|
Top Story Global Biodiversity Targets Catch up with Science + HIFMB inside New Institute Building + Personalia New Focus Group on Photosymbiosis + Personalia Sarahi Garcia + Editorial View from Northwest #23 + Selected Publications + Fun Fact
|
|
|
|
|
Global Biodiversity Targets Catch Up with Science
|
|
|
The recently adopted Montreal-Kunming Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) marks a significant step forward in aligning global policy with scientific understanding of marine biodiversity. This is the result of a newly published study, that reviewed the marine biodiversity literature of the United Nations Decade on Biodiversity to assess whether the GBF’s targets reflect the complexity of marine life and improve upon the previous Aichi Targets.
The United Nations Decade on Biodiversity (2011–2020) saw a surge in research and policy efforts to halt biodiversity loss. However, the Aichi Targets, adopted in 2010, were often criticised for not fully capturing the breadth of marine biodiversity. The new GBF, agreed at COP15, aims to address these gaps by setting more comprehensive and ambitious targets for 2030 and beyond.
The most important ingredient in comprehensive biodiversity conservation is to track the ongoing changes accurately. Specifically, making sure that all biodiversity facets are routinely monitored, since biodiversity change happens on the level of genes, species, and even ecosystems simultaneously. Effective biodiversity management wants to make sure that no level changes unnoticed.
The researchers analysed how well the new targets cover the Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) - a set of scientific metrics designed to track changes in biodiversity at all levels. Their findings show that the GBF now addresses the full suite of EBV classes, reducing the risk of overlooking crucial aspects of marine biodiversity.
One of the study’s key findings is the high degree of alignment between scientific research and policy in the use of EBVs. The GBF now has the genetic level on its radar. Even though it is only covered by few indicators, this shows a marked improvement over the previous iteration of global biodiversity targets – the Aichi Targets. The GBF also has another notable increase in attention to so-called “secondary variables” such as ecosystem function, which are important for understanding how marine systems respond to change. This shift mirrors trends in other global frameworks, such as Planetary Boundaries, and reflects a growing recognition of the need to monitor not just species, but also the processes and interactions that underpin ecosystem health.
|
|
|
» Our analysis shows that global policy is catching up with science in recognising the complexity of marine biodiversity. However, it is vital that we do not lose sight of foundational indicators, which build the basis of our ecosystems and are essential for guiding effective conservation action. «
|
|
|
Jan-Claas Dajka
Researcher in Marine Biodiversity Management and Policy
|
|
|
While the increased focus on ecosystem-level indicators is welcome, these secondary variables should not be overemphasised at the expense of “foundational” ones, such as genetic composition and species populations. These foundational indicators are essential for tracking real progress and guiding effective conservation action. There is a risk that, if governments cherry-pick indicators or prioritise only certain types, changes in important aspects of biodiversity could go unnoticed.
The research also points to the need for improved national-level implementation and more refined indicators to ensure that global policy translates into transformative change for biodiversity conservation. The most important biodiversity conservation happens at the local and regional levels. Even if a species, like herring, does not go extinct globally but instead migrates closer towards the poles due to climate change, its absence will still be strongly felt all throughout the food web of the southern North Sea. While the GBF sets the stage globally for a more science-based approach, its success will depend on how well countries adopt and monitor these targets using robust, transparent data.
Marine biodiversity underpins the health of our oceans and the services they provide, from food security to climate regulation and beyond. As the world faces unprecedented environmental change, having the right tools to accurately measure and manage biodiversity is more important than ever. This study provides a fact check of policy targets for policymakers and scientists alike, ensuring that future conservation efforts are both comprehensive and effective.
|
|
_____________________________________________________
Dajka J-C, Eilrich A K, Franke A, Halpern B, Snow B, Lombard A, Jacob U, Laakmann S, Luhede A, Hillebrand H. (2025). From Science to Policy: Evolving Marine Biodiversity Targets. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.
https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.70000
|
|
|
After around 3.5 years of construction, we officially unveiled the new HIFMB building in February together with around 200 guests, including Lower Saxony's Science Minister Falko Mohrs and University President Dr. Ralph Bruder.
|
|
The building owes its striking appearance to a facade that features 569 white panels made of a mineral composite with milled design elements inspired by coral. Photo: Daniel Schmidt | UOL
|
|
|
|
The new building's ground floor offers almost 400 square metres of laboratory space, including six wet labs and a training lab as well as four climate chambers in which experiments can be conducted under constant temperature and humidity conditions. Samples can be stored here at temperatures as low as minus 80 degrees Celsius.
The two upper floors provide 52 academic offices and various open-plan areas designed to promote communication among employees. Three semi-transparent roof panels with a total surface area of 270 square metres and the use of wooden materials throughout the building create a special atmosphere.
HIFMB director Helmut Hillebrand sees the move into the new building as an important step for the institute's interdisciplinary concept: "We build bridges between disciplines and scientific approaches, between research and application. Our staff practice this on a daily basis, making the HIFMB an international, lively and communication-friendly environment. And this building reflects this idea with a design that encourages discourse."
Click here to watch a video of the opening ceremony.
|
|
Official opening ceremony with (from left to right): Dr. Iliana Baums (HIFMB), Dr. Ralph Bruder (University of Oldenburg), Stefan Müller (BMBF), Dr. Karsten Wurr, Dr. Antje Boetius (both AWI), Dr. Karin Lochte, Jürgen Krogmann (City of Oldenburg), Dr. Helmut Hillebrand (HIFMB), Falko Mohrs (MWK). Photo: Daniel Schmidt | UOL
|
|
|
New Focus Group on Photosymbiosis
|
|
|
|
Dr. Nils Rädecker is head of the new HIFMB focus group Photosymbiosis, which investigates the symbiosis between heterotrophic and photosynthetic organisms.
