Anthropogenic climate change is leading to more frequent and extreme heat waves. These large-scale events are radically reshaping interactions among organisms—impacting biodiversity, community composition, and ecosystem services crucial to natural systems and food security. Predicting heat wave impacts on interacting species requires an understanding of the processes driving differential exposure and sensitivity of organisms to extreme heat events in a life cycle context. To achieve this predictive capacity, we need to integrate models across scales while capturing species-specific responses at the individual level. We review and demonstrate how existing models in disparate fields can be linked to achieve an increased understanding of how individuals and communities will respond to extreme heat, now and into the future.

Humans are now operating well outside the planetary conditions under which social and economic development has been possible. A precondition for securing equitable access to this prosperity is to safeguard the stability of the Earth system. The situation is urgent—we need a swift and profound shift in direction—a collective transformation. In response, the Earth Commission has developed a science-based framework that integrates biophysical limits with justice considerations, aiming to enable human wellbeing for all. The Earth Commission's first assessment showed that multiple safe and just Earth system boundaries have already been transgressed, threatening the resilience of the planet and the well-being of billions. This paper outlines the vision and scientific strategy for the Earth Commission's second phase (2024–2027), which focuses on advancing this framework and translating it into actionable budgets and exploring transformation pathways toward a safe and just future. Key components include expanding the safe and just boundary assessment to currently under-assessed Earth system processes (e.g., novel entities and ocean change), integrating justice more deeply into the framework, modeling interactions between boundaries and tipping points, and developing practical approaches to cross-scale translation and transformation. Special attention is given to the structural inequalities and power dynamics that shape both environmental degradation and our capacity to act. Through coordinated research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and stakeholder engagement, the Earth Commission seeks to provide knowledge to guide collective efforts toward transforming to a safe and just space for both people and the planet.

State shifts in rainfall-runoff relationships, driven by disturbances such as droughts and bushfires, can persist long after the disturbance, resulting in reduced streamflow per unit rainfall. However, droughts and fires are highly correlated, and fires can also affect runoff patterns. In this study, we investigated the joint influence of fires and prolonged drought on rainfall-runoff relationships in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and neighbouring Queanbeyan catchments. State shifts in rainfall-runoff relationships were detected using Hidden Markov Modelling (HMM) of runoff, incorporating Kuczera fire parameters that characterise the duration and magnitude of streamflow reduction following fire. Hidden Markov Models avoid the need for a priori definition of drought periods and provide a flexible framework to identify the state changes in the rainfall-runoff relationship. We found that: (1) Fire can explain apparent state shifts in rainfall-runoff relationships during and after drought. Based on previous literature, we hypothesised the existence of multiple hydrological states in the western forested region, however the inclusion of fire as a factor removed most of the two-state behaviour (3 of 6 gauges); (2) State shifts, in this study, were more common in non-urban non-forested catchments (4 gauges) rather than the forested ones (1 of 7 gauges), contrary to expectation; (3) Moreover, almost all gauges (13 of 16) did not display a long-term rainfall-runoff state shift following drought, suggesting that the study catchments are resilient to drought. The catchments exhibited recovery behaviour even when fire events that occurred amid prolonged drought were considered for the analysis. These findings underscore the importance of integrating both fire and drought in hydrological modelling to better understand their combined effects on catchment behaviour.

Over the past decade, corporate investors have increasingly recognized that responsible environmental and social practices are essential to long-term financial success. Despite growing interest, corporate practices remain largely unchanged, and planetary trends are deeply concerning. This review applies a systems analysis lens to understand how financial sector structures and actors influence sustainability outcomes, often in counterproductive ways. Key barriers include the lack of science-based metrics, poor integration of environmental risks, and limited capacity to evaluate complex system dynamics. Current financial practices frequently miss or misinterpret systemic sustainability risks. We identify three critical areas where collaboration between sustainability science and finance is urgently needed: (1) translating scientific insights into financial decision contexts, (2) supporting science-based corporate sustainability reporting, and (3) strengthening environmental impact assessment. Systems thinking helps clarify where financial leverage can drive meaningful, cross-scale change—an essential step toward aligning capital flows with long-term ecological resilience and sustainability goals.

