“国际生物多样性观察年（IBOY）”核心项目——内容介绍及建议

生物多样性观察年（IBOY）的核心项目包括4个大的主题：1）全球生物多样性现状;2）生物多样性的变化方式;3）生物多样性对人类生活的价值;4）人类如何保护生物多样性。本文对这些主题内的不同课题进行了介绍,同时对我国生物多样性科学的发展提出了相应的建议。     

Significance of Biodiversity to Health

The United Nations declared 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity. Despite the magnitude of the global crisis of biodiversity loss, its far-reaching consequences to human health remain largely unappreciated. The legacy of the natural world to medicine is profound and its potential to yield new therapeutics and advancements in biomedical science undervalued. The enormity of the global crisis underscores a fundamental truth, one that is seemingly obvious but has been tragically overlooked: Our species does not exist in isolation from the biosphere. Rather, our fate depends on it.     

Cryptic species as a window into the paradigm shift of the species concept

The species concept is the cornerstone of biodiversity science, and any paradigm shift in the delimitation of species affects many research fields. Many biologists now are embracing a new “species” paradigm as separately evolving populations using different delimitation criteria. Individual criteria can emerge during different periods of speciation; some may never evolve. As such, a paradigm shift in the species concept relates to this inherent heterogeneity in the speciation process and species category—which is fundamentally overlooked in biodiversity research. Cryptic species fall within this paradigm shift: they are continuously being reported from diverse animal phyla but are poorly considered in current tests of ecological and evolutionary theory. The aim of this review is to integrate cryptic species in biodiversity science. In the first section, we address that the absence of morphological diversification is an evolutionary phenomenon, a “process” counterpart to the long‐studied mechanisms of morphological diversification. In the next section regarding taxonomy, we show that molecular delimitation of cryptic species is heavily biased towards distance‐based methods. We also stress the importance of formally naming of cryptic species for better integration into research fields that use species as units of analysis. Finally, we show that incorporating cryptic species leads to novel insights regarding biodiversity patterns and processes, including large‐scale biodiversity assessments, geographic variation in species distribution and species coexistence. It is time for incorporating multicriteria species approaches aiming to understand speciation across space and taxa, thus allowing integration into biodiversity conservation while accommodating for species uncertainty.     

Amphibian chytridiomycosis

Amphibian chytridiomycosis is a fungal disease caused by the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis. It is arguably the most significant recorded infectious disease of any vertebrate class. The disease is reducing amphibian biodiversity across most continents and regions of the world, affecting the resilience of surviving populations and driving multiple species to extinction. It is now recognised by the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) as an internationally notifiable disease. Collaborative research in areas including the development of diagnostic assays, distribution and impact of the disease, and management (treatment and policy) has assisted in leading a paradigm shift in accepting infectious disease as a major factor influencing wildlife population stability and biodiversity.     

Will we wake up to biodiversity?: The International Year of Biodiversity has failed to raise awareness or halt decline as economic crises and political interests have sidelined the environment

