Search

Based on an extensive model intercomparison, we assessed trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services from historical reconstructions and future scenarios of land-use and climate change. During the 20th century, biodiversity declined globally by 2 to 11%, as estimated by a range of indicators. Provisioning ecosystem services increased several fold, and regulating services decreased moderately. Going forward, policies toward sustainability have the potential to slow biodiversity loss resulting from land-use change and the demand for provisioning services while reducing or reversing declines in regulating services. However, negative impacts on biodiversity due to climate change appear poised to increase, particularly in the higher-emissions scenarios. Our assessment identifies remaining modeling uncertainties but also robustly shows that renewed policy efforts are needed to meet the goals of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Food systems are primary drivers of human and environmental health, but the understanding of their diverse and dynamic co-transformation remains limited. We use a data-driven approach to disentangle different development pathways of national food systems (i.e. ‘transformation archetypes’) based on historical, intertwined trends of food system structure (agricultural inputs and outputs and food trade), and social and environmental outcomes (malnutrition, biosphere integrity, and greenhouse gases emissions) for 161 countries, from 1995 to 2015. We found that whilst agricultural total factor productivity has consistently increased globally, a closer analysis suggests a typology of three transformation archetypes across countries: rapidly expansionist, expansionist, and consolidative. Expansionist and rapidly expansionist archetypes increased in agricultural area, synthetic fertilizer use, and gross agricultural output, which was accompanied by malnutrition, environmental pressures, and lasting socioeconomic disadvantages. The lowest rates of change in key structure metrics were found in the consolidative archetype. Across all transformation archetypes, agricultural greenhouse gases emissions, synthetic fertilizer use, and ecological footprint of consumption increased faster than the expansion of agricultural area, and obesity levels increased more rapidly than undernourishment decreased. The persistence of these unsustainable trajectories occurred independently of improvements in productivity. Our results underscore the importance of quantifying the multiple human and environmental dimensions of food systems transformations and can serve as a starting point to identify potential leverage points for sustainability transformations. More attention is thus warranted to alternative development pathways able of delivering equitable benefits to both productivity and to human and environmental health.

The two most urgent and interlinked environmental challenges humanity faces are climate change and biodiversity loss. We are entering a pivotal decade for both the international biodiversity and climate change agendas with the sharpening of ambitious strategies and targets by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Within their respective Conventions, the biodiversity and climate interlinked challenges have largely been addressed separately. There is evidence that conservation actions that halt, slow or reverse biodiversity loss can simultaneously slow anthropogenic mediated climate change significantly. This review highlights conservation actions which have the largest potential for mitigation of climate change. We note that conservation actions have mainly synergistic benefits and few antagonistic trade-offs with climate change mitigation. Specifically, we identify direct co-benefits in 14 out of the 21 action targets of the draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, notwithstanding the many indirect links that can also support both biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. These relationships are context and scale-dependent; therefore, we showcase examples of local biodiversity conservation actions that can be incentivized, guided and prioritized by global objectives and targets. The close interlinkages between biodiversity, climate change mitigation, other nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life are seldom as integrated as they should be in management and policy. This review aims to re-emphasize the vital relationships between biodiversity conservation actions and climate change mitigation in a timely manner, in support to major Conferences of Parties that are about to negotiate strategic frameworks and international goals for the decades to come.

The two most urgent and interlinked environmental challenges humanity faces are climate change and biodiversity loss. We are entering a pivotal decade for both the international biodiversity and climate change agendas with the sharpening of ambitious strategies and targets by the Convention on Biological Diversity and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Within their respective Conventions, the biodiversity and climate interlinked challenges have largely been addressed separately. There is evidence that conservation actions that halt, slow or reverse biodiversity loss can simultaneously slow anthropogenic mediated climate change significantly. This review highlights conservation actions which have the largest potential for mitigation of climate change. We note that conservation actions have mainly synergistic benefits and few antagonistic trade-offs with climate change mitigation. Specifically, we identify direct co-benefits in 14 out of the 21 action targets of the draft post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity, notwithstanding the many indirect links that can also support both biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. These relationships are context and scale-dependent; therefore, we showcase examples of local biodiversity conservation actions that can be incentivized, guided and prioritized by global objectives and targets. The close interlinkages between biodiversity, climate change mitigation, other nature’s contributions to people and good quality of life are seldom as integrated as they should be in management and policy. This review aims to re-emphasize the vital relationships between biodiversity conservation actions and climate change mitigation in a timely manner, in support to major Conferences of Parties that are about to negotiate strategic frameworks and international goals for the decades to come.

