Has land use pushed terrestrial biodiversity beyond the planetary boundary? A global assessment

By Tim Newbold, Lawrence N. Hudson, Andy Arnell, S. Contu, Adriana De Palma, Simon Ferrier, S. Hill, A. Hoskins, I. Lysenko, Helen R. P. Phillips and 13 more. Science, 2016

1,001 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Nature and Landscape Conservation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/88ff976f4322765050018d2d293a03f1b6cab319

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

In Nature and Landscape Conservation

Citations in the corpus

Land use options for staying within the Planetary Boundaries – Synergies and trade-offs between global and local sustainability goals (2018, background): “…at the global scale, e.g. in terms of carbon sequestration (Pielke et al., 2002; Houghton et al., 2012), biodiversity loss (Cardinale et al., 2012; Newbold et al., 2016) or moisture fluxes (Keys et al., 2012; Boisier et al., 2014), it manifests itself at the local scale and responds to drivers at…”
The paradox of productivity: agricultural productivity promotes food system inefficiency (2019, positive): “Externalized environmental costs include degradation of soils (Amundson et al. , 2015), biodiversity loss (Newbold et al. , 2016), unsustainable use and pollution of water (Liu et al. , 2012; Dalin et al., 2017) and driving climate change, where agri-food emits as much as 30% of global greenhouse…”
The green care code: How nature connectedness and simple activities help explain pro‐nature conservation behaviours (2020, background): “As scientific evidence mounts regarding the seriousness of our current situation (Beaugrand, Edwards, Raybaud, Goberville, & Kirby, 2015; Newbold et al., 2016), newspaper stories on biodiversity loss are becoming increasingly common place (e.g. McKeever, 2016; Watts, 2019).”
Safe and just Earth system boundaries (2023, positive): “Our proposed boundary value is consistent with varied sources that prescribe approximately 15% area restoration over the current natural area of 45-50% (Newbold et al. 2016; Dinerstein et al. 2017; Willett et al. 2019; Riggio et al. 2020; Leadley et al. 2022).”
Is local biodiversity declining or not? A summary of the debate over analysis of species richness time trends (2018, background): “…corroborated the historical view that local species richness is in decline, but the magnitude of decline varies with the type and severity of human impact (Aronson et al., 2014; Benayas et al., 2009; Moreno-Mateos et al., 2017; Murphy and Romanuk, 2014; Newbold et al., 2016; Newbold et al., 2015).”