Looking back on the International Year of Biodiversity, some conservationists hope that it has raised awareness, if nothing else. Even so, many scientists remain pessimistic about our efforts to halt biodiversity decline.The United Nations'' (UN) International Year of Biodiversity in 2010 was supposed to see the adoption of measures that would slow global environmental decline and the continuing loss of endangered species and habitats. Even before, in 2002, most UN members had committed to halting the decline in biodiversity, which is a measure of the health of ecosystems. But the results of these international efforts have been funereal. Moreover, the current global economic crisis, coupled with growing anti-science attitudes in the USA, are adding to the concern of scientists about whether there is the political will to address the loss of biodiversity and whether habitat loss and extinction rates are reaching a point of no return.“There is not a single report received last year that claimed to have stopped or reduced the loss of biodiversity”Ahmed Djoghlaf, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity under the UN Environment Programme based in Montreal, Canada, said that of the 175 national reports submitted as part of the International Year of Biodiversity to his agency last year, none reported any progress. “There is not a single report received last year that claimed to have stopped or reduced the loss of biodiversity,” he said. “These reports confirm that the rate of loss of biodiversity today is unprecedented and the rate is 1,000 higher than the rate of natural extinction on species, and [his agency''s Global Biodiversity Outlook 2010; UN, 2010a] predicts that if business is allowed to continue then major ecosystems, the ocean, the fish, the forests, will reach the tipping point, meaning that there will be irreversible and irreparable damage done to the ecosystems.”The UN campaign traces its roots to the European Union (EU) commitment in 2001 to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The 2010 goal was incorporated into the UN Millennium Development Goals because of the severe impact of biodiversity loss on human well-being. However, the EU last year conceded in a report that it missed its 2010 target, too. The EU''s Biodiversity Action Plan, launched in 2006, shows that Europe''s biodiversity “remains under severe threat from the excessive demands we are making on our environment, such as changes in land use, pollution, invasive species and climate change.” Yet, EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potočnik has seen some positive signs: “We have learned some very important lessons and managed to raise biodiversity to the top of the political agenda. But we need everyone on board and not just in Europe. The threat around the world is even greater than in the EU,” he wrote last year (EC, 2010).Despite the initiative''s poor report card, Djoghlaf was upbeat about the International Year of Biodiversity. “It was a success because it was celebrated everywhere,” he said. “In Switzerland, they conducted a survey before and after the International Year of Biodiversity and they concluded that at the end of the year, 67% of all the Swiss people are now aware of biodiversity. When the year started it was 40%. People are more and more aware. In addition, biodiversity has entered the top of the political agenda.”In October 2010, delegates from 193 countries attended the UN Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan, and adopted 20 strategic goals to be achieved by 2020 (UN, 2010b). The so-called Aichi Biodiversity Targets include increased public awareness of the values of biodiversity and the steps that individuals can take to conserve and act sustainably; the halving or halting of the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests; and the conservation of 17% of terrestrial and inland water, and 10% of coastal and marine areas through effective and equitable management, resulting in ecologically representative and well-connected systems. By contrast, 13% of land areas and 1% of marine areas were protected in 2010.However, the Convention on Biological Diversity is not enforceable. Anne Larigauderie, Executive Director of DIVERSITAS (Paris, France), which promotes research on biodiversity science, said that it is up to the individual countries to adopt enforceable legislation. “In principle, countries have committed. Now it depends on what individual countries are going to do with the agreement,” she said. “I would say that things are generally going in the right direction and it''s too early to tell whether or not it''s going to have an impact in terms of responding and in terms of the biodiversity itself.”Researchers, however, have been disappointed by The International Year of Biodiversity. Conservation biologist Stuart Butchart, of Birdlife International in Cambridge, UK—a partnership of non-governmental environmental organizations and colleagues from other environmental groups—compiled a list of 31 indicators to measure progress towards the 2010 goal of the International Year of Biodiversity. He and his collaborators reported in Science (Butchart et al, 2010) that these indicators, including species population trends, extinction risks and habitat conditions, showed declines with no significant rate reductions. At the same time, indicators of pressure on biodiversity, such as resource consumption, invasive alien species, nitrogen pollution, over-exploitation and climate change impacts showed increases. “Despite some local successes and increasing responses (including extent and biodiversity coverage of protected areas, sustainable forest management, policy responses to invasive alien species and biodiversity-related aid), the rate of biodiversity loss does not appear to be slowing,” the researchers wrote.