In 2022, researchers from around the world entered the BMC Ecology and Evolution photography competition. The contest produced a spectacular collection of photographs that capture the wonder of the natural world and the growing need to protect it as the human impact on the planet intensifies. This editorial celebrates the winning images selected by the Editor of BMC Ecology and Evolution and senior members of the journal's editorial board.

Der Erhalt der Biodiversität und intakter Ökosysteme ist überlebenswichtig für Mensch und Natur. Dennoch schreitet der Verlust von Biodiversität sowohl in Deutschland – dem Fokus dieses Papiers – wie auch weltweit dramatisch voran. Die Politik hinkt dem zunehmenden Handlungsdruck allerdings weit hinterher. Bestehende Verpflichtungen wurden bisher nicht erfüllt, gesteckte Ziele nicht erreicht. Daher muss die neue Bundesregierung Verantwortung übernehmen und die Ursachen für den Verlust der Biodiversität, die in verschiedenen Politikfeldern liegen, bereits im Koalitionsvertrag adressieren. Der wirksame Schutz von Biodiversität kann nicht alleine mit der Ausweisung von Schutzgebieten erreicht werden, sondern ist eine Integrationsaufgabe. Die Adressaten dieses Textes sind daher politische Akteure, die Biodiversitätsziele in ihren Verantwortungsbereichen (Ressorts) und in allen relevanten Strategien integrieren sowie die relevanten Stakeholder mitnehmen müssen.Die hier beitragenden und zeichnenden Wissenschaftler*innen aus unterschiedlichsten Disziplinen werben gemeinsam für ein deutlich größeres Engagement für Biodiversität und legen hierfür die folgenden Handlungsempfehlungen für deutsche und europäische Politik vor. Sie appellieren an die politischen Verantwortungsträger*innen, diese vielfältigen Herausforderungen entschlossen anzugehen und unsere natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen wirkungsvoll zu schützen.

Der Erhalt der Biodiversität und intakter Ökosysteme ist überlebenswichtig für Mensch und Natur. Dennoch schreitet der Verlust von Biodiversität sowohl in Deutschland – dem Fokus dieses Papiers – wie auch weltweit dramatisch voran. Die Politik hinkt dem zunehmenden Handlungsdruck allerdings weit hinterher. Bestehende Verpflichtungen wurden bisher nicht erfüllt, gesteckte Ziele nicht erreicht. Daher muss die neue Bundesregierung Verantwortung übernehmen und die Ursachen für den Verlust der Biodiversität, die in verschiedenen Politikfeldern liegen, bereits im Koalitionsvertrag adressieren. Der wirksame Schutz von Biodiversität kann nicht alleine mit der Ausweisung von Schutzgebieten erreicht werden, sondern ist eine Integrationsaufgabe. Die Adressaten dieses Textes sind daher politische Akteure, die Biodiversitätsziele in ihren Verantwortungsbereichen (Ressorts) und in allen relevanten Strategien integrieren sowie die relevanten Stakeholder mitnehmen müssen.Die hier beitragenden und zeichnenden Wissenschaftler*innen aus unterschiedlichsten Disziplinen werben gemeinsam für ein deutlich größeres Engagement für Biodiversität und legen hierfür die folgenden Handlungsempfehlungen für deutsche und europäische Politik vor. Sie appellieren an die politischen Verantwortungsträger*innen, diese vielfältigen Herausforderungen entschlossen anzugehen und unsere natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen wirkungsvoll zu schützen.

