Author
Georgina M. Mace
Other affiliations: Newcastle University, WorldFish, British Ecological Society ...read more
Bio: Georgina M. Mace is an academic researcher from University College London. The author has contributed to research in topics: Biodiversity & Population. The author has an hindex of 91, co-authored 265 publications receiving 53514 citations. Previous affiliations of Georgina M. Mace include Newcastle University & WorldFish.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Australian National University1, Stockholm Resilience Centre2, University of Copenhagen3, McGill University4, Stellenbosch University5, University of Wisconsin-Madison6, Wageningen University and Research Centre7, Stockholm University8, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences9, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research10, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation11, International Livestock Research Institute12, University College London13, Stockholm Environment Institute14, University of California, San Diego15, The Energy and Resources Institute16, Royal Institute of Technology17
TL;DR: An updated and extended analysis of the planetary boundary (PB) framework and identifies levels of anthropogenic perturbations below which the risk of destabilization of the Earth system (ES) is likely to remain low—a “safe operating space” for global societal development.
Abstract: The planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth system. Here, we revise and update the planetary boundary framework, with a focus on the underpinning biophysical science, based on targeted input from expert research communities and on more general scientific advances over the past 5 years. Several of the boundaries now have a two-tier approach, reflecting the importance of cross-scale interactions and the regional-level heterogeneity of the processes that underpin the boundaries. Two core boundaries—climate change and biosphere integrity—have been identified, each of which has the potential on its own to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.
7,169 citations
University of Michigan1, College of William & Mary2, McGill University3, Western Washington University4, Arizona State University5, Imperial College London6, University of Minnesota7, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences8, Stanford University9, Centre national de la recherche scientifique10, United States Geological Survey11, University of British Columbia12, Columbia University13
TL;DR: It is argued that human actions are dismantling the Earth’s ecosystems, eliminating genes, species and biological traits at an alarming rate, and the question of how such loss of biological diversity will alter the functioning of ecosystems and their ability to provide society with the goods and services needed to prosper is asked.
Abstract: The most unique feature of Earth is the existence of life, and the most extraordinary feature of life is its diversity. Approximately 9 million types of plants, animals, protists and fungi inhabit the Earth. So, too, do 7 billion people. Two decades ago, at the first Earth Summit, the vast majority of the world's nations declared that human actions were dismantling the Earth's ecosystems, eliminating genes, species and biological traits at an alarming rate. This observation led to the question of how such loss of biological diversity will alter the functioning of ecosystems and their ability to provide society with the goods and services needed to prosper.
5,244 citations
United Nations Environment Programme1, American Museum of Natural History2, Imperial College London3, Swansea University4, University College London5, National University of Cordoba6, Tel Aviv University7, Max Planck Society8, University of Oldenburg9, Microsoft10, University of Oxford11, University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire12
TL;DR: A terrestrial assemblage database of unprecedented geographic and taxonomic coverage is analysed to quantify local biodiversity responses to land use and related changes and shows that in the worst-affected habitats, pressures reduce within-sample species richness by an average of 76.5%, total abundance by 39.5% and rarefaction-based richness by 40.3%.
Abstract: Human activities, especially conversion and degradation of habitats, are causing global biodiversity declines. How local ecological assemblages are responding is less clear--a concern given their importance for many ecosystem functions and services. We analysed a terrestrial assemblage database of unprecedented geographic and taxonomic coverage to quantify local biodiversity responses to land use and related changes. Here we show that in the worst-affected habitats, these pressures reduce within-sample species richness by an average of 76.5%, total abundance by 39.5% and rarefaction-based richness by 40.3%. We estimate that, globally, these pressures have already slightly reduced average within-sample richness (by 13.6%), total abundance (10.7%) and rarefaction-based richness (8.1%), with changes showing marked spatial variation. Rapid further losses are predicted under a business-as-usual land-use scenario; within-sample richness is projected to fall by a further 3.4% globally by 2100, with losses concentrated in biodiverse but economically poor countries. Strong mitigation can deliver much more positive biodiversity changes (up to a 1.9% average increase) that are less strongly related to countries' socioeconomic status.
2,532 citations
TL;DR: This work argues for a broader categorization of population distinctiveness based on concepts of ecological and genetic exchangeability (sensu Templeton), which are more relevant for conservation.
Abstract: Conservation biologists assign population distinctiveness by classifying populations as evolutionarily significant units (ESUs). Historically, this classification has included ecological and genetic data. However, recent ESU concepts, coupled with increasing availability of data on neutral genetic variation, have led to criteria based exclusively on molecular phylogenies. We argue that the earlier definitions of ESUs, which incorporated ecological data and genetic variation of adaptive significance, are more relevant for conservation. Furthermore, this dichotomous summary (ESU or not) of a continuum of population differentiation is not adequate for determining appropriate management actions. We argue for a broader categorization of population distinctiveness based on concepts of ecological and genetic exchangeability ( sensu Templeton).
1,852 citations
University of Lisbon1, University of Paris-Sud2, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency3, United Nations Environment Programme4, Spanish National Research Council5, University of Évora6, National Autonomous University of Mexico7, Stockholm University8, University of East Anglia9, University of Maryland, College Park10, Hawaii Pacific University11, University of British Columbia12, Joint Global Change Research Institute13, Imperial College London14, The Nature Conservancy15, Virginia Tech College of Natural Resources and Environment16
TL;DR: Scenarios consistently indicate that biodiversity will continue to decline over the 21st century, however, the range of projected changes is much broader than most studies suggest, partly because there are major opportunities to intervene through better policies, but also because of large uncertainties in projections.
