Commentary on 76.2

Editor-in-Chief Editorial Board Editorial Board Prior to taking the EiC role with BioScience, I was an avid reader of its content. I enjoyed the high-elevation perspective of what is “running under the hood,” those programs and long-term research activities that provide insight on not only the foundational aspects of our disciplines but also how science and policy are conducted and implemented, or should be, in an optimal world. We like to believe that we have maintained those strengths in our content. Many of the articles in this issue are devoted to research, education, and policy related to the conservation of biodiversity. And within, we have some fun content, including a discussion on how sports branding can contribute to the public’s appreciation of biodiversity, as well as an article that focuses on drivers of high biodiversity in subterranean ecosystems…just the sort of issue that one can sit back with and be simultaneously educated and entertained. Enjoy! Our two Viewpoints present cogent arguments on how to more effectively educate the public on biodiversity issues. Kopp and colleagues, in “Higher education institutions can accelerate societal climate action” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf139), propose a number of practical strategies to promote higher education as a leader in the response to climate change, including contributing to increasing the green energy workforce. Dietrich and Asshoff, in “Ecosystems have no thermostat: regulation misleads in ecology education and outreach” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf127), address the potential harm of using the term population regulation when considering “ecosystems as if they were organisms with regulatory control,” which then “foster illusions of balance and ignore the real risks of tipping points and regime shifts.” Related to the issue of language, Markowitz and colleagues, in their Communicating Science contribution, “A Psychological and Linguistic Analysis of ‘The 2024 State of the Climate Report: Perilous Times on Planet Earth’” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf172), report that despite the clarity of Ripple and colleagues’ “2024 State of the Climate Report: Perilous Times on Planet Earth” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biae087), reported here in BioScience, the text does not effectively move public opinion. They offer that ideologies associated with political affiliations are dampening progress toward public action. Unfortunately, the disbelief in the factual dooms all, not only those with an ill-informed opinion. Successful conservation must focus above the population level. Andersson and colleagues, in their Overview Article contribution “Resilient Biodiversity Conservation: Working with Social–Ecological Connections to Navigate Crises” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf156), emphasize “the critical role of connections across landscapes, sectors, and governance levels in enabling biodiversity conservation to adapt to constant change.” They outline how strengthening landscape cohesion, public support, and cross-boundary collaboration can enhance resilience and recovery in times of disruption. In another Overview contribution, Rickowski and team’s “A Systems Perspective: How Social–Ecological Networks Can Improve Our Understanding and Management of Biological Invasions” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf174), the authors emphasize that “reversing biodiversity loss and the sustainability crisis requires approaches that explicitly consider human–nature interdependencies” and do so within the context of invasion biology. Our final Overview is “Patterns and Drivers of Subterranean Biodiversity Hotspots across the Globe” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf159) by Nǎpǎruş-Aljančič and colleagues, a fun and informative read of cave ecosystems. To balance the three Overview articles, we have three Forum contributions. Villeneuve and colleagues, in “A Blueprint and Vision for Aquatic Ecosystem Research at the US EPA Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf165), discuss the role of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE) in the development of “comprehensive information systems that can support a diverse range of environmental decision-making” based on aquatic ecosystem research. Nagel and colleagues, in “Ten Years of Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change: An Applied, Coproduced Experimental Framework” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf170), discuss how “the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) Network emerged” and “fills the need for experimentally robust and professionally credible examples of climate-adaptive forest management strategies” through the use of “operational-scale experimental trials that incorporate locally specific desired future conditions and adaptation tactics, tailored to different forest types.” Finally, Arbieu and colleagues offer a refreshing and interesting review on the representation of wildlife in global sport branding in “Wildlife Diversity in Global Team Sport Branding” (https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaf181). This information aids in identifying ways to encourage appreciation of nature and higher involvement in conservation among sport teams and fans. Go Jack Rabbits!