Der Erhalt der Biodiversität und intakter Ökosysteme ist überlebenswichtig für Mensch und Natur. Dennoch schreitet der Verlust von Biodiversität sowohl in Deutschland – dem Fokus dieses Papiers – wie auch weltweit dramatisch voran. Die Politik hinkt dem zunehmenden Handlungsdruck allerdings weit hinterher. Bestehende Verpflichtungen wurden bisher nicht erfüllt, gesteckte Ziele nicht erreicht. Daher muss die neue Bundesregierung Verantwortung übernehmen und die Ursachen für den Verlust der Biodiversität, die in verschiedenen Politikfeldern liegen, bereits im Koalitionsvertrag adressieren. Der wirksame Schutz von Biodiversität kann nicht alleine mit der Ausweisung von Schutzgebieten erreicht werden, sondern ist eine Integrationsaufgabe. Die Adressaten dieses Textes sind daher politische Akteure, die Biodiversitätsziele in ihren Verantwortungsbereichen (Ressorts) und in allen relevanten Strategien integrieren sowie die relevanten Stakeholder mitnehmen müssen.Die hier beitragenden und zeichnenden Wissenschaftler*innen aus unterschiedlichsten Disziplinen werben gemeinsam für ein deutlich größeres Engagement für Biodiversität und legen hierfür die folgenden Handlungsempfehlungen für deutsche und europäische Politik vor. Sie appellieren an die politischen Verantwortungsträger*innen, diese vielfältigen Herausforderungen entschlossen anzugehen und unsere natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen wirkungsvoll zu schützen.

Der Erhalt der Biodiversität und intakter Ökosysteme ist überlebenswichtig für Mensch und Natur. Dennoch schreitet der Verlust von Biodiversität sowohl in Deutschland – dem Fokus dieses Papiers – wie auch weltweit dramatisch voran. Die Politik hinkt dem zunehmenden Handlungsdruck allerdings weit hinterher. Bestehende Verpflichtungen wurden bisher nicht erfüllt, gesteckte Ziele nicht erreicht. Daher muss die neue Bundesregierung Verantwortung übernehmen und die Ursachen für den Verlust der Biodiversität, die in verschiedenen Politikfeldern liegen, bereits im Koalitionsvertrag adressieren. Der wirksame Schutz von Biodiversität kann nicht alleine mit der Ausweisung von Schutzgebieten erreicht werden, sondern ist eine Integrationsaufgabe. Die Adressaten dieses Textes sind daher politische Akteure, die Biodiversitätsziele in ihren Verantwortungsbereichen (Ressorts) und in allen relevanten Strategien integrieren sowie die relevanten Stakeholder mitnehmen müssen.Die hier beitragenden und zeichnenden Wissenschaftler*innen aus unterschiedlichsten Disziplinen werben gemeinsam für ein deutlich größeres Engagement für Biodiversität und legen hierfür die folgenden Handlungsempfehlungen für deutsche und europäische Politik vor. Sie appellieren an die politischen Verantwortungsträger*innen, diese vielfältigen Herausforderungen entschlossen anzugehen und unsere natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen wirkungsvoll zu schützen.

Contains fulltext : 216802.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), The European Union's Natura 2000 (N2000), is one of the largest international networks of protected areas. One of its aims is to secure the status of a pre-determined set of (targeted) bird and butterfly species. However, also non-target species may benefit from N2000. We evaluated how the terrestrial component of this network relates to the abundance of non-targeted, more common bird and butterfly species using data from long-term volunteer-based monitoring programs in 9,602 sites for birds and 2,001 sites for butterflies. In almost half of the 155 bird species assessed, and particularly among woodland specialists, abundance increased with the proportion of N2000 sites in the landscape. The corresponding positive relationship was found for 27 of the 104 butterfly species, although most of these species were generalists. These positive relationships disappeared for most of the species when land-cover covariates were taken into account, hinting that land-cover is a primary factor defining the positive effects of the N2000 network. The increase in abundance with N2000 was correlated with the specialization index for bird species, but not for butterfly species. Although the N2000 network supports higher abundance of a large spectrum of species, the low number of specialist butterfly species showing a positive association stresses the need to implement management plan improving the quality of habitats of N2000 areas potentially harboring openland butterfly specialists. For a better understanding of the processes involved, we advocate for a standardized collection of data on N2000 sites. Article impact statement: Across Europe the abundance of a majority of nontarget birds and a quarter of nontarget butterflies increased with Natura 2000 coverage. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