​wrote.Open in a separate window© Thomas Kitchin & Victoria Hurst/Wave/CorbisButchart pointed out that even if the International Year of Biodiversity had an impact on raising awareness and reducing biodiversity loss, detecting the change would take time. He said that the International Year of Biodiversity fell short of increasing awareness in parts of government not dealing with the environment, including ministries of transport, tourism, treasury and finance. It also seems probable that the campaign had little impact on the business sector, which affects development projects with a direct impact on biodiversity. “People can''t even seem to get together on global climate change, which is a whole lot more obvious and right there,” Peter Raven, president emeritus of the Missouri Botanical Gardens in St Louis, USA, explained. “Biodiversity always seems to be a sort of mysterious background thing that isn''t quite there.”“People can''t even seem to get together on global climate change, which is a whole lot more obvious and right there…”Illka Hanski, a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Helsinki in Finland, said that studies such as Butchart''s “indicate that nothing really happened in 2010. Biodiversity decline continued and has been declining over the past 10 years.”Other researchers are more positive, although with reservations. Conservation biologist Thomas Eugene Lovejoy III, Heinz Center Biodiversity Chair and former president of the Center in Washington, DC, USA—a non-partisan, non-profit organization dedicated to advancing sound environmental policy—said that economic trends affect biodiversity and that biodiversity efforts might actually be benefiting from the current global economic crisis. For example, the decline in the housing markets in the USA and Europe has reduced the demand on lumber for new construction and has led to a reduction in deforestation. “Generally speaking, when there is an economic downturn, some of the things that are pressuring biodiversity actually abate somewhat. That''s the good news. The bad news is that the ability to marshal resources to do some things proactively gets harder,” he said.Chris Thomas, a conservation biologist at the University of York in the UK, who studies ecosystems and species in the context of climate change, said that economic depressions do slow the rate of damage to the environment. “But it also takes eyes off the ball of environmental issues. It''s not clear whether these downturns, when you look over a period of a decade, make much difference or not.” Hanski agreed: “[B]ecause there is less economic activity, there may be less use of resources and such. But I don''t think this is a way to solve our problems. It won''t lead to any stable situation. It just leads to a situation where economic policies become more and more dependent on measures that try actually just to increase the growth as soon as possible.”…biodiversity efforts might actually be benefiting from the current global economic crisisRaven said that in bad times, major interests such as those involved in raising cattle, growing soybeans and clearing habitat for oil palms have reduced political clout because there is less money available for investment. But he said economic downturns do not slow poor people scrounging for sustenance in natural habitats.To overcome this attitude of neglect, Lovejoy thinks there ought to be a new type of ‘economics'' that demonstrates the benefits of biodiversity and brings the “natural world into the normal calculus.” Researchers are already making progress in this direction. Thomas said that the valuation of nature is one of the most active areas of research. “People have very different opinions as to how much of it can be truly valued. But it is a rapidly developing field,” he said. “Once you''ve decided how much something is worth, then you''ve got to ask what are the financial or other mechanisms by which the true value of this resource can be appreciated.”Hanski said that the main problem is the short-term view of economic forecasts. “Rapid use of natural resources because of short-term calculation may actually lead to a sort of exploitation rather than conservation or preservation.” He added that the emphasis on economic growth in rich societies in North America and Europe is frustrating. “We have become much richer than in 1970 when there actually was talk of zero growth in serious terms. So now we are richer and we are becoming more and more dependent on continued growth, the opposite of what we should be aiming at. It''s a problem with our society and economics clearly, but I can''t be very optimistic about the biodiversity or other environmental issues in this kind of situation.” He added that biodiversity is still taking a backseat to economics: “There is a very long way to go right now with the economic situation in Europe, it''s clear that these sorts of [biodiversity] issues are not the ones which are currently being debated by the heads of states.”The economic downturn, which has led to reduced government and private funding and declines in endowments, has also hurt organizations dedicated to preserving biodiversity. Butchart said that some of the main US conservation organizations, including the Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Federation, have experienced staff cuts up to 30%. “Organizations have had to tighten their belts and reign in programmes just to stay afloat, so it''s definitely impacted the degree to which we could work effectively,” he said. “Most of the big international conservation organizations have had to lay off large numbers of staff.”