@article {8821, title = {A functional vulnerability framework for biodiversity conservation}, journal = {Nature Communications}, volume = {13}, year = {2022}, month = {Sep}, pages = {4774}, abstract = {Setting appropriate conservation strategies in a multi-threat world is a challenging goal, especially because of natural complexity and budget limitations that prevent effective management of all ecosystems. Safeguarding the most threatened ecosystems requires accurate and integrative quantification of their vulnerability and their functioning, particularly the potential loss of species trait diversity which imperils their functioning. However, the magnitude of threats and associated biological responses both have high uncertainties. Additionally, a major difficulty is the recurrent lack of reference conditions for a fair and operational measurement of vulnerability. Here, we present a functional vulnerability framework that incorporates uncertainty and reference conditions into a generalizable tool. Through in silico simulations of disturbances, our framework allows us to quantify the vulnerability of communities to a wide range of threats. We demonstrate the relevance and operationality of our framework, and its global, scalable and quantitative comparability, through three case studies on marine fishes and mammals. We show that functional vulnerability has marked geographic and temporal patterns. We underline contrasting contributions of species richness and functional redundancy to the level of vulnerability among case studies, indicating that our integrative assessment can also identify the drivers of vulnerability in a world where uncertainty is omnipresent.}, issn = {2041-1723}, doi = {10.1038/s41467-022-32331-y}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32331-y}, author = {Auber, Arnaud and Waldock, Conor and Maire, Anthony and Goberville, Eric and Albouy, Camille and Algar, Adam C. and McLean, Matthew and Brind{\textquoteright}Amour, Anik and Green, Alison L. and Tupper, Mark and Vigliola, Laurent and Kaschner, Kristin and Kesner-Reyes, Kathleen and Beger, Maria and Tjiputra, Jerry and Toussaint, Aur{\`e}le and Violle, Cyrille and Mouquet, Nicolas and Thuiller, Wilfried and Mouillot, David} } @article {8440, title = {Similar trait structure and vulnerability in pelagic fish faunas on two remote island systems}, journal = {Marine Biology}, volume = {169}, year = {2022}, month = {Jan-01-2022}, abstract = {The link between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning has been the topic of considerable research, but it remains unclear how biodiversity decline is compromising ecosystem functionality, particularly in the pelagic realm. Here, we explore how pelagic fish species diversity relates to functional diversity by sampling two locations, which, on the basis of biogeography, environmental conditions and human pressures, were expected to host pronounced differences in species composition and abundances and therefore functionality. Strings of five drifting mid-water Baited Remote Underwater Video Systems were used to survey pelagic vertebrate diversity and abundance in two isolated oceanic island systems, the Malpelo Fauna and Flora Sanctuary{\textemdash}a large, 25-year-old marine protected area{\textemdash}and an unprotected area in Cape Verde. Functional diversity, which offers insight into a community{\textquoteright}s resilience against disturbance, was analysed using six key functional traits of marine fishes. Abundance was recorded as MaxN, the maximum number of individuals of a given species in a single frame during the 2-h deployment time. Cape Verde showed high overall abundance (Total MaxN\ 873) and low biomass (3559\ kg), with a predominance of smaller fishes. Malpelo showed high biomass (7839\ kg) but lower abundance (Total MaxN\ 465), with a predominance of large species. Species and functional diversity were marginally different between locations. Multivariate analysis of species relative abundances showed significant divergence between locations, although community functional traits overlapped strongly, suggesting that both communities share a similar structure and vulnerability. The existence of a common functional {\textquoteleft}backbone{\textquoteright} in diverging species communities across the oceans, under different productivity regimes, and under different protection levels, suggests that although pelagic communities may differ considerably in terms of species composition, this does not translate into a differing functional structure and resilience potential. Whether this vulnerability is a common feature of pelagic communities and how this contrasts with benthic systems warrants further research.}, issn = {0025-3162}, doi = {10.1007/s00227-021-03998-6}, url = {https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00227-021-03998-6}, author = {Steinberg, Madeline and Juhel, Jean-Baptiste and Marques, Virginie and Clara P{\'e}ron and Hocd{\'e}, R{\'e}gis and Polanco Fern{\'a}ndez, Andr{\'e}a and Pellissier, Lo{\"\i}c and Villeger, Sebastien and Mouillot, David and Letessier, Tom B.} }