和地方制定了地区/国家层面的红色名录, 中国红色名录评估了5.5万多种。IUCN红色名录已广泛应用于评估生物多样性变化速度; 为保护规划提供决策信息; 支持履行国际公约、修订国家/地区重点保护物种名录和自然保护地管理等; 指导资源有效合理分配和宣传教育等。广泛应用过程中, 讨论主要集中在获取数据的方法改进上; 另外, 一方面有专家认为标准存在缺陷需要完善, 另一方面有呼吁维持标准的长期相对稳定, 以便进行跨时间、跨区域、跨物种门类的比较。本文提出来了中国红色名录的持续机制和应用建议, 包括建立中国红色名录委员会、建立中国红色名录专业网站、发展评估专家队伍、建立中国红色名录评估更新机制, 以及加强国际协作、促进全球和中国红色名录的应用和发展。     

中国植物受威胁等级评估系统概述

濒危物种保护是生物多样性保护工作的重要组成部分, 而物种受威胁等级评估则是濒危物种保护的方向指引。经过多年的发展, 物种受威胁等级的评估由定性评估逐渐向定量评估为主、定性评估为辅的方向发展。本文综述了国内植物受威胁等级定量评估系统的研究进展, 同时介绍了国外较为成熟的IUCN红色名录评估系统、CITES评估系统、美国自然保育协会评估系统, 提出未来制定受威胁物种定量评估标准时要兼顾以下方面: (1)等级设置定义要明确、统一且合理; (2)评估标准应该定量化、客观且不冗余; (3)评估系统应该适应不同地理范围, 最好能同时表达出各范围的受威胁等级; (4)评估指标要包含物种动态信息, 能定量分析物种在过去或者未来的变化。此外, 本文认为国内的物种受威胁等级定量评估系统应该形成规范化的大纲, 加大宣传力度, 尽量将理论研究与具体的保护行动结合起来; 同时, 我国还应该采用全球广泛应用的受威胁等级评估系统获取物种受威胁等级, 将国内生物多样性保护工作纳入到全球范围中去。     

国家重点保护野生植物受威胁等级的评估

物种受威胁等级的评估是确定物种优先保护顺序和制订濒危物种保护策略的重要依据,是生物多样性保护工作中的一个重要步骤.本研究以<国家重点保护野生植物名录>所列物种(包括即将发布的物种)为评估对象,采用IUCN红色名录受威胁等级和标准,从全国尺度上对我国重点保护野生植物的受威胁等级进行了评估.评估结果为:绝灭(EX)2种,野外绝灭(EW)3种,极危(CR)310种,濒危(EN)638种,易危(VU)911种,近危(NT)117种,无危(LC)162种,数据缺乏(DD)34种.将评估结果与国家Ⅰ、Ⅱ保护级别进行对比,发现两者之间存在较为明显的不一致性,其原因是物种的受威胁程度并不是确定受保护物种以及划分保护级别的唯一依据.该研究为建立我国重点保护野生植物受威胁等级体系、实施有效的保护策略提供了科学参考.     

《中国生物多样性红色名录》的制定 及其对生物多样性保护的意义

早在20世纪80年代, 我国就引入IUCN红色名录原理, 对我国生物物种的濒危状况开展评估工作。但是随着经济发展和气候变化, 一些物种的数量和分布区发生了变化, 加之在以往的评估中存在一些不足, 亟需对我国生物物种的濒危状况开展一次全面的评估。2008年, 环境保护部联合中国科学院启动了《中国生物多样性红色名录》的编制工作, 《中国生物多样性红色名录——高等植物卷》和《中国生物多样性红色名录——脊椎动物卷》分别于2013年9月和2015年5月正式对外发布。本文回顾了《中国生物多样性红色名录》的编制背景、过程和取得的成果。《中国生物多样性红色名录》完成了对我国34,450种高等植物和除海洋鱼类外的4,357种脊椎动物受威胁状况的评估, 是迄今为止对象最广、信息最全、参与专家人数最多的一次评估。在评估中取得了一系列成果: 统计了中国已知高等植物和脊椎动物物种数, 确定了物种丰富度在世界上的排名; 完善了国际上所使用的IUCN红色名录评估等级标准体系; 评估分析了我国已知高等植物和脊椎动物的受威胁程度及分布差异; 评估分析了高等植物和脊椎动物濒危灭绝的原因, 其中人类活动导致的生境丧失和退化是首要因素。这些成果将对我国生物多样性保护和管理工作产生积极的影响。     