…a new type of ‘economics'' that demonstrates the benefits of biodiversity and brings the “natural world into the normal calculus”Cary Fowler, Executive Director of the Global Crop Diversity Trust in Rome, Italy, a public–private partnership to fund key crop collections for food security, also feels the extra challenges of the global economic crisis. “We invest our money conservatively like a foundation would in order to generate income that can reliably pay the bills in these seed banks year after year. So I''m always nervous and I have the computer on at the moment looking at what''s happening with the sovereign debt crisis here in Europe. It''s not good,” he said. “Governments are not being very generous with contributions to this area. Donors will rarely give a reason [for cutting funding].”The political situation in the USA, the world''s largest economy, is also not boding well for conservation of and research into biodiversity. The political extremism of the Republican Party during the run up to the 2012 presidential election has worried many involved in biodiversity issues. Republican contender Texas Governor Rick Perry has been described as ‘anti-science'' for his denial of man-made climate change, a switch from the position of 2008 Republican candidate John McCain. Perry was also reported to describe evolution as a “theory that''s out there, and it''s got some gaps in it” at a campaign event in New Hampshire earlier in the year.“Most of the big international conservation organizations have had to lay off large numbers of staff”Raven said this attitude is putting the USA at a disadvantage. “It drives us to an anti-intellectualism and a lack of real verification for anything which is really serious in terms of our general level of scientific education and our ability to act intelligently,” he said.Still, Larigauderie said that although the USA has not signed the conventions on biodiversity, she has seen US observers attend the meetings, especially under the Obama administration. “They just can''t speak,” she said. Meanwhile, Lovejoy said that biodiversity could get lost in the “unbelievable polarisation affecting US politics. I have worked out of Washington for 36 years now—I''ve never seen anything like this: an unwillingness to actually listen to the other side.”Raven said it is vital for the USA to commit to preserving biodiversity nationally and internationally. “It''s extremely important because our progress towards sustainability for the future will depend on our ability to handle biodiversity in large part. We''re already using about half of all the total photosynthetic productivity on land worldwide and that in turn means we''re cutting our options back badly. The US is syphoning money by selling debt and of course promoting instability all over the world,” he explained. “It''s clear that there is no solution to it other than a level population, more moderate consumption levels and new technologies altogether.”The EU and the UN have also changed the time horizon for halting the decline in biodiversity. As part of the Nagoya meeting, the UN announced the UN Decade for Biodiversity. The strategic objectives include a supporting framework for the implementation of the Biodiversity Strategic Plan 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, as well as guidance to regional and international organizations, and more public awareness of biodiversity issues.But Butchart remains sceptical. “I suspect ‘decades of whatever'' have even less impact than years,” he said. “2008 was the International Year of the Potato. I don''t know how much impact that had on your life and awareness. I think there is greater awareness and greater potential to make significant progress in addressing biodiversity loss now than there was 10 years ago, but the scale of the challenge is still immense.”“…our progress towards sustainability for the future will depend on our ability to handle biodiversity in large part”Hanski has similar doubts. “I believe it''s inevitable that a very large fraction of the species on Earth will go extinct in the next hundred years. I can''t see any change to that.” But he is optimistic that some positive change can be made. “Being pessimistic doesn''t help. The nations still can make a difference.” He said he has observed ecotourism playing a role in saving some species in Madagascar, where he does some of his research.“We''re not going to fundamentally be able to wipe life off the planet,” Thomas said. “We will wipe ourselves off the planet virtually certainly before we wipe life out on Earth. However, from the point of view of humanity as a culture, and in terms of the resources we might be able to get from biodiversity indirectly or directly, if we start losing things then it takes things millions of years to ‘re-evolve'' something that does an equivalent job. From a human perspective, when we wipe lots of things out, they''re effectively permanently lost. Of course it would be fascinating and I would love to be able to come back to the planet in 10 million years and see what it looks like, assuming humans are not here and other stuff will be.”Djoghlaf, by contrast, is more optimistic about our chances: “I believe in the human survival aspect. When humankind realises that the current pattern of production and consumption and the current way that it is dealing with nature is unsustainable, we will wake up.”     