1. The Assessing Butterflies in Europe (ABLE) project was an EU Parliamentary Pilot project with a duration of two years (beginning of December 2019 to the end of November 2020) and received €800,000 of funding via a service contract with Directorate General Environment. 2. The mandate and rationale from the EU Parliament was: “The project aims at developing a suite of EU Lepidoptera indicators which can help improve conservation measure and assess progress in implementing EU policies and legislation such as the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and the EU Habitats Directive. Besides providing a highly relevant indicator for measuring progress in terms of managing and restoring Natura 2000 sites, it would also contribute to monitoring progress on Target 3 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, which aims to increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. In particular, the pilot should deliver a representative indicator to help monitor the impact of the Common Agricultural Policy on grassland biodiversity. It will also provide data to produce a climate change indicator, thereby contributing to the ongoing revision of climate change adaptation strategies. Indicators will also be possible for woodland, wetland and urban habitats.” 3. The ABLE project was delivered by a consortium of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Butterfly Conservation Europe, Butterfly Conservation UK, De Vlinderstichting and HelmholtzZentrum für Umweltforschung GmbH – UFZ. Considerable in-kind contributions were provided by Butterfly Conservation partners across Europe. 4. There is mounting evidence of widespread declines in the diversity and abundance of insects across the globe. The ABLE project is particularly timely in helping to develop capacity for monitoring of insects and assessing the status of butterflies in the EU. 5. There are 482 butterfly species in Europe (451 occurring within the EU27), breeding in a wide range of habitats. Butterflie

There is mounting evidence of widespread declines in the diversity and abundance of insects from across the globe (Sanchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019, Seibold et al. 2019, van Klink et al. 2020, Wagner 2020). This gives a stark warning for the perilous state of biodiversity (Diaz et al. 2019), and demonstrates that addressing the gap in knowledge of the status of insects is vital (Cardoso et al. 2020, Samways et al. 2020). Insects are estimated to comprise more than half of all described species and are a dominant component of biodiversity in most ecosystems (Bar-On et al. 2018). Insects also provide a crucial role in the functioning of ecosystems. They are not only related to the supply of many ecosystem services such as pollination, biological control, soil fertility regulation and diverse cultural ecosystem services but also to disservices such as damage to crops and spread of diseases to livestock and humans (Gutierrez-Arellano and Mulligan 2018, Noriega et al. 2018). There is a pressing need to assess the status of insects to set and evaluate conservation targets. At the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Nagoya (Japan), the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020 was adopted. It proposed five goals and 20 "Aichi" biodiversity targets. In line with this plan, a new EU biodiversity strategy was adopted by the European Commission in May 2011. This strategy provided a framework for the EU to meet its biodiversity targets and global commitments as a party to the CBD. The Headline Target in the existing EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 is to halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restore them, in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss. Under Target 3A the EU is committed to increasing the contribution of agriculture to biodiversity recovery. Further, the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 includes the development of a coherent framework for monitori

1. The ABLE EU Pilot Project was initiated in 2018 to collate butterfly monitoring data across Europe, to facilitate the start of new schemes in the EU, and to develop indicators to help policy evaluation. This report summarises the work on developing the monitoring network (Task 2). 2. There are some 451 butterfly species occurring in the Member States of the EU(27), breeding in a wide range of habitats. Butterflies react quickly to change and are considered to be good biological indicators, especially other insects and pollinators. Monitoring butterflies can help shed light on changes in these important groups. 3. Standard methods of monitoring butterflies are well established, based on fixed routes (transects), which allow citizen scientists to estimate the relative abundance of butterflies. 4. Prior to ABLE, several countries contributed butterfly monitoring data to the European Butterfly Monitoring Scheme (eBMS), but they were concentrated in central and western Europe. Large parts of southern and eastern Europe had no regular scheme. Three groups were prioritised for action: six to eight EU countries which had a good probability of establishing a scheme; recently started schemes that required further support; and countries where longer term activities were needed to develop monitoring. 5. As a result of the two-year project, ten EU(27) countries have started new citizen Science Butterfly Monitoring Schemes - Italy, Portugal, Hungary, Austria, Cyprus in 2019 and Poland, Bulgaria, Malta, Czech and Croatia in 2020; seven of these have joined the eBMS data network. Further details are in Annex 2. 6. A suite of support materials has been produced, including a Butterfly Transect Manual, which has been translated into six languages and a series of regional butterfly identification guides. Videos have been made explaining how to count butterflies on a transect and PowerPoint presentations have been made available in several languages. 7. More than 20 workshops and tra

