Reviews and syntheses: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2025: from poly-crisis to poly-solutions

Bohn, Friedrich J.; Sioen, Giles B.; Bastos, Ana; Ernst, Yolandi; Jarzebski, Marcin P.; Koh, Niak S.; Martin, Romina; Rammig, Anja; Godoy-Faúndez, Alex; Gasparatos, Alexandros; Gutiérrez, Alvaro G.; Aceituno, Amanda J.; Horcea-Milcu, Andra-Ioana; Marais-Potgieter, Andrea; Sharifi, Ayyoob; Howe, Caroline; Krug, Cornelia B.; Acosta, Eduardo E.; Nzunda, Emmanuel F.; Andersson, Erik; Pörtner, Hans-Otto; Sooväli-Sepping, Helen; Hiroe, Ishihara; Palmegiani, Ivan; Coetzer, Kaera; Thonike, Kirsten; Tanalgo, Krizler; Biber-Freudenberger, Lisa; Oguge, Nicholas O.; Park, Mi S.; Gross, Milena; De La Cruz, Pablo; Prist, Paula R.; Bi, Peng; Diego, Rivera; Isaac, Roman; McFarlane, Rosemary; Paulus, Sinikka J.; Burkhart, Stefanie; Lee, Sung-Ching; Müller, Susanne; Terhile, Uchi D.; Shih, Wan-Yu; Smith, William K.; Hakkarainen, Viola; Murray, Virginia; Yoshida, Yuki; Damtew, Yohannes T.; Niazi, Zeenat

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3619

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3619

Preprints

25 Sep 2025

| 25 Sep 2025

Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for Biogeosciences (BG).

Reviews and syntheses: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2025: from poly-crisis to poly-solutions

Friedrich J. Bohn, Giles B. Sioen, Ana Bastos, Yolandi Ernst, Marcin P. Jarzebski, Niak S. Koh, Romina Martin, Anja Rammig, Alex Godoy-Faúndez, Alexandros Gasparatos, Alvaro G. Gutiérrez, Amanda J. Aceituno, Andra-Ioana Horcea-Milcu, Andrea Marais-Potgieter, Ayyoob Sharifi, Caroline Howe, Cornelia B. Krug, Eduardo E. Acosta, Emmanuel F. Nzunda, Erik Andersson, Hans-Otto Pörtner, Helen Sooväli-Sepping, Ishihara Hiroe, Ivan Palmegiani, Kaera Coetzer, Kirsten Thonike, Krizler Tanalgo, Lisa Biber-Freudenberger, Nicholas O. Oguge, Mi S. Park, Milena Gross, Pablo De La Cruz, Paula R. Prist, Peng Bi, Rivera Diego, Roman Isaac, Rosemary McFarlane, Sinikka J. Paulus, Stefanie Burkhart, Sung-Ching Lee, Susanne Müller, Uchi D. Terhile, Wan-Yu Shih, William K. Smith, Viola Hakkarainen, Virginia Murray, Yuki Yoshida, Yohannes T. Damtew, and Zeenat Niazi

Abstract. Accelerating changes across various Earth system compartments, coupled with intensifying geopolitical and socio-economic turbulences, have increased the interdependence of global crises, resulting in a complex polycrisis.

This review summarises recent advances in biosphere research, focusing on ten topics selected for their thematic relevance to biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, socio-economic interactions and anthropogenic threats to the biosphere. An interdisciplinary expert panel identified these themes from a public survey, based on scientific relevance and evidence. The aim is to inspire future research and provide decision-makers with actionable solutions. The themes highlight innovative opportunities to enhance resilience, advance the understanding of dryland dynamics, promote a sustainable bioeconomy, foster greener urban planning, regulate disease dynamics, support nature-based solutions, mitigate the impact of conflict on the biosphere, address demographic challenges to ecosystem stewardship, integrate indigenous knowledge and embed biosphere valuation in decision-making processes.

Finally, we emphasise the importance of polysolutions that address the target issue, while simultaneously generating positive outcomes in neighbouring economic, social and ecological domains. To ensure planetary stability, this review highlights the urgent need for policies and investments that prioritise the protection, restoration and sustainable management of the biosphere.

How to cite. Bohn, F. J., Sioen, G. B., Bastos, A., Ernst, Y., Jarzebski, M. P., Koh, N. S., Martin, R., Rammig, A., Godoy-Faúndez, A., Gasparatos, A., Gutiérrez, A. G., Aceituno, A. J., Horcea-Milcu, A.-I., Marais-Potgieter, A., Sharifi, A., Howe, C., Krug, C. B., Acosta, E. E., Nzunda, E. F., Andersson, E., Pörtner, H.-O., Sooväli-Sepping, H., Hiroe, I., Palmegiani, I., Coetzer, K., Thonike, K., Tanalgo, K., Biber-Freudenberger, L., Oguge, N. O., Park, M. S., Gross, M., De La Cruz, P., Prist, P. R., Bi, P., Diego, R., Isaac, R., McFarlane, R., Paulus, S. J., Burkhart, S., Lee, S.-C., Müller, S., Terhile, U. D., Shih, W.-Y., Smith, W. K., Hakkarainen, V., Murray, V., Yoshida, Y., Damtew, Y. T., and Niazi, Z.: Reviews and syntheses: Current perspectives on biosphere research 2025: from poly-crisis to poly-solutions, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3619, 2025.

Received: 25 Jul 2025 – Discussion started: 25 Sep 2025

Competing interests: One of the Authors is in the editorial Board of Biogeosciences (A. Rammig)

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Status: open (until 06 Nov 2025)

Post a comment Subscribe to comment alert

RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3619', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Oct 2025 reply