RAMPs: The past, present and future

The discovery of receptor-activity-modifying proteins (RAMPs) as accessory proteins required for the appropriate localization and function of certain G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) produced a paradigm shift in our understanding of GPCR regulation. Three RAMPs have now been demonstrated to be crucial for various aspects of the life cycle of calcitonin-like receptor (CLR) including endoplasmic reticulum-to-Golgi translocation, internalization and recycling. Although the RAMP-CLR interaction was the first to be identified, other GPCRs belonging to both the class B and C families of GPCRs also seem to be regulated by RAMPs. The recent advances in our knowledge of the cellular and biochemical regulation of RAMPs and how they in turn regulate the life cycle of GPCRs could lead to therapeutic advances in several diseases.     

The urgency of building global capacity for biodiversity science

The biodiversity sciences represent the disciplines of whole-organism biology, including systematics, ecology, population biology, behaviour and the fields of comparative biology. The biodiversity sciences are critically important to society because it is knowledge of whole-organisms that is essential for managing and conserving the world's species. Because of an acceleration in environmental degradation and global biodiversity loss in recent decades, the need for the biodiversity sciences has never been more urgent. Yet, biodiversity science is not well supported relative to other fields of science, and thus the need for knowledge about organisms and their environment is far outstripping biologists' ability to provide it. National and international capacity for biodiversity science must therefore be increased substantially. Each nation should establish a national biodiversity research programme coordinated across all government agencies. An international biodiversity research programme should also be established, perhaps with an organizational structure that parallels the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. Biodiversity scientists must assume a leadership role in educating the public and bringing about policy changes that will enhance our understanding of the world's species and their ecosystems.     

Tropical Biodiversity in Human-Modified Landscapes: What is our Trump Card?

Many conservationists are now convinced that the expansion of the world system of protected areas combined with appropriate levels of biodiversity persistence within human-modified landscapes would drastically mitigate the announced impoverishment of tropical biotas. In this context, an inherent/intrinsic biodiversity ability to persist and recover within human-modified landscapes has emerged as a ‘trump card’ in the conservation battle, renewing our hope in a more sustainable development of the tropical region. However, this optimistic perspective on the conservation value of human-modified landscapes sounds, a priori, a little unrealistic in face of the current knowledge on the nature of human environments and the spectrum of native species that is likely to persist there. Rather than relying on illusory levels of biodiversity resilience and consequent flexible land-use regulations, our real trump card reposes on a radical and ambitious shift from freely exploited landscapes to strictly managed ones, despite the misleading noise produced by those voices advocating for immediate and almost unlimited access to natural resources. Otherwise, we are condemning future human populations to live in biologically impoverished and fragile environments with limited opportunities for life support.     

生物多样性科学前沿

由国际生物科学联盟（ＩＵＢＳ）在１９９１年首先提出,至今已由其它５个重要国际组织或项目（ＳＣＯＰＥ、ＵＮＥＳＣＯ,ＩＣＳＵ,ＩＧＢＰ－ＧＣＴＥ及ＩＵＭＳ）共同主持的ＤＩＶＥＲＳＩＴＡＳ是迄今生物多样性科学研究唯一的国际性项目。１９９６年７月,科学指导委员会草拟了本阶段新的操作计划,并于同年８月在ＩＵＢＳ执行委员会上讨论。操作计划详述了１０个组成方面的内容,其中５个为核心组成部分,其它５个为特别目标     

Biodiversity hotspots through time: an introduction

International targets set for reducing the rate of biodiversity loss--the 2010 target--and ensuring environmental stability (Millennium Development Goals) have helped to focus the efforts of the scientific community on providing the data necessary for their implementation. The urgency of these goals, coupled with the increased rate of habitat alteration worldwide, has meant that actions have largely not taken into account the increasing body of data about the biodiversity change in the past. We know a lot about how our planet has been altered and recovered in the past, both in deep time and through prehistory. Linking this knowledge to conservation action has not been widely practised, by either the palaeoecology or the conservation communities. Long-term data, however, have much to offer current conservation practice, and in the papers for this volume we have tried to bring together a variety of different perspectives as to how this might happen in the most effective way. We also identify areas for productive collaboration and some key synergies for work in the near future to enable our knowledge of the past to be used for conservation action in the here and now. Lateral thinking, across knowledge systems and with open-mindness about bridging data gaps, will be necessary for our accumulating knowledge about our planet's past to be brought to bear on our attempts to conserve it in the future.     