生态系统红色名录——一种新的生物多样性保护工具

生物多样性为人类提供了生存所必需的一系列生态系统服务和功能。然而,由于人为活动的加剧,生物多样性不断丧失。传统的生物多样性保护主要关注物种多样性,存在着对生物多样性的代表性不足,不能及时反应生态系统多样性的变化等缺点。近年来,生态系统层次上的多样性保护成为研究热点,一些国家和组织相继开展了大尺度的生态系统评估工作。文章回顾了已有的生态系统评估方案,发现当前生态系统评估多采用IUCN物种红色名录的分级标准体系,主要评估生态系统的濒危程度,评估标准主要是分布范围和功能的变化,不同评估方案采用的指标和阈值有差异,需要建立统一的生态系统分类体系和评价方案。同时,结合国内生态系统评价的现状,提出了在我国开展生态系统红色名录研究的若干可行建议。     

中国大型真菌红色名录评估中存在的问题及今后的对策

2018年5月22日国际生物多样性日, 生态环境部和中国科学院联合发布了“中国生物多样性红色名录——大型真菌卷”, 对9,302种大型真菌的受威胁现状进行了评估。根据大型真菌的生物学特性, 此次评估还对IUCN红色名录评估等级标准体系进行了适当调整。本文总结了评估过程中发现的问题: (1)部分物种的分类学地位存在争议, 缺少汉语学名; (2)大量物种的地理分布、种群数量及动态变化等信息缺乏; (3) IUCN的部分评估标准在大型真菌中难以使用; (4)物种的受威胁因素不明确, 缺乏科学定量的分析。针对以上问题, 我们建议: (1)加强真菌分类学研究, 按命名规范拟定物种的汉语学名; (2)加强大型真菌的资源调查, 对重要物种和多样性热点区域进行长期定点监测; (3)引入物种分布建模等定量分析方法, 完善IUCN的评估标准, 使之更适用于大型真菌的评估; (4)鼓励公众参与, 建立交流互动平台, 扩大红色名录工作的影响, 加强大型真菌多样性保护。     

海南岛淡水蟹类分布格局与多样性保护

热带岛屿生物多样性是全球生物多样性保护研究的热点之一。海南岛是中国面积最大的热带岛屿, 丰富独特的淡水蟹类是维持岛内淡水生态系统功能完整性的关键类群。本文通过多年野外调查, 综合历史及最新文献资料, 对海南岛淡水蟹类物种多样性及其现状进行调查和评估, 并对淡水蟹类物种多样性保护现状进行了分析讨论。研究发现, 海南岛淡水蟹类物种多样性分布中心位于中南部山地, 主要集中于中部的霸王岭、鹦哥岭和猕猴岭, 南部的五指山和吊罗山, 以及西南部的尖峰岭一带。其物种多样性整体上呈现中南部山地高、平原台地低的特点。根据《IUCN物种红色名录濒危等级和标准》对海南岛淡水蟹类物种现状的评估结果显示, 全岛受威胁淡水蟹类物种的占比为16.7%。基于分布区预测, 以海南热带雨林国家公园为主体的保护地对淡水蟹类潜在适宜分布区的覆盖度明显优于此前碎片化的各级保护区。本文研究结果显示, 海南岛淡水蟹类的总体生存状况良好, 但一部分山地或平原种类处于受胁状态。国家公园体制的建立有望为岛内淡水蟹类物种多样性保护提供前所未有的机遇。基于物种多样性分布格局开展淡水蟹类等淡水生物多样性监测, 有助于促进海南岛淡水生态系统完整性的长效保护与可持续发展。     

A practical guide to the application of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems criteria

The newly developed IUCN Red List of Ecosystems is part of a growing toolbox for assessing risks to biodiversity, which addresses ecosystems and their functioning. The Red List of Ecosystems standard allows systematic assessment of all freshwater, marine, terrestrial and subterranean ecosystem types in terms of their global risk of collapse. In addition, the Red List of Ecosystems categories and criteria provide a technical base for assessments of ecosystem status at the regional, national, or subnational level. While the Red List of Ecosystems criteria were designed to be widely applicable by scientists and practitioners, guidelines are needed to ensure they are implemented in a standardized manner to reduce epistemic uncertainties and allow robust comparisons among ecosystems and over time. We review the intended application of the Red List of Ecosystems assessment process, summarize ‘best-practice’ methods for ecosystem assessments and outline approaches to ensure operational rigour of assessments. The Red List of Ecosystems will inform priority setting for ecosystem types worldwide, and strengthen capacity to report on progress towards the Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. When integrated with other IUCN knowledge products, such as the World Database of Protected Areas/Protected Planet, Key Biodiversity Areas and the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the Red List of Ecosystems will contribute to providing the most complete global measure of the status of biodiversity yet achieved.     

Assessing extinction risk in the absence of species-level data: quantitative criteria for terrestrial ecosystems

The conservation of individual plant and animal species has been advanced greatly by the World Conservation Union’s (IUCN) development of objective, repeatable, and transparent criteria for assessing extinction risk, which explicitly separate the process of risk assessment from priority-setting. Here we present an analogous procedure for assessing the extinction risk of terrestrial ecosystems, which may complement traditional species-specific risk assessments, or may provide an alternative when only landscape-level data are available. We developed four quantitative risk criteria, derived primarily from remotely sensed spatial data, information on one of which must be available to permit classification. Using a naming system analogous to the present IUCN species-specific system, our four criteria were: (A) reduction of land cover and continuing threat, (B) rapid rate of land cover change, (C) increased fragmentation, and (D) highly restricted geographical distribution. We applied these criteria to five ecosystems covering a range of spatial and temporal scales, regions of the world, and ecosystem types, and found that Indonesian Borneo’s lowland tropical forests and the Brazilian Atlantic rainforest were Critically Endangered, while South Africa’s grasslands and Brazil’s Mato Grosso were Vulnerable. Furthermore, at a finer grain of analysis, one region of Venezuela’s coastal dry forests (Margarita Island) qualified as Vulnerable, while another (the Guasare River watershed) was Critically Endangered. In northern Venezuela, deciduous forests were classified as Endangered, semi-deciduous forests Vulnerable, and evergreen forests of Least Concern. We conclude that adoption of such a standardized system will facilitate globally comparable, repeatable geographic analyses that clearly separate risk assessment (a fundamentally scientific process), from the definition of conservation priorities, which should take into account additional factors, such as ecological distinctiveness, costs, logistics, likelihood of success, and societal preferences. Jon Paul Rodríguez and Jennifer K. Balch are contributed equally to this work     

