The use of biomass as feedstock for energy is often associated with increased claims on land, competition with food production and impacts on other ecosystem services. Studies on sustainability aspects of bioenergy production often indicate biodiversity as a key concern. This article presents a first comprehensive review of published impacts of bioenergy crop production on biodiversity, evaluates the drivers and pressures of biodiversity change and summarizes current trends and impacts. The review provides insight into the types of biodiversity indicators applied under a range of conditions and the mitigating measures proposed to minimize negative impacts or realize biodiversity benefits. The 53 selected publications give diverse results that are explained by the various spatial scales, production systems and regions, time horizons, methodologies and biodiversity indicators used. Reported impacts depend on initial land use and are mostly negative, especially in tropical regions. The impacts of second generation bioenergy crops tend to be less negative than first generation ones, and are in some cases positive (at the field level), in particular in temperate regions. Land‐use change appears as the key driver of biodiversity change, whereas the associated habitat loss, alterations in species richness and abundance are the main impacts addressed. Such changes are often paired with the (initiation of a) process of biological homogenization. The article confirms that concerns about the expansion of bioenergy crop production not only relate to the direct effects on biodiversity by replacing natural vegetation, but increasingly to indirect effects as well. These effects have, however, shown to be difficult to quantify. At the same time, the land sparing vs. land sharing debate receives growing attention, whereas little evidence exists in bioenergy literature on the impacts of large‐scale application of these strategies on (agro)biodiversity. Following the findings of the review, the article finally provides recommendations for future research.

Wildlife monitoring is essential for conservation science and data‐driven decision‐making. Tropical forests pose a particularly challenging environment for monitoring wildlife due to the dense vegetation, and diverse and cryptic species with relatively low abundances. The most commonly used monitoring methods in tropical forests are observations made by humans (visual or acoustic), camera traps, or passive acoustic sensors. These methods come with trade‐offs in terms of species coverage, accuracy and precision of population metrics, available technical expertise, and costs. Yet, there are no reviews that compare the characteristics of these methods in detail. Here, we comprehensively review the advantages and limitations of the three mentioned methods, by asking four key questions that are always important in relation to wildlife monitoring: (1) What are the target species?; (2) Which population metrics are desirable and attainable?; (3) What expertise, tools, and effort are required for species identification?; and (4) Which financial and human resources are required for data collection and processing? Given the diversity of monitoring objectives and circumstances, we do not aim to conclusively prescribe particular methods for all situations. Neither do we claim that any one method is superior to others. Rather, our review aims to support scientists and conservation practitioners in understanding the options and criteria that must be considered in choosing the appropriate method, given the objectives of their wildlife monitoring efforts and resources available. We focus on tropical forests because of their high conservation priority, although the information put forward is also relevant for other biomes.

Over the last two decades indigenous peoples in the lower Caquetá River basin in Colombia have experienced detrimental changes in the provision of important ecosystem services in ways that have significant implications for the maintenance of their traditional livelihoods. To assess these changes we conducted eight participatory mapping activities and convened 22 focus group discussions. We focused the analysis on two types of change: (1) changes in the location of ecosystem services provisioning areas and (2) changes in the stock of ecosystem services. The focal ecosystem services include services such as provision of food, raw materials and medicinal resources. Results from the study show that in the past two decades the demand for food and raw materials has intensified and, as a result, locations of provisioning areas and the stocks of ecosystem services have changed. We found anecdotal evidence that these changes correlate well with socio-economic factors such as greater need for income generation, change in livelihood practices and consumption patterns. We discuss the use of participatory mapping techniques in the context of marginalized and data-poor regions. We also show how this kind of information can strengthen existing ecosystem-based management strategies used by indigenous peoples in the Colombian Amazon