Abstract: Quantitative scenarios are coming of age as a tool for evaluating the impact of future socioeconomic development pathways on biodiversity and ecosystem services. We analyze global terrestrial, freshwater, and marine biodiversity scenarios using a range of measures including extinctions, changes in species abundance, habitat loss, and distribution shifts, as well as comparing model projections to observations. Scenarios consistently indicate that biodiversity will continue to decline over the 21st century. However, the range of projected changes is much broader than most studies suggest, partly because there are major opportunities to intervene through better policies, but also because of large uncertainties in projections.
1,725 citations
Cited by
More filters
28 Jul 2005
TL;DR: PfPMP1）与感染红细胞、树突状组胞以及胎盘的单个或多个受体作用，在黏附及免疫逃避中起关键的作�ly.
Abstract: 抗原变异可使得多种致病微生物易于逃避宿主免疫应答。表达在感染红细胞表面的恶性疟原虫红细胞表面蛋白1（PfPMP1）与感染红细胞、内皮细胞、树突状细胞以及胎盘的单个或多个受体作用，在黏附及免疫逃避中起关键的作用。每个单倍体基因组var基因家族编码约60种成员，通过启动转录不同的var基因变异体为抗原变异提供了分子基础。
18,940 citations
TL;DR: Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols used xiii 1.
Abstract: Preface to the Princeton Landmarks in Biology Edition vii Preface xi Symbols Used xiii 1. The Importance of Islands 3 2. Area and Number of Speicies 8 3. Further Explanations of the Area-Diversity Pattern 19 4. The Strategy of Colonization 68 5. Invasibility and the Variable Niche 94 6. Stepping Stones and Biotic Exchange 123 7. Evolutionary Changes Following Colonization 145 8. Prospect 181 Glossary 185 References 193 Index 201
14,171 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: For the next few weeks the course is going to be exploring a field that’s actually older than classical population genetics, although the approach it’ll be taking to it involves the use of population genetic machinery.
Abstract: So far in this course we have dealt entirely with the evolution of characters that are controlled by simple Mendelian inheritance at a single locus. There are notes on the course website about gametic disequilibrium and how allele frequencies change at two loci simultaneously, but we didn’t discuss them. In every example we’ve considered we’ve imagined that we could understand something about evolution by examining the evolution of a single gene. That’s the domain of classical population genetics. For the next few weeks we’re going to be exploring a field that’s actually older than classical population genetics, although the approach we’ll be taking to it involves the use of population genetic machinery. If you know a little about the history of evolutionary biology, you may know that after the rediscovery of Mendel’s work in 1900 there was a heated debate between the “biometricians” (e.g., Galton and Pearson) and the “Mendelians” (e.g., de Vries, Correns, Bateson, and Morgan). Biometricians asserted that the really important variation in evolution didn’t follow Mendelian rules. Height, weight, skin color, and similar traits seemed to
9,847 citations
Australian National University1, Stockholm Resilience Centre2, University of Copenhagen3, McGill University4, Stellenbosch University5, University of Wisconsin-Madison6, Wageningen University and Research Centre7, Stockholm University8, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences9, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research10, International Livestock Research Institute11, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation12, University College London13, Stockholm Environment Institute14, University of California, San Diego15, The Energy and Resources Institute16, Royal Institute of Technology17
TL;DR: An updated and extended analysis of the planetary boundary (PB) framework and identifies levels of anthropogenic perturbations below which the risk of destabilization of the Earth system (ES) is likely to remain low—a “safe operating space” for global societal development.
Abstract: The planetary boundaries framework defines a safe operating space for humanity based on the intrinsic biophysical processes that regulate the stability of the Earth system. Here, we revise and update the planetary boundary framework, with a focus on the underpinning biophysical science, based on targeted input from expert research communities and on more general scientific advances over the past 5 years. Several of the boundaries now have a two-tier approach, reflecting the importance of cross-scale interactions and the regional-level heterogeneity of the processes that underpin the boundaries. Two core boundaries—climate change and biosphere integrity—have been identified, each of which has the potential on its own to drive the Earth system into a new state should they be substantially and persistently transgressed.
7,169 citations
TL;DR: The development of a xenograft assay that identified human brain tumour initiating cells that initiate tumours in vivo gives strong support for the CSC hypothesis as the basis for many solid tumours, and establishes a previously unidentified cellular target for more effective cancer therapies.
Abstract: The cancer stem cell (CSC) hypothesis suggests that neoplastic clones are maintained exclusively by a rare fraction of cells with stem cell properties. Although the existence of CSCs in human leukaemia is established, little evidence exists for CSCs in solid tumours, except for breast cancer. Recently, we prospectively isolated a CD133+ cell subpopulation from human brain tumours that exhibited stem cell properties in vitro. However, the true measures of CSCs are their capacity for self renewal and exact recapitulation of the original tumour. Here we report the development of a xenograft assay that identified human brain tumour initiating cells that initiate tumours in vivo. Only the CD133+ brain tumour fraction contains cells that are capable of tumour initiation in NOD-SCID (non-obese diabetic, severe combined immunodeficient) mouse brains. Injection of as few as 100 CD133+ cells produced a tumour that could be serially transplanted and was a phenocopy of the patient's original tumour, whereas injection of 10(5) CD133- cells engrafted but did not cause a tumour. Thus, the identification of brain tumour initiating cells provides insights into human brain tumour pathogenesis, giving strong support for the CSC hypothesis as the basis for many solid tumours, and establishes a previously unidentified cellular target for more effective cancer therapies.
7,120 citations