Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40888201›Full record

ReviewGlobal change biology2025

Impacts of Climate Change Interventions on Biodiversity, Water, the Food System and Human Health and Well-Being.

Pete Smith, Pramod K Singh, Vedant P Ballal, Francesco Cherubini, Julio Díaz-José, Helena Duchková, Himangana Gupta, Masakazu Hori, Akihiko Ito, Shabana Khan and 15 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Global change biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. From Agricultural Waste to Functional Materials: Modified Carbonaceous Adsorbents From Corn Biomass.Chemphyschem : a European journal of chemical physics and physical chemistry · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

25 authors.

Pete SmithInstitute of Biological & Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3784-1124
Pramod K SinghInstitute of Rural Management Anand (IRMA), Anand, India.ORCID 0000-0003-2212-0583
Vedant P BallalIndustrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Francesco CherubiniIndustrial Ecology Programme, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.
Julio Díaz-JoséFaculty of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, Universidad Veracruzana, Xalapa, Mexico.
Helena DuchkováGlobal Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Brno, Czech Republic.
Himangana GuptaUnited Nations University - Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, Tokyo, Japan.
Masakazu HoriFisheries Resources Institute, Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency, Yokohama, Japan.
Akihiko ItoGraduate School of Agricultural and Life Sciences, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Shabana KhanIndian Research Academy, Delhi, India.
Marcos LlopeCentro Oceanográfico de Gijón/Xixón, Instituto Español de Oceanografía (IEO-CSIC), Gijón, Spain.
Maria Cristina TiradoSchool of Public Health, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Luara TourinhoInstitute of Advanced Studies (IEA-USP), University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-0098-6415
Mariana M ValeDepartment of Ecology, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Xiyan XuNational Key Laboratory of Earth System Numerical Modeling and Application, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2732-1325
Harpalsinh ChudasamaAga Khan Rural Support Programme, Delhi, India.
Siri H EriksenFaculty of Landscape and Society, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.
Daniel Mason-D'CrozDepartment of Global Development, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0673-2301
Sui Chian PhangThe Nature Conservancy, London, UK.
Yash SrivastavaSambodhi Research and Communications, Noida, India.
Tiff L van HuysenIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Bonn, Germany.
Taylor RickettsGund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA.
Mario HerreroDepartment of Global Development, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Paula A HarrisonUK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Lancaster, UK.
Pamela D McElweeSchool of Environmental and Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA.

Funding

Directorate-General XII, Science, Research, and Development 101081521Directorate-General XII, Science, Research, and Development 101086179Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo 2022/07192-1Natural Environment Research Council UKRI277Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 227140/Z/23/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Climate change threatens biodiversity, water, food and human health and well-being. Rapid, sustained mitigation and adaptation actions can benefit all these elements of the nexus. Key transitions in energy, land and marine ecosystems, urban areas, industry and society are essential for climate change mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development. These transitions require interdisciplinary research, policy support and societal engagement. Here we present an assessment of 69 response options, a subset of which (15) was used in the climate change chapter of the IPBES Nexus Assessment. We show that the majority of climate change response options for land, oceans and ecosystems, settlement and infrastructure, industrial and societal system transitions have broadly positive impacts across the nexus. However, energy system transitions show more apparent trade-offs. Most of these impacts result from energy infrastructure that would also be required for fossil fuel-based systems and should be compared to the far more damaging consequences of continued fossil fuel use. Transitioning to cleaner, renewable energy sources reduces these risks and offers significant improvements across the nexus by reducing climate change impacts. Of the 69 response options assessed, 59% have entirely positive effects, or at least no negative effects, across all nexus elements and can be considered as low-risk, immediately actionable options. The remaining 41% show either negative or variable impacts on at least one nexus element. However, this does not render them unviable; rather, their implementation must be carefully managed. Where impacts are variable, strategies should be tailored to ensure positive outcomes; where trade-offs are unavoidable, efforts should focus on minimising negative effects and maximising synergies. Our findings suggest that prioritising policies that address the interconnected challenges of climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, pollution, food insecurity, access to clean water, energy for all and sustainable development will deliver more effective and equitable climate action.

Indexed as

BiodiversityClimate ChangeConservation of Natural ResourcesFood SupplyWater SupplyHumansbiodiversityclimate changefoodhuman health and well‐beingIPBESNexussynergytrade‐offwater

Identifiers

PMID40888201
PMCPMC12400271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.