Author
Samantha L. L. Hill
Other affiliations: Natural History Museum, University of Reading, Imperial College London ...read more
Bio: Samantha L. L. Hill is an academic researcher from World Conservation Monitoring Centre. The author has contributed to research in topics: Biodiversity & Land use. The author has an hindex of 22, co-authored 49 publications receiving 5034 citations. Previous affiliations of Samantha L. L. Hill include Natural History Museum & University of Reading.
Papers
More filters
••
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
••
United Nations Environment Programme1, Dalhousie University2, Queen's University3, Bedford Institute of Oceanography4, American Museum of Natural History5, BirdLife International6, University of Paris-Sud7, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency8, United Nations9, Utrecht University10, University of British Columbia11, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development12, The Lodge13, Marine Stewardship Council14, Global Biodiversity Information Facility15, University of Wisconsin-Madison16, University of Queensland17, Zoological Society of London18, Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg19, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources20, College of William & Mary21, Sapienza University of Rome22, University of Sussex23, University of Vienna24, Environment Agency25, Microsoft26
TL;DR: A comprehensive mid-term assessment of progress toward 20 biodiversity-related “Aichi Targets” to be achieved within a decade is provided using 55 indicator data sets and pinpoints the problems and areas that will need the most attention in the next few years.
Abstract: In 2010, the international community, under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity, agreed on 20 biodiversity-related “Aichi Targets” to be achieved within a decade. We provide a comprehensive mid-term assessment of progress toward these global targets using 55 indicator data sets. We projected indicator trends to 2020 using an adaptive statistical framework that incorporated the specific properties of individual time series. On current trajectories, results suggest that despite accelerating policy and management responses to the biodiversity crisis, the impacts of these efforts are unlikely to be reflected in improved trends in the state of biodiversity by 2020. We highlight areas of societal endeavor requiring additional efforts to achieve the Aichi Targets, and provide a baseline against which to assess future progress.
970 citations
••
TL;DR: It is estimated that land use and related pressures have already reduced local biodiversity intactness—the average proportion of natural biodiversity remaining in local ecosystems—beyond its recently proposed planetary boundary across 58.1% of the world’s land surface, where 71.4%) of the human population live.
Abstract: Land use and related pressures have reduced local terrestrial biodiversity, but it is unclear how the magnitude of change relates to the recently proposed planetary boundary (“safe limit”). We estimate that land use and related pressures have already reduced local biodiversity intactness—the average proportion of natural biodiversity remaining in local ecosystems—beyond its recently proposed planetary boundary across 58.1% of the world’s land surface, where 71.4% of the human population live. Biodiversity intactness within most biomes (especially grassland biomes), most biodiversity hotspots, and even some wilderness areas is inferred to be beyond the boundary. Such widespread transgression of safe limits suggests that biodiversity loss, if unchecked, will undermine efforts toward long-term sustainable development.
714 citations
••
TL;DR: Using a new global biodiversity database with unprecedented geographic and taxonomic coverage, four biodiversity measures are compared at sites sampled in multiple land uses inside and outside protected areas to reinforce the global importance of protected areas but suggest that protection does not consistently benefit species with small ranges or increase the variety of ecological niches.
Abstract: Protected areas are widely considered essential for biodiversity conservation. However, few global studies have demonstrated that protection benefits a broad range of species. Here, using a new global biodiversity database with unprecedented geographic and taxonomic coverage, we compare four biodiversity measures at sites sampled in multiple land uses inside and outside protected areas. Globally, species richness is 10.6% higher and abundance 14.5% higher in samples taken inside protected areas compared with samples taken outside, but neither rarefaction-based richness nor endemicity differ significantly. Importantly, we show that the positive effects of protection are mostly attributable to differences in land use between protected and unprotected sites. Nonetheless, even within some human-dominated land uses, species richness and abundance are higher in protected sites. Our results reinforce the global importance of protected areas but suggest that protection does not consistently benefit species with small ranges or increase the variety of ecological niches.
470 citations
••
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis1, Environmental Change Institute2, University of Cambridge3, BirdLife International4, ETH Zurich5, Indian Institutes of Technology6, Natural History Museum7, Bioversity International8, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation9, Sapienza University of Rome10, Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency11, Zoological Society of London12, World Conservation Monitoring Centre13, Ritsumeikan University14, National Institute for Environmental Studies15, Radboud University Nijmegen16, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research17, University College London18, Imperial College London19, Wageningen University and Research Centre20, Agricultural & Applied Economics Association21, Stockholm Resilience Centre22, Kyoto University23, Humboldt University of Berlin24, Leipzig University25, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro26, International Institute of Minnesota27, Utrecht University28, Wildlife Conservation Society29, University of Queensland30
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors used an ensemble of land-use and biodiversity models to assess whether and how humans can reverse the declines in terrestrial biodiversity caused by habitat conversion, which is a major threat to biodiversity.