Resilience is an increasingly popular concept in research and practice, but quantitative resilience analyses are often disconnected from resilience theory. For example, previous studies argue that diversity, a key attribute for building resilience, and agency, essential for understanding local adaptation and transformation, are critical to understanding resilience. Despite significant progress in integrating them into qualitative frameworks, diversity and agency are rarely incorporated into quantitative social-ecological resilience metrics. This omission is concerning, given the critical role of quantitative resilience metrics in informing resilience-oriented decision-making. This study examines how diversity and agency are represented in quantitative resilience metrics across disciplines, with the goals of (a) assessing how research on social-ecological resilience currently integrates these concepts into quantitative metrics and (b) identifying future opportunities to enhance their inclusion using insights from other fields. Using topic modelling to identify different research fields and facilitate the screening process, we performed a multidisciplinary systematic meta-review of resilience metrics. To understand what types of resilience metrics are used across disciplines and where diversity and agency are more commonly included, we identified six categories of resilience metrics, with “performance under disruption” being the most used category (35%). We found that a limited number of quantitative resilience metrics include diversity and agency, with “system structure” and “compound indicators” being the main sources of diversity and agency, respectively. We further reviewed simulation models applying resilience metrics. The prevalence of performance under disruption metrics is stronger than in reviews (67%) and a similar quantity of metrics including diversity (14%) and agency (5%) was found. Drawing on insights from multiple disciplines, we outline five potential pathways to improve the inclusion of diversity and agency in social-ecological resilience metrics: using network-based metrics, using response and pathway diversity, including diversity and agency in compound indicators, integrating quantitative methodologies outside resilience theory, and improving the application of resilience in simulation models.

Understanding the mechanisms underlying nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) and carbon cycling in reefs is critical for effective management. Research on reef nutrient and carbon cycling needs to account for (i) the contributions of multiple organisms, (ii) abiotic and biotic drivers, and (iii) a social-ecological perspective. In this paper, we review the mechanisms underlying nutrient and carbon cycling in reef social-ecological systems and analyse them using causal loop analysis. We identify direct and indirect pathways and feedback loops through nutrient and carbon cycles that shape the dominant benthic state of reefs: coral, algal, and sponge-dominated states. We find that two of three anthropogenic impact scenarios (size-selective fishing and land use change) have primarily negative consequences for coral and macroalgae via the nutrient and carbon cycles. A third scenario (runoff) has fewer negative impacts on sponges compared to other benthos. In all scenarios, frequent positive feedback loops (size-selective fishing: 7 of 12 loops; runoff: 6 of 9 loops; land use change: 8 of 11 loops) lead to system destabilization; however, the presence of multiple loops introduces avenues whereby reefs may retain coral dominance despite anthropogenic pressures. Context-specific information on the relative strength of loops will be necessary to predict future reef state.

The planetary boundary framework proposes ‘safe’ boundaries, but these boundaries are not necessarily ‘just’. Hence, we ask: How has the Earth Commission defined just boundaries building on the concept of minimizing significant harm and how many people are currently exposed to harm above the safe and just threshold? We document the work of the Earth Commission to address these questions using our Earth System Justice framework. We conclude that: (a) from a justice perspective, nine criteria need to be considered when defining just boundaries; (b) the proportions of populations exposed to harm from exceeding safe and just boundaries today range from 14 to 85 % for the five domains studied (climate, biosphere, water, nutrients, aerosols); and (c) argue that the absolute upper limit for significant harm is possibly harm to 1 % of the population, which although not stringent enough to leave no one behind, would require radical transformations, given the populations currently already above the threshold.

The Paris Agreement has seen the adoption of a 1.5° to 2 °C climate target, based on the belief that climate change becomes ‘dangerous’ above this level. Since then, the scientific community and the countries most affected by global warming have reiterated that the maximum limit to be reached should be 1.5 °C. This paper goes one step further by questioning the reasoning behind the adoption of these targets, arguing that the fossil fuel-dependent political context in which they were adopted has undermined justice concerns. We highlight the political influence of the fossil fuels industry within target-setting negotiations, analyzing the evolution of climate targets and fossil fuel lobbying. We then harness published scientific evidence and the Earth System Justice framework to analyze the impacts of the 1.5 °C target, and the injustices that have so far been implicitly deemed acceptable. We argue that 1 °C would have been a far more just target and was undermined by vested interests and status quo maintenance. Finally, we propose just supply-side policies to ensure an adequate placement of responsibility on the fossil fuel industry. This way we (a) identify political influences and scientific blind spots that have and could continue to hinder climate action, (b) reveal how these influences delayed more ambitious climate objectives, contributing to the adoption of an unjust climate target, and (c) promote a focus on supply-side measures and polluting industries in order to break free from the impasse in the energy transition and foster more just outcomes.

Safe and just Earth system boundaries (ESBs) for surface water and groundwater (blue water) have been defined for sustainable water management in the Anthropocene. Here we assessed whether minimum human needs could be met with surface water from within individual river basins alone and, where this is not possible, quantified how much groundwater would be required. Approximately 2.6 billion people live in river basins where groundwater is needed because they are already outside the surface water ESB or have insufficient surface water to meet human needs and the ESB. Approximately 1.4 billion people live in river basins where demand-side transformations would be required as they either exceed the surface water ESB or face a decline in groundwater recharge and cannot meet minimum needs within the ESB. A further 1.5 billion people live in river basins outside the ESB, with insufficient surface water to meet minimum needs, requiring both supply- and demand-side transformations. These results highlight the challenges and opportunities of meeting even basic human access needs to water and protecting aquatic ecosystems.