Conservation biologists are concerned about the potential impacts of climate change on biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystems. Based on their studies of pathogen-associated frog declines in Latin America, for example, Thomas Raffel and colleagues (page 146) present a framework that predicts how patterns of temperature variation influence relationships between pathogens, parasites and their hosts (see also page 101).

Frogs tend not to hop too far away from home, but migratory animals that have more than one home, so to speak, may be particularly vulnerable to the effects of changing climate. Stacey Small-Lorenz and colleagues (page 91) have reviewed multispecies frameworks used to assess climate change vulnerability in North America. It would seem blindingly obvious that any assessment of vulnerability would consider the ecological requirements of species over their whole life cycle. Disturbingly, the researchers find that existing frameworks are often deficient in this regard. This is particularly the case for long-distance migrants, the breeding and non-breeding grounds of which can be thousands of miles apart. As a result, the risk posed by climate change to such migrants can easily be underestimated or missed entirely, suggesting the need to overhaul the methods used in assessing vulnerability.

It's not only migratory species that get a raw deal from existing approaches to counter the risks posed by climate change — so do women. On page 96, Anna Petherick warns that climate finance could increase gender inequality unless the voices of women, especially in developing countries, are heard. She notes that extreme weather events such as cyclones often impact women disproportionately, highlighting the need to anticipate gender implications when formulating policies. And yet women have constituted a minority of delegates and delegation heads at all international climate change conferences during the past five years. The figures suggest that a new mind set, along with a concerted and determined drive to create gender balance, is sorely needed.

More broadly, Neil Adger and colleagues (page 112) consider how climate change impacts, and is impacted by, culture — which they take to mean “the symbols that express meaning...and from which strategies to respond to problems are devised and implemented.” In reviewing social science research, they reveal shortcomings in current thinking about climate change adaptation. They posit that most contemporary responses to climate change fail to address the cultural dimensions of climate risk, and even threaten non-material — but equally essential — elements of social life, such as identity, community cohesion and sense of place. These aspects have until recently been widely neglected in dialogues about climate change and in planning adaptation measures. The Review Article should make fascinating reading, especially, we suspect, for those unfamiliar with the social sciences.