Abstract: Increased efforts are required to prevent further losses to terrestrial biodiversity and the ecosystem services that it provides1,2. Ambitious targets have been proposed, such as reversing the declining trends in biodiversity3; however, just feeding the growing human population will make this a challenge4. Here we use an ensemble of land-use and biodiversity models to assess whether—and how—humanity can reverse the declines in terrestrial biodiversity caused by habitat conversion, which is a major threat to biodiversity5. We show that immediate efforts, consistent with the broader sustainability agenda but of unprecedented ambition and coordination, could enable the provision of food for the growing human population while reversing the global terrestrial biodiversity trends caused by habitat conversion. If we decide to increase the extent of land under conservation management, restore degraded land and generalize landscape-level conservation planning, biodiversity trends from habitat conversion could become positive by the mid-twenty-first century on average across models (confidence interval, 2042–2061), but this was not the case for all models. Food prices could increase and, on average across models, almost half (confidence interval, 34–50%) of the future biodiversity losses could not be avoided. However, additionally tackling the drivers of land-use change could avoid conflict with affordable food provision and reduces the environmental effects of the food-provision system. Through further sustainable intensification and trade, reduced food waste and more plant-based human diets, more than two thirds of future biodiversity losses are avoided and the biodiversity trends from habitat conversion are reversed by 2050 for almost all of the models. Although limiting further loss will remain challenging in several biodiversity-rich regions, and other threats—such as climate change—must be addressed to truly reverse the declines in biodiversity, our results show that ambitious conservation efforts and food system transformation are central to an effective post-2020 biodiversity strategy. To promote the recovery of the currently declining global trends in terrestrial biodiversity, increases in both the extent of land under conservation management and the sustainability of the global food system from farm to fork are required.
316 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
01 May 1981TL;DR: This chapter discusses Detecting Influential Observations and Outliers, a method for assessing Collinearity, and its applications in medicine and science.
Abstract: 1. Introduction and Overview. 2. Detecting Influential Observations and Outliers. 3. Detecting and Assessing Collinearity. 4. Applications and Remedies. 5. Research Issues and Directions for Extensions. Bibliography. Author Index. Subject Index.
4,948 citations
••
Harvard University1, Stockholm Resilience Centre2, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research3, University of Oxford4, City University London5, Chatham House6, World Wide Fund for Nature7, Environmental Change Institute8, University of Minnesota9, University of California, Santa Barbara10, CGIAR11, Johns Hopkins University12, American University of Beirut13, Wageningen University and Research Centre14, Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation15, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur16, ETH Zurich17, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation18, University of Indonesia19, World Health Organization20, Food and Agriculture Organization21, International Food Policy Research Institute22, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences23, University of Auckland24, Public Health Foundation of India25, Centre for Science and Environment26
TL;DR: Food in the Anthropocene : the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems focuses on meat, fish, vegetables and fruit as sources of protein.
4,710 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: The overall biomass composition of the biosphere is assembled, establishing a census of the ≈550 gigatons of carbon (Gt C) of biomass distributed among all of the kingdoms of life and shows that terrestrial biomass is about two orders of magnitude higher than marine biomass and estimate a total of ≈6 Gt C of marine biota, doubling the previous estimated quantity.
Abstract: A census of the biomass on Earth is key for understanding the structure and dynamics of the biosphere. However, a global, quantitative view of how the biomass of different taxa compare with one another is still lacking. Here, we assemble the overall biomass composition of the biosphere, establishing a census of the ≈550 gigatons of carbon (Gt C) of biomass distributed among all of the kingdoms of life. We find that the kingdoms of life concentrate at different locations on the planet; plants (≈450 Gt C, the dominant kingdom) are primarily terrestrial, whereas animals (≈2 Gt C) are mainly marine, and bacteria (≈70 Gt C) and archaea (≈7 Gt C) are predominantly located in deep subsurface environments. We show that terrestrial biomass is about two orders of magnitude higher than marine biomass and estimate a total of ≈6 Gt C of marine biota, doubling the previous estimated quantity. Our analysis reveals that the global marine biomass pyramid contains more consumers than producers, thus increasing the scope of previous observations on inverse food pyramids. Finally, we highlight that the mass of humans is an order of magnitude higher than that of all wild mammals combined and report the historical impact of humanity on the global biomass of prominent taxa, including mammals, fish, and plants.
1,714 citations
••
University of Oxford1, University of Minnesota2, International Food Policy Research Institute3, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation4, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research5, Technical University of Madrid6, Wageningen University and Research Centre7, Chatham House8, Stockholm Resilience Centre9, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences10, Bioversity International11, American University of Beirut12, Johns Hopkins University13, University of California, Santa Barbara14, Harvard University15
TL;DR: A global model finds that the environmental impacts of the food system could increase by 60–90% by 2050, and that dietary changes, improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste will all be needed to mitigate these impacts.
Abstract: The food system is a major driver of climate change, changes in land use, depletion of freshwater resources, and pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems through excessive nitrogen and phosphorus inputs. Here we show that between 2010 and 2050, as a result of expected changes in population and income levels, the environmental effects of the food system could increase by 50–90% in the absence of technological changes and dedicated mitigation measures, reaching levels that are beyond the planetary boundaries that define a safe operating space for humanity. We analyse several options for reducing the environmental effects of the food system, including dietary changes towards healthier, more plant-based diets, improvements in technologies and management, and reductions in food loss and waste. We find that no single measure is enough to keep these effects within all planetary boundaries simultaneously, and that a synergistic combination of measures will be needed to sufficiently mitigate the projected increase in environmental pressures.
1,521 citations