Global biodiversity change is one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. Here, we review current scientific knowledge on global biodiversity change and identify the main knowledge gaps. We discuss two components of biodiversity change—biodiversity alterations and biodiversity loss—across four dimensions of biodiversity: species extinctions, species abundances, species distributions, and genetic diversity. We briefly review the impacts that modern humans and their ancestors have had on biodiversity and discuss the recent declines and alterations in biodiversity. We analyze the direct pressures on biodiversity change: habitat change, overexploitation, exotic species, pollution, and climate change. We discuss the underlying causes, such as demographic growth and resource use, and review existing scenario projections. We identify successes and impending opportunities in biodiversity policy and management, and highlight gaps in biodiversity monitoring and models. Finally, we discuss how the ecosystem services framework can be used to identify undesirable biodiversity change and allocate conservation efforts.

Spatial structure of species change: Biodiversity is undergoing rapid change driven by climate change and other human influences. Blowes et al. analyze the global patterns in temporal change in biodiversity using a large quantity of time-series data from different regions (see the Perspective by Eriksson and Hillebrand). Their findings reveal clear spatial patterns in richness and composition change, where marine taxa exhibit the highest rates of change. The marine tropics, in particular, emerge as hotspots of species richness losses. Given that human activities are affecting biodiversity in magnitudes and directions that differ across the planet, these findings will provide a much needed biogeographic understanding of biodiversity change that can help inform conservation prioritization. Science , this issue p. 339 ; see also p. 308

Facilitating “wildness”: Humans have encroached upon a majority of Earth's lands. The current extinction crisis is a testament to human impacts on wilderness. If there is any hope of retaining a biodiverse planetary system, we must begin to learn how to coexist with, and leave space for, other species. The practice of “rewilding” has emerged as a method for returning wild lands, and wildness, to landscapes we have altered. Perino et al. review this concept and present a framework for implementing it broadly and in a way that considers ongoing human interaction. Science , this issue p. eaav5570

For millennia, mankind has shaped landscapes, particularly through agriculture. In Europe, the age-old interaction between humans and ecosystems strongly influenced the cultural heritage. Yet European farmland is now being abandoned, especially in remote areas. The loss of the traditional agricultural landscapes and its consequences for biodiversity and ecosystem services is generating concerns in both the scientific community and the public. Here we ask to what extent farmland abandonment can be considered as an opportunity for rewilding ecosystems. We analyze the perceptions of traditional agriculture in Europe and their influence in land management policies. We argue that, contrary to the common perception, traditional agriculture practices were not environmentally friendly and that the standards of living of rural populations were low. We suggest that current policies to maintain extensive farming landscapes underestimate the human labor needed to sustain these landscapes and the recent and future dynamics of the socio-economic drivers behind abandonment. We examine the potential benefits for ecosystems and people from rewilding. We identify species that could benefit from land abandonment and forest regeneration and the ecosystem services that could be provided such as carbon sequestration and recreation. Finally, we discuss the challenges associated with rewilding, including the need to maintain open areas, the fire risks, and the conflicts between people and wildlife. Despite these challenges, we argue that rewilding should be recognized by policy-makers as one of the possible land management options in Europe, particularly on marginal areas.

Climate change and other anthropogenic drivers of biodiversity change are unequally distributed across the world. Overlap in the distributions of different drivers have important implications for biodiversity change attribution and the potential for interactive effects. However, the spatial relationships among different drivers and whether they differ between the terrestrial and marine realm has yet to be examined. We compiled global gridded datasets on climate change, land‐use, resource exploitation, pollution, alien species potential and human population density. We used multivariate statistics to examine the spatial relationships among the drivers and to characterize the typical combinations of drivers experienced by different regions of the world. We found stronger positive correlations among drivers in the terrestrial than in the marine realm, leading to areas with high intensities of multiple drivers on land. Climate change tended to be negatively correlated with other drivers in the terrestrial realm (e.g. in the tundra and boreal forest with high climate change but low human use and pollution), whereas the opposite was true in the marine realm (e.g. in the Indo‐Pacific with high climate change and high fishing). We show that different regions of the world can be defined by Anthropogenic Threat Complexes (ATCs), distinguished by different sets of drivers with varying intensities. We identify 11 ATCs that can be used to test hypotheses about patterns of biodiversity and ecosystem change, especially about the joint effects of multiple drivers. Our global analysis highlights the broad conservation priorities needed to mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic change, with different priorities emerging on land and in the ocean, and in different parts of the world.

There has been much recent interest in the concept of rewilding as a tool for nature conservation, but also confusion over the idea, which has in turn limited its utility. We outline a unified definition and a series of ten guiding principles for rewilding, drawing on a global advisory group of rewilding experts. These were developed through a survey of 59 rewilding pioneers, a summary of key organisations’ rewilding visions, and academic/practitioner workshops involving over 100 participants from around the world. The resulting principles are intended to clarify the concept of rewilding and to improve its effectiveness as a tool to achieve global conservation targets including actions of the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration and post‐2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. As such we note the potential contribution of other related conservation approaches such as the IUCN CEM NbS programme. The guiding principles developed here state implicitly that rewilding sits upon a continuum of scale, connectivity, and level of human influence, and aims to restore ecosystem structure and functions to achieve a self‐sustaining autonomous nature. We suggest that differences in rewilding perspectives lie largely in the extent to which this is seen as achievable, and ultimately, in those interventions which are necessary, feasible or acceptable. An understanding of the contextual setting of rewilding projects is often the key to success, and careful site‐specific interpretations will be most successful at achieving the aims of rewilding. Article impact statement: Rewilding is on a continuum of scale, connectivity, and human influence and aims to restore ecosystems to achieve self‐sustaining nature. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved