| 1. |
- Dornelas, M., et al.
(author)
-
BioTIME: A database of biodiversity time series for the Anthropocene
- 2018
-
In: Global Ecology and Biogeography. - : Wiley. - 1466-822X .- 1466-8238. ; 27:7, s. 760-786
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Motivation: The BioTIME database contains raw data on species identities and abundances in ecological assemblages through time. These data enable users to calculate temporal trends in biodiversity within and amongst assemblages using a broad range of metrics. BioTIME is being developed as a community-led open-source database of biodiversity time series. Our goal is to accelerate and facilitate quantitative analysis of temporal patterns of biodiversity in the Anthropocene. Main types of variables included: The database contains 8,777,413 species abundance records, from assemblages consistently sampled for a minimum of 2 years, which need not necessarily be consecutive. In addition, the database contains metadata relating to sampling methodology and contextual information about each record. Spatial location and grain: BioTIME is a global database of 547,161 unique sampling locations spanning the marine, freshwater and terrestrial realms. Grain size varies across datasets from 0.0000000158 km(2) (158 cm(2)) to 100 km(2) (1,000,000,000,000 cm(2)). Time period and grainBio: TIME records span from 1874 to 2016. The minimal temporal grain across all datasets in BioTIME is a year. Major taxa and level of measurement: BioTIME includes data from 44,440 species across the plant and animal kingdoms, ranging from plants, plankton and terrestrial invertebrates to small and large vertebrates.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pontarp, Mikael, et al.
(author)
-
The Latitudinal Diversity Gradient : Novel Understanding through Mechanistic Eco-evolutionary
- 2019
-
In: Trends in Ecology & Evolution. - : Elsevier. - 0169-5347 .- 1872-8383. ; 34:3, s. 211-223
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The latitudinal diversity gradient (LDG) is one of the most widely studied patterns in ecology, yet no consensus has been reached about its underlying causes. We argue that the reasons for this are the verbal nature of existing hypotheses, the failure to mechanistically link interacting ecological and evolutionary processes to the LDG, and the fact that empirical patterns are often consistent with multiple explanations. To address this issue, we synthesize current LDG hypotheses, uncovering their eco-evolutionary mechanisms, hidden assumptions, and commonalities. Furthermore, we propose mechanistic eco-evolutionary modeling and an inferential approach that makes use of geographic, phylogenetic, and trait-based patterns to assess the relative importance of different processes for generating the LDG.
|
|
| 3. |
- Gupta, Joyeeta, et al.
(author)
-
Earth system justice needed to identify and live within Earth system boundaries
- 2023
-
In: Nature Sustainability. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2398-9629. ; 6:6, s. 630-638
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Living within planetary limits requires attention to justice as biophysical boundaries are not inherently just. Through collaboration between natural and social scientists, the Earth Commission defines and operationalizes Earth system justice to ensure that boundaries reduce harm, increase well-being, and reflect substantive and procedural justice. Such stringent boundaries may also affect ‘just access’ to food, water, energy and infrastructure. We show how boundaries may need to be adjusted to reduce harm and increase access, and challenge inequality to ensure a safe and just future for people, other species and the planet. Earth system justice may enable living justly within boundaries.
|
|
| 4. |
- Gupta, J., et al.
(author)
-
Reconciling safe planetary targets and planetary justice : Why should social scientists engage with planetary targets?
- 2021
-
In: Earth System Governance. - : Elsevier BV. - 2589-8116. ; 10
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- As human activity threatens to make the planet unsafe for humanity and other life forms, scholars are identifying planetary targets set at a safe distance from biophysical thresholds beyond which critical Earth systems may collapse. Yet despite the profound implications that both meeting and transgressing such targets may have for human wellbeing, including the potential for negative trade-offs, there is limited social science analysis that systematically considers the justice dimensions of such targets. Here we assess a range of views on planetary justice and present three arguments associated with why social scientists should engage with the scholarship on safe targets. We argue that complementing safe targets with just targets offers a fruitful approach for considering synergies and trade-offs between environmental and social aspirations and can inform inclusive deliberation on these important issues.
|
|
| 5. |
- Rammelt, Crelis F., et al.
(author)
-
Impacts of meeting minimum access on critical earth systems amidst the Great Inequality
- 2023
-
In: Nature Sustainability. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2398-9629. ; 6:2, s. 212-221
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The Sustainable Development Goals aim to improve access to resources and services, reduce environmental degradation, eradicate poverty and reduce inequality. However, the magnitude of the environmental burden that would arise from meeting the needs of the poorest is under debate—especially when compared to much larger burdens from the rich. We show that the ‘Great Acceleration’ of human impacts was characterized by a ‘Great Inequality’ in using and damaging the environment. We then operationalize ‘just access’ to minimum energy, water, food and infrastructure. We show that achieving just access in 2018, with existing inequalities, technologies and behaviours, would have produced 2–26% additional impacts on the Earth’s natural systems of climate, water, land and nutrients—thus further crossing planetary boundaries. These hypothetical impacts, caused by about a third of humanity, equalled those caused by the wealthiest 1–4%. Technological and behavioural changes thus far, while important, did not deliver just access within a stable Earth system. Achieving these goals therefore calls for a radical redistribution of resources.
|
|
