Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39221642›Full record

ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025

Bending the curve of global freshwater biodiversity loss: what are the prospects?

David Dudgeon, David L Strayer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

David DudgeonDivision of Ecology & Biodiversity, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4632-3473
David L StrayerCary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, P.O. Box AB, Millbrook, NY 12545, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Freshwater biodiversity conservation has received substantial attention in the scientific literature and is finally being recognized in policy frameworks such as the Global Biodiversity Framework and its associated targets for 2030. This is important progress. Nonetheless, freshwater species continue to be confronted with high levels of imperilment and widespread ecosystem degradation. An Emergency Recovery Plan (ERP) proposed in 2020 comprises six measures intended to "bend the curve" of freshwater biodiversity loss, if they are widely adopted and adequately supported. We review evidence suggesting that the combined intensity of persistent and emerging threats to freshwater biodiversity has become so serious that current and projected efforts to preserve, protect and restore inland-water ecosystems may be insufficient to avert substantial biodiversity losses in the coming decades. In particular, climate change, with its complex and harmful impacts, will frustrate attempts to prevent biodiversity losses from freshwater ecosystems already affected by multiple threats. Interactions among these threats will limit recovery of populations and exacerbate declines resulting in local or even global extinctions, especially among low-viability populations in degraded or fragmented ecosystems. In addition to impediments represented by climate change, we identify several other areas where the absolute scarcity of fresh water, inadequate scientific information or predictive capacity, and a widespread failure to mitigate anthropogenic stressors, are liable to set limits on the recovery of freshwater biodiversity. Implementation of the ERP rapidly and at scale through many widely dispersed local actions focused on regions of high freshwater biodiversity and intense threat, together with an intensification of ex-situ conservation efforts, will be necessary to preserve native freshwater biodiversity during an increasingly uncertain climatic future in which poorly understood, emergent and interacting threats have become more influential. But implementation of the ERP must be accompanied by measures that will improve water, energy and food security for humans - without further compromising the condition of freshwater ecosystems. Unfortunately, the inadequate political implementation of policies to arrest widely recognized environmental challenges such as climate change do not inspire confidence about the possible success of the ERP. In many parts of the world, the Anthropocene future seems certain to include extended periods with an absolute scarcity of uncontaminated surface runoff that will inevitably be appropriated by humans. Unless there is a step-change in societal awareness of - and commitment to - the conservation of freshwater biodiversity, together with necessary actions to arrest climate change, implementation of established methods for protecting freshwater biodiversity may not bend the curve enough to prevent continued ecosystem degradation and species loss.

Indexed as

BiodiversityClimate ChangeConservation of Natural ResourcesFresh WaterAnimalsclimate changedroughtex situ conservationfreshwater ecosystemsfreshwater specieshuman water securityinland watersmultiple stressorswater pollution

Identifiers

PMID39221642
PMCPMC11718631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.