Abstract:
Evaluating anthropogenic influences on biodiversity should span freshwater, aquatic, marine, and terrestrial environments. Protected areas alone cannot save biodiversity because boundary effects pervade landscapes, as learnt from the situation in Zimbabwe. Instead, we should clearly articulate goals and realistic expectations for biodiversity elements on each land use allocation, as being attempted in India. Relying only on threatened, endemic, indicator, flagship, and umbrella species will not suffice. We must look across taxonomic and functional groups, and also better account for local extirpations of species, subspecies, demes, and metapopulations. We need a clear classification and valuation method of ecosystem services. Trends of simplification as seen in Germany and China, and the conversion and loss of forests witnessed in Ecuador, have degraded biodiversity, but variable retention in Canadian forests and selection harvesting practices adopted in Russia, can help maintain forest biodiversity elements. Integrating cultural and religious interests with sustenance and conservation will be a major theme in Alaska, , northern Canada, Malawi, and northeast India. We need to emphasize biodiversity conservation more at local project scales as in Cameroon and Congo, and encourage partnerships among landowners and local residents. Governments can assist by providing incentives for stewardship as well as legislated conservation mandates and targets. Landscape ecology should be used to redesign urban sprawl and reduce impacts on hydrologic systems as in Florida. Ultimately, population density and growth in countries like China, India, and Mexico will determine what our planet will be capable of producing and supporting for centuries to come.