生态系统保护现状及保护等级评估——以江西省为例

基于生态系统的保护是防止生物多样性丧失的重要手段,已成为保护生物学研究的热点。对生态系统保护等级进行划分,确定局域、区域和全球尺度上生态系统保护的优先性,可为制定生态系统保护方案提供重要依据。目前,生态系统保护等级划分的常用指标包括面积流失率、幅度和代表性。以江西省生态系统为例,基于20世纪80年代的江西省植被图、生态系统图、2010年土地利用图和自然保护区图,在GIS环境下进行图层叠加运算和重分类,再进行定量评估和归一化,将江西省生态系统划分为极重要、重要和一般3个级别。结果表明:过去的30年间江西省自然生态系统面积共减少了82613.83km2,减少率超过了60%。全省的37个自然生态系统类型中有19个类型建有国家级自然保护区,但得到保护的面积比例较低。森林生态系统中极重要、重要和一般生态系统类型分别占省国土面积的16.7374%、5.5310%和3.8242%,受国家级自然保护区保护的比例分别为0.51%、3.73%和5.76%;灌丛生态系统中极重要、重要和一般生态系统类型分别占0.0975%、0.9335%和0.0100%,保护比例分别为1.72%、0.17%和0.70%;草地生态系统中极重要、重要和一般生态系统类型分别占0.2647%、0.0005%和0.1064%,保护比例分别为0.21%、0.00%和3.49%;湿地生态系统中极重要、重要和一般生态系统类型分别占0.3532%、0.0345%和1.5650%,保护比例分别为1.87%、0.00%和18.01%。从各级生态系统空间分布来看,极重要生态系统分布范围最广,主要分布在江西省的东南部和西北部;重要生态系统主要分布在西北部和东北部;一般生态系统分布范围最小,主要分布在北部。中部地区的自然生态系统多数由于经济发展而退变为农田、城市等人工生态系统。结合江西省生态系统现状,将极重要的生态系统作为重点保护范围,因而占江西省国土面积17.46%的生态系统应该得到优先保护。这一结果为有效地开展生态系统管理,制定有针对性的生态系统的保护规划具有重要参考价值。     

Using Red List Indices to measure progress towards the 2010 target and beyond

The World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List is widely recognized as the most authoritative and objective system for classifying species by their risk of extinction. Red List Indices (RLIs) illustrate the relative rate at which a particular set of species change in overall threat status (i.e. projected relative extinction-risk), based on population and range size and trends as quantified by Red List categories. RLIs can be calculated for any representative set of species that has been fully assessed at least twice. They are based on the number of species in each Red List category, and the number changing categories between assessments as a result of genuine improvement or deterioration in status. RLIs show a fairly coarse level of resolution, but for fully assessed taxonomic groups they are highly representative, being based on information from a high proportion of species worldwide. The RLI for the world's birds shows that that their overall threat status has deteriorated steadily during the years 1988-2004 in all biogeographic realms and ecosystems. A preliminary RLI for amphibians for 1980-2004 shows similar rates of decline. RLIs are in development for other groups. In addition, a sampled index is being developed, based on a stratified sample of species from all major taxonomic groups, realms and ecosystems. This will provide extinction-risk trends that are more representative of all biodiversity.     

Redlistr: tools for the IUCN Red Lists of ecosystems and threatened species in R

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of ecosystems and Red List of threatened species are global standards for assessing risks of ecosystem collapse and species extinction. However, misconceptions of the Red List assessment process, along with its technically demanding nature, can result in the misapplication of their criteria, leading to inconsistent and potentially unreliable assessments. To address this problem, we developed redlistr, an R package aiding in the production of consistent species and ecosystem Red List assessments. Redlistr's features include methods to calculate 1) area from spatial data, 2) range size metrics, 3) rates of change of distributions or populations, and 4) distribution or population at another time from these rates. A key feature of the package is the systematic approach used to eliminate geometric uncertainty when estimating area of occupancy. Here, we develop two case studies to demonstrate the functionalities of redlistr with typical workflows for both species and ecosystems. Redlistr was developed to be accessible to users with a broad range of experience in programming for spatial and temporal data analysis, and sufficiently flexible to allow users to parameterise functions and select equations to fit their purposes. The package specifically aims to assist researchers and conservation practitioners to conduct robust and transparent risk assessments of ecosystems and species under the IUCN Red List criteria but is also useful for other studies requiring analyses of range size, area change and calculations of rates of change.     

Indicators for biodiversity and ecosystem services: towards an improved framework for ecosystems assessment

Ecosystem assessment and monitoring requires the development and application of suitable indicators, i.e. they need to be (i) reliable and capable of simplifying complex relationships, (ii) quantifiable and transparent in order to enable an easy communication, and (iii) fit for the purpose of indication. These requirements are scarcely fulfilled in current ecosystem assessment and monitoring efforts to address the requirements of international biodiversity conventions. Here we present and test a set of seven criteria towards an improved framework for ecosystems indication with particular emphasis on the indication of biodiversity and ecosystem services: purpose of indication, indicator type according to the EEA’s Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response scheme, direct/indirect linkages to biodiversity and ecosystem services, spatial scale and scalability across scales, applicability of benchmarks/reference values, availability of data and protocols, and applicability of remote sensing. The criteria are tested using 24 indicators of ecosystem assessment and monitoring at the global, continental and regional scale. Based on the general trends revealed by our evaluation, we present recommendations to streamline and improve ecosystem indication with respect to international biodiversity conventions. The implementation of our recommendations does require concerted international effort, comparable, for instance, to the implementation of the Water Framework Directive in Europe.     

