The widely held assumption that any important scientific information would be available in English underlies the underuse of non-English-language science across disciplines. However, non-English-language science is expected to bring unique and valuable scientific information, especially in disciplines where the evidence is patchy, and for emergent issues where synthesising available evidence is an urgent challenge. Yet such contribution of non-English-language science to scientific communities and the application of science is rarely quantified. Here, we show that non-English-language studies provide crucial evidence for informing global biodiversity conservation. By screening 419,679 peer-reviewed papers in 16 languages, we identified 1,234 non-English-language studies providing evidence on the effectiveness of biodiversity conservation interventions, compared to 4,412 English-language studies identified with the same criteria. Relevant non-English-language studies are being published at an increasing rate in 6 out of the 12 languages where there were a sufficient number of relevant studies. Incorporating non-English-language studies can expand the geographical coverage (i.e., the number of 2° × 2° grid cells with relevant studies) of English-language evidence by 12% to 25%, especially in biodiverse regions, and taxonomic coverage (i.e., the number of species covered by the relevant studies) by 5% to 32%, although they do tend to be based on less robust study designs. Our results show that synthesising non-English-language studies is key to overcoming the widespread lack of local, context-dependent evidence and facilitating evidence-based conservation globally. We urge wider disciplines to rigorously reassess the untapped potential of non-English-language science in informing decisions to address other global challenges. Please see the Supporting information files for Alternative Language Abstracts.

An assessment of the global progress in climate change adaptation is urgently needed. Despite a rising awareness that adaptation should involve diverse societal actors and a shared sense of responsibility, little is known about the types of actors, such as state and non-state, and their roles in different types of adaptation responses as well as in different regions. Based on a large n-structured analysis of case studies, we show that, although individuals or households are the most prominent actors implementing adaptation, they are the least involved in institutional responses, particularly in the global south. Governments are most often involved in planning and civil society in coordinating responses. Adaptation of individuals or households is documented especially in rural areas, and governments in urban areas. Overall, understanding of institutional, multi-actor and transformational adaptation is still limited. These findings contribute to debates around ‘social contracts’ for adaptation, that is, an agreement on the distribution of roles and responsibilities, and inform future adaptation governance.

This study estimates the risks of agricultural pesticides on non-target organisms and the environment by combining detailed pesticide application data for 2015 with the Danish risk indicator Pesticide Load. We quantify and map the pesticide load of 59 pesticides on 28 crops and pastures in the EU. Furthermore, we investigate how recent bans on 14 pesticides in the EU could reduce pesticide use and load. Key findings show that the highest pesticide loads per hectare occur in Cyprus and the Netherlands due to high application rates and a high proportion of vegetable production. Chlorpyrifos caused the highest pesticide load per hectare on more than half of the assessed crops before its ban. The ban of 14 pesticides between 2018 and 2023 potentially reduced pesticide loads by 94%, but unobserved substitution effects could offset pesticide load reductions. Although bans on active substances are justified to control certain endpoint risks, our results highlight the potential weaknesses of bans that merely shift risks. These findings contribute to the ongoing scientific and societal discourse on efficiently mitigating pesticides' impacts on non-target organisms and the environment. However, to improve the evaluation of pesticide use, it is vital to enhance the reporting on detailed pesticide use for individual crop-pesticide combinations.

English is widely recognized as the language of science, and English‐language publications (ELPs) are rapidly increasing. It is often assumed that the number of non‐ELPs is decreasing. This assumption contributes to the underuse of non‐ELPs in conservation science, practice, and policy, especially at the international level. However, the number of conservation articles published in different languages is poorly documented. Using local and international search systems, we searched for scientific articles on biodiversity conservation published from 1980 to 2018 in English and 15 non‐English languages. We compared the growth rate in publications across languages. In 12 of the 15 non‐English languages, published conservation articles significantly increased every year over the past 39 years, at a rate similar to English‐language articles. The other three languages showed contrasting results, depending on the search system. Since the 1990s, conservation science articles in most languages increased exponentially. The variation in the number of non‐English‐language articles identified among the search systems differed markedly (e.g., for simplified Chinese, 11,148 articles returned with local search system and 803 with Scopus). Google Scholar and local literature search systems returned the most articles for 11 and 4 non‐English languages, respectively. However, the proportion of peer‐reviewed conservation articles published in non‐English languages was highest in Scopus, followed by Web of Science and local search systems, and lowest in Google Scholar. About 20% of the sampled non‐English‐language articles provided no title or abstract in English; thus, in theory, they were undiscoverable with English keywords. Possible reasons for this include language barriers and the need to disseminate research in countries where English is not widely spoken. Given the known biases in statistical methods and study characteristics between English‐ and non‐English‐language studies, non‐English‐language articles will continue to play an important role in improving the understanding of biodiversity and its conservation.

Global areal protection targets have driven a dramatic expansion of the marine protected area (MPA) estate. We analyzed how cost‐effective global MPA expansion has been since the inception of the first global target (set in 1982) in achieving ecoregional representation. By comparing spatial patterns of MPA expansion against optimal MPA estates using the same expansion rates, we show the current MPA estate is both expensive and ineffective. Although the number of ecoregions represented tripled and 12.7% of national waters was protected, 61% of ecoregions and 81% of countries are not 10% protected. Only 10.3% of the national waters of the world would be sufficient to protect 10% of each ecoregion if MPA growth since 1982 strategically targeted underrepresented ecoregions. Unfortunately 16.3% of national waters are required for the same representative target if systematic protection started in 2016 (an extra 3.6% on top of 12.7%). To avoid the high costs of adjusting increasingly biased MPA systems, future efforts should embrace target‐driven systematic conservation planning.

Climate mitigation targets must involve the agricultural sector, which contributes 10%–14% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. To evaluate options for implementing mitigation measures in the agricultural sector, farmers’ knowledge, positions, and attitudes towards agricultural GHG emissions, their accounting, and reduction need to be understood. Using an online survey, we asked 254 German farmers about their motivation to reduce GHG emissions and their acceptance of possible regulation schemes. We examined differences between relevant farming sectors, i.e., conventional versus organic and livestock keeping versus crop-cultivating farms. Results show that German farmers are aware of climatic changes and feel a general commitment to reducing GHG emissions but lack sufficient information. We identified agricultural magazines as the most effective tool for disseminating relevant knowledge. German farmers would feel motivated to adopt climate-friendly farming styles if products were labeled accordingly and if they received subsidies and public acknowledgment for their effort. As long as there is no regulation of agricultural GHGs through taxes or subsidies, personal motivation is yet the strongest motivation for voluntary emission reduction. Our findings are timely for the further development of strategies and instruments that reduce agricultural GHG emission and account for the farmers’ views. The dataset is available for further investigations.