While photosynthetic organisms can harness sunlight to satisfy their energy requirements, heterotrophic organisms have to feed by acquiring nutrients with the help of other organisms. This type of coexistence can be found all over the tree of life and has enabled the evolution of plants, supports coral reef ecosystems, and plays a major role in global nutrient cycles.
With the help of latest technologies in microscopy and molecular science, the new research group will be investigating why and how these relationships have developed and why they are now threatened by climate change. The establishment of the focus group will be supported by the project “PhagoPhoRe”, for which Rädecker has received a Starting Grant of around 1.5 million euros from the European Research Council.
Visit the working group's website here.
|
|
|
Dr. Sarahi Garcia is a new scientific member at HIFMB. She is professor in Pelagic Microbiology at the Institute for Chemistry and Biology of the Marine Environment. (ICBM) at the University of Oldenburg.
|
|
|
Garcia's research program explores the diversity of microorganisms in aquatic environments, focusing on microbial interactions and their role in the carbon cycle. Microbial interactions are particularly crucial, as many of the most abundant aquatic microorganisms have streamlined genomes and are auxotrophic, meaning they do not biosynthesize one or more essential metabolites.
Garcia employs three complementary strategies:
(i) holistic exploration through full community analysis of environmental samples,
(ii) a reductionist approach using pure cultures to study specific interactions, and
(iii) model communities that bridge holistic and reductionist methodologies.
With this integrative framework, Garcia addresses ecological and evolutionary questions at the forefront of microbiology in aquatic environments.
As a scientific member, Garcia contributes to shaping the research agenda, sharing institutional updates, and engaging in public relations and knowledge transfer. Scientific members also support the institute’s strategic goals through creative, supportive, and administrative tasks.
Membership offers valuable collaborative opportunities, access to cutting-edge research facilities and funding resources, and the chance to co-develop the annual HIPP cohort topic. Additionally, members benefit from professional development programs, mentorship roles for HIPP postdocs, and increased visibility through interdisciplinary collaborations and broader readership.
|
|
In Popperian Fashion – a Plea for Proving us Wrong
|
|
|
Trained as an experimental ecologist, the falsification of (null) hypotheses has been a cornerstone of my own science education. I was (and still am not) well read into science philosophy, but Karl Popper’s criticism of observational induction of truth always made intuitive sense to me as there is a fundamental asymmetry between proving versus falsifying a statement.
Both Popper and hypothesis testing have been heavily criticized – and perhaps partly rightfully so – from both philosophical and practical viewpoints. The latter include the notion that hypotheses are surprisingly often supported (i.e. null hypothesis falsified), which indicates that hypotheses are often formulated like self-fulfilling prophecies rather than scientific theses that have a real chance of being wrong. Many hypotheses are fluffily formulated and lack mechanisms; moreover, in highly context-dependent disciplines such as ecology it was questioned whether falsification is valid for just this one context of this one study or if it invalidates the entire theory.
Add the frequent discussions about the validity of statistical significance levels and the problems of reducing complex outcomes into two alternative statements, and there is a quick jump to state that falsification should be abandoned towards more flexible, open approaches.
Exploration is a valid approach to gaining knowledge, but in my view it can only complement, not replace Popperian approaches. Instead, the cure needs to be an improvement in hypotheses quality. Like many journals nowadays have statistical editors who especially scrutinize the approaches and models used for testing, an emphasis on hypothesis editing would check whether hypotheses are logically derived from a theory or previous observations, whether they are formulated in a way that can be tested and whether authors formulated hypotheses which can be rejected. Teaching undergraduate and graduate students that proving ourselves wrong is much more insightful than piling up confirmation biases would possibly reduce the publication bias against null results (“A does not follow from B”), which might be much more interesting than the expected “A follows from B”? A Popperian approach forces us to be concise (which by the way is not the same as being reductionist) and especially in the environmental sciences, we already profit a lot when we shed some of the fluffiness of our disciplines while moving from general statement to a quantitative or qualitative prediction.
|
|
RESEARCH
Selected Recent Publications
Clegg T, Gross T. (2025) Cross-feeding creates tipping points in microbiome diversity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2425603122
Gomez-Campo K, Baums IB. (2024). Fitted Fv/Fm temperature response curves: applying lessons from plant ecophysiology to acute thermal stress experiments in coral holobionts. Coral Reefs.
doi.org/10.1007/s00338-024-02587-5
Luhede A, Freund JA, Dajka JC, Upmann T. (2024). The value of information in predicting harmful algal blooms. Journal of Environmental Management. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123288
Pinsky ML, Hillebrand H, Chase JM, Antao LH, Hirt MR, Brose U, Burrows MT, Gauzens B, Rosenbaum B, Blowes SA. (2025). Warming and cooling catalyse widespread temporal turnover in biodiversity. Nature. doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-08857-8
Giesler JK, van de Waal DB, Thomas MK, Supraha L, Koch F, Harder T, Pein CM, John U, Wohlrab S. (2025). What Does It Mean to Be(Come) Arctic? Functional and Genetic Traits of Arctic- and Temperate-Adapted Diatoms. Global Change Biology.
doi.org/10.1111/gcb.70137
Satizábal P, Noriega-Narváez G, Saavedra-Díaz LM, Le Billon P (2025). Theatre of Enforcement at Sea: The Global Fight Against 'Illegal Fishing' and the Criminalisation of Fisher Peoples and Exploitation of Fish Workers. Journal of Agrarian Change.
doi.org/10.1111/joac.70009
+ more on Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=uCoLTyAAAAAJ&hl=en
|
|
30 degrees, clear skies, crickets chirping. What's your favorite place to go swimming?
|
|
|
*answered by HIFMB employees
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