Developing products for conservation decision-making: lessons from a spatial biodiversity assessment for South Africa

South Africa's first national assessment of spatial priorities for biodiversity conservation, released in 2005, aimed to identify conservation priority areas for mainstreaming into all sectors at national and provincial scales. This National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA) was based on a planning for implementation approach in order to deliver defensible products useful to decision-makers. The NSBA aimed to produce a map of broad-scale priority areas for future finer-scale assessment and conservation action. This map summarized information on species, ecosystems, ecological processes, and the pressures they face from human activities. Owing to the complexity of the priority area map, two additional user-friendly products — maps of ecosystem status and protection levels — were developed. These products represented the habitat loss and protected area coverage of South Africa's ecosystems relative to their conservation targets. A year after release, we reflect on the NSBA process, products and uptake by implementing agencies (with a specific focus on the terrestrial biodiversity assessment) in order to contribute to the growing body of documented best practice in conservation planning. The ecosystem status product has been widely used at national and provincial scales due in large to its clear and compelling message. The protection level and overall priority map have also witnessed uptake, the former in guiding the expansion of protected areas and the latter as an integrated map of national biodiversity status. The strong collaboration of local planners and implementers with in-depth experience of biodiversity assessment, using a systematic approach and focusing on communicating a few high level messages, appears to have contributed to the initial, successful uptake of the NSBA. We conclude with a call to address data and monitoring shortcomings before the next NSBA in 2010.     

陆地生态系统服务与生物多样性研究进展

在生物多样性迅速消失的压力下,人类面临生态系统服务质量严重下降的威胁。为了使生态系统的重要功能更直观的展现在人们面前,许多学者把生态系统服务对人类的惠益进行整理分类,最有影响力的是千年生态系统评估(MA,Millennium Ecosystem Assessment)把生态系统服务分为供给、调节、文化和支持服务四类,服务的核心是生态系统的产品、过程和格局。生态系统服务的识别与分类是生态系统功能的对象化过程,也是以人类需求来审视生态系统的过程。生态系统通过结构-过程-功能这一途径来实现生态系统服务,各种服务的直接动力来源于自然界生物地球化学循环,生物多样性通过生态系统属性和过程来影响生态系统服务形成和维持。生物多样性越高,生态系统功能性状的范围越广,生态系统服务质量就越高、越稳定。全球变化中的土地利用和土地覆盖变化是生物多样性快速下降的主要原因,也是目前影响生态系统服务最广泛、最剧烈的驱动力,而这正是人类活动造成的,人类需求和生态系统有限的服务能力之间在不同尺度表现出严重冲突。要提高生态系统服务质量,要在不同区域进行重点不同的布局,尽可能的扩大生态系统规模和提高生态系统功能,核心是提高生物多样性水平。     

The Anthropocene biosphere: do threatened species,Red Lists,and protected areas have a future role in nature conservation?

Threatened species, red listing and an increase in protected areas have been, and currently remain, key foci for nature conservation. Yet as it becomes more evident we are living in the Anthropocene biosphere the relevance and value of those activities declines. The “new conservation”, controversially argued for by some since 2011, has different foci and strategies, yet they are perhaps too anthropic. A nature conservation for the Anthropocene biosphere must be built on an understanding of biocultural diversity, take account of the conservation potential of novel ecosystems, de-emphasise the role of protected areas while examining the role of novel ex situ approaches to biodiversity conservation and review effort and expenditure on Red Listing of threatened species as conservation actions. The 2016 IUCN World Conservation Congress offers potential to provide global leadership towards a new nature conservation for the Anthropocene biosphere.