The second warning to humanity: contributions and solutions from conservation physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 1992, the Union of Concerned Scientists shared their ‘World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity’ with governmental leaders worldwide, calling for immediate action to halt the environmental degradation that threatens the systems that support life on Earth. A follow-up ‘Second Warning’ was released in 2017, with over 15 000 scientists as signatories, describing the lack of progress in adopting the sustainable practices necessary to safeguard the biosphere. In their ‘Second Warning’, Ripple and colleagues provided 13 ‘diverse and effective steps humanity can take to transition to sustainability.’ Here, we discuss how the field of conservation physiology can contribute to six of these goals: (i) prioritizing connected, well-managed reserves; (ii) halting the conversion of native habitats to maintain ecosystem services; (iii) restoring native plant communities; (iv) rewilding regions with native species; (v) developing policy instruments; and (vi) increasing outdoor education, societal engagement and reverence for nature. Throughout, we focus our recommendations on specific aspects of physiological function while acknowledging that the exact traits that will be useful in each context are often still being determined and refined. However, for each goal, we include a short case study to illustrate a specific physiological trait or group of traits that is already being utilized in that context. We conclude with suggestions for how conservation physiologists can broaden the impact of their science aimed at accomplishing the goals of the ‘Second Warning’. Overall, we provide an overview of how conservation physiology can contribute to addressing the grand socio-environmental challenges of our time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".