Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A single apex target for biodiversity would be bad news for both nature and people

Conserving biodiversity for its own sake and conserving it to safeguard ecosystem services are distinct goals that cannot both be achieved through a single target analogous to climate’s 1.5 °C, argues Andy Purvis.

This is a preview of subscription content

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Science 328, 1164–1168 (2010).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Díaz, S. et al. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Open-Ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Zero-Order Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2020); https://go.nature.com/2wuuDYU

  4. 4.

    Adoption of the Paris Agreement Report No. FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015); http://go.nature.com/2mmbWvt

  5. 5.

    Díaz, S. et al. Science 359, 270–272 (2018).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Grime, J. P. J. Ecol. 86, 902–910 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Cardinale, B. J. et al. Nature 486, 59–67 (2012).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Isbell, F. et al. Nature 546, 65–72 (2017).

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Flynn, D. F. B. et al. Ecol. Lett. 12, 22–33 (2009).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Foley, J. A. et al. Science 309, 570–574 (2005).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Mace, G. M. et al. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 289–297 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Ceballos, G. et al. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Humphreys, A. M., Govaerts, R., Ficinski, S. Z., Nic Lughada, E. & Vorontsova, M. S. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1043–1047 (2019).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., de Fonseca, G. A. B. & Kent, J. Nature 403, 853–858 (2000).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Phalan, B., Onial, M., Balmford, A. & Green, R. E. Science 333, 1289–1291 (2011).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andy Purvis.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Purvis, A. A single apex target for biodiversity would be bad news for both nature and people. Nat Ecol Evol 4, 768–769 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1181-y

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links