Ecosystem approach to inland fisheries: research needs and implementation strategies

Inland fisheries are a vital component in the livelihoods and food security of people throughout the world, as well as contributing huge recreational and economic benefits. These valuable assets are jeopardized by lack of research-based understanding of the impacts of fisheries on inland ecosystems, and similarly the impact of human activities associated with inland waters on fisheries and aquatic biodiversity. To explore this topic, an international workshop was organized in order to examine strategies to incorporate fisheries into ecosystem approaches for management of inland waters. To achieve this goal, a new research agenda is needed that focuses on: quantifying the ecosystem services provided by fresh waters; quantifying the economic, social and nutritional benefits of inland fisheries; improving assessments designed to evaluate fisheries exploitation potential; and examining feedbacks between fisheries, ecosystem productivity and aquatic biodiversity. Accomplishing these objectives will require merging natural and social science approaches to address coupled social-ecological system dynamics.     

Robert H. Whittaker (1920–1980): The man and his work

R. H. Whittaker enlivened many fields within ecology, systematics and evolution with his insights. Perhaps his most significant contributions to ecology lie in the development of the theories and methods of gradient analysis. Through the verification of the individualistic hypothesis with field data from many regions, and the subsequent development and dissemination of methods for studying species distributions along continua, he helped replace the Clementsian paradigm with a Gleasonian one. His extensive field data on primary production, nutrient cycling patterns and species diversity established new standards for documentation in synecology and helped clarify the basis for site-to-site variation in these variables. Through his broad command of the ecological literature, his writings and his contact with ecologists throughout the world he fostered international understanding of the diversity of approaches to vegetation study.     

Biodiversity matters in a changing world

It is now widely accepted that the climate of our planet is changing, but it is still hard to predict the consequences of these changes on ecosystems. The impact is worst at the poles, with scientists concerned that impacts at lower latitudes will follow suit. Canada has a great responsibility and potential for studying the effects of climate changes on the ecological dynamics, given its geographical location and its scientific leadership in this field. The 5th annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution was held in the International Year of Biodiversity, to share recent advances in a wide variety of disciplines ranging from molecular biology to behavioural ecology, and to integrate them into a general view that will help us preserve biodiversity and limit the impact of climate change on ecosystems.     

Time for a paradigm shift toward a restorative culture

The United Nations' recent declaration of a Decade on Ecosystem Restoration (2021–2030) conveys the immense scales of degradation we face and the urgency of ecological recovery. Yet it speaks predominantly to productivity‐based approaches that may poorly balance conservation and development goals. As a result, it overlooks or distorts the very real potential for the holistic restoration of natural and cultural ecosystems to achieve lasting social and human health and well‐being benefits, and help stem the grotesque loss of biodiversity and ecosystem health in these times. There is need for a profound paradigm shift to address the prevailing economic and political climate that is keeping our world and biosphere on their current ominous trajectory. Such a paradigm shift could be based on the idea of a “restorative culture.” Practically, this could proceed by coupling the foundational philosophies and modus operandi of restoration ecology with public health medicine. The outcome would be an era of more healthy and more science‐ and knowledge‐driven sustainable restoration and local redevelopment. A restorative culture would recognize the fundamental linkages between ecosystems and human health, and consider biodiversity as fundamental to personal, community, and cultural well‐being and resilience. This requires public–private and community and individual partnerships at city, township, and watershed scales, as well as progressive industry champions working in collaboration with governments and the United Nations.     

Life After Logging: Strategic Withdrawal from the Garden of Eden or Tactical Error for Wilderness Conservation?