Here we build on the manifesto ‘World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity, issued by the Alliance of World Scientists. As a group of conservation biologists deeply concerned about the decline of insect populations, we here review what we know about the drivers of insect extinctions, their consequences, and how extinctions can negatively impact humanity. We are causing insect extinctions by driving habitat loss, degradation, and fragmentation, use of polluting and harmful substances, the spread of invasive species, global climate change, direct overexploitation, and co-extinction of species dependent on other species. With insect extinctions, we lose much more than species. We lose abundance and biomass of insects, diversity across space and time with consequent homogenization, large parts of the tree of life, unique ecological functions and traits, and fundamental parts of extensive networks of biotic interactions. Such losses lead to the decline of key ecosystem services on which humanity depends. From pollination and decomposition, to being resources for new medicines, habitat quality indication and many others, insects provide essential and irreplaceable services. We appeal for urgent action to close key knowledge gaps and curb insect extinctions. An investment in research programs that generate local, regional and global strategies that counter this trend is essential. Solutions are available and implementable, but urgent action is needed now to match our intentions.

The fate of humans and insects intertwine, especially through the medium of plants. Global environmental change, including land transformation and contamination, is causing concerning insect diversity loss, articulated in the companion review Scientists' warning to humanity on insect extinctions. Yet, despite a sound philosophical foundation, recognized ethical values, and scientific evidence, globally we are performing poorly at instigating effective insect conservation. As insects are a major component of the tapestry of life, insect conservation would do well to integrate better with overall biodiversity conservation and climate change mitigation. This also involves popularizing insects, especially through use of iconic species, through more media coverage, and more inclusive education. Insect conservationists need to liaise better with decision makers, stakeholders, and land managers, especially at the conceptually familiar scale of the landscape. Enough evidence is now available, and synthesized here, which illustrates that multiple strategies work at local levels towards saving insects. We now need to expand these locally-crafted strategies globally. Tangible actions include ensuring maintenance of biotic complexity, especially through improving temporal and spatial heterogeneity, functional connectivity, and metapopulation dynamics, while maintaining unique habitats, across landscape mosaics, as well as instigating better communication. Key is to have more expansive sustainable agriculture and forestry, improved regulation and prevention of environmental risks, and greater recognition of protected areas alongside agro-ecology in novel landscapes. Future-proofing insect diversity is now critical, with the benefits far reaching, including continued provision of valuable ecosystem services and the conservation of a rich and impressive component of Earth's biodiversity.

Despite the scientific consensus on the extinction crisis and its anthropogenic origin, the quantification of historical trends and of future scenarios of biodiversity and ecosystem services has been limited, due to the lack of inter-model comparisons and harmonized scenarios. Here, we present a multi-model analysis to assess the impacts of land-use and climate change from 1900 to 2050. During the 20th century provisioning services increased, but biodiversity and regulating services decreased. Similar trade-offs are projected for the coming decades, but they may be attenuated in a sustainability scenario. Future biodiversity loss from land-use change is projected to keep up with historical rates or reduce slightly, whereas losses due to climate change are projected to increase greatly. Renewed efforts are needed by governments to meet the 2050 vision of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre-emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision-making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non-substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling-up of sustainability initiatives it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage

Contains fulltext : 214511.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

The EU Grassland Butterfly Indicator is one of the indicators of the status of biodiversity in the European Union. It is an abundance indicator based on data recording the population trends of seventeen butterfly species in 16 (see below) EU countries. This report presents the seventh version of this indicator now covering 28 years. At the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Nagoya (Japan) the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011– 2020 was adopted. It proposed five goals and 20 “Aichi” biodiversity targets. In line with this plan a new EU biodiversity strategy was adopted by the European Commission in May 2011. This provided a framework for the EU to meet its own biodiversity objectives and its global commitments as a party to the CBD. The Headline Target is to halt the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restore them, in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss. Under Target 3A the EU is committed to increase the contribution of agriculture to biodiversity recovery. Europe now has one year left to intensify action to achieve this. The EU biodiversity strategy includes the development of a coherent framework for monitoring, assessing and reporting on progress in implementing actions. Such a framework is needed to link existing biodiversity data and knowledge systems with the strategy, to help assess achievement of the goals and to streamline EU and global monitoring, reporting and review obligations. Some of the EU biodiversity indicators provide specific measurements and trends on genetic, species and ecosystem/landscape diversity, but many have a more indirect link to biodiversity. Very few have been established specifically to assess biodiversity. The status indicators on species only cover birds, bats and butterflies, since these are the only taxa/species groups for which harmonized European monitoring data are available (EEA, 2012). For the EU Grass

Since their discovery in the late 1980s, neonicotinoid pesticides have become the most widely used class of insecticides worldwide, with large-scale applications ranging from plant protection (crops, vegetables, fruits), veterinary products, and biocides to invertebrate pest control in fish farming. In this review, we address the phenyl-pyrazole fipronil together with neonicotinoids because of similarities in their toxicity, physicochemical profiles, and presence in the environment. Neonicotinoids and fipronil currently account for approximately one third of the world insecticide market; the annual world production of the archetype neonicotinoid, imidacloprid, was estimated to be ca. 20,000 tonnes active substance in 2010. There were several reasons for the initial success of neonicotinoids and fipronil: (1) there was no known pesticide resistance in target pests, mainly because of their recent development, (2) their physicochemical properties included many advantages over previous generations of insecticides (i.e., organophosphates, carbamates, pyrethroids, etc.), and (3) they shared an assumed reduced operator and consumer risk. Due to their systemic nature, they are taken up by the roots or leaves and translocated to all parts of the plant, which, in turn, makes them effectively toxic to herbivorous insects. The toxicity persists for a variable period of time—depending on the plant, its growth stage, and the amount of pesticide applied. A wide variety of applications are available, including the most common prophylactic non-Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) application by seed coating. As a result of their extensive use and physicochemical properties, these substances can be found in all environmental compartments including soil, water, and air. Neonicotinoids and fipronil operate by disrupting neural transmission in the central nervous system of invertebrates. Neonicotinoids mimic the action of neurotransmitters, while fipronil inhibits neuronal receptors. In do

© 2017, The Author(s). In a cross-disciplinary project (LEGATO) combining inter- and transdisciplinary methods, we quantify the dependency of rice-dominated socio-ecological systems on ecosystem functions (ESF) and the ecosystem services (ESS) the integrated system provides. In the collaboration of a large team including geo- and bioscientists, economists, political and cultural scientists, the mutual influences of the biological, climate and soil conditions of the agricultural area and its surrounding natural landscape have been analysed. One focus was on sociocultural and economic backgrounds, another on local as well as regional land use intensity and biodiversity, and the potential impacts of future climate and land use change. LEGATO analysed characteristic elements of three service strands defined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA): (a) provisioning services: nutrient cycling and crop production; (b) regulating services: biocontrol and pollination; and (c) cultural services: cultural identity and aesthetics. However, in line with much of the current ESS literature, what the MA called supporting services is treated as ESF within LEGATO. As a core output, LEGATO developed generally applicable principles of ecological engineering (EE), suitable for application in the context of future climate and land use change. EE is an emerging discipline, concerned with the design, monitoring and construction of ecosystems and aims at developing strategies to optimise ecosystem services through exploiting natural regulation mechanisms instead of suppressing them. Along these lines LEGATO also aims to create the knowledge base for decision-making for sustainable land management and livelihoods, including the provision of the corresponding governance and management strategies, technologies and system solutions.

Targets for human development are increasingly connected with targets for nature, however, existing scenarios do not explicitly address this relationship. Here, we outline a strategy to generate scenarios centred on our relationship with nature to inform decision-making at multiple scales.