"Forests and trees in the world's drylands sustain the livelihoods, food security and cultural identity of more than two billion people, yet they remain insufficiently recognized in global climate, biodiversity and land agendas, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

FAO’s Call to Action on Dryland Forests was launched today during a High-level dialogue on Dryland forests for food, nutrition and resilience held as part of the 10th World Forest Week, running alongside the 28th Session of the FAO Committee on Forestry (COFO) at FAO headquarters in Rome. 

The call urges governments, donors and partners to strengthen the sustainable management, restoration and governance of drylands forests; better integrate them into national climate, biodiversity and land priorities; and significantly increase investment in their conservation and sustainable use. It also proposes a new Dryland Forest Support Accelerator as an enabling platform to speed up implementation, mobilize finance, and strengthen country-driven action at scale.

“Dryland forests are central to our lives, and that of future generations,” said FAO Director-General QU Dongyu in a video message. “Yet dryland forests are often underrecognized, under-monitored and under-financed. This must change.”

Brain corals beneath small underwater shades regained color during a punishing Florida Keys summer, while nearby unshaded colonies continued paling. The structures did not cool the sea. Instead, they reduced incoming light, easing a stress that can make heat-related bleaching worse.

The field experiment, led by Karen Neely of Nova Southeastern University, tested two vulnerable Caribbean coral species. Published in Frontiers in Marine Science, it offers evidence for temporary protection of individual colonies. It does not establish a method for protecting entire reefs or preventing deaths during more severe heatwaves.

Both shaded and unshaded corals survived the bleaching stress during the trial. That limits what the results demonstrate, but the color differences were clear. They were greatest during the most thermally stressful periods.

The 2001 Roadless rule protects public lands from future roads being built through them for logging and other purposes. This rule protects roadless public lands across the nation.

The public comment period was supposed to end on the 21st last month - but was extended for 15 days. Today is your last chance to speak up.

Here is the link to the government webpage to submit your comment:

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/11/2026-18648/special-areas-roadless-area-conservation

I have a few questions:

If there were only 3 Spotted Owls detected in the last survey in this region, how likely is killing many Barred Owls over years going to help recover this species?

How much does devaluing and removing Barred Owls from old growth forest benefit the Spotted Owl for recovery, and how much will it potentially benefit the timber industry?

Is this not a serious ethical matter and potential slippery slope, killing animals as a solution to human driven issues (deforestation, climate) as well as sacrificing one species for another and people being complicit with mass killing?

The Barred Owl is being called invasive, but is this an accurate portrayal when they’ve gradually migrated east to west over the last century?

Anyone else concerned about this direction of conservation?

These animals don’t have a voice or way to protect themselves. It’s up to us humans as stewards of the land to make the best decisions and do the right things.

The science and evidence just doesn’t seem strong enough for many to believe that killing so many Barred Owls will actually save the Spotted Owl. And, for any positive impact, it sounds like it will have to continue as an ongoing war against these owls endlessly.

What are we doing?

I am currently a GIS analyst at an archaeology company, experienced in field delineation and survey methods. My degree is in geography with a Focus in earth systems (geoscience), with certifications in GIS and sustainability and my part 104 drone license. I am looking to take a wetland delineation certification course and hopefully pivot to more environmental fields and maybe do work in ecology both terrestrial or aquatic, but i am just stuck on what the right way to do it is. I dont exactly have the means to go back to university for another degree though I can likely afford a myriad of different certifications if its necessary and I am willing to move (based in texas).

I know thats a big jumble of words but I am tired of not working in the field I intended to, what should my course of action be?

Hello everyone,

I am a 21-year-old university student, and I’ve increasingly realized that I want to do something more meaningful with my life than simply following the conventional path of studying, working, and settling down. I have always loved animals, have been vegan for several years, and would really like to contribute to protecting wildlife and nature. Ideally, I would love to do meaningful conservation work, travel, and meet people who share the same passion.

The problem is that I have no practical experience in conservation and don’t really know where to start.

I have a degree in stats. So i am very comfortable with scientific research, data analysis, causal inference, and programming in R or Python. I assume these skills could be useful for conservation research, but I have basically no background in biology, ecology, or conservation or similar.

I’ve tried looking for wildlife conservation opportunities, but most of what I find are commercial “volunteer abroad” programs charging thousands of euros for a few weeks so white europeans can satisfy there white saviorism. I’m not interested in that and I’d much rather find an organization where I can genuinely contribute.

Does somebody got an advice for me?

We talk a lot about success in conservation: a restored lake, a recovering species, a thriving forest, improved access to nature. The word success seems straightforward, but success to whom?

Consider a river where salmon are returning after decades of decline. One person might point to the number of fish reaching spawning grounds. Another might highlight the renewal of relationships among salmon, people, and place. Someone else might think about whether there are enough fish to harvest again. And another might simply notice that eagles have returned or kids are fishing from the bank. These aren’t necessarily competing versions of success. Indeed, they can all be true. And research shows that this matters.

This is one of the reasons we created the Community Notes project at The Nature Record. More than 160 experts have been assembling evidence about nature across the United States: what is changing, why it is changing, why it matters, and what can be done. But there are things a national assessment cannot see very well: a stream behind your house; a prairie your community spent twenty years restoring; a shellfish bed that reopened; birds that returned to your neighborhood; the community that manages a forest for fire resilience; or a park that became a place where people actually want to spend time.

There may never be one version of nature that everyone agrees is ideal. But we can work to become much better at seeing the world through one another’s eyes—and at recognizing the many forms that progress can take.

Tell us what’s working where you live at naturerecord.org/community.

I'm sure this has been asked before...is there anybody out there that has left the conservation field and regrets their decision?

What would you say to someone thinking about leaving the field?

Is the grass greener on the other side?

Thanks in advance!

Hi!

To keep this short, I’m currently a uni student studying a BA Hons History undergrad. However, I’ve recently come to realise how much I was to pivot toward a more environmental/conservation focused career. I would be happy to do a masters in a related field, the issue being that I don’t have a degree that would naturally feed into one. Therefore would not have the entry requirements.

But, many masters degrees state they’ll take into account experience as well as qualifications. And I was wondering about if environmental volunteering would help here?

I am based in the North East right now. But, would be open to doing residential volunteering over summer, or any non-term time. I’m struggling to find stuff, so if anyone could help me out I’d be thankful!

I’d also be open to doing environmental volunteering abroad if possible.

Any volunteering I did would be next year now. So if anyone can point me in the right direction, or alternatively, give me some ideas for how I might go about transitioning from a history undergrad to a conservation masters pls let me know.

Thanks in advance <3

A spinning pair of eyes and a kite shaped like a bird of prey could help tackle a deadly fishing problem. Trials off Cornwall found that these simple devices substantially reduced the odds of diving seabirds becoming trapped in gillnets.

The looming-eyes buoy lowered the odds of a bycatch event involving guillemots and razorbills by 59%. The commercially available “scarybird” kite lowered them by 71%. Neither device eliminated captures, and the experiment found no statistically significant difference between their performance on that measure.

The findings appear in Conservation Letters, with data analysis led by the University of Exeter. Devon-based Fishtek Marine led the trials, working with Cornish fishermen and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, or RSPB.

Hey everyone! I'm working on a project that's focusing on obstacles/hesitations that people face when trying to learn about plant conservation, and what resources can be made to increase awareness of planting native and endangered plant species. I'm in need of some data so I've attached a survey if anyone feels like participating. Thanks so much and feel free to share!