Conservation management has undergone a dramatic paradigm shift from the strong ‘wilderness conservation’ ethos of the 1980s and 1990s to the ‘biodiversity on degraded lands’ ethos of recent years. Most conservation biologists now consider that wilderness conservation alone is no longer sufficient to conserve biodiversity, and conservation strategies must also demand more effective protection for biodiversity on degraded lands. Recognition of this shifting paradigm in biodiversity conservation has led to an overt change in tone of recent studies, emphasizing relatively modest effects of human disturbance, and high biodiversity values on some degraded lands. A case in point is a series of studies from Southeast Asia reporting relatively modest impacts of logging on biodiversity, with the majority of species (75%) persisting after repeated intensive logging. This is a marked shift in conservation message after >30 yrs of research showing substantial adverse effects of logging on biodiversity, and raises serious questions about the appropriate ways to qualify the conflicting messages that ‘human impact degrades biodiversity’ yet ‘degraded habitats have high biodiversity value.’ Clearly logging is the lesser of two land‐use evils compared with conversion to intensive cattle pastures, crop fields or oil palm plantations, but there is a real risk that overselling the ‘biodiversity on degraded lands’ paradigm might end up being a double‐edged sword for conservation management. After all, if >75 percent of species are resilient to repeated logging, why bother trying to preserve the few remaining wilderness areas from being logged themselves? It remains to be seen whether this new message of ‘weak’ effects of logging on biodiversity will serve its strategic purpose of conserving biodiversity on degraded lands, or simply devalue the last vestiges of wild nature.     

IPBES:生物多样性科学评估将成为政策决策的驱动因素

生物多样性和生态系统服务政府间科学-政策平台(IPBES)的目的,是为了缓解生物多样性持续减退的趋势,推动政策和科学之间的互动。2012年成立至今构建了概念模型,确定了2014—2018年的工作方案。分析IPBES工作方案的4个目的和相应交付成果可以看出,通过推出不同专题评估报告,将为全球提出生物多样性相关的新问题,给生物多样性相关的谈判和履约提出新挑战。一系列区域和全球评估报告的推出,可能通过持续积累效益,引起公众和媒体的关注,使生物多样性问题迅速政治化,形成科学驱动政策决策的趋势。应对IPBES及其生物多样性相关公约的谈判,我国需要制定深入和持续参与其国际过程的策略,需要通过培养和推荐专业水平高且政治敏感的专家,参与IPBES评估报告的具体工作,从科学层面影响评估结果,把握生物多样性领域国际政策决策动向,在保护生物多样性的基础上,维护国家利益。     

Additive apportioning of lepidopteran and coleopteran species diversity across spatial and temporal scales in a cool–temperate deciduous forest in Japan

Abstract.  1. Forest entomofauna retain high diversity, and examining beta diversity, or species turnover, among assemblages in a forest community is vital to elucidate the source of this diversity.
2. Under the DIVERSITAS in Western Pacific and Asia–International Biodiversity Observation Year (DIWPA–IBOY) project for simultaneously documenting biodiversity throughout the Western Pacific and Asian Region, 892 lepidopteran species (51 742 specimens) and 355 coleopteran species (11 633 specimens) were collected in 2001 by light traps in a cool–temperate forest in northern Japan.
3. This study evaluated the beta diversity of lepidopteran and coleopteran communities by ecological categories (i.e. trap location, forest strata, sampling days, and months), and assessed the habitat preferences of lepidopteran and coleopteran species.
4.  anova -like additive apportioning models were used to quantify the beta diversity among the categories. The models simultaneously provide assessments of whether species distributions are biased in favour of particular habitats.
5. Significantly high beta diversity was observed among months for both Lepidoptera and Coleoptera. The category of months corresponded fairly well to the number of specialist species detected in the category, although a remarkably large number of significant specialists in Coleoptera were observed on strata.
6. The high beta diversity and number of specialist species among strata in both communities indicate that stratification between canopy and ground, and seasonal variation, played major roles in species composition and the rich entomofauna in the forest. Highly mobile adults were influenced by the vertical spatial scale, as previously suggested for larvae.     

The International Year of Biodiversity: A Celebration and Cogitation

To both celebrate and reflect upon this International Year of Biodiversity, Biotropica has invited opinion articles from a number of scientists across the globe. As lightly edited personal opinions, the commentaries reflect the diversity of passionate and often controversial views expressed across the scientific community. Thus, these commentaries should provide much food for thought, and hopefully some inspiration, on how we perceive biodiversity on our currently human-dominated planet and how we should respond to its loss.