Tobias Joseph A, Bullock James M, Dicks Lynn V, Forester Brenna R, Razgour Orly
Department of Life Sciences, Imperial College London, Ascot SL5 7PY, United Kingdom.
UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford OX10 8BB, United Kingdom.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025 Aug 5;122(31):e2410936122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2410936122. Epub 2025 Jul 28.
Conservation science and policy are geared primarily toward the preservation of species and habitats, with priority often given to the rarest, most vulnerable or most charismatic forms. This pattern-based approach has broad appeal and offers a pragmatic short-cut for targeting conservation action. However, the long-term efficacy of species and landscape conservation programs remains highly uncertain, amid growing evidence that sustainable conservation action requires an increased emphasis on preserving ecological and evolutionary processes. This reframing of conservation goals was first proposed 50 y ago, but the concept has struggled to gain traction, particularly in terms of translation into policy. Nonetheless, recent events have shifted the narrative, with multiple interlinked global challenges-including biological invasions, food security, disease, and climate change-putting ecological processes firmly back on the agenda. Concurrently, conservation finance is changing rapidly, driven in part by the 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which prioritized actions to enhance and restore ecosystem stability, connectivity, and resilience. These ecosystem properties are fundamentally process-driven and appear to create an operational gulf between current conservation practice and the targets of international agreements. We describe how new approaches can be used to close this gap by redirecting conservation attention toward processes at the heart of ecosystem function, including adaptation, gene flow, dispersal, and trophic interactions. Wider adoption of these approaches is urgently needed to forge a deeper connection between conservation practice and policy targets, thereby ensuring that ongoing investment in biodiversity conservation goes beyond damage limitation and instead leaves a lasting legacy of resilient ecosystems.
保护科学与政策主要致力于物种和栖息地的保护,通常优先考虑最稀有、最脆弱或最具魅力的物种。这种基于模式的方法具有广泛的吸引力,并为确定保护行动目标提供了一条务实的捷径。然而,物种和景观保护计划的长期效果仍然高度不确定,越来越多的证据表明,可持续的保护行动需要更加重视保护生态和进化过程。这种对保护目标的重新界定在50年前首次提出,但这一概念一直难以获得认可,尤其是在转化为政策方面。尽管如此,最近的一些事件改变了这种局面,包括生物入侵、粮食安全、疾病和气候变化在内的多个相互关联的全球挑战,使生态过程重新坚定地回到了议程上。与此同时,保护资金正在迅速变化,部分原因是2022年的《昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架》,该框架将加强和恢复生态系统稳定性、连通性和恢复力的行动列为优先事项。这些生态系统属性从根本上说是由过程驱动的,这似乎在当前的保护实践与国际协定目标之间造成了一个操作上的鸿沟。我们描述了如何通过将保护注意力重新导向生态系统功能核心的过程,包括适应、基因流动、扩散和营养相互作用,来利用新方法缩小这一差距。迫切需要更广泛地采用这些方法,以在保护实践和政策目标之间建立更紧密的联系,从而确保目前对生物多样性保护的投资不仅仅局限于减少损害,而是留下具有恢复力的生态系统这一持久遗产。