Generally, I struggled to understand the key points being made in this manuscript. I understand that this is meant to be the second publication in a series with the first publication having come out in May 2025, but it took me a long time to understand this from the manuscript itself. There are a few concerns I have related to this format that I have outlined below. Overall, the intent of this publication seems to be a general review of recent topics of importance within the field of biogeosciences. While I have no issues with this general idea and think it’s a valid scientific endeavor, I do have issues with how this manuscript approaches this task.
The conclusions to many of the sections are extremely vague and do not show new insights or articulate compiled insights well. The language used throughout is overly vague, and the talking points jumped around within sections. For example, the resilience section focuses its key points on ecosystem resilience, but the concluding few paragraphs focus exclusively on improvements to agroecology, which felt like a large jump in logic and topic to me. There are similar jumps in topic/content throughout the manuscript.
The methods are incomplete and poorly described. There are formatting issues (no indentations for new paragraphs, certain words randomly bolded in one section) that were likely copy and paste errors from elsewhere. In particular, the formatting and bolded words in the concluding Synthesis section (starting midsection on line 1398 and ending on line 1427) is extremely similar to ChatGPT output. Although I recognize the authors note their use of AI for grammar and writing assistance, such use should be heavily scrutinized and reformatted before inclusion in this manuscript. Some figures (Figures 2-3) are also not referenced in the text.
The topic of the paper and entire introductory paragraph are nearly identical to the Bohn paper published in May 2025. I am skeptical of how this manuscript was produced, given that the previously published Bohn paper is intended to also be a review of recent biosphere research with interdisciplinary connections. My concern for this is not topical, but how similar the writing itself is between the papers. Below I have highlighted some comparisons between the papers where the writing borders on self-plagiarism:
This manuscript, abstract, line 70: “This review summarises recent advances in biosphere research, focusing on ten topics selected for their thematic relevance to biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, socio-economic interactions and anthropogenic threats to the biosphere. An interdisciplinary expert panel identified these themes from a public survey, based on scientific relevance and evidence.” Compare to Bohn et al., 2025 abstract: “This review of recent advances in biosphere research aims to provide information on eight selected themes related to changes in biodiversity, ecosystem functioning, social and economic interactions with ecosystems, and the impacts of climate change on the biosphere. An interdisciplinary panel of experts selected these eight themes from a public survey based on relevance and scientific evidence that have the potential to guide future actions as well as inspire future research questions.”
This manuscript, introduction , line 93 “There is growing recognition from governments and businesses, but also NGOs, CBOs and other initiatives, that our societies need to fully account for human impacts on nature and balance our demands for renewing and non-renewing resources (P. Dasgupta & Treasury, 2022; TNFD, 2023). A whole-of-society perspective is needed, as scholars also highlight that fair and just transformations are crucial to reach the global sustainability goals for climate and biodiversity in the areas of food supply, energy, and material systems, thus ensuring human well-being in the long term (Folke et al., 2021; Griggs et al., 2013; Jiménez-Aceituno et al., 2025; Leach et al., 2018; A. Martin et al., 2020; McDermott et al., 2023; Obura et al., 2023; Pickering et al., 2022; Schlesier et al., 2024).” Compare to Bohn et al., 2025 introduction: “There is growing recognition from governments and businesses that our economies need to take full account of the impacts on nature and balance our demands of resources (Dasgupta and Treasury, 2022; TNFD, 2023). A whole-of-society perspective is needed, as scholars also highlight that fair and just transformations are crucial to reach the global sustainability goals for climate and biodiversity in the areas of food supply, energy, and material systems, thus ensuring human well-being in the long term (Griggs et al., 2013; Leach et al., 2018; Martin et al., 2020; Folke et al., 2021; Pickering et al., 2022; Obura et al., 2023; McDermott et al., 2023; Schlesier et al., 2024).”
This manuscript, abstract, line 111: “Alongside these special reports, numerous scientists have published summaries on a variety of subjects - sometimes under the heading 'Scientists' Warning' (e.g. Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2021; Harvey et al., 2023; C. C. Pereira et al., 2024; Sachs et al., 2025) or within the annual '10 New Insights in Climate Science' series (e.g. Bustamante et al., 2023; M. A. Martin et al., 2022; Schaeffer et al., 2025). The second synthesis in the Current Perspectives on Biosphere Research series reviews the latest policy-relevant, peer-reviewed, biosphere-related research findings, with the aim to inform political and economic decision-making in the years ahead (see also Bohn et al., 2025). This international, interdisciplinary effort complements existing assessments and bridge the gap until the next major assessment reports are published. We hope it will inspire scientists to pursue interdisciplinary questions and holistic solutions to address the polycrisis of the Earth system.” Compare to Bohn et al., 2025 abstract: “In addition to these special reports, many scientists have published summaries on a wide range of topics under the heading “Scientists' Warning” (e.g. Cavicchioli et al., 2019; Pyšek et al., 2020; Ripple et al., 2020)… Due to their specific focus on certain topics and indicators, these reports sometimes lack the interdisciplinary perspective that can be observed in the above-mentioned special reports of IPCC and IPBES. The “10 New Insights in Climate Science” reports address many of the challenges mentioned above, focusing on new findings from recent climate-related research. They are published annually and contain contributions from various disciplines (e.g. Martin et al., 2022; Bustamante et al., 2023). This series should be complemented by similar reports from other research areas related to the Earth system crisis. Given the lack of such an integrative, annually published report focused on issues related to the biosphere, this publication summarizes recent advances in this field of research by addressing biosphere-related challenges and bridging the time between the comprehensive assessment reports of IPCC and IPBES.”
This manuscript, abstract, line 120: “We present this year ten themes that are gaining traction in the scientific community with recent and significant findings from biosphere research, based predominantly on peer-reviewed literature published since January 2023. Each theme summarizes background information and the latest scientific advances, identifies challenges and offers strategies for maintaining thriving ecosystems or enhancing degraded ecosystems and their diverse contributions to human society. For each theme, we emphasize the synergies, trade-offs, and implications for other related themes in this synthesis. This contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of processes in the biosphere, their mutual dependencies with more strategic human decisions, and to stimulate future research questions.” Compare to Bohn et al., 2025 abstract: “Here, we present eight themes with recent and significant findings from biosphere research, based predominantly from peer-reviewed literature published since January 2022. Our themes present background information as well as challenges and offer strategies for maintaining vivid ecosystems or enhancing degraded ecosystems and the services they provide to human society. In addition, these themes are gaining traction in the scientific community and stimulate future research questions. For each theme, the key findings are presented along with an emphasis on the links and implications for related themes, which contributes to a comprehensive understanding of processes in the biosphere and their interactions with human systems.”
I see that in the May 2025 Bohn et al. paper, it states “This first synthesis and future syntheses in the series Current perspectives on biosphere research are intended to support decision-making processes in the coming years by reporting and summarizing selected recent findings from biosphere research, thus supplementing existing reports and bridging the gap until the next comprehensive assessment reports are published.” However, it is not clear that this new manuscript is a continuation of this series, or how the respective paper topics were grouped the way they are.
Additionally, the methods section for the manuscript does not stand by itself. For me to fully understand the methods used, I had to go back to the May Bohn et al. 2025 paper. From that paper, I had to go back to the Martin et al. 2022 paper. So, in order to find a full description of the methods used, I had to go back two papers, even though the methods were just a simple survey of scientists. It is also not clear whether the list of topics used for this manuscript came from the same survey used for the May Bohn et al. 2025 paper or not. If so, why are two papers being written for the same survey? If it was a different survey, why were they conducted so close together? I also could not find Annex A, so I could compare the methods used for the two papers.
I suggest the authors present the statistics of the papers being referred to for this synthesis instead of only showing the demographic makeup of the authors of this paper. The reason I say this, is that ensuring a geopolitically diverse group of authors does not necessarily ensure that the information being sourced is not geopolitically biased to a certain region or entirely representative of global concerns. The inclusion of both sets of statistics would make for a more powerful claim to representation. Additionally, it is apparent there is supposed to be one of these papers each year (although it is unclear why one is summarizing papers from 2022-2025 and the other is summarizing papers from 2023-2025). Because this is really not one paper, but a proposed series of papers, I think it is especially important for there to be statistics on the papers being summarized. Otherwise, this paper is not really a synthesis of important topics written about over the past few years, but a synthesis of what the surveyed authors perceive to be the most important during the time period the paper is being written. For example, how many papers were published each year from 2023-2025 on the topics ‘resilience’, ‘drylands’, etc? Did the topics this paper focused on increase in mentions over the past few years? Were the topics chosen from any metric other than just the opinions from a set of scientists, which are subject to specialization bias? Given the concept for the proposed series, the methods need to be more data-based for the chosen focuses to be justified. Otherwise, this series is more of an opinion piece than a true literature-driven review or synthesis.
The section for each theme begins with key takeaways (for example, line 169, line 297, etc), which are formatted as bullet point notes. I think the casual formatting of this is not useful and harder to understand than if this section was summarized in a paragraph structure. I focused mostly on the dryland section, because that represents my expertise more than the other sections. I found the background subsection under the drylands topic well-written and informative. This was the best section I read from this paper. Some more notes below.
Line 359: The sentence starting on this line is incomplete.
Line 365: The line “Mechanisms like nighttime CO₂ absorption due to cooling and carbonate precipitation, as well as CO₂ transport from fast soil air replacement, are important (Kim et al., 2024; Moya et al., 2019).” is an example of some of the vagueness I was referring to. Why is this important? How does this fit in with the sentence before and after?
Line 367: The line “The management and mitigation of anthropogenic influences on dryland ecosystems must account for the potential creation of more problems than solutions” does not make sense to me.
Line 370: The statement “Many dryland ecology programs lack knowledge of local communities and Indigenous peoples, from resources rights to current socio-economic relationships, to co-create and share knowledge, as well as to support diverse capacity.” needs a citation.
Line 371-374: The statement about the Bedouins is informative, but fails to connect to the rest of the paragraph. How does this fact about the Bedouins tie in with problems in the policies dryland management? How does Lake Nasser tie into this? What policies specifically led to its creation, and why did that lead to a change in Bedouins settlement patterns?
Line 374-377: The paragraph continues to list one-liner concerns in dryland ecosystems without connecting them to each other or the paragraph’s beginning sentence.
Section 3.2.1. Offering solutions: The first paragraph of this subsection talks about the benefits of remote sensing, but it is unclear how these benefits are specifically solutions to the challenges introduced in the previous section. How does this connect to the socio-economic dimensions highlighted? There are many people who have long specialized on using remote sensing in drylands. What solutions are being suggested here that are different than “we should use remote sensing to study drylands”? Later in the section, there is more mentions of the need to connect with dryland communities, but solutions are still not offered. The dryland sections overall seems like a repetition of: “Drylands are important but hard to quantify. We can use well-known tools to study them. We need to connect with dryland communities.” However the section fails to mention specific case studies of dryland community engagement (of which many exist) or move past the problems to describe “polysolutions”.

