Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Grenoble, France

Seitzinger S.P.,Royal Swedish Academy Of Sciences | Svedin U.,Resilience | Crumley C.L.,Uppsala University | Steffen W.,Resilience | And 23 more authors.
Ambio | Year: 2012

Cities are rapidly increasing in importance as a major factor shaping the Earth system, and therefore, must take corresponding responsibility. With currently over half the world's population, cities are supported by resources originating from primarily rural regions often located around the world far distant from the urban loci of use. The sustainability of a city can no longer be considered in isolation from the sustainability of human and natural resources it uses from proximal or distant regions, or the combined resource use and impacts of cities globally. The world's multiple and complex environmental and social challenges require interconnected solutions and coordinated governance approaches to planetary stewardship. We suggest that a key component of planetary stewardship is a global system of cities that develop sustainable processes and policies in concert with its non-urban areas. The potential for cities to cooperate as a system and with rural connectivity could increase their capacity to effect change and foster stewardship at the planetary scale and also increase their resource security. © Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2012. Source


Redding D.W.,Simon Fraser University | Redding D.W.,University College London | Mazel F.,Laboratoire DEcologie Alpine | Mooers A.O.,Simon Fraser University
PLoS ONE | Year: 2014

Conservation planning needs to account for limited resources when choosing those species on which to focus attention and resources. Currently, funding is biased to small sections of the tree of life, such as raptors and carnivores. One new approach for increasing the diversity of species under consideration considers how many close relatives a species has in its evolutionary tree. At least eleven different ways to measure this characteristic on phylogenies for the purposes of setting speciesspecific priorities for conservation have been proposed. We find that there is much redundancy within the current set, with three pairs of metrics being essentially identical. Non-redundant metrics represent different trade-offs between the unique evolutionary history represented by a species verses its average distance to all other species. Depending on which metric is used, species priority lists can differ as much as 85% for the top 100 species. We call for some consensus on the theory behind these metrics and suggest that all future developments are compared to the current published set, and offer scripts to aid such comparisons. Source


Mazel F.,Laboratoire DEcologie Alpine | Guilhaumon F.,Montpellier University | Mouquet N.,Montpellier University | Devictor V.,Montpellier University | And 8 more authors.
Global Ecology and Biogeography | Year: 2014

Aim: To define biome-scale hotspots of phylogenetic and functional mammalian biodiversity (PD and FD, respectively) and compare them with 'classical' hotspots based on species richness (SR) alone. Location: Global. Methods: SR, PD and FD were computed for 782 terrestrial ecoregions using the distribution ranges of 4616 mammalian species. We used a set of comprehensive diversity indices unified by a recent framework incorporating the relative species coverage in each ecoregion. We built large-scale multifaceted diversity-area relationships to rank ecoregions according to their levels of biodiversity while accounting for the effect of area on each facet of diversity. Finally we defined hotspots as the top-ranked ecoregions. Results: While ignoring relative species coverage led to a fairly good congruence between biome-scale top ranked SR, PD and FD hotspots, ecoregions harbouring a rich and abundantly represented evolutionary history and FD did not match with the top-ranked ecoregions defined by SR. More importantly PD and FD hotspots showed important spatial mismatches. We also found that FD and PD generally reached their maximum values faster than SR as a function of area. Main conclusions: The fact that PD/FD reach their maximum value faster than SR could suggest that the two former facets might be less vulnerable to habitat loss than the latter. While this point is expected, it is the first time that it has been quantified at a global scale and should have important consequences for conservation. Incorporating relative species coverage into the delineation of multifaceted hotspots of diversity led to weak congruence between SR, PD and FD hotspots. This means that maximizing species number may fail to preserve those nodes (in the phylogenetic or functional tree) that are relatively abundant in the ecoregion. As a consequence it may be of prime importance to adopt a multifaceted biodiversity perspective to inform conservation strategies at a global scale. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Source


Mouquet N.,Montpellier University | Devictor V.,Montpellier University | Meynard C.N.,Montpellier SupAgro | Munoz F.,IRD Montpellier | And 21 more authors.
Biological Reviews | Year: 2012

Ecophylogenetics can be viewed as an emerging fusion of ecology, biogeography and macroevolution. This new and fast-growing field is promoting the incorporation of evolution and historical contingencies into the ecological research agenda through the widespread use of phylogenetic data. Including phylogeny into ecological thinking represents an opportunity for biologists from different fields to collaborate and has provided promising avenues of research in both theoretical and empirical ecology, towards a better understanding of the assembly of communities, the functioning of ecosystems and their responses to environmental changes. The time is ripe to assess critically the extent to which the integration of phylogeny into these different fields of ecology has delivered on its promise. Here we review how phylogenetic information has been used to identify better the key components of species interactions with their biotic and abiotic environments, to determine the relationships between diversity and ecosystem functioning and ultimately to establish good management practices to protect overall biodiversity in the face of global change. We evaluate the relevance of information provided by phylogenies to ecologists, highlighting current potential weaknesses and needs for future developments. We suggest that despite the strong progress that has been made, a consistent unified framework is still missing to link local ecological dynamics to macroevolution. This is a necessary step in order to interpret observed phylogenetic patterns in a wider ecological context. Beyond the fundamental question of how evolutionary history contributes to shape communities, ecophylogenetics will help ecology to become a better integrative and predictive science. © 2012 CNRS. Biological Reviews © 2012 Cambridge Philosophical Society. Source

Discover hidden collaborations