Each section seems to have similar comprehension issues, where each sentence does not logically connect to the sentence before or after. It gives the impression that this paper was once all bullet points from a brainstorming session, but then was not properly synthesized into a readable manuscript.

Below I have highlighted what I find interesting about the manuscript, and suggest constructive revisions:
I did find the introduction of the idea of “polysolutions” to be a fascinating framework, and a great contribution to the field if implemented appropriately. In particular, I see a lot of potential in the framework described by the figure at the end of the synthesis sections. However, the definition of polysolutions is not given until the end of the paper. I think this manuscript would benefit from a complete restructuring where the idea of polycrises and polysolutions are defined and introduced in the beginning, so that each section and example field could be tied back to the “polysolution” thesis. I think a restructuring of the topics, adding specificity to each section (e.g., what policies specifically are polysolutions and why), and clear syntheses that tie back to the “polysolution” idea could lead this to being publishable.
I also think there needs to be a clearer definition of what time periods are being covered for each paper in this series (e.g., why the May Bohn 2025 paper covers 2022-2025 and this manuscript covers 2023-2025). The 3 year overlap does not make sense, and the fact that these are separate reviews being submitted separately is not justified.

Reply

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3619-RC1

Viewed

Total article views: 1,208 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
910	287	11	1,208	10	10

HTML: 910
PDF: 287
XML: 11
Total: 1,208
BibTeX: 10
EndNote: 10

Views and downloads (calculated since 25 Sep 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2025	606	49	3	658
Oct 2025	283	209	8	500
Nov 2025	21	29	0	50

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 25 Sep 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Sep 2025	606	49	3	658
Oct 2025	283	209	8	500
Nov 2025	21	29	0	50

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,136 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,136 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 06 Nov 2025

Short summary

The aim of this series is to provide decision-makers with valuable insights into the current state of biosphere research. Firstly, it is intended to ensure the flow of information between the comprehensive assessment reports of the IPCC and IPBES. On the other hand, it is intended to support economic and political decisions closely related to the biosphere with scientifically sound findings – including uncertainties – and comprehensive polysolutions, helping to solve the